A court hearing took place in the Criminal Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge Karen Amiryan and with the participation of Judges Armen Hovhannisyan and Mesrop Makyan, regarding the case of Vahagn Vermishyan, former Chairman of the Urban Development Committee.
According to Iravaban.net, during this court session, defendants Vahagn Vermishyan, John Farkhoyan, their advocates Yerem Sargsyan, Mnatsakan Shahgaldyan, and defendant Gagik Galstyan’s advocate Armen Feroyan delivered their defense speeches.
Regarding the charge of giving money to Vahagn Vermishyan in an envelope, defendant John Farkhoyan stated that there is no such evidence in the criminal case, and he was surprised by the prosecutor’s statements.
“In reality, Vahagn Vermishyan and I have been friends for a long time, and let’s not detach from reality – a friend cannot give a bribe to a friend; at least, I’ve never heard of such a thing in my life. The same prosecutor Aghajanyan made a mysterious analysis of what motivated Vahagn Vermishyan’s diligence in trying to help me. It’s clear to everyone that there are higher values in this life than money – it’s human relationships, friendly relationships, for which I’m very grateful to Vahagn Vermishyan for trying to help me and my son in some way,” said Farkhoyan.
According to him, in his very first testimony, he mentioned his close relationship with Vermishyan. During another meeting, Vermishyan asked for $1,500 to transfer for his son’s tuition, and he transferred $2,000 equivalent in euros.
“I found out, I expressed my opinion to Vahagn Vermishyan, warned him, said ‘be careful, I think they’re following you,’ because when sitting in a cafe, I saw that he was being followed, and I warned him. After that, I would have to be at least feeble-minded to know and understand that Vermishyan was being followed, and then go in front of the Ramada Hotel, get out of the car, walk to the entrance, and under those lighting conditions, under those cameras, give him a bribe,” he noted.
John Farkhoyan noted that they tried to find a contradiction regarding this episode and “build a bubble” on all of this. Judge Armen Hovhannisyan asked about the purpose of this last expression and why it should have been done, to which Farkhoyan said he has his own separate opinion on this.
Advocate Armen Feroyan, defending Gagik Galstyan, insisted on their submitted appeal in his defense speech. He noted that during the interrogations, the body conducting the proceedings also formed the opinion that Gagik Galstyan could have given the money to Vermishyan for the acquisition of Jim Torosyan’s commemorative medals.
“Well, if it was a bribe, if he was giving it for Vazgen Poghosyan to receive the title of ‘Honorary Builder,’ why is Vermishyan saying ‘no, no, don’t give it, don’t do such a thing, I don’t need it,’ meaning it’s clearly visible in that video that Gagik Galstyan is forcibly giving that money, and he’s saying you’re not alone, it’s not just you who’s going to do it, we all need to contribute (Iravaban.net: referring to the acquisition of Jim Torosyan’s commemorative medals).”
According to the advocate, witnesses confirmed in their testimonies that they were present during the conversation between Gagik Galstyan and Vahagn Vermishyan, noting that they also wanted to participate in the acquisition and donation of such medals.
Regarding the episode of providing concrete to Vermishyan, he noted that there is a conversation between Vahagn Vermishyan and Gagik Galstyan in the wiretaps, where Vahagn Vermishyan said it must be given for money, Gagik Galstyan sent it, and Vermishyan transferred the money.
“We insist on our submitted appeal and request that it be satisfied,” Feroyan concluded his speech.
Judge Mesrop Makyan said that the conversation about providing concrete shows Gagik Galstyan’s dissatisfaction and asked why this dissatisfaction arose if it was for money. The advocate said that the company didn’t engage in concrete sales at all, they didn’t manage to provide it to others, and there was no dissatisfaction from a financial perspective.
Defendant Vazgen Poghosyan drew attention to the fact that his cases went to the Government on September 17 after Vermishyan’s signature, they started wiretapping them in October and November, and arrested them in February of the following year: “What bribe can we talk about, do they do the work and then give a bribe, or do they take the bribe and then do the work?”
Mnatsakan Shahgaldyan, Vahagn Vermishyan’s advocate, stated in his defense speech regarding Natalya Chernikova that she had initially performed extensive work, and insisted that her computer, which contained a large part of the work, was not properly examined.
“In other respects, I fully agree with the positions presented by Farkhoyan and his advocate, I find them more than substantiated, the presented receipt should be recognized as evidence and evaluated with other evidence. Regarding the episodes related to Vazgen Poghosyan and Gagik Galstyan, I again agree with the positions presented by Mr. Feroyan, and, in reality, there is no evidence in the criminal case that shows that Vahagn Vermishyan ever demanded a bribe from Gagik Galstyan or Vazgen Poghosyan, there is no evidence for what purpose he demanded this bribe, for what purpose, for what action,” said Vermishyan’s advocate.
Regarding the episode of fraud, the advocate stated that it should not have been qualified as fraud, as there were no manifestations of abuse of trust between Vermishyan and Zohrap Hovhannisyan. Hovhannisyan stated in his testimonies that he doesn’t consider himself a victim, the value of these projects was $5,000, the amount was convenient for him, and he gave his consent.
In his closing statement, Vahagn Vermishyan once again insisted that he does not plead guilty to all episodes of the charges brought against him.
Regarding the episode of receiving money from John Farkhoyan, Vermishyan stated that this money was given to him by Farkhoyan based on friendly relations to pay for his son’s rental apartment: “John and I have been friends for more than a decade, and to expect that John could give me a bribe for something or for it to cross my mind is impossible, it’s absurd.”
Note that according to the case materials, from October 2019 to February 5, 2020, Natalya Chernikova unjustifiably received a total of 1 million 478 thousand 483 drams in salary and equivalent payments from state funds, without actually performing the work stemming from the committee’s functional responsibilities, which caused significant damage to the legitimate interests of the state.
Vahagn Vermishyan stated the following: “Natalya Chernikova was one of my best students when I was teaching at the Faculty of Architecture, she received her diploma with honors, and when I found out that due to health problems, she specifically had a very serious illness, doctors advised her to move to a country with a dry climate, as the part where she lived was humid. She moved to Armenia, they rented a house, they were living here.”
He stated that Chernikova was proficient in 5 programs, was the author of numerous projects, and her work was always among the best.
Regarding participation in illegal entrepreneurship, he stated that at his daughter’s suggestion, they opened a company, and they didn’t even receive a license for it: “During this time, I’ve been offered to do projects in Yerevan, Moscow, St. Petersburg, I’ve refused, yes, I’ve directed them to my good friends. Several buildings that I was supposed to design, I gave them to design.”
Regarding the episode of acquiring doors and windows, Vermishyan noted that Natalya Chernikova approached him on this issue, asked to provide the phone number of someone dealing with this, Vermishyan inquired from Gagik Galstyan, who provided the details of a man named Mushegh. Vermishyan told Natalya Chernikova in advance to let him know when she’s ready so that he could thank Mushegh. A charge has also been brought on this episode, as it turned out that the latter was Vazgen Poghosyan’s son-in-law.
According to Iravaban.net, Vahagn Vermishyan has been charged with 7 episodes, of which the summaries of two are presented below (summaries of other episodes will be presented subsequently).
- Episode of alleged bribe given by John Farkhoyan to Vahagn Vermishyan at the “Ramada” hotel: The defense presented substantiated arguments regarding the charge on this episode:
Long-term friendship: John Farkhoyan and Vahagn Vermishyan have been friends for more than a decade, which has been confirmed by testimonies from both sides.
Friendly assistance: John Farkhoyan insisted that he provided the money solely for the purpose of helping a friend – to pay the rent for Vahagn Vermishyan’s son’s apartment during his studies.
Legal assessment: The defense emphasized that money provided within the framework of friendly relations cannot be qualified as a bribe. According to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, a bribe implies the receipt of material values by an official for performing or not performing an action within the scope of their authority, which is absent in this case (Iravaban.net: According to Article 435, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia: “Receiving a bribe, that is, receiving, demanding, offering to give a bribe or accepting an offer or promise to give a bribe by an official personally or through an intermediary for himself or another person in the form of property, including money, securities, other payment instrument, right to property, service or any other advantage, for performing or not performing an action within the scope of his power or related influence in favor of the bribe-giver or the person indicated by him”).
Behavior: It is noteworthy that John Farkhoyan had warned Vahagn Vermishyan about possible surveillance. The defense argued that such a warning contradicts the intention of giving a bribe and emphasizes the trustworthy relationship between them.
Amount and circumstances of the money: The defense noted that the amount of transferred money ($2000) and its purpose (apartment rent) correspond to the logic of friendly assistance and cannot be considered as a bribe.
Other facts: While completely refuting the justifications of the preliminary investigation body on this episode, Vahagn Vermishyan’s defense presents a different reality. In a conversation with Iravaban.net, Vahagn Vermishyan’s advocate Alexander Kochubaev described it as the “most amusing episode” of the case. The details are available in Iravaban.net‘s publication.
Conclusion: These arguments were presented as substantiated evidence that the money given by Farkhoyan to Vermishyan cannot be qualified as a bribe. The defense insisted that the charge on this episode should be reviewed, taking into account the presented facts and legal analysis.
- Episode of acquiring Jim Torosyan’s commemorative medals: One of the seven charges brought against Vahagn Vermishyan relates to the medals of architect Jim Torosyan, for which Gagik Galstyan and Vazgen Poghosyan have also been charged. The defense presented substantiated arguments regarding the charge:
Purpose of acquiring the medals: The defense insisted that Gagik Galstyan gave the money to Vahagn Vermishyan for the acquisition of Jim Torosyan’s commemorative medals, not as a bribe. Even the body conducting the proceedings formed this opinion.
Witness confirmation: Witnesses confirmed in their testimonies that they were present during the conversation between Gagik Galstyan and Vahagn Vermishyan and noted that they also wanted to participate in the acquisition and donation of these medals.
Rejected offer: The defense noted that Vahagn Vermishyan even rejected the money offered by Gagik Galstyan for the acquisition of Jim Torosyan’s commemorative medals, saying: “no, no, don’t give it, don’t do such a thing, I don’t need it”.
Chronological discrepancy: Defendant Vazgen Poghosyan noted that his cases went to the Government on September 17 after Vermishyan’s signature, while the wiretapping began in October-November, and the arrest took place in February of the following year.
Legal assessment: Money given for the purpose of acquiring medals cannot be qualified as a bribe. According to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, a bribe implies the receipt of material values by an official for performing or not performing an action within the scope of their authority, which is absent in this case.
Other facts: While completely refuting the justifications of the preliminary investigation body on this episode, Vahagn Vermishyan’s defense presents a different reality. In a conversation with Iravaban.net, Vahagn Vermishyan’s advocate Alexander Kochubaev informed that Vahagn Vermishyan publicly announced the sale of Jim Torosyan’s commemorative medals in August 2019. He personally acquired the medals for $8,000 and handed them over to the museum as a donation. Interestingly, an announcement published on the museum’s Facebook page confirms this story. It states that Vahagn Vermishyan prevented the sale of the medals and personally handed them over to the museum. This contradicts the bribery charge as it shows the open and charitable nature of the actions. The $5,000 later given by Gagik Galstyan, according to Vahagn Vermishyan, was intended for donation to the museum. The details are available in Iravaban.net‘s publication.
Conclusion: The defense insisted on their submitted appeal. The facts presented by the defense call into question the validity of the charges brought by the prosecution against Vahagn Vermishyan and others on this episode, while at the same time testifying to the legality of the transaction between Gagik Galstyan and Vahagn Vermishyan. Based on all this, the charge on this episode should be reviewed, taking into account the presented facts and legal analysis.
Vahagn Vermishyan does not plead guilty to all episodes of the charges brought against him and demands acquittal.
According to Iravaban.net, at the next court session, prosecutor Tsovak Mnatsakanyan and Vahagn Vermishyan’s other advocate Alexander Kochubaev will deliver their speeches.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
