On 27 March, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court continued the court hearing in the case of businessman Samvel Mayrapetyan and Gagik Hakobjanyan. The Prosecutor’s Office demands to confiscate from the defendants about 5 billion 678 million AMD as compensation for the damage caused to the state, in favor of the state budget of the Republic of Armenia, in order of co-debt.
Earlier, the Prosecutor’s Office informed that from 16 May 2002, G.Hakobjanyan at S.Mayrapetyan’s suggestion, assumed the position of director of “Globus” LLC, which Mayrapetyan actually owned. The Company signed an agreement with another LLC, on the basis of which, as a result of the construction works carried out by the latter at 66 Teryan Street, Yerevan, a residential building with a total area of 28,650.63 square meters was built in 2006. “Immediately after the construction, S.Mayrapetyan, initially aiming not to pay particularly large taxes arising from the actual income received as a result of the company’s entrepreneurial activity, during 2006 organized through the Company director G.Hakobjanyan, the process of falsification of prices, indicating in the purchase and sale contracts of the company, prices significantly lower than the market values of 141 units of real estate belonging to “Globus” LLC. As a result of the process G.Hakobjanyan did not include the actual income of “Globus” LLC in the calculations submitted to the tax authority, thus particularly large amounts, a total of 5,678,764,260 AMD tax was not paid to the state budget.”
It is noted that there is a violation of the property interest of the state. The Department of State Interests Protection at the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Armenia submitted a claim to the court demanding to confiscate 5,678,764 AMD from S.Mayrapetyan and G.Hakobjanyan.
According to Iravaban.net, during today’s court session, Mayrapetyan’s representatives submitted a recusal to presiding Judge Karapet Badalyan.
Lawyer Arsen Harutyunyan justified the petition with the incidents that took place at the previous court session and with the court act regarding the rejection of the petition they had submitted. According to him, during the previous court session, when the prosecutor presented the basis and object of the lawsuit, the defendants tried to ask questions to the plaintiff, but the court removed the questions.
“Following that, lawyer Simon Babayan tried to exercise his right to present arguments and positions, but the court did not allow him to express and deprived him of that right,” he said.
During the previous court session, the representatives of the defendants submitted a petition regarding the application of the statute of limitations, which the court rejected. The defendant is inclined to the position that the prosecutor’s office cannot act as a plaintiff in this case.
Simon Babayan, another representative of Samvel Mayrapetyan, stated that the procedure and conditions provided for by law are necessary, and in which case the prosecutor’s office can act as a plaintiff in this case.
“Until today, we do not have the stated grounds, the presence of which would allow the prosecutor’s office to participate in the examination of this case. The Law “On Prosecution” provides the order in which way the Prosecutor’s Office participates in the protection of interests. The first case is when the Prosecutor’s Office, in the exercise of its powers, instructs the relevant state body and the latter fails to fulfill its obligation, and thus the prosecutor’s office carries out that task. The 2nd case is when the Prosecutor’s Office, in the exercise of its powers, finds that a body participant in the case does not have the authority to file a claim for the protection of state interests in the case. The 3rd case, is when the claim is submitted within the framework of Law on Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin,” Simon Babayan stated, and added that during the examination of this case, none of the 3 cases he pointed out had been revealed.,
According to the lawyer, the Prosecutor’s Office, in fact, believes that any body does not have the right to file a claim for the protection of state interests and performs this function itself. However, the defendants claim that the State Revenue Committee is the competent authority to file a claim for the protection of state interests in this case.
Arsen Harutyunyan claimed that the court has ignored the mentioned regulation, besides; there is no relevant evidence in the case materials regarding the presence of the prosecutor’s authority to initiate a lawsuit. According to him, taking into account all this, an impression about the lack of impartiality of the court is created. “I seek your recusal. I request that this motion be granted and the court case be transferred to another judge to resolve the above doubts.”
According to Aghavni Madoyan, prosecutor of the Department of State Interests Protection at the Prosecutor General’s Office, the wording in the judicial act cannot be a basis for challenging the latter.”I think that the mentioned approach is highly unacceptable, because it can lead to the discrediting of the judiciary. I find that the petition cannot be a basis for indicating the judge’s bias. What does ‘to dispel our doubts, let the court submit self-recusal and let another judge examine the case’ mean?” I think that it is not every doubt that the court is obliged to dispel. The court administers justice,” Aghavni Madoyan said. According to her, the judge did not commit any violation.
It should be noted that the representatives of Gagik Hakobjanyan also joined the petition of the challenge presented by Arsen Harutyunyan and Simon Babayan, the Court will announce the decision on 30 March.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
