On 14 November, the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Narine Avagyan, continued the trial in the case of confiscation of illegal property from the former Governor of Syunik Surik Khachatryan and his related persons in favor of the Republic of Armenia.
His wife Loreta Barseghyan, sons Tigran and Trdat Khachatryan, their related persons Vardan Barseghyan, Manvel Malintsyan, Erik Hambardzumyan, Lusine Barseghyan and Norayr Mnatsakanyan appeared on the list. The application is for the confiscation of properties and assets of illegal origin with a value of about 20 billion drams.
According to Iravaban.net, during today’s court session, the Senior Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office, submitted a motion to change the basis and subject of the lawsuit, proposing to remove the Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine, which received the status of the 3rd party, from the case, because the Combine returned Surik Khachatryan’s 2 billion drams.
In addition, if the petition is approved, the amount of money subject to confiscation from Surik Khachatryan will be increased to around 3 billion drams. Vahagn Grigoryan, the representative of the respondents, stated that there is a partial objection to the petition. The lawyer mentioned that the logic of his motion is the same as the previous objections presented by the prosecutor regarding similar motions. “On the subject of the claim presented in the petition, the competent authority demands confiscation of such properties, the demand for confiscation of which has not been submitted before. It is obvious that these properties were not studied during the research, there are no notes about them in the conclusion.”
Gevorg Kocharyan stated that no new property and no new circumstances were added; only a new demand was added based on the studied circumstances. “A change in the basis and subject of the claim has been submitted. It is not subject to satisfaction, if in that case the protected right or interest changes. Do you find that there has been a change in the interest protected by this change?”
Vahagn Grigoryan stated that he is guided by the logic of the Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin” that a lawsuit can be submitted to the court, only based on the results of the study. “I consider that it issues from the logic of the law that there is an additional prerequisite for filing a lawsuit. That prerequisite is the presence of relevant notes in the conclusion.
Then, the 3rd person involved in the case, Spartak Ginosyan the lawyer of Goris Mayor Arush Arushanyan, stated that the claim on the part of his client should be rejected. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, Surik Khachatryan provided a loan to Arush Arushanyan. According to the lawyer, there were no such legal relations between the parties, and the bank denied the fact of money transfer.
However, the prosecutor countered: the transfer took place in December 2012. Khachatryan transferred from his account of “Ardshinbank” to the transit account of the same bank, and Arushanyan received the money in hand at the bank. “There were many other transfers to Arush Arushanyan, in which, however, other purposes were mentioned: donation, aid, etc. They were not included in our request, only this loan was mentioned.”
At the same time, Gevorg Kocharyan mentioned that the state does not have any demands from Arushanyan. The state demands to confiscate the money transferred to Surik Khachatryan.
Spartak Ginosyan insisted that even if such money was transferred, it was not as a loan. “According to the information I received, such a transfer between bank accounts had not taken place. Perhaps, it should be further clarified. Even if there was a transfer, it is necessary to understand for what purpose. Let me give an example to the court. Now I can transfer money to Mr. Kocharyan and write in the “purpose” field to order food, which is normal. However, a loan agreement or other document that can certify such legal relations between the parties does not exist, and could not exist. There were no friendly relations between the parties; it is unlikely that Mr. Khachatryan transferred any money to Mr. Arushanyan.
Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan once again mentioned that Surik Khachatryan’s transfers to Arush Arushanyan were not limited to this one. “There were bigger amounts. If Arush Arushanyan went and received money from the bank with that note, then he did not object to receiving such a transfer at least.”
The decision on the motion submitted by the plaintiff to change the basis and subject of the claim will be published in the form of a separate judicial act. The court session was postponed. The next session will be held on 11 December.
Yevgenya Hambardzumyan
