On 24 October, the Anti-Corruption Court held a hearing on the case of confiscation of the property of illicit origin of the family of the former NA Deputy Manvel Grigoryan and related persons. Judge Narine Avagyan presided over the session.
The Prosecutor General’s Office filed a confiscation claim against Elya Grigoryan, Naira Grigoryan, Karen Grigoryan, Arman Grigoryan, Nazik Amiryan, Ara Grigoryan, Samvel Grigoryan, Aitsemnik Grigoryan, Arpenik Grigoryan, Vazgen Grigoryan, Luiza Grigoryan, and third parties: “Ardshinbank” CJSC and “VTB-Armenia Bank” CJSC.
According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of the session, Gevorg Kocharyan, Senior Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office said that there were negotiations between the parties regarding the reconciliation agreement, but they did not yield results. He mentioned that the willingness of the prosecution is perceived by the defendant from the point of view of the weakness or “lack of self-confidence” of the competent authority.
“In reality, it is not like that, it is manifestations of the good will of the Prosecutor’s Office, taking into account some objective and subjective circumstances. In any case, as of this moment, I regret to inform the Court that we do not have anything substantive to present to the Court. The process of reconciliation is currently not on the agenda of the Prosecutor’s Office,” Kocharyan said and apologized to the Court for the waste of judicial resources. He asked the Court to move on to the next proceedings.
The Judge reminded that Nazik Amiryan expressed her willingness to reconcile even during the sessions. Narine Avagyan wondered if there was a possibility to separate a part of the case and reach a reconciliation agreement. Gevorg Kocharyan mentioned that the Prosecutor’s Office is ready, but the defendant did not present any proposal to him.
“If the name of something is reconciliation, then it should be a compromise option. Naturally, this compromise cannot be equally on both sides. The concession may be more on the one hand, and/or less on the other, that is natural. We have not received any offer of a compromise option regarding Ms. Amiryan,” the Prosecutor said, stating that the plaintiff removed the reconciliation process from the agenda.
Gurgen Grigoryan, the representative of the respondents, countered the Prosecutor. He mentioned that from the very first day of dealing with the case, until the submission of the claim to the Court, there were discussions on the issue.
“The proposal by Ms. Amiryan was as follows: We provide you with this much evidence. In our inner conviction, we are within the framework of law, but we agree to reconciliation. The children are owners of Manvel Grigoryan’s share, if they decide to hand it over, we will hand it over. It is not true that there was no offer from Nazik Amiryan. The proposal was stable, from the beginning, and that text was always defended in Court,” the lawyer noted, adding that until now they are in favor of reaching a settlement agreement.
Lawyer Levon Baghdasaryan also said that there may have been delays, but the defendants agree to reconciliation. He also informed that he submitted a non-final list to the Prosecutor’s office regarding the settlement agreement. “If I say that we have presented a final list, I would be lying, but I have presented a preliminary list.”
Responding to the respondents’ representatives, Gevorg Kocharyan mentioned that the offer is conditional; if the other heirs agree, Nazik Amiryan’s children will immediately say that they agree. “It is not possible to separate a part and proceed to reconciliation with a precondition. Reconciliation is possible when a specific proposal is made.”
Further the parties moved on to the distribution of the facts and the burden of proof that are important for the resolution of the case, on which the judicial act will be published later.
The next Court session will take place on 11 December.
Details in the video.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
