The court hearing in the case of Aghvan Hovsepyan, former Chairman of the Investigative Committee, former Deputy of the Supreme Council, and former Prosecutor General, continued today, August 8, at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court. The presiding judge is Tigran Davtyan.

According to the indictment, Aghvan Hovsepyan, while holding the positions of Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia from March 18, 2004, to September 13, 2013, and Chairman of the RA Investigative Committee from July 18, 2014, to June 11, 2018, being a high-ranking official endowed with the functions of a representative of authority, contrary to the prohibition on engaging in entrepreneurial activities established for persons holding office, jointly with Arshavir Sargsyan, a resident of Yerevan city with whom he had close relations, founded organizations engaged in entrepreneurial activities during 2007-2015 with a single intent. He also personally participated and through trusted persons – his sons – in the management of organizations engaged in entrepreneurial activities, which was associated with granting privileges and advantages to these organizations and patronizing them in other ways. As a result of illegal participation in entrepreneurial activities, he legalized property obtained through criminal means in particularly large amounts.

In addition, in early October 2010, on a day not specified by the investigation, Aghvan Hovsepyan, using the influence of his position, instigated Hrachya Avagyan, the head of the Byurakan community in Aragatsotn region, to abuse his official powers by means of persuasion, and then legalized property obtained through criminal means in large amounts as a result of this act.

Furthermore, Aghvan Hovsepyan demanded and received a particularly large bribe from Varsham Gharibyan on February 14, 2011, for patronage in service to his benefit, and then legalized property obtained through criminal means in particularly large amounts.

Additionally, on April 10, 2017, Aghvan Hovsepyan instigated Vrezh Markosyan, with whom he had close relations, to embezzle property of particularly large value belonging to Varsham Gharibyan that was entrusted to him.

According to Iravaban.net, witness Yerem Grigoryan was interrogated during this court session.

The witness stated that he has known the defendant Aghvan Hovsepyan for about 25 years.

He noted that during the preliminary investigation, he was questioned about issues related to Varsham Gharibyan and Arshavir Sargsyan.

According to the witness, Arshavir Sargsyan was closer to Aghvan Hovsepyan, always by his side, showing readiness for any task.

They had meetings together on various occasions and events.

“My relationship was completely normal, the whole relationship collapsed when the younger son (Aghvan Hovsepyan’s) got married, there was a new in-law there, and there was friendship, kinship, and everything, otherwise our relationship was very good.

He did many things – he built a church, I’m not dissatisfied with him, he was kind, he was good, we weren’t financially dependent, he didn’t make any demands on me or others, but all of that became zero, which I’m very sorry about,” said the witness.

To the question from public prosecutor Koryun Serobyan about what activities he was engaged in, he said that since 1993 he has been involved in the sale and trade of construction materials. He also mentioned the addresses of shops that are not currently operating due to certain personal issues.

• You said that you met Arshavir Sargsyan through Aghvan Hovsepyan, do you remember the time period when you met?
• Probably in 2007-2008.
• Besides being close, did they have anything else in common?
• Arshavir would come and take plumbing supplies from me. For some time he traded with money, there were times when he took things without payment, but there was no obligation on me. Ours was a simple and straightforward friendship.
• What was that plumbing for, was Arshavir taking it?
• Arshavir would come and take it, I would send it too.
• For what?
• He was taking it for Hovsepyan.
• What was the purpose, did he say what he was taking it for?
• Arshavir helped, he did many things. He was probably taking it to the private house.
• For whose private house was he taking it?
• Aghvan Hovsepyan’s.

When asked approximately how many times he had been to Aghvan Hovsepyan’s private house, he said probably 8 to 10 times, mainly after work. He hasn’t been in the area of the private house since 2012 and is not aware of what changes have been made since then.

To the next question about whether Arshavir Sargsyan ever said that he and Aghvan Hovsepyan were engaged in certain activities together, the witness answered no, and he also said that he is not aware whether Aghvan Hovsepyan has apartments in other places besides this private house area, he said he hasn’t been there.

Witness Yerem Grigoryan stated that he knows Aghvan Hovsepyan’s sons but has no information about where Narek Hovsepyan lives.

The prosecutor also asked if he felt any pressure or mistreatment when being questioned by the investigator, to which the witness said no.

• Has Arshavir Sargsyan been involved in importing equipment for hydroelectric power plants?
• I’m not aware.

The witness was then questioned by Aghvan Hovsepyan’s defender, Erik Aleksanyan. He inquired whether the witness was informed about the case in which he was being questioned when he was interrogated by the investigator, to which the witness said yes, the investigator said he would ask questions about Arshavir and Varsham’s case.

To the defender’s question about whether he has any information about whether any of Aghvan Hovsepyan’s sons have ever had work-business relationships with Arshavir Sargsyan, the witness said he has no such information.

He replied that he is not aware of what common work they did with Arshavir Sargsyan, or whether they had any connection with importing goods from another country.

The witness also stated that he currently has no contact with Arshavir Sargsyan: “When complaints and legal issues arose, we stopped communicating after that. Even then, I didn’t meet him separately, when I saw him, I saw him with Aghvan, at his private house, during events.”

Lawyer Anna Mantashyan asked if it was ever known that Aghvan Hovsepyan had other businesses, to which the witness replied no.

Then the public prosecutor petitioned to publish the witness’s preliminary investigation testimony, taking into account that there are contradictions between the two testimonies related to the amounts given by Arshavir Sargsyan and their size.

“The preliminary investigation testimony clearly mentions $25,000 and $5,000. In addition, regarding the source of the funds given by Arshavir Sargsyan for construction materials, the witness stated that I didn’t talk about it, but from Arshavir Sargsyan’s conversations, I understood that these were funds received as a result of joint business activities, and the witness had mentioned about conducting joint business activities in the preliminary investigation testimony. There is also a contradiction regarding having another apartment and renovating it,” said Koryun Serobyan.

Aghvan Hovsepyan’s defender Erik Aleksanyan objected, noting that during the question and answer session, it became clear that during the preliminary investigation, the witness did not exercise his right to know in the framework of which criminal proceedings he was being questioned.

The defender emphasized: “It became clear that when Yerem Grigoryan was invited to the Special Investigative Service for questioning as a witness, the investigator informed him that it was exclusively about the criminal case regarding Varsham and Arsho, and here there is no need to assume that Yerem Grigoryan understood what case it was about after mentioning the names Varsham and Arsho, the latter very clearly answered: I didn’t understand what it was about.”

The judge clarified whether this statement refers to the contradiction or the admissibility of evidence, Erik Aleksanyan said that the issue of admissibility of evidence can also be raised before the circumstance of the evidence being examined, which stems from case law.

He petitioned to confirm the inadmissibility of the testimony given by Yerem Grigoryan during the preliminary investigation and not allow it to be published.

By the court’s decision, under the conditions of existing contradictions, the witness’s preliminary investigation testimony was published.

After the publication of the preliminary investigation testimony, Erik Aleksanyan asked the witness the following questions:

• In 2020, when you gave testimony as a witness, during that period, did you ever express a desire to report a crime regarding Aghvan Hovsepyan?
• For what case?
• I’m asking you, have you ever had a desire and have you ever expressed anywhere that you want to give a report about Aghvan Hovsepyan, I have certain issues, solve my issues, if you solve them, I won’t give a report?
• Yes.
• To whom did you say it and when?
• To everyone who was there, to all acquaintances and relatives, I said. I told everyone what problems I had and said that he’s not behaving correctly, that he’s listening to Garik.
• If you wanted to give a report against a person, had a problem with him, how can the court believe this testimony of yours?
• I’m telling the truth, the court can believe it or not.

In his statement regarding the witness’s preliminary investigation testimony, defendant Aghvan Hovsepyan said that there is no question in the interrogation about how the witness learned about Arshavir Sargsyan and Aghvan Hovsepyan’s business.

“All the money that the witness testified he spent on construction, he spent from the income received from the joint business with my sons, he didn’t spend from his own pocket, and it will be proven during the further trial that he stole, as the witness testified that he gave him money, it’s written in the testimony that he gave so many thousand dollars.

I say again, it’s obvious from all the investigator’s interrogations that there’s one-sidedness, working with a targeted purpose,” said the defendant.

The public prosecutor asked what the report mentioned by defender Erik Aleksanyan was about, since there is no such data in the case materials, to which the witness replied that the boys created a joint business, then separated from each other and the report should have been about that, but he didn’t interfere.

The witness’s interrogation was completed, and the session was adjourned. The court will address the issue of admissibility of evidence in the final judicial act.

The next session in this case will take place on August 22.