On 2 May, the Anti-Corruption Court began the hearing in the case of former Yerevan Mayor Taron Margaryan, former Head of the State Property Management Department Arman Sahakyan, Andranik Kasaryan, Arsen Amyan, Hayk Kyureghyan, Aram Yengoyan, Tigran Potikyan, Mikayel Hakobyan and Hayk Petrosyan. Judge Sargis Dadoyan presides over the court session.
The former Mayor of Yerevan and the former Head of the State Property Management Department are accused of abuse of official powers. According to the Investigative Committee, during the preliminary investigation, it was established that while still holding the position of the First Deputy Mayor, Margaryan instructed to clarify the boundaries of the land plot of the 16th special school, according to the new plan of the plot, more than 3600 square meters were reduced from the plot belonging to the school. According to the Investigative Committee, it was then alienated to Margaryan’s godson, and the other piece of land to the husband of the director of the same school.
“According to the results of the auction organized by the Municipality of Yerevan, at a price significantly lower than the market value, in a mediated way, as a result of the aforementioned alienation, the school was deprived of the opportunity to use the land attached to it for educational purposes, and significant damage was caused to the rights and legal interests of the state, which inadvertently caused serious consequences” , – the message of the structure mentioned.
1400 square meters of land was alienated from the 64th kindergarten located in Erebuni administrative district. According to the Investigation Committee, the area was sold at an auction to a close relative of Taron Margaryan’s family, this time to the father of the kindergarten director.
According to the Investigative Committee, Arman Sahakyan, initiated an adjustment process in the territory of public school number 185, reducing the area by more than 3800 square meters. That plot of land was alienated through the auction and intermediary persons to Arman Sahakyan’s brother, his assistant, the assistant of the Former Mayor of Yerevan Taron Margaryan and the relative of the former Head of Ajapnyak Administrative District, the report of the Investigative Committee said.
Iravaban.net reports that defendants Taron Margaryan, Arman Sahakyan, Andranik Kasaryan, Mikayel Hakobyan and Hayk Petrosyan were present at today’s court session. Arsen Amyan, Hayk Kyureghyan and Tigran Potikyan were not properly notified about the date and time of the court session.
The defendants present at the session objected to the media’s requests to take photos and videotape the court session, the court granted their request.
The judge noted that in the absence of proper notices, the investigation of the case is subject to postponement, but before that he discussed the letter submitted by Arman Sahakyan’s lawyer Smbat Minasyan, in which the latter petitioned to lift the ban on his client crossing the border from 29 May until the next court session and allow him to leave abroad.
Arman Sahakyan stated in the court that he has already left the country and returned several times with the consent of the competent authority. “A health problem is naturally a bad thing, but I have to ask you to allow me to go for an examination if possible.”
The court asked to clarify what health problem he was talking about. However, the defendant stated that he does not want to speak about it in the presence of the mass media; there are the submitted documents in the court case. The prosecuting attorney did not object. The judge decided to allow Arman Sahakyan to be absent from the Republic of Armenia for the specified period in order to go to Frankfurt.
Taron Margaryan’s lawyer Benik Galstyan submitted a similar petition. He mentioned that due to his parliamentary activities, Taron Margaryan often has to cross the country’s border. “My client in this case is the only one who, being abroad, was informed that a criminal prosecution was initiated against him and returned to Armenia at the first opportunity.”
The accuser objected to the petition, stating that in specific cases the defendant can apply to the court and get permission, but he objects to changing or removing the restraining order.
The court decided to grant the petition, but not to remove the restrictions applied to the accused.
The session was postponed.
