On 5 May, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court examined the claim of the General Prosecutor’s Office regarding confiscation of property and funds of allegedly illicit origin from Lyova Sargsyan, the brother of the 3rd President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, and Lyova Sargsyan’s wife, Armine Harutyunyan.
The Prosecutor’s Office believes that the amount equivalent to 9 million 408 thousand US USD is subject to confiscation from Lyova Sargsyan and his family members, of which only the amount of the deposit in the commercial bank is 6 million 800 thousand USD. According to the lawsuit, 9 acquisitions of real estate, 2 acquisitions of movable assets, as well as participations in 3 organizations were not justified with legal income. As for Lyova Sargsyan, the Prosecutor’s Office has considered illicit one real estate, a car, the amount of a deposit in a commercial bank – 3 million 500 thousand USD.
According to Iravaban.net, the subject of discussion in the court was the oral application submitted regarding video recording and photo shooting. The participants of the trial, except for the lawyer Amram Makinyan, did not object to videotaping and photographing the session.
The representative of the respondent Armine Harutyunyan referred to Article 144, Clause 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, which defines: “Filming and photographing, video recording of the court session or a part of it, as well as broadcasting on radio, television or other means of telecommunications are done after the opening of the court session with the consent of the persons participating in the case and with the permission of the court.”
The Presiding Judge Karapet Badalyan, after hearing the position of the parties, noted that the objection of only one person participating in the trial cannot hinder the public examination of the case.
“Your interpretation shows that the objection of one of the parties is sufficient for the court to make a decision on rejecting the petition of the media, while the court’s decision cannot be pre-determined by the opinion expressed by one of the parties and constrain the opinion of others who want the investigation of the case to be carried out in public, if there are no exceptional circumstances for this,” the judge noted, adding that the petition is partially satisfied. No permission was given to videotape and take photos of Amram Makinyan.
The lawyer tried to express a position regarding the decision adopted by the court, but the judge did not allow it.
“Dear Court, you interpret the law as you want,” Amram Makinyan declared.
Karapet Badalyan urged to come to terms with the interpretation of the court and did not allow the representative of the defendant to continue his speech.
“Tomorrow you can decide not to allow me to participate in the sessions, or not to allow me to represent my client’s interests. Your interpretation of the law is spatial,” the lawyer noted.
The judge noted that the decision has already been made and the lawyer’s duty is to respect it.
Then, the Director of the 3rd party “Dipol” LLC petitioned the court to provide time, to postpone the session in order to get acquainted with the case materials.
“The Company received the decision to be involved as a third party, which was adopted on 15 March, on 22 March. You have been aware of the case since 22 March. You have had more than enough time to familiarize yourself with the case materials and express your position. The Court considers your petition groundless, disrespectful and rejects it,” the judge said.
Lawyer Vahagn Grigoryan informed the Court that he also has a motion to submit, which is related to the application of statute of limitations.
According to the lawyer, the investigation of Lyova Sargsyan’s property and income at the Prosecutor’s Office began on 7 July, 2020, which could last for a maximum for 2 years. However, on 20 December, 2022, the plaintiff submitted a petition to the Court to change the basis and subject of the claim. “After the expiration of 2 years, the competent authority still obtained information and data regarding the property subject to confiscation and its volume.”
Vahagn Grigoryan believes that the statute of limitations is applicable to the lawsuit filed by the Prosecutor’s Office, because the competent body missed the deadline for conducting an investigation against Lyova Sargsyan.
Tigran Yenokyan, Tigran Yenokyan, Deputy Head of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin announced that the study period is not 2, but 3 years. In addition, the lawsuit was filed with the court on 1 September, 2022. “In addition to the fact that 3 years have not passed, there is also Article 340 of the Civil Code, which states that the statute of limitations is interrupted by filing a lawsuit in the prescribed manner. I find that the petition is groundless.”
Vahagn Grigoryan mentioned that the start and end dates of the study are subject to proof within the framework of mediation. The parties agreed on the date of starting the study, it is 7 October, 2020. And the end, according to the lawyer, should be considered the day when the competent body submitted a petition to the court to change the basis and subject of the claim, that is, 20 December, 2022.
The session was postponed. 17 May was set as a new session day.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
