The Anti-Corruption Civil Court, presided over by Judge Karapet Badalyan, held a hearing on the claim filed by the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property of the Prosecutor General’s Office against the 3rd President of the Republic of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan and his daughter Satenik Sargsyan, demanding the confiscation of allegedly illegally obtained property.
According to Iravaban.net, in the previous court session, the respondent side had submitted a motion to suspend the proceedings, which was rejected by the court. In this court session, the examination of evidence continued, which included audio carriers, court notices, return notices, postal receipts, and court decisions.
Regarding the letter addressed to the court by the Deputy Prosecutor General, advocate Vahagn Grigoryan asked what the purpose of the submission was. Tigran Yenoqyan, Deputy Head of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property, prosecutor, said that this document was submitted to extend the power of attorney of the economist involved in the case.
Grigoryan said that in the letter, Galyan also noted that until the day of granting this power of attorney, he approves the procedural actions performed by Tigran Yenoqyan and Artur Karapetyan, and in this context asked if there was any action that was carried out under conditions of terminated powers. Yenoqyan replied that in his opinion there was none, everything was examined within the timeframe.
Grigoryan also inquired about the terms for which the power of attorney submitted in 2022 was granted. The prosecutor said it was without time limitation.
Regarding the document, Vahagn Grigoryan asked what the Deputy Prosecutor General based on when making such a note in the power of attorney. Prosecutor Tigran Yenoqyan said that the latter gave his consent that all actions were performed within the framework of the law.
Pointing to the norm of Article 319 of the Civil Code, Grigoryan said that in this case, the claim was submitted to the court on October 7, 2022. Tigran Yenoqyan participated in the very first court session and presented a power of attorney, and after some time Artur Karapetyan also joined.
“In the powers of attorney issued by the competent authority, I have not seen a case where a term is specified, therefore the powers of attorney are issued by the competent authorities for 1 year. This letter also does not specify how many years it is issued for, therefore it should be valid for 1 year. I think that in October 2023, the term of powers expired, and if there is no other power of attorney covering the period until May 2024, then the actions performed during that period cannot be considered actions performed by the competent authority,” he said.
In response to the advocate, the prosecutor noted that in this case, he was involved in the defense of the claim in accordance with the procedure established by the Law on Prosecutor’s Office and by order of the superior prosecutor: “Here, the limits of our powers differ from the limits of Mr. Karapetyan’s powers, because being a prosecutor, I have the authority to protect state interests and file a claim for confiscation of illegally obtained property, and if I did not file that claim, another prosecutor, the superior prosecutor could, guided by the Law on Prosecutor’s Office, authorize me to participate in court sessions.”
According to Yenoqyan, the difference is in the powers of attorney, there have been no violations, and even after a certain time has passed, the superior prosecutor has approved the actions performed within the limits of the law.
According to Iravaban.net, at this stage, the written evidence in the case was examined, and the court proceeded to examine the evidence presented on electronic media.
The declaration submitted by Serzh Sargsyan’s wife, Rita Sargsyan, in 2014 was examined. The representatives of the respondent side asked questions to the plaintiff side regarding the declared property and income.
In the column of interest and other compensation received for granted loans (credits), 9 million 25 thousand drams were indicated. The representative of the respondent, Amram Makinyan, asked whether it was compared with the interest from the deposit of the previous year or not. Karapetyan replied that Rita Sargsyan did not have a deposit in 2010 or 2011, and therefore it is unknown what interest rates are indicated.
Vahagn Grigoryan noted that Rita Sargsyan received 8 million 500 thousand drams from Satenik Sargsyan during the given year in the form of a donation, and asked if this is interpreted in the same way by the competent authority. Tigran Yenoqyan said that the plaintiff side did not consider it reliable data, as Satenik Sargsyan did not have any known source of income to donate 8 million 500 thousand to Rita Sargsyan: “I have repeatedly stated in my speech that during 2011-2014, persons were not subject to criminal liability, even if they presented that data unintentionally, the Criminal Code did not provide for any liability, due to that, many data from the declaration were not included in our calculations, including the last data.”
To the next question, whether the data declared during the years when persons were subject to criminal liability were taken into account or not, Yenoqyan answered that their reliability was not disputed, it’s another matter that we can calculate them as illegal income.
Details are in the video.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
