On 22 August, a preliminary court session, presided by Judge Ashkhen Gharslyan, was held in the Anti-Corruption Court in the case of confiscation of property of allegedly illicit origin of the former Chief Compulsory Enforcement Officer, former Deputy of the National Assembly, Mihran Poghosyan and 7 people related to him.
According to Iravaban.net, in the first part of the session, the respondents were trying to find out whether the investigation started by the Prosecutor General’s Office regarding Mihran Poghosyan and his related persons has been completed or not.
The point is that Tigran Yenokyan, Deputy Head of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin, submitted a motion to change the basis and subject of the lawsuit, which is related to “Mrgeni” LLC and the statements made by Poghosyan. The former Chief Compulsory Enforcement Officer of Judicial Acts of the Republic of Armenia publisheda video and noted that he is the “real beneficiary and owner” of that Company.
In 2018, Mihran Poghosyan founded “Mrgeni” LLC with a statutory capital of 10,000 drams in the name of Levon Atajanyan, whose activities were completely controlled by Mihran Poghosyan, he was the beneficial owner of the company. In March 2019, Atajanyan sold his entire share of the company to Hakob Hakobyan at a nominal value of 10,000 drams. He, in turn, sold it in October 2019 to Harutyun Melkonyan, who is a former employee of “Catherine Group” and “Bananek” LLCs. In 2020, the entire share of the company was sold again to Levon Atajanyan. These transactions were considered formal by the competent body, because from the beginning Mihran Poghosyan was the beneficial owner of this company,” Tigran Yenokyan said.
The company was engaged in importing bananas from Ecuador to Armenia and Georgia. Resources were needed to order a shipment of bananas, cover transportation costs, and make other investments; “These expenses could not be justified by Mihran Poghosyan’s legal income.”
In addition, the company leased one of the premises on Rubinyants Street, which, according to the authority, belongs to Mihran Poghosyan, but again it is not justified by his legal income. “The rents received from the lease of the area, as a result, were again considered illicit.”
Tigran Yenokyan nored that the video spread on the Internet was the basis for such claims, where Mihran Poghosyan states that he is the beneficial owner of “Mrgeni” Vompany. In addition, the plaintiff requested to include Hermine Tadevosyan, Inessa Abovyan, Levon Murdayan, Astghik Isabekyan and Levon Atajanyan as defendants in the case.
Mihran Poghosyan’s representative, Mary Khachatryan, tried to find out in the court what kind of legal procedure the Prosecutor’s Office was guided by when asking state departments about “Mrgeni” Company and obtaining tax secrets. According to the lawyer, the competent authority can conduct inquiries and perform other such actions during the investigation in order to initiate a lawsuit. “Actually, the study is over, we are in the process of examining the case.”
Tigran Yenokyan noted that the law allows the competent body to make inquiries during the investigation of the case. “The process is entirely related to the functions of the competent body.”
In her position regarding the motion submitted by the petitioner, Mihran Poghosyan’s representative Mary Khachatryan stated that the competent body could not make inquiries to the SRC and other departments, because the investigation related to her client has already been completed and a court investigation is underway. “The competent authority based the basis of changing the basis and subject of the claim on the answers and other data of the requests made to the state bodies regarding the “Mrgeni” Company and its director in May-June 2023. We find that supplementing the basis of the claim with the factual circumstances related to the alleged connection of the company with Mihran Poghosyan, as well as adding the object of the lawsuit with the demand for confiscation of 100 percent of the company’s shares are beyond the scope of the authority of the competent body. The latter is not authorized to carry out a new study and collect data on the property not discovered in the study and not claimed in the lawsuit.”
In addition, Mary Khachatryan stated that the video spread on the Internet cannot be a basis for restarting the study that has already been completed.
The representatives of the respondents also claimed that the Prosecutor’s Office cannot demand confiscation of, for example, the rents to be received from renting the premises. “The law provides an opportunity to confiscate the existing property at the time of filing the claim, which was considered illegal by the conclusion summarizing the study. Future incomes generated as a result of certain transactions are outside the scope of the submitted claim and cannot be included in the claim by changing the subject of the claim.
The last observation concerned the alleged change in interest protected by law. “Confiscating any property in favor of the state without carrying out an appropriate study does not speak of the state’s interest. The state interest is present when property of illegal origin is found by following the appropriate legal procedures and by the exercise of the powers defined by the law by the competent authority.
Mary Khachatryan stated in court: that they consider that the submitted motion is subject to rejection. Gagik Badalyan’s representative Aram Orbelyan also presented his position on the issue. He added: the plaintiff cannot submit any claim; it must be based on the results of the study.
The lawyer referred to 4 grounds, which, according to him, should be rejected, taking into account the submitted motion.
- After the study was completed, actions that were not legal were taken,
- The change of claim does not result from any conclusion,
- The pre-trial procedure for the involvement of other persons is not observed.
- The plaintiff has no legal interest in filing the lawsuit.
Tigran Yenokyan referred to the pre-trial procedure of involvement of other persons. He noted that after the submission of the lawsuit, the data regarding the involvement of the “Mrgeni” Company as well as new defendants through mediation became known.
Judge Rudolph Avagyan noted that the decision on the petition should be made in the form of a separate court act; therefore the court session is postponed. The next session was scheduled for 22 September.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
