On 20 April, the Anti-Corruption Court held the first session of the lawsuit submitted by the Prosecutor General’s Office regarding the demand for the confiscation of property of illicit origin of the former RA Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan and 15 persons related to him.

A claim was submitted to confiscate from Hovik Abrahamyan, his wife, Julieta Abrahamyan, his son, daughters, other related persons, Bagratuni Barseghyan (security officer) and his wife, Gagik Poghosyan (relative) and his wife, Karine Abrahamyan (nephew’s wife) and her husband, Grigor Gevorgyan (driver) and his wife, Ruzanna Khachatryan heir of Ashot Khachatryan (relative of the driver), Ambik Gevorgyan (brother of the driver) and his wife in favor of the Republic of Armenia the properties of illicit origin belonging to the defendants, taking into account that the acquisitions of mentioned properties were not fully or completely justified by Hovik Abrahamyan’s legal income.

      In particular:

• 59 real estates, of which 15 are in Yerevan city, mostly in Kentron Administrative District, 12 in Mkhchyan Community of Ararat marz, 10 in Narek Community, 2 in Kotayk marz, Arzakan Community, 6 in Tsaghkadzor Community of Kotayk marz, 1 in Vayots Dzor marz, Jermuk Community, 1 in Gegharkunik marz, Sevan Community, 6 in Tavush marz, Dilijan Community, 3 in Kotayk marz, Meghradzor Community, 1 in Ararat marz, Marmarashen Community, 1 in Ayntap Community, Ararat marz, 1 in Arevabyur Community, Ararat marz. 23 of the mentioned immovable properties are registered in the names of other persons who are not members of the family, and Hovik Abrahamyan was considered the real beneficiary of such properties.
• 4 cars: LEXUS LX 570 GAS, MERCEDES-MAYBACH S 500 4MATIC, MERCEDES-BENZ S500, TOYOTA CAMRY 2.5 brands, of which the last 2 are registered in the name of other related persons,
• participations of 20 companies (one company is located in Russia) and shares,
• Market values ​​of 9 movable and immovable properties alienated at significantly lower than market value, total: AMD 628,277,090.
• Right of claim arising from loans given to 8 companies in the amount of 292,570 USD, 687,000,500 AMD and 3,117,680 EUR.
• A separate monetary claim in the amount of AMD 202,067,797.

During the first 1.5 hours of the session, before the presentation of the subject and basis of the claim, the Court rejected 6 petitions submitted by the respondent, and left 2 without examination.

Iravaban.net reports that at the beginning of today’s court session, the Presiding Judge Karapet Badalyan asked the trial participants about their opinion to continuing the court session without the absent defendants and their representatives. The representatives of Bagratuni Barseghyan and his wife, Lusntag Bezhanyan and Smbat Minasyan, raised the issue of proper notification of the absent defendants. “Please clarify the procedure of notifications, whether they can be considered proper or not.”

The Presiding Judge noted that the defendants have been duly notified: the lawyers could have studied the case materials to get acquainted with the details. Smbat Minasyan said that they applied to familiarize themselves with the case materials, as they have not yet managed to do so. The judge mentioned that after the court session, the lawyers can familiarize themselves with the case materials, but Smbat Minasyan objected. “I suppose issues will be discussed today. And currently, when I am not familiar with the materials of the case, how, according to you, should I state or not state my position?”

Karapet Badalyan interrupted him. “Have you come to have a conversation with the court?” Your request to familiarize yourself with the case materials was granted, the investigation of the case continues. What do you want now?’

The lawyer asked the court to postpone the session so that they could get acquainted with the case materials as soon as possible.

“There was no mention of postponing the session in your written motion. Do you mean to submit a new motion?” Smbat Minasyan’s answer to the Judge’s question was positive:

Lusntag Bezhanyan made the same petition, adding that their client was not notified about the court hearings. “On 19 April, we were authorized to represent the interests of Bagratuni Barseghyan and his wife. Naturally, we cannot present a position on any issue until we get acquainted with the case materials.”

Varazdat Asatryan, the representative of Hovik Abrahamyan, presented another petition. He requested to conduct the investigation of the case behind closed doors, taking into account the personal data available in the case. In accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code, the issue of examining the case or a part of it behind closed doors is resolved behind closed doors. After some time, the journalists were invited to the courtroom because the Presiding Judge had rejected the motion of the respondent. The Court also rejected Smbat Minasyan’s motion to postpone the session to review the case materials, and also allowed the video recording and live broadcasting of the session.

Further Lusntag Bezhanyan submitted a motion to postpone the session. She mentioned that the power of attorney was issued a day before, on 19 April, and it is impossible to get acquainted with the case materials in one day. Varazdat Asatryan stated that in addition to the representatives of Bagratuni Barseghyan, the representatives of the other defendants have the problem of effectively familiarizing themselves with the case materials as well. “Approximately 300 sheets of claim were submitted, more than 5,000 sheets of attached materials, which became available in electronic version.”

Tigran Yenokyan, Deputy Head of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin, noted that the case materials were sent to Bagratuni Barseghyan in August 2022. “Have those materials not been transferred to you?”

Lusntag Bezhanyan mentioned that the materials were not transferred; their client had not received those documents either. The Judge recorded that there were judicial actions that could be carried out on that day, and the lawyers could present their position after getting acquainted with the case materials. The court considered the petition groundless and rejected this one as well.

After the publication of the court’s decision, Smbat Minasyan announced that he has one more motion to submit. “Please provide time to file a motion to challenge.”

After listening to the opinion of the parties, Judge Karapet Badalyan announced that “the Court will not allocate time for the intention to prepare motion”. “The appeal is groundless. At the same time, the Court notes that there is a tendency to disrupt and delay the examination of the case.”

Lusntag Bezhanyan made a statement, noting that they could not know in advance what the course of the court session would be, and they could not have a written petition of objection in advance. She once again asked the court for time to file a motion to challenge. “The grounds for challenge emerged during this court session.”

The lawyer based her petition on the fact that they are not given the opportunity to properly represent the interests of their clients. The Court did not make the issue a subject of discussion, as it had already passed a decision on the issue.

Davit Gasparyan, the representative of Hovik Abrahamyan’s son, Argam Abrahamyan, referring to the Civil Procedure Code, presented a petition to the court to clarify his procedural rights and those of his client. “This is the first time I am participating in a session within the framework of the law on confiscation of property of illicit origin, and the situation that was created a little while ago is incomprehensible to me. As a representative, in order to plan my legal actions in the future, I ask the Presiding Judge to provide an explanation regarding the created situation.”

The Court noted that according to the provisions of the Civil Code, the Presiding Judge does not clarify the rights and duties to the lawyer, as the latter should be well aware of them. “Your petition, request cannot be satisfied; because the law prohibits it, assuming that you know your rights and responsibilities.”

Davit Gasparyan wanted to respond, but the judge did not allow him.

Further Varazdat Asatryan announced that he had submitted a position to the court regarding the extension of the deadline for submitting a response to the claim. The Court, in turn, had set a deadline, up to and including 19 April. According to the lawyer, they learned about the court’s decision of 29 March on 12 April. “I was actually deprived of the opportunity to effectively exercise that right for about 2 weeks.”

He asked to extend the deadline for submitting a response to the claim. The court rejected this motion as well, after which Varazdat Asatryan submitted a motion to challenge, which he had prepared in advance. “If the Court will not be offended, I also have a motion to appeal. If it will be offended, I won’t present the motion.”

Karapet Badalyan noted that the lawyer shows disrespect towards the Court with such statements. “What does it mean if the court is not offended?” If you have a petition, submit it.”

Varazdat Asatryan, while presenting the challenge petition, stated that the judge has a biased attitude towards the party of litigation. “The defendant has objective grounds regarding the presence of the judge’s bias.”

He mentioned that the judge himself should have taken measures and given time to the respondent to familiarize with the materials, but the Court, in addition to not taking the initiative, rejected the petitions of the representatives of the respondents as well.

After about 15 minutes of the presentation of the petition, the judge announced that the person who submitted the objection is obliged to provide the participants of the case with a copy of the petition, but Varazdat Asatryan did not do so, as he informed the court before publishing the petition. Karapet Badalyan decided that the submitted petition will not be discussed, as the requirements for its submission were not met.

After that Tigran Ynokyan presented the basis and object of the claim.

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan