The Anti-Corruption Civil Court held a hearing on November 19 regarding the confiscation of allegedly illicit property and funds belonging to former Yerevan Mayor Taron Margaryan and his family members, presided over by Judge Karapet Badalyan.
According to Iravaban.net, all participants except Taron Margaryan’s representative Benik Galstyan opposed journalists’ motion to film the court session. However, the court granted the journalists’ request, with the condition not to film economist Irina Mkrtchyan.
At this session, the prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegal Property, Ruzanna Khudaverdyan, presented her motion from the previous session regarding changes to the basis and subject of the claim. Khudaverdyan had submitted a motion to refine the calculations, making them based on daily calculations.
“We have completely recalculated, changing the calculation logic. The calculations have changed, resulting in changes to the illegality percentages of certain properties, which naturally affected the entire lawsuit,” said Khudaverdyan.
The following changes have been made to the confiscation claims in the lawsuit:
- The entire summer house #2 in Jermuk city, Vayots Dzor region.
- 92.1% of the commercial public center at 3/2 Avan, Yerevan
(Previously considered 98.2% illegal).
- 97.9% of the house at 77/7 Babajanyan Street, Yerevan, previously 99.81%.
- The entire residential house at 28 Marshal Babajanyan Street, Avan administrative district, Yerevan, previously 93.7%.
- 96.5% of the house at 10/10 Safaryan Street, Avan administrative district, Yerevan (previously 98.3%).
- 96.5% of house #10 on Safaryan Street: “These properties have been separated from one address, therefore their illegality percentages coincide.”
- 97.9% of the property at 24/1 Babajanyan Street, Avan administrative district, previously 99.81%.
Next, four types of equipment with component parts at market value, which have not been changed and are also subject to complete confiscation.
- Buildings at 1/1 Babajanyan Street, Yerevan, their entire market value.
- 99.8% of TOYOTA CAMRY 2.5 GAS vehicle, previously entire.
- 6.3% of TOYOTA COROLLA 1.6 P vehicle, previously entire.
- 96.1% of LEXUS LX 570 vehicle, previously entire.
- 98.5% of LEXUS LS 600 H 5.0 GAS, previously entire.
- 100% market value of participation in “Robert-Taron” LLC.
Changes have also been made to monetary claims:
Subject to confiscation:
- 146,857,931 AMD, which is not justified by Taron Margaryan’s legal income and has illegal origin. This amount has changed somewhat, with an increase: previously the claim was for 100,417,533 AMD.
- 828,759,348 AMD as illegal income remainder, which is the amount generated from the transformation and use of illegally obtained property. This has also increased, previously it was 755,154,928 AMD.
The prosecutor also noted that two properties have been removed from the lawsuit, which after recalculation were considered justified by legal income. These are garages #3 and #7 of building #8 in Sayat-Nova district of Yerevan, which the prosecutor’s office had initially demanded to confiscate as illegally obtained property.
To the judge’s question about whether they had reduced the illegal portions, prosecutor Ruzanna Khudaverdyan answered that the illegal portions of certain properties had decreased, material property changes occurred only regarding the above-mentioned 2 properties and monetary claims: “Monetary claims have not decreased, they have increased as a result of recalculation.”
Respondent Taron Margaryan’s representative Benik Galstyan asked whether there were any more substantial changes, or if it only concerned principal changes.
The prosecutor responded that besides calculations, changes were made only in 1-2 sections, for example, related to examinations, as there were certain typos: “However, there were no principal changes.”
Then the respondent’s other representative Mushegh Arakelyan clarified whether there was any possibility that something would change in the lawsuit regarding the subject matter, to which the prosecutor replied: “As of this moment, no.”
During this court session, the examination of this motion was completed, and the decision will be made in the form of a separate judicial act.
The date of the next court session is not yet known.
Lilit Khachatryan, Mariam Abrahamyan
