Today, October 7, a court hearing was held in the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Rudolf Avagyan, on the case of confiscation of allegedly illegally acquired property of Mihran Poghosyan, former head of the Judicial Acts Compulsory Enforcement Service, former MP, and seven persons associated with him.
According to Iravaban.net, at this court session, the respondent side presented a motion regarding the lifting of the arrest on Mihran Poghosyan’s funds, and as a result, providing 5 million drams as an advance payment to “Concern Dialog,” the company providing advocate services.
Advocate Arthur Hovhannisyan noted that the Law “On Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property” stipulates that if preliminary security measures are applied to a person’s property, the latter can submit a motion to lift this preliminary security measure if it is justified that, among other things, it is necessary to cover advocate expenses.
According to him, the facts cited, which are essential for the resolution of the motion, indicate that within the framework of this case, it is planned to conclude a contract for the provision of advocate services to Mihran Poghosyan, the respondent in the case, which will also specify the amount of the advance payment; according to preliminary agreement, it is planned to set it at 5 million drams.
He added that the current absence of a contract signed between the parties is due to the fact that they do not know what amount of funds the court will release from arrest as a result of the motion’s resolution, and the resolution of this issue may determine the exact amount of the planned advance payment.
Aram Orbelyan said regarding the motion: “We ask to lift the arrest on any or all monetary funds in the amount of 5 million drams, specifically for the amount payable to ‘Concern Dialog,’ as the court finds appropriate, moreover, from the perspective of paying the amount directly to the company. The amount is essentially for advocate services, from which our actions will be deducted, and experience shows that it will definitely exceed 5 million, and we will discuss the possibility of releasing or not releasing additional funds in the future.”
To the presiding Judge Rudolf Avagyan’s question about what is included in the 5 million drams advance payment amount, especially when there is no signed contract and no costs have been specified, Orbelyan replied that there is a contract, although it has not yet been signed, but an agreement has been reached between the parties. He also noted that according to the Law “On Advocacy,” the contract can be concluded within 2 months.
“The advance payment is consumed within the framework of the work performed, based on the concept of advance payment, which is also accepted by the mechanism established by the Council of the Chamber of Advocates, that is, it can be a fixed amount, there can be hourly payment models. Given the volume and size of the case, we have planned 5 million, it is obvious that the final number will be much larger; it’s exclusively about representation in this case,” said the advocate.
When the judge asked again what the amount to be provided for the advance payment was for, Orbelyan said that in many countries advocates work on an advance payment basis, it is given not for work done, but for work to be done, and in this case, it should become a subject of assessment whether representation in this case can amount to 5 million drams or not.
Answering the judge’s question, the advocate stated that it is necessary for representatives to be present at court hearings, to familiarize themselves with the case materials, to present positions as a result, to obtain evidence, to record evidence, to participate in the process of examining evidence: “As a rule, in proceedings for the confiscation of illegally acquired property, our average value for one hour is 90 thousand drams, plus value added tax, which is lower than the average value of one hour in other cases, because the volume is large and quite a lot of work is done.”
To the judge’s question whether a new motion would be submitted when the 5 million drams advance payment is exhausted, Orbelyan said yes, and at that time it will be specified how the 5 million drams were consumed and as a result of what work performed.
Prosecutor Tigran Yenokyan said that by the wording of Article 14, Part 7 of the Law “On Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property,” the legislator refers to covering the costs of advocate services, and asked whether the legislator means the performance of all costs by the advocate, or if it’s about some reasonable amount. Aram Orbelyan replied that any advocate expense is subject to compensation: “The regulations of the Civil Procedure Code are about compensation, and do not directly correspond with this article, it is the recovery of the amount from the losing party in favor of the winning party as an advocate expense, and at that time the legislator acted on the logic that it should be reasonable, if you have paid more due to advocate service, that’s your problem, but they will transfer you the amount that the legislator assumes.”
The respondent side had stated in the motion that compared to other cases, 5 million drams is a small number, to which the prosecutor asked what comparison was the basis for considering this amount a small amount. Aram Orbelyan replied that in another case of illegal property confiscation, the advance payment was 50 million drams: “Based on our experience, 5 million drams will not be enough for the entire volume of the case. The idea of it being an advance payment is that if we continue the case and bring it to completion, it’s about a much larger amount, because if I simply divide 5 million by 90 thousand, it comes to 46.2 hours, including added value.”
The prosecutor objected to the motion, saying that according to the law, a lawsuit has been filed in the court on behalf of the Republic of Armenia with different expectations, and during the trials, the 6 billion drams could be consumed by presenting motions as costs paid to advocates: “I think the law did not provide for these advocate costs to be presented to the court to such an extent and be considered a reasonable amount. I will also note that no evidence has been presented to the court regarding the 5 million to be provided as an advance payment. In our claim, by stating about 6 billion 500 million drams, we meant that during 2006-2021, Mihran Poghosyan alienated these amounts to other persons or it was not identified, and 460 million drams, which is the balance of monetary funds, but not in bank accounts, that is, the study revealed that we have not seen such monetary movement in bank accounts that could also be under arrest, there may be a small amount, but it is not 5 million and more. It is self-serving to remove the arrest from accounts for the purpose of making a payment in the amount of the advance payment.”
Tigran Yenokyan also noted that it has been revealed that part of the real estate belonging to Mihran Poghosyan is mortgaged: ‘The loans have not been repaid on time, and even, if I’m not mistaken, there is a letter stating that Mihran Poghosyan has been blacklisted.'”
According to Iravaban.net, subsequently, advocate Aram Orbelyan asked the plaintiff side several questions to clarify the basis of the claim, and the court’s decision regarding this motion will be sent to the parties on October 21.
The next court hearing in this case will take place on October 30.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
