On August 22, the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Tigran Davtyan, resumed the trial of Aghvan Hovsepyan, the former Chairman of the Investigative Committee, ex-Deputy of the Supreme Council, and former Prosecutor General.
The prosecution alleges that Aghvan Hovsepyan, while serving as the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia from March 18, 2004, to September 13, 2013, and subsequently as the Chairman of the RA Investigative Committee from July 18, 2014, to June 11, 2018, abused his position as a high-ranking official. Contrary to the prohibition on engaging in entrepreneurial activities for individuals in such positions, Hovsepyan, in collaboration with Arshavir Sargsyan, a Yerevan resident with whom he had close ties, allegedly established organizations involved in entrepreneurial activities between 2007 and 2015. The prosecution contends that Hovsepyan, both personally and through his sons as trusted intermediaries, participated in managing these organizations, granting them privileges, advantages, and patronage. Furthermore, he is accused of laundering substantial amounts of property obtained through these illegal entrepreneurial activities.
Additionally, in early October 2010, on an unspecified date, Hovsepyan purportedly used his influential position to persuade Hrachya Avagyan, the head of the Byurakan community in Aragatsotn region, to abuse his official powers. Subsequently, Hovsepyan allegedly laundered significant amounts of property acquired through this criminal act.
Iravaban.net reports that during this court session, witnesses Hovhannes Margaryan, Manuk Manukyan, and Albert Shahbazaryan provided testimony.
Albert Shahbazyan was the first to be interrogated. He stated that from 2008 to 2013, he worked as the general director of “Yerevan” TV company. Besides the owner Varsham Gharibyan, he had no dealings with others.
In response to Public Prosecutor Koryun Serobyan’s question about whether there were any bad relations with Varsham Gharibyan or his brother, the witness said there were no bad relations during that time, but tension arose later between the two brothers.
When asked who appointed him as the director of the TV company, Shahbazyan replied it was Varsham Gharibyan, who was the sole owner at the time. He denied knowledge of any other shareholders.
Regarding Aghvan Hovsepyan’s sons, Shahbazyan said he had heard of them and knew the brother and wife, but had no dealings with anyone except for public events organized by the prosecutor at the time.
He mentioned that the company was sold to businessman Artur Baghdasaryan in June 2013, while he was away in Russia due to his brother’s death. The witness confirmed the TV company had a license, which was granted twice.
When asked if he had any information about 50% of the shares being transferred to Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son, the witness said he had no such information and Varsham Gharibyan never told him about it.
Responding to Aghvan Hovsepyan’s lawyer Erik Aleksanyan’s questions, the witness said he also worked for the Gharibyan brothers’ company since 1999 as a director. He stated that after the conflict between the two brothers, he is no longer in contact with them.
Next, Hovhannes Margaryan was interrogated. He stated that he was a member of the “Rule of Law” party, led by Artur Baghdasaryan at the time. He confirmed being present during the TV company’s sale.
When asked about his knowledge of the company’s acquisition, the witness said he only participated in handing over the money. He explained that Heghine Bisharyan, Karen Sargsyan’s mother and his good colleague, suggested he participate in the process of giving this large sum of money to record that the money was handed over.
The witness stated that no document was drawn up during the transaction, only a receipt for the transfer of money, after which it was agreed that the same amount would be noted in the sale contract by a notary.
Manuk Manukyan was the next witness to be interrogated. He stated that the former village head told him that an investigator had come to the community and wanted him to present that in the area where, as he had heard, Mr. Hovsepyan had acquired land, they used to keep animals or went down to bathe in the gorge when they were young.
He mentioned that he is engaged in animal husbandry in Byurakan and is aware that Aghvan Hovsepyan had a summer house or villa in the territory of Antarut community. He had seen Aghvan Hovsepyan in the yard of the villa several times but never had the opportunity to interact with him.
When asked about what was in place of the villa previously, the witness said that according to his information, it was a dilapidated, ruined pension of the Artists’ Union. He mentioned that villagers also participated in the construction taking place there, but he couldn’t remember who specifically.
The witness stated that he had heard about 10 years ago that Hovsepyan had taken or bought the gorge adjacent to the villa. He had also heard that Hovsepyan was planning to build some kind of reserve and bring animals there.
Due to contradictions between the witness’s testimony in court and during the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor motioned to publish the testimony given to the investigative body. In his testimony to the investigator, the witness had provided more detailed information about Hovsepyan’s land acquisitions and their impact on the villagers’ animal husbandry activities.
When questioned about these discrepancies, the witness stated that he didn’t remember some details and had not given much importance to what was written as he was not an interested party.
After the witness interrogation, the defendant Aghvan Hovsepyan made a statement, saying this was not the first time the investigator had presented incorrect records. He emphasized, “The witness responded to my question by explaining that the area has more stones than soil cover where greenery can grow, and he described the nature of the territory. This recording is clearly erroneous. If something is white and you write it as black, it’s evident that the black is incorrectly written. This individual could not have made such statements in his testimony.”
The witness interrogations were concluded.
The next court hearing in this case is scheduled for September 3.
