Alexander Kochubayev, Vahagn Vermishyan’s defense attorney, addressed two other episodes in his closing speech – abuse of power and engaging in illegal entrepreneurship.

He noted that since the facts underlying the charges are identical for these episodes, the prosecution hasn’t provided separate relevant data regarding abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship, so his speech would address both equally.

According to the prosecution, one action led to both abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship.

The first episode of charges was presented as follows:

 Vahagn Vermishyan hired Natalia Chernikova at the RA Urban Development Committee as an advisor to the department head with a monthly salary of 314,000 drams, and under these conditions, unjustifiably received a total of 1,478,483 drams in salary and equivalent payments from state funds without actually performing work duties derived from the Committee’s functions.

The defense’s first counterargument related to witness Alvard Grigoryan’s testimony. The latter stated that when speaking with her, Vermishyan said he’s sending someone, and if they’re suitable, they can be hired.

“The basis for employment wasn’t an order, but rather to check if they meet the requirements, and only then hire.”

Regarding Natalia Chernikova’s flexible work schedule, the defense notes: “When did Chernikova finish her work? According to operational intelligence results, at 11-12 at night.”

Throughout the trial, the defense maintained that Chernikova’s work computer wasn’t properly examined, and they didn’t have access to it.

“The first instance court made its verdict as if Deputy Head of Urban Development Committee Nune Petrosyan didn’t testify that Chernikova designed ‘City of the World’, ‘Firdus’, ‘Kond’, ‘Industrial Cluster’, and since all these projects were under her coordination, she was aware of these mega-projects and knew that Natalia Chernikova personally did these projects,” notes Kochubayev.

In substantiating the charges, Chernikova’s testimonies were used, noting that Vermishyan helped with advice and coordinated her work.

The defense raises several rhetorical questions regarding this episode:

• Where is Natalia Chernikova? Vermishyan and Chernikova haven’t been confronted

• How did it happen that the investigator, sitting in his office, without proper application, lifted Chernikova’s preventive measure of not leaving?

• How did it happen that during 4 years, the investigator never needed to perform any actions with Chernikova, who had the procedural status of accused?

• How did it happen that a motion is presented, but the right to cross-examination isn’t exercised in court?

• Where is the iron-clad evidence that the computer was examined and contains no projects?

Regarding the alleged illegal entrepreneurship, Kochubayev noted that the factual data presented for abuse of power is also the basis for this episode.

Here, it mentions granting privileges to “Moss Group” LLC and participating in management.

According to Kochubayev, the charges brought in this episode are unsubstantiated, all events took place in front of cameras.

Vermishyan had no connection with “Moss Group” LLC, especially its management, didn’t provide any patronage or advantage, and didn’t advise any developer to approach Natalia Chernikova for design work.

Brief summary of alleged abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship episodes:

Counter Arguments:

• Witness Alvard Grigoryan’s testimony emphasizing appropriate requirements for employment
• Right to cross-examine Natalia Chernikova wasn’t exercised
• Nune Petrosyan’s testimony that Chernikova implemented mega-projects
• Defense was deprived of the opportunity to examine the computer
• No patronage or advantage was provided to “Moss Group” company

Nature of Episodes:

• The court deemed it impossible to question a key witness
• Questioning would have provided opportunity to prove Vermishyan didn’t engage in illegal entrepreneurship, there were no cases of power abuse or non-working
• Vahagn Vermishyan’s actions that form the basis of charges are creative in nature and cannot be considered illegal entrepreneurship

Legally Unfounded Charges:

• No confrontation between Vermishyan and Chernikova was conducted, and defense motions to summon the latter were rejected in both cases
• Data obtained through operational intelligence measures and computer examination protocols weren’t presented to the defense, and the motion to receive them was also rejected
• All conversations took place in front of cameras, Vermishyan’s words only related to correcting deficiencies in the project

Vahagn Vermishyan doesn’t plead guilty to any episodes of the charges and demands acquittal.

Details are in the video.