A court hearing was held today, October 22, in the Anti-Corruption Civil Court regarding the case of confiscation of allegedly illegally obtained property and monetary funds belonging to former Yerevan Mayor, current Member of Parliament Taron Margaryan and his family members. The hearing was presided over by Judge Karapet Badalyan.
According to Iravaban.net, during this session, Ruzanna Khudaverdyan, prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property, said that financial questions were presented by the respondent’s representative Benik Galstyan, and it would be effective to voice these questions again, after which they would try to answer them in sequence.
The representative of respondents Taron Margaryan and Gohar Sargsyan, Benik Galstyan, asked what method the competent authority used to evaluate expenses – payments, property acquisitions, the availability of legal funds at the time of execution, according to the exact sequence of financial flows, annual legal income versus different types of annual expenses.
The economist responded that the annual method was applied, meaning total annual income and total annual expenses, but with some reservations: “For example, there were expenses directed to the minimum consumer basket, in that case those expenses were calculated first, or there were properties acquired at year-end, there was some deviation from that method, but since the methodology has recently changed and this calculation will also be aligned with the methodology that has been in effect for the last 2 years, this is subject to change.”
Prosecutor Khudaverdyan added that the lawsuit was filed back in 2022, during which time the prosecutor’s office’s general approach was to perform annual calculations, but in the last two years the calculation methodology and analysis have been improved: “At this point, almost all our cases are already being aligned with daily calculation logic, which reflects our calculations much more accurately and makes it much clearer how the competent authority performed this calculation. In this case as well, we are planning to recalculate using daily calculation logic to make the calculation clearer.”
According to the prosecutor, although this methodology was chosen, Galstyan’s questions are mainly such that they can be voiced at this session and answers can be provided.
The respondent’s representative Benik Galstyan said: “In essence, a legitimate change took place in light of this circumstance, as certain discrepancies were precisely conditioned by the fact that the competent authority performed the calculation, in my opinion, according to its convenience, that is, from the perspective of placing more financial burden on the respondent. In this matter, if the competent authority responsibly declared that a calculation change will be made, in this case the majority of questions will either be eliminated or there will be different questions.”
He noted that the majority of the presented questions relate to the chosen methodology, and in this session, he should try to voice questions that are not related to the calculation, as these will need to be modified later.
The respondent’s other representative inquired whether there would be a change in the basis and subject matter of the claim, to which the prosecutor said that since the decision regarding daily calculations was made recently, accordingly, a motion to modify the claim basis and subject matter will be filed.
According to Iravaban.net, a power of attorney was also submitted to the court, by which Taron Margaryan authorized advocate Tigran Khurshudyan to represent him in the specified case for a 2-year term.
The respondent side noted that according to the relevant expert conclusion of 2022, the average investment value of construction costs for the house located on Arno Babajanyan Street, the total construction value amounted to 507 million 150 thousand drams, which were incurred from September 2005 to September 2007.
Galstyan said that according to available data, the construction permit for the house at that address was received on November 9, 2006, in which case how could the expert conclude that a residential house was built on the real estate subject to investigation from August 17, 2005, to January 18, 2008, and in that case, on what basis were construction investment costs of 253.6 million drams calculated for the period of September 2005 to October 2006?
The prosecutor responded that they had additionally studied the expert’s conclusion, confusion arose from the fact that the construction permit certificate was issued in 2005, they simply indicated the examination value starting from 2005, and based on that it was written in the calculation from 2005, but in reality the construction was implemented starting from 2006.
One of the questions noted that Taron Margaryan participated in various elective position elections and during pre-election periods, pre-election foundation accounts were opened in his name as prescribed by law, the respondent side tried to clarify whether all deposits made to these accounts are considered Margaryan’s personal transactions according to the competent authority or not.
The economist answered that changes will again be made regarding the methodology, but until then, the competent authority has found that it is not an account related to an individual.
The respondent’s representative directed other questions to the economist regarding the performance of calculations, the latter showed in table form how the calculation was performed, what expenses were taken into account.
Tigran Khurshudyan said that in the next session they should try to bring the calculations and financial matters into general form.
To the presiding judge’s question about how much time is needed to perform the recalculation, the prosecutor said that taking into account that besides recalculation a motion also needs to be submitted, 3 weeks would be sufficient to perform these actions. She also noted that these calculations would be presented to the party in advance before the session so that they could make inquiries regarding it.
The session was postponed, the next one will take place on November 19.
Details in the video.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
