On 16 May, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court held a hearing in the case of confiscation of properties and funds of alleged illicit origin of the former NA deputy Mher Sedrakyan and his family. The presiding judge is Karapet Badalyan.

The Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of Prosecutor General’s Office filed a request to confiscate property of illicit origin worth about 11 billion AMD. In particular:   

• In the city of Yerevan: 21 real estates, average market value of one real estate, in Kotayk region: one real estate, one vehicle, and in case of impossibility, their average market value, which is more than 2.3 billion AMD in total (some properties have not yet been evaluated) .
• Participation in eight legal entities and the right to claim one loan.
• More than 8.6 billion AMD are also subject to confiscation as the sum of the balance of illicit income and AMD transferred to bona fide third parties, which are not justified by legal income.

According to Iravaban.net, the representatives of the defendants, Varazdat Badalyan, submitted a petition to the court to apply to the Constitutional Court and suspend the proceedings. The change made in 2022 in the Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin” is problematic for the lawyer, by virtue of the change the “retroactive effect was given” to the norm on setting the maximum period of study to 3 years instead of 2. The mentioned law also referred to the study conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office regarding Mher Sedrakyan, Davit Sedrakyan and Shushanik Afyan.

According to Varazdat Badalyan, the defendants were deprived of the right to submit a demand to apply the statute of limitations in connection with the lawsuit submitted after the expiration of 2 years of the study, thereby worsening their legal situation.

“The study period was actually extended, the interference with their rights continued, and the lawsuit was filed about 4 months after the 2-year maximum period of the law in effect in 2020, in violation of the period. Based on the above, we request to apply to the Constitutional Court in order to find out the constitutionality of the amendments made in 2022 in the Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin” to be applied in this case and the compliance of the norm with the Constitution, to suspend the proceedings of the case until the final decision on the matter is made by the Supreme Court,” the representative of the respondents said.

Hamlet Harutyunyan, the Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin, reminded the court that during the previous court session, a motion to apply the statute of limitations was submitted on the same basis. “At the previous court session, the representatives of the defendants claimed that it doesn’t matter what the norm is, the Constitution has the highest power and we should be guided by the relevant norms. It seems they claimed that it doesn’t matter if the regulation of the law is valid or not.”

The prosecutor tried to find out for himself why this petition was was filed? Varazdat Badalyan explained: “During the previous session, you also expressed doubt that as long as this norm is in force, there is no decision of the Covstitutional Court regarding its constitutionality. The only place to clarify the issue is the Constitutional Court.”

He noted that the defendant has the opportunity to submit a motion to apply the statute of limitations and has presented it to the court, but the problem related to the constitutionality of the norms based on it, which they see, should be resolved in the highest body that administers constitutional justice. “In the presence of the court’s decision, it will be possible to assess the fact that the statute of limitations has passed.”

Hamlet Harutyunyan asserted that if the representatives of the defendants believe that they can also submit a petition to apply the statute of limitations and expect that it will be granted, will the submitted petition regarding applying to the CC not unreasonably delay the hearings?

Varazdat Badalyan mentioned that the court can discuss the submitted petition regarding the application of statute of limitations and resolve it, it must apply the norms of the mentioned law, with which they see a problem. “This is the reason for today’s motion.”

The prosecutor asked for a few days to study the petition better and present a position.

The court session was postponed.

Yevgenya Hambardzumyan