On 29 April, the trial in the case of the former chairman of the Urban Development Committee, Vahagn Vermishyan, continued in the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeals. Presiding Judge Karen Amiryan, judges Armen Hovhannisyan and Mesrop Makyan.
According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of the session, Vahagn Vermishyan’s motion presented by lawyer Armen Melkumyan regarding the confiscation of property of illegal origin was discussed. In the mentioned proceedings, the court distributed the burden of proof, in order to receive the data, the lawyers should apply to the state authorities of the Russian Federation, through the lawyer there, to whom Vermishyan should grant powers.
The lawyer asked to allow either the visit of the notary to the place of house arrest of Vahagn Vermishyan, or the visit of Vermishyan to the notary’s office.
The court satisfied the petition, allowed the notary to visit Vermishyan’s home detention address from 29 April to 15 May inclusive.
Then Yerem Sargsyan, the defense attorney of defendant John Farkhoyan, continued to present his appeal in the court.
The defender mentioned that the First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan did not refer to the questions raised by him regarding the investigative subordination, rejected the petition he presented regarding the mentioned issue, stating that it is groundless and subject to rejection. Sargsyan cited the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding investigative subordination, which obliges the court to address the mentioned question and factual circumstances in detail.
“The rules of subordination have been grossly violated,” the defender said.
According to him, the video recording of the alleged bribe giving is also inadmissible evidence.
“It was obtained through surveys and writings. The legislator says that the obtained as a result of operational inquiry and operational information cannot be considered as evidence,” the defense attorney noted, adding that they did not have the right to examine them in court.
According to him, the video recording could be considered as admissible evidence if a confiscation decision was made, and the facts obtained as a result of the operative inquiry are prohibited to be used as evidence.
Further, Yerem Sargsyan mentioned that his client was questioned for the first time in February 2020 as a witness.
“Vermishyan already had the status of a suspect, he was even arrested. There were no formalities regarding Farkhoyan’s bribery to Vahagn Vermishyan. He gives a sincere testimony, without the presence of a lawyer, on the basis of which an accusation of bribery with 2 counts is presented. In other words, if Mr. Farkhoyan had not testified, he would not have been arrested. Two words were removed from the testimony, on the basis of which charges were brought,” the defense attorney noted, at the same time noting that the prosecution side does not consider Farkhoyan’s testimony unreliable, but did not pay attention to his other claims.
Farkhoyan is accused of bribing an official, using the official position for his own benefit to perform or contribute to the non-performance of any action, patronage in the service.
Here we are talking about 2000 USD, which, according to the prosecution, Farkhoyan transferred to Vermishyan. Sargsyan notes that Vermishyan asked Farkhoyan for USD 2,000 to send to his son in Slovenia. He requested, took and sent that money. The receipt certifying the transfer is available in the materials of the case. The same amount of money, i.e. 2000 USD, was sent to Slovenia in the name of Vermishyan’s son.
According to the defender, Vermishyan wanted the money in Euros, but Farkhoyan gave it in dollars on Friday. On the next working day, that is, Monday, Vermishyan’s wife transferred the specified amount to her son in Euros.
Yerem Sargsyan counted: 1,814 Euros, which was equivalent to 2,000 USD according to the published exchange rate of the specified day, were transferred to Slovenia. “During any meeting, any telephone conversation, there is not even a hint that there is an agreement about a bribe.”
The 2nd episode of bribery refers to the alleged patronage, Vermishyan helping Farkhoyan to build apartment buildings.
Sargsyan also informed the court that his client understood that Vahagn Vermishyan was being watched, and warned him about it. “And in that case, they say he went, stood in front of the cameras and bribed Vermishyan.”
In addition, according to the defense attorney, the prosecution questioned the fact that the defendants were friends.
John Farkhoyan also spoke in court. “If my testimony is taken as a basis, it is taken as a starting point, then why is it not taken as a basis for my stated reasoning as to why and how I gave that money?” I myself explain what I gave, what I gave it for, they took my testimony as a basis, and they don’t accept a part of it. They have made it selectively.”
Farkhoyan considered the sequence of actions by which the latter were guided to be illogical, if the ultimate goal was to pay a bribe.
Thus, the defense side requests the court to cancel the verdict of the first instance and declare the John Farkhoyan’s innocence.
Vahagn Varemishyan’s lawyer, Alexander Kochubaev, submitted a motion to change the subject of the bail, but it will be discussed at the next session, on 3 June.
It should be noted that the First Instance Court found Vahagn Vermishyan guilty of this episode as well and sentenced him to a total of 8 years in prison.
Despite the accusations, the lawyers claim that Vahagn Vermishyan is innocent and they expect an acquittal decision on all episodes from the Anti-corruption Court of Appeal.
Also read:
