USD 744,133 Deposit at the Core of Ani Lyova Sargsyan’s Case

On 29 June, the Anti-Corruption Civil Court continued the examination of the lawsuit filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office regarding the confiscation of property and funds of alleged illegal origin of Ani Lyova Sargsyan, the niece of the 3rd President of the Republic of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan.

According to Iravaban.net, during the court session, Ani Sargsyan’s representative Vahagn Grigoryan submitted a motion to suspend the case proceedings.

Notably, on 6 July, 2018, Lyova Sargsyan and his daughter Ani Sargsyan were indicted under Article 310.1, Part 1 and Article 314.3, Part 2 of the Criminal Code. Lyova Sargsyan’s son, Narek Sargsyan, was also charged under Article 310.1, Part 1 of the Criminal Code.

According to the lawyer, the subject of both the criminal case as well as this case is the 744,133 USD deposit left by Ani Sargsyan in the bank. She was charged for illicit enrichment (Article 310.1, Part 1), which provides for the sanction of confiscation of property.

“In other words, the same property, which in the framework of this anti-corruption civil case is qualified as having an illicit origin, in the framework of the given criminal case, can be qualified as a property subject to confiscation or its value can be qualified as damage caused by a crime. In other words, in case of the parallel process of this and the criminal case, the defendant may be subjected to double responsibility. For example, if this case ends with the satisfaction of the claim and the deposit is confiscated in favor of the Republic of Armenia, the value of that same deposit can be qualified in a criminal case as damage caused by a crime, the defendant may not be released from the obligation to compensate,” Grigoryan noted, adding that all conditions for suspension of the case were present.

He pointed out the risk of possible violation of the presumption of innocence. According to him, the meaning of the petition is that in the case of confiscation of property of illicit origin, such a step should not be taken, as if the state shall be guided by that; the judicial system shall have to find a person guilty for committing an act defined by the Criminal Code. “If the property is qualified as having an illicit origin by this court ruling, it may have an orientation or other effect on the outcome of the criminal proceedings.”

Amram Makinyan, the other representative of Ani Sargsyan, said that the criminal case is still at the stage of preliminary investigation.

Tigran Yenokyan, the Deputy Head of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the Prosecutor General’s Office, stated in court that the petition is groundless, because the state instruments are clear. “In that case, it is obvious that the deposit has already become subject to confiscation and I don’t think that it can be confiscated twice.”

In addition, the prosecutor mentioned that at least 3 years are needed in a criminal case to have a final judicial act. “The basis for starting about 90 percent of studies is the presence of a criminal case, and such a practice (waiting for the outcome of a criminal case first, and then a civil case – ed.) will fail the entire work of both the judiciary and the competent body.”

Judge Karapet Badalyan decided to reject the petition. According to the legal regulations, the case can be suspended if there is a criminal or constitutional case that makes it impossible to investigate this case. “It is not clear what the fate of that criminal case will be. In other words, we are not talking about impossibility, but about probabilities, the judgments regarding which do not convince the court that the investigation of the case is impossible until the final act in the criminal case is made.”

Further Vahagn Grigoryan presented his objections to the claim. The respondent claims that analyzes carried out by the competent authority and the documents prepared, including the decision to start the study, the conclusion on its results have zero evidentiary value. “Zero, because they are not evidence, but documents containing the plaintiff’s position.”

Details in the video.

Iravaban.net

Հետևեք մեզ Facebook-ում

  Պատուհանը կփակվի 6 վայրկյանից...   Փակել