Today, on 23 March, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court held a hearing on the confiscation of assets and funds of allegedly illicit origin of the former Mayor of Yerevan, currently a member of the National Assembly Taron Margaryan and his family members.

The Prosecutor’s Office demands to confiscate in favor of the Republic of Armenia  from Taron Margaryan, his wife, his mother, 2 sons and their wives the following:

• Six residential houses located in Avan administrative district of Yerevan city, one area of ​​public significance, one country house located in Jermuk city of Vayots Dzor region, two vehicles, and in case of impossibility, their average market value, which is 1 billion 528 million 800 thousand 500 drams .
• Average market value of participation in one legal entity.
• Average market values ​​of one immovable and three movable properties in Yerevan.
• 853 million 402 thousand 782 drams, of which 755 million 154 thousand 928 drams are the balance of illegal income and 98 million 247 thousand 854 drams, which are not justified by the legal income of a person, have an illicit origin and cannot be confiscated based on Part 4 of Article 20 of the Law on Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin (“Where the illicit property has been transferred to a bona fide acquirer, or it is impossible to identify, separate or confiscate the illicit property, upon the court decision and in case there is a relevant request, an amount equal to the market value of the illicit property as of the time of filing a claim may be confiscated from the respondent, and in the case of impossibility of determining the market value – the amount equal to the acquisition of the given property”).
• 2 garages.

It should be noted that during the previous court session, the presiding judge Karapet Badalyan postponed the session after the presentation of the subject of the lawsuit, so that the defendants in the case had the opportunity to present their position.

According to Iravaban.net, during today’s session, Mushegh Arakelyan, the representative of the wife of Taron Margaryan’s elder son, Karine Margaryan, announced that the reason for not appearing at the previous session was due to the appointment of other court sessions, about which he notified the court and submitted a motion to postpone the session, which the court rejected.

“As a result of studying the recording of the previous session, I found out that the court rejected the

Mushegh Arakelyan

petition on the grounds of “exercise reasonable diligence”. I would ask the court to clarify, what kind of behavior is determined by the term “exercise reasonable diligence”, the lawyer asked.

Karapet Badalyan mentioned that the decision has been adopted and the law does not provide for any procedure to clarify it. Mushegh Arakelyan stated that he did not find a legal norm with the mentioned term in the Civil Procedure Code, and if the court considers that the decision does not need clarification, then it should indicate the legal norm by which it was guided when making the given decision.

The judge repeated that the judicial act will not be comment: “And I will ask you not to continue raising the same issue in different ways. The act is accepted as it stands. The documents, the minutes of the session have been provided to you. We will not discuss that issue anymore. Do you have any other petitions?”

The lawyer had something to add, but the judge did not allow him to continue. The latter again asked whether the representative of the responding party should submit a motion or not. “I do not allow discussion of the act. It is accepted, you are obliged to respect it. We continue the investigation of the case.”

Mushegh Arakelyan again tried to continue the discussion about the adopted decision, but the court stated that it does not allow it. The lawyer said that under such circumstances, he considers that there is a basis for submitting a challenge to the court and asked the court to give time to present the said motion. Karapet Badalyan stated that the legislation requires submitting the challenge in writing. “You will have it in writing, we will discuss it. Do you have any other questions?” The judge insisted that the defendant ask the plaintiff his questions about the basis and subject matter of the claim.

“Dear court, actually the court currently carries out restriction of exercising my rights. The norm of challenge and self-challenge is clearly formulated in the Civil Procedure Code. If I had considered in advance that I should submit a challenge, naturally I would have submitted it in a written form,” the lawyer said, insisting to provide time for the submission of the challenge. The judge repeated that the motion will be considered if it is submitted in writing. Ruzanna Khudaverdyan, the Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the General Prosecutor’s Office, in her turn noted that the defendant is trying to artificially delay the investigation of the case.

The lawyer tried to speak again, but the judge said he did not allow him to speak. An argument started between Mushegh Arakelyan and Karapet Badalyan. “I don’t allow you to speak.”

Karapet Badalyan

The dispute that started continued and the court decided to discuss the issue of judicial sanction. Karapet Badalyan mentioned that if the lawyer admits the illegal nature of his action, then the court will consider the matter exhausted. Mushegh Arakelyan insisted that he did nothing illegal. The court decided to impose a sanction on him and announced a “reprimand”.

The judge insisted that the defendant asks the plaintiff his questions about the basis and subject matter of the claim. The lawyer said that he had a statement to make before the questions, but the judge did not allow him to continue. “What is your statement about?”

– Regarding the decisions made by you, the lawyer said.

– The court does not allow making a statement in this regard.

– I am submitting one more motion for challenge, under such conditions. Please make a decision.

– Will you continue?

– Yes, honorable court, because you limit my rights.

Karapet Badalyan announced that the motion for challenge will not be discussed again, as it must be submitted in writing. “At the same time, the court warns you that the behavior aimed at delaying and disrupting the examination of the court case is unacceptable for the court. I warn you about the inadmissibility of abusing the rights. Now, do you have any questions to the plaintiff regarding the basis and subject of the claim?”

The lawyer insisted that he would ask questions to the plaintiff only after exercising his rights. According to him, the court still had to give him the decisions for rejecting his petitions.

“If all your activities are aimed at disrupting the court session, the court will not allow it. Keep quiet when I am speaking. Now ask your questions,” the judge said.

However, Mushegh Arakelyan did not ask questions to the plaintiff side, but submitted a motion to terminate the case proceedings regarding Karine Margaryan.

It should be noted that the Prosecutor’s Office demands to confiscate from Taron Margaryan’s son Andranik Margaryan and his wife Karine Margaryan the shopping and public center in the Avan administrative district of Yerevan, the 7th garage of the 8th building of the Sayat-Nova district of the Avan administrative district, and the “Toyota Corolla” car. In case of impossibility of confiscating the mentioned properties, the Prosecutor’s Office demands to confiscate from Taron Margaryan 295 million 865 thousand AMD, 6 million 50 thousand AMD and 9 million 800 thousand AMD, respectively.

The representative of Karine Margaryan stated that “Toyota Corolla” was handed over to Karine Margaryan not by Taron Margaryan, but by his son Andranik Margaryan. The couple ran a separate business, did not live with Margaryan’s mother and father. “My client could not have known, nor did he have to know about the illegality of the means to purchase the car. Karine Margaryan cannot be the subject of confiscation of illicit property, therefore, she cannot be included as a defendant in the presented lawsuit.”

While presenting his position on the petition, the prosecutor mentioned that according to the law, Karine Margaryan is a related person. According to Ruzanna Khudaverdyan, this issue has been discussed many times at the pre-trial stage and she does not see the need to address it.

Benik Galstyan

About 30 minutes after the start of the court session, Benik Galstyan, the representative of Taron Margaryan and his wife Gohar Sargsyan, also appeared. The court gave him time to familiarize himself with the petition submitted by Mushegh Arakelyan. After the break, Galstyan expressed his position regarding the said motion. “There is also a suggestion in the petition that a claim should be submitted not for property, but for money. In other words, according to logic, that demand will be addressed to my client Taron Margaryan. Considering that circumstance, it is necessary to discuss the issue with my client in order to express a position on the petition. If the petition is granted, an additional claim will be made against my client.”

The lawyer, petitioned to postpone the court session. The court found that the motion was ungrounded and had nothing to do with the motion to dismiss the case. The court also rejected the motion to dismiss the case regarding Karine Margaryan, on the same grounds.

Mushegh Arakelyan presented another motion to postpone the court session. At 16:00, the lawyer was supposed to attend a court session at the “Erebuni” residence.

“It is not clear to the court why the court session in another case is more important than the court session in this case, which is currently in progress,” Karapet Badalyan stated, adding that the presented motion was groundless and rejected it. The lawyer asked for time to inform about his absence, the session was adjourned for 10 minutes.

After the break, Arakelyan tried to address the court decision regarding the termination of petition, but the judge did not allow it and asked again: “Do you have any questions regarding the basis and subject of the claim?”

The lawyer announced that he is submitting a handwritten petition to the court. “Whenever I had a chance, I wrote. Please discuss.”

The judge asked if the parties were provided with the copies. The lawyer noted that they were not provided. “The Civil Procedure Code did not impose such an obligation on me. This is the exercise of my subjective rights.”

Karapet Badalyan stated that the person who submitted a written petition during the court session is obliged to provide copies of the petition and accompanying documents to the other persons participating in the court session. “Since Mr. Arakelyan refused to fulfill the requirement stipulated by the Civil Code and to provide a copy of the petition to the other persons participating in the case, the court decides not to examine the petition. Do you have any questions regarding the basis and subject of the claim?”

Mushegh Arakelyan announced that before passing to the questions, he should submit one more petition, which was related to the separation of the claims against Karine Margaryan in separate proceedings and the application of an accelerated trial. After hearing the position of the parties, the court decided to reject the petition. “The court does not see any basis or need to separate a part from the case and examine it in a separate proceeding. Now, do you have any questions about the basis and subject of the claim?

– It’s been 2 hours since I answered that question of the court that yes, I have many questions.

-Ask.

– My colleague has a position to express.

– The order of the court session is decided by the presiding judge. Now it’s your turn to ask questions. If you do not want to ask questions, say so.

– I didn’t say that I do not want to ask questions.

– So, ask questions.

Arakelyan asked the court for time, the court gave him 2 minutes.

Benik Galstyan stated that before addressing the questions regarding the basis and subject of the claim, he wants to state that he was not notified about the previous session, he was not present at the presentation of the basis and subject of the claim. “How was the preliminary court hearing conducted in my absence?” Was my presence at the previous court session considered “disrespectful”?

The judge announced that the lawyer can get acquainted with the case materials and get answers to the questions, because the court will not provide an explanation. “Now it is the stage of questions, when you can ask questions about the basis and the subject of the claim.”

Benik Galstyan claimed that he was not informed about the previous session. He requested that the prosecutor re-present the basis and subject of the claim.

– The basis and subject have been presented. Now is the stage where you can ask questions about the basis and subject of the claim. If you have no questions, tell the court.

– I did not respond to the questions because the meeting was held without my participation…

-Sit down.

-…Without notifying me.

– No, I don’t allow you to continue. Sit down.

– Honorable court, with your permission…

– No, I don’t allow it.

– Honorable court, I have a statement to make regarding the actions of the court.

– The Civil Procedure Code does not allow to make a statement about the actions of the court. Sit down.

– Honorable court, with your permission…

– No, I don’t allow it.

– I want to submit a petition.

– About what?

– I am submitting a petition in order to give me the opportunity to get acquainted with the actions that took place in the previous court session.

The court again rejected the motion to postpone the court session. “Do you have questions about the basis and subject of the claim?” Benik Galstyan insisted that he was not present at the previous session and again submitted a motion to grant him reasonable time to submit a motion to challenge the judge. The court again rejected the lawyer’s request to adjourn the hearing to file a motion for challenge.

“I believe that the grounds and subject matter of the claim were not properly presented in court, I was not present at the said session because I was not notified,” the lawyer said.

The judge announced that since the parties did not ask questions about the grounds and purpose of the visit, the court is proceeding to the next stage of the trial that is, finding out the factual and legal grounds of the defendant’s objections. The lawyers objected, but the judge continued. The objections of the representative of Taron Margaryan’s mother, Susanna Margaryan, regarding the grounds and object of the claim were presented to the court. Tigran Abgaryan was not present at the court session. The representatives of the respondents present at the session said that they did not receive the answer presented by Tigran Abgaryan.

The court noted that proper notices were sent and the court fulfilled its duty. Mushegh Arakelyan insisted that neither he nor his clients received the objections of Susanna Margaryan’s representative. The court adjourned the session for about 30 minutes so that the lawyer could familiarize himself with them.

Ruzanna Khudaverdyan

After the start of the session, the lawyer announced that he has a motion to make regarding the answer. According to him, “problems regarding the scope of the lawsuit may arise.” It should be noted that the petition was not submitted to the court. Mushegh Arakelyan again asked for additional time to address the objections in writing. The court rejected the motion again, noting that the defendant can express a position regarding the mentioned circumstances at the relevant stage of the trial. Mushegh Arakelyan presented the same petition again, prosecutor Ruzanna Khudaverdyan stated that she was not against it.

“The court has given you time to familiarize yourself with the objections and present your objections to the court. On the same basis, the court does not consider the petition, leaves it without examination. You are already repeating the same motion,” the judge said, adding that the court is proceeding to the next stage of the trial that is, finding out the composition of the participants in the trial, resolving the issue of involving other persons in the investigation of the case.

Ruzanna Khudaverdyan mentioned that there are properties that are pledged in “Armbusinessbank” CJSC and she sees the need to notify the bank. The respondents did not mind. The judge found the motion to be valid and granted it.

The next stage of the trial concerns the clarification of the nature of the disputed legal relationship. The parties did not have a position on it. The next stage refers to the examination of the question of transferring the case, which was processed in violation of the rules of arbitration, to another court. The parties did not express a position again.

At the next stage, the court finds out whether the plaintiff insists on his claims, whether the defendant fully or partially accepts the plaintiff’s claims, and whether the parties participating in the case do not want to sign a settlement agreement or resolve the dispute through mediation, clarifying the nature of the mediation.

The prosecutor did not rule out the option of settling the dispute by amicable agreement, but noted that such negotiations are not underway now. Respondents also did not exclude, but mentioned that they should discuss with their clients. The Court recalled that the parties may reconcile at any stage..

The working day came to an end and the court decided to postpone the hearing. After a long discussion, it was decided to schedule the next court session on 25 April.

Summarizing, let’s note that during today’s court session, the court rejected 9 petitions submitted by the respondent, leaving 3 without consideration. During the session, the court went through 6 trial stages, reaching the discussion of facts important for the resolution of the case with the persons participating in the case, including the facts that do not need to be proven and the range of facts that need to be proven. In addition, the sentence “Do you have questions about the basis and subject of the claim?” was heard at least a dozen times in court.

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan