Vahagn Vermishyan’s advocate Alexander Kochubaev addressed the fourth episode of alleged fraud charges against his client in his closing speech.
In this episode, Vahagn Vermishyan was charged with fraudulently using his official position to receive $2,500 USD (equivalent to 1,193,575 AMD) from Zohrab Hovhannisyan for services actually worth $2,500 USD, which he allegedly misappropriated through fraud.
The prosecution presents two arguments regarding this episode: first, Zohrab Hovhannisyan’s testimony that he gave $2,500 to Vahagn Vermishyan and $2,500 to Gagik Panosyan, and second, Gagik Panosyan’s testimony that he had no discussion about money and only received half of the amount.
“The person who was allegedly misled by Mr. Vermishyan insists that he was not only not misled, but his issue was given a more affordable solution, and in this regard, this person does not consider himself deceived; on the contrary, he believes that through Mr. Vermishyan’s actions, he received material benefit, because elsewhere the order would have cost $15,000, while through Mr. Vermishyan, the issue would be resolved for $5,000,” noted Alexander Kochubaev.
According to him, Vermishyan said in Zohrab Hovhannisyan’s presence: “Give the 5,000, two-and-a-half stays here, two-and-a-half you’ll take and give to architect Gagik Panosyan, and under these conditions, when the person was definitely aware that two-and-a-half would remain with Mr. Vermishyan for future expenses, what was the state of being misled, what was the state of using official position that has been considered as fraud?”
When presiding judge Karen Amiryan asked the advocate who should have transferred the other part of the money – $2,500, the advocate replied: “Not me, Zohrab Hovhannisyan answered this question, that he personally had to give 2,500 to start the project, the 2,500 that was with Mr. Vermishyan, Mr. Vermishyan had to see if the order was properly completed, because, please note, the victim was his close friend’s friend.”
Regarding the fraud episode, the advocate stated that it should not have been qualified as fraud, since there were no manifestations of breach of trust between Vermishyan and Zohrab Hovhannisyan, and Hovhannisyan has stated in his testimonies that he does not consider himself a victim.
Brief summary of the fraud episode:
The defense presented substantial arguments regarding the charges in this episode:
- Counter-arguments:
- Zohrab Hovhannisyan, as a friend of Vahagn Vermishyan’s close acquaintance, confirmed the legitimacy of the transaction,
- There was no breach of trust, considering their close relationship.
- Transaction transparency:
- All transaction conditions were known to Zohrab Hovhannisyan in advance,
-
$2,500 was kept with Vahagn Vermishyan for paying other expenses related to service delivery by the company after project completion, while $2,500 was given to Gagik Panosyan as payment for project preparation by the company.
- Absence of victim and material benefit:
- Zohrab Hovhannisyan not only doesn’t consider himself a victim but has received significant material benefit, moreover, Zohrab Hovhannisyan’s procedural status as a victim has been terminated,
- Market value: Received the service for $5,000 instead of $15,000.
- Gagik Panosyan factor:
- Gagik Panosyan’s testimony about the absence of monetary discussion cannot serve as a basis for Vermishyan’s guilt,
- The money transfer mechanism was transparent and agreed upon.
- Other facts: While completely refuting the preliminary investigation body’s justifications in this episode, Vahagn Vermishyan’s defense presents a different reality. In conversation with Iravaban.net, Vahagn Vermishyan’s advocate Alexander Kochubaev noted that the judge finds Vermishyan guilty of fraud despite recording the absence of damage in the verdict. Details are available in Iravaban.net‘s publication.
Conclusion: The defense substantiates the groundlessness of the fraud charge based on three key facts: the close relationship between Zohrab Hovhannisyan and Vahagn Vermishyan, the preliminary transparency of transaction conditions, and the fact of material benefit received by the victim. Considering also Zohrab Hovhannisyan’s clear position about not being a victim and the termination of Zohrab Hovhannisyan’s procedural status as a victim, this episode of the charge lacks legal justification.
Vahagn Vermishyan does not plead guilty to all episodes of the charges and demands acquittal.
Details in the video.
