On 1 July, the Anti-Corruption Court , continued the judicial investigation into the confiscation of property of alleged illicit origin that belongs to the leader of the “Prosperous Armenia” Party, former Deputy of the National Assembly, businessman Gagik Tsarukyan and his related persons. Judge Lili Drmeyan presided over the session.

According to Iravaban.net , at the beginning of the session, the mass media representatives requested to videotape and take photos of the session. The prosecutors did not object, but all the representatives of the responding party objected. Lusntag Bezhanyan, in response to the Court ‘s question as to why she objected, said: “I do not want to be photographed or videotaped.” However, the lawyer considered it possible to video record the session without her image.

Harutyun Harutyunyan stated that he objects to photography and video recording in general. “Not only for me, but for the session in general.”

The only reason Harutyunyan mentioned was the lack of consent of the clients. It should be noted that the first session in the mentioned case was scheduled for January 2024. During this period, there were unique sessions in which media representatives did not participate, but the lawyer still does not have the position of his clients on the issue.

Varazdat Asatryan, the representative of the responding party, also stated that he does not want the entire session to be videotaped. In his opinion, coverage of cases of confiscation of property of illicit origin does not pursue any public interest. “Here there are questions and answers about information, which are not subject to public examination.”

Karapet Badalyan

At the same time, Asatryan insists that they have nothing to hide. The presiding judge noted that the petitions of mass media representatives are rejected on the basis that the consent of all participants in the trial is not available.

Soon it will be one year since the creation of the Anti-Corruption Court , several dozen cases are being examined here, but the judges have not formed a unified approach, especially regarding the coverage of cases of confiscation of property of illicit origin.

For example, Judge of the same Court Karapet Badalyan, even in the case of the objections of the responding party, believes that the objection of one of the parties is not enough to not to video record the entire hearing.

During one of the sessions,  Karapet Badalyan noted that cases of confiscation of property of illicit origin are of great public importance, the presence and coverage of journalists is very important. “They are important for the pursuit and implementation of the goals that are set at the base of the law, in fact, in the context of the fight against corruption. The participation of journalists in such cases and the publication of information is not an end in itself.”

Karapet Badalyan noted that the mass media representative’s motion is valid and subject to full satisfaction. At the same time, the judge stated that the representative may not give consent for his image to be videotaped.

Gagik Tsarukyan and his family members who are involved in the mentioned case

Judge Drmeyan’s approach to this matter is unclear, the video recording and photography of the session derives from the public interest, that is, to ensure transparency and accountability in cases of confiscation of property of alleged illicit origin. It should be taken into account that the defendant in the case is a former official involved, who held the positions of a member of the RA National Security Council, a member of the National Assembly, and the head of the “Prosperous Armenia” Faction of the National Assembly.

The issue of video recording and photography of sessions in the Anti-Corruption Court especially, should be in the focus of the attention of the Supreme Judicial Council, taking into account that the Court was established and the law “On Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin” was adopted for the effective fight against corruption.

The session continued, and it was only audio-recorded. Gagik Tsarukyan’s representative Varazdat Asatryan said that one of his questions concerns the involvement of new, third parties in the trial, as he does not know whether they are fully involved or not, but Anna Mnatsakan Barseghyan seems not to have become a participant in the case. The latter is the tenant of one of the properties subject to confiscation.

“Within the scope of the case, the latter’s right to lease a part of one of the properties included in the subject of this lawsuit is recorded, if they should come later, get involved and present observations to resume the investigation of the case, in order not to waste the judicial resource, for this, if necessary, the Court can notify or involve,” Asatryan said.

Gevorg Kocharyan

Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan noted that, taking into account that Anna Barseghyan is the lessee of that property, he does not consider it likely that she would be interested in participating in the hearing, but at the same time, he noted that if she has not been notified by the Court regarding the rights to participate as a third party, they can notify, and, depending on the need, if she expresses a desire tocome and/or get involved.

“We also do not mediate the latter’s involvement of a third party, especially because we find that the right of absence, in our opinion, is not the circumstance that all of the latter’s materials should be provided, especially if he did not express a desire to involve. one can be satisfied with the notification,” said Gevorg Kocharyan.

Lawyer Varazdat Asatryan mediated for the party to be involved as a third party, stating that in his opinion it would be right for her to be fully involved in the trial. Judge Drmeyan tried to find out Barseghyan’s address, Varazdat Asatryan said that it would be difficult to tell at this moment. The judge emphasized that they can mediate when they have the address.

Prosecutor Hamlet Harutyunyan said: “I object to the petition, I think that the tool provided by the Civil Procedure Code, in particular the notification to the people who find the need to involve a third party, is a sufficient tool in terms of securing their rights “.

Representative of the respondent Varazdat Asatryan, provided of Anna Barseghyan’s registration address to the Court .

Lawyer Harutyun Harutyunyan mentioned that the person participating in the case can make a motion to involve a third party, in this case Varazdat Asatryan. “It is obvious from the position of our partners in the prosecution that they also see this connection and the possible impact of the judicial act on the rights of an uninformed person.”

According to Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan, the objection is due to 2 circumstances. firstly, with the efficient use of judicial resources, which is primarily in the interests of the respondents, and secondly, in the interests of the respondents, their approach is to provide information as narrowly as possible, only when “the opposite is not possible”.

The judge asked Asatryan if he is familiar with the terms of the lease agreement or not, because according to the Civil Code, , will the change of owner have any significance for Anna Barseghyan as a tenant in case if the claim is satisfied?

Varazdat Asatryan answered that according to the information he had, it would be important. When asked how this was manifested, he said that there would be no theoretical possibility regarding the conditions and the possibility of cooperation would be absent. “According to my information, materiality is also demonstrated by the actual agreement reached on the terms of the contract and its application.”

Lili Drmeyan

The Court noted that the positions expressed are sufficient for the resolution of the petition, and also noted that as for postponing the hearing of the case for the examination of the petition, the Court considers that the submitted petition is not a basis for postponing, because Anna Barseghyan’s rights are related to only one immovable property, and there is no reason to postpone the investigation of the case completely.

Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan also made a petition, demanding the Court to involve a third party to “Artben” LLC with the same logic as Anna Barseghyan. The Court noted that it would make a decision on this petition in the form of a separate act.

After this statement of the Court , he was interested whether he could check the data regarding the notices regarding the 1 July Court session, because they are missing on Azdarar.am. The judge asked:

– Mr. Asatryan, are you checking the actions of the court now??

– No, respectful chairperson, I do n’o check…

– After the end of the session, you can familiarize yourself with the materials of the case. The Court found that there is proper notice. 

Hamlet Harutyunyan

Public Prosecutors Hamlet Harutyunyan and Gevorg Kocharyan stated that they would petition to change the basis and subject of the lawsuit in the future, so they consider it appropriate to provide the calculations to the Court and the defendant when they are in their final form. They emphasized that at this stage they consider it necessary to clarify the claim, because the Court can later allow a change in the basis and subject of the claim only in the case of a clarified claim. According to the prosecutors, the legal basis of the lawsuit will not be changed, so at this stage, at least, the questions regarding the legal basis can be exhausted.

Lawyer Varazdat Asatryan noted that without the provision of these calculations, the process cannot be effective and they cannot properly build their defense.

According to the representatives of the Prosecutor’s Office, they have no obligation to provide these calculations, so they will provide them when they consider it appropriate. The Court added that they can also be provided at the request of the Court. Varazdat Asatryan demanded to provide those calculations.

The Court asked the representatives of the Prosecutor’s Office to present only the first part of the claim and to indicate on what basis the study was initiated and what was the logic of the calculations. Prosecutor Hamlet Harutyunyan presented the parts of the lawsuit related to those questions, after which the Court asked whether the calculations based on the currently initiated and examined lawsuit could be presented at the next Court session. Hamlet Hovhannisyan said that these calculations were in the form of a working file, which would be presented to the Court at the next session.

The session was adjourned. The next Court hearing in this case will be held on 26 August.

Details in the video.

Notably: According to the lawsuit, the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Armenia submitted a request to the Court to confiscate in favor of the Republic of Armenia from the defendants the property of illicit origin, in particular:

• • 79 real estates. 
  • 42 vehicles.
  • Acquisition cost of 8 unidentified vehicles worth 348 million 194 thousand drams.
  • The amount of the ceded claim right: about 33 million drams.
  • Market value of 10 real estates, which legally belong to Gagik Tsarukyan. 
  • 39 shares and bonds in legal entities.
  • Right to demand loans of 63 billion drams.
  • The amount of loans provided to 12 individuals and legal entities (who could not be identified) is about 16.8 billion drams.
  • Demand for confiscation of 86 billion 400 million drams, which is the sum of income from the use of property of illicit origin and payments, transfers and other outcomes not justified by legal income.