A hearing was held in the Anti-Corruption Civil Court, presided over by Judge Karapet Badalyan, examining the Prosecutor General’s Office’s Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property’s lawsuit against Armenia’s 3rd President Serzh Sargsyan and his daughter Satenik Sargsyan, demanding the confiscation of allegedly illegally obtained property.
During this session, declarations submitted by Serzh Sargsyan and his wife from various years were examined. The respondent’s representative noted that the deposit mentioned in the declaration actually belongs to Rita Sargsyan, to which prosecutor Tigran Yenoqyan countered that the real beneficiary is Serzh Sargsyan, which hasn’t been justified by legal income: “Moreover, this declaration once again confirms point 10 of the decision on distributing the burden of proof, which proves that Rita Sargsyan is a person affiliated with Serzh Sargsyan.”
Lawyer Vahagn Grigoryan asked whether the claim demanding the confiscation of Rita Sargsyan’s deposit as property belonging to Serzh Sargsyan is based on the assertion that Serzh Sargsyan is the beneficiary of property belonging to Rita Sargsyan, or on the assertion that property acquired during marriage belongs to both by right of joint ownership and should therefore also be considered Serzh Sargsyan’s. The prosecutor said both formulations are applicable, but it was also considered that the deposit attribution was carried out as a transaction made under Serzh Sargsyan’s control during marriage.
According to him, at this stage, both the legal regulation regarding the real beneficiary institution and the property belonging to an individual are being proven. When distributing the burden of proof, the court noted that the prosecution must prove that the monetary funds mentioned in the subject of the claim belong to Serzh Sargsyan in the form of deposits, and in Rita Sargsyan’s case, it must be proven that the real beneficiary is the deposit invested in her name and accrued interest. The plaintiff must prove that Serzh Sargsyan is the real beneficiary of the building at 66 Teryan Street and second parking spaces registered under Satenik Sargsyan’s name.
Respondent’s representative Vahagn Grigoryan said: “In its decision on distributing the burden of proof, the court has not identified as significant facts for the case examination either the acquisition of this deposit during marriage or Serzh Sargsyan’s ownership of this deposit by right of joint property. Therefore, although the competent authority’s representative claims that both institutions have been invoked by them, not only were they not invoked, but it can be said that no institution was invoked at all.”
Grigoryan noted that according to the lawsuit, during 2016, Serzh Sargsyan received a salary of 11,765,504 drams, while according to the declaration, besides the mentioned amount, Serzh Sargsyan also received a salary of 2,082,093 drams from the Presidential Staff.
Yenoqyan reported that the investigation revealed Serzh Sargsyan received a salary of 11,765,504 drams from the Presidential Staff, but they received no information about the other amount: “Therefore, I cannot say what it was listed as, and why it is separately mentioned in points 7.1 and 7.2 that a salary of 2,082,093 drams was received from the same place. Most likely, this refers to compensation received for business trips, which the competent authority does not consider as income since it is allocated targeted money for spending during business trips.”
In response to the prosecutor, Vahagn Grigoryan said that even if it was money provided for business trips, there is no reason why it should be considered a payment equivalent to work compensation and, accordingly, legal income.
Examining that year’s declaration, the lawyer noted that in 2018, the competent authority calculated a salary of 15,714,614 drams, while the declaration mentions salaries of 15,470,010 and 689,078 drams. He emphasized that the declaration submitter indicated awareness of criminal liability under Articles 314.2 and 314.3 of the Criminal Code for providing false information in the declaration. The prosecutor added that there is a note stating that one-time payments exceeding 2 million drams must be made non-cash, but they haven’t noticed such transactions.
According to the respondent’s side, the evidence present in the case and presented by the competent authority should be viewed from different angles. The lawyer stated that even when the competent authority indicates that evidence is not placed at the basis of the claim but is subject to examination, theoretically, they might contain “information confirming the truthfulness of the respondent’s claims.”
“We have presented our explanations and all necessary evidence about how the financial means were formed by which Satenik Sargsyan acquired the apartment in the building at 66 Teryan Street,” said Grigoryan.
The respondent’s other representative stated that Satenik Sargsyan has presented that the apartment funds were given by her grandparents as a gift: “We have also presented evidence that Alexander Sargsyan, who is Satenik Sargsyan’s uncle, covered his parents’ monthly expenses who lived in Nagorno-Karabakh. We have presented these two pieces of evidence and shown that these funds arose from these means, meaning the apartment was purchased with money given by the grandparents.”
He stated that the declarations confirm Alexander Sargsyan’s declaration of substantially large amounts.
Prosecutor Tigran Yenoqyan noted the following regarding these statements: “Even if Alexander Sargsyan sent certain amounts to his parents, I don’t exclude that, but the logical connection breaks down as to how the grandparents sent it to Satenik Sargsyan. The respondent’s side hasn’t presented evidence regarding this, and we maintain that these don’t correspond to reality, since during Satenik Sargsyan’s registration period she wasn’t yet married, lived together with her parents, and based on this presumption, we have indicated that the real beneficiary of that apartment was Serzh Sargsyan.”
The session was postponed, and the examination of presented evidence will continue at the next session.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
