On January 20, a court session was held in the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Narine Avagyan, regarding the forfeiture of illegally obtained assets belonging to Armenia’s 2nd President Robert Kocharyan and his associated persons.
The Department for Forfeiture of Illegally Obtained Assets of the Prosecutor General’s Office has filed a lawsuit against Robert Kocharyan and his wife Bella Kocharyan, daughter Gayane Kocharyan, her husband Vigen Chatinyan, two sons Levon and Sedrak Kocharyan, and their wives – singer Sirusho (Siranush Kocharyan) and Zaruhi Badalyan.
According to Iravaban.net, during this session, Aram Orbelyan, the representative of defendants Robert Kocharyan and Bella Kocharyan, continued presenting the motion regarding the application of statute of limitations from the previous session.
He noted that in the written version of the motion, he presented several grounds for applying the statute of limitations, of which he detailed only one during this session.
Orbelyan again emphasized that the study decision was made on October 8, 2020, and the lawsuit in this civil case was filed with the court on October 11, 2023.
In parallel, the basis for initiating the illegal asset forfeiture proceedings was Robert Kocharyan’s involvement as a defendant on February 12, 2019, and his alleged involvement in corrupt activities.
Citing Article 8 of the “Law on Forfeiture of Illegally Obtained Assets,” the lawyer said this provision establishes one case for applying the statute of limitations – when the study has lasted longer than 3 years. In the motion, the respondent’s side insisted that the general statute of limitations is 3 years, which begins from the moment when a person knew or should have known about the violation of their rights.
Aram Orbelyan summarized: “I request to apply the statute of limitations and make a decision to completely reject the lawsuit filed in this case, to reject the claim on the grounds of applying the statute of limitations.”
Harutyun Harutyunyan, representative of defendants Sedrak Kocharyan, Zaruhi Badalyan, Gayane Kocharyan, and Vigen Chatinyan, asked whether the party believes that the statute of limitations in this case should be 3 years rather than 10 years.
Aram Orbelyan responded that two parallel statute of limitations periods are in effect – one operates with a 3-year term under Article 8 of the law, the other with a 10-year term, the latter in case there is presumed damage caused by corrupt activities.
“Three limitation periods can operate simultaneously, and whichever of the 3 applies will be in effect – one is the 3-year study period, meaning regardless of other terms, if the study is more than 3 years, the statute of limitations is applicable; one is the 10-year period from the transaction if it concerns compensation for damage from corrupt activities, but parallel to that, the 3-year period from the moment of knowledge can also apply, regardless of whether it’s corrupt or non-corrupt, for any claim,” he said.
Harutyunyan also inquired which day is acceptable for the start of the limitation period in cases of corrupt activities. Orbelyan replied that any property acquired before October 10, 2013 (10 years before filing the lawsuit) can be considered within that timeframe if it is proven that the plaintiff noticed any corrupt activity within its scope.
Gevorg Kocharyan, Senior Prosecutor of the Department for Forfeiture of Illegally Obtained Assets, during the discussion of the motion, again insisted on his previously stated position that issues discussed in these proceedings should always be considered within the framework of the “Law on Forfeiture of Illegally Obtained Assets,” and other normative legal acts are not applicable.
“Yes, the study began on October 8, 2020, for which the three-year period expires on October 9, 2023, on which day the lawsuit was properly submitted to the court, particularly by postal method. The October 11 date mentioned in the available evidence is not the submission date but the receipt date.
…The three-year period has been observed, the deadlines set for the study have not been violated; by virtue of Article 8, Part 2 of the law, the negative consequences of the statute of limitations are not applicable,” he said.
The defendant’s representative Arthur Hovhannisyan countered, stating that the motion is justified, the protection of state interests or the alleged violation of the state’s right regarding these assets occurred before the law came into force – at the time when these transactions took place and the corresponding assets were acquired. Otherwise, they would be dealing with the application of retroactive law with aggravating force, in which case any property acquired before the law came into force should not be confiscated.
“Regarding the deadlines for filing a lawsuit, the Prosecutor’s representative said there is evidence that the lawsuit was filed on October 9, not 11, we have looked at relevant, admissible evidence. After distributing the burden of proof, one side will prove that it was submitted on the 9th, and the other will obtain corresponding evidence for the facts underlying their objections. Regarding other deadlines, if the applicable law includes Civil Code provisions, after distributing the burden of proof, for each property, the person filing the motion will present with corresponding evidence that the limitation period has expired for this property under this or that article, another under a different article, and, in my deep conviction, in the end no property will remain, that’s why the claim will be subject to complete rejection,” noted Hovhannisyan.
After discussing the motion, the court moved to the question of applicable legal norm. Aram Orbelyan said the applicable legal norms here are the relevant articles of the Civil Code, which set general terms and Article 333 part 11, as well as Article 8 of the law.
“The burden of proof should be distributed as follows – the person submitting the motion must prove that regarding each property mentioned in the subject of the claim, the plaintiff knew at least before October 10, 2020, it must be justified that any property acquired before October 10, 2013, is automatically considered legal, and third, regarding Article 8, it states here that the study can last maximum 3 years, this means it cannot last 3 years and 1 day, 2 days, and establishes that a claim submitted in violation of the terms provided by this article is considered submitted with missed statute of limitations deadline,” he stated.
According to the defendant’s representative, the person submitting the motion must prove that the study lasted more than 3 years, while the plaintiff must prove that the lawsuit was filed on October 9, 2023.
Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan also addressed the issue of acquiring these assets as a result of possible corrupt actions, saying he neither claims nor excludes that the assets assessed as illegal were generated through corrupt actions: “I can clearly assert that the lawsuit was not filed on that basis, the circumstance of being generated through corrupt action has no decisive significance in this case and in other cases in general, conditioned by that, we have not cited such a viewpoint or hypothesis, and, in essence, I won’t give qualification either because I find it has no significance.
The lawsuit is filed not as compensation for damage, but as a separate tool for protecting state interests provided by law, a separate institute.”
According to Kocharyan, the circumstance of the state’s awareness about the transactions also has no significance in this and other proceedings, as in all cases, only Article 8 of the “Law on Forfeiture of Illegally Obtained Assets” is exclusively applicable.
He again emphasized that the study lasted less than 3 years, as it ended with the preparation of the conclusion, which was on October 6, which preceded the submission of the lawsuit, and the lawsuit was filed within the legally prescribed period on October 9.
Presiding Judge Narine Avagyan recorded that the applicable legal norm for applying the statute of limitations in illegal asset forfeiture cases is Article 8 of the law, which derives from the regulation of Article 337, Part 1 of the Civil Code; according to it, the statute of limitations period begins from the day when the person knew or should have known about the violation of their right.
She once again informed the parties that Article 8 of the law provides not only the statute of limitations period but also the procedure for its calculation; based on this, she distributed the burden of proof as follows:
The motion submitter (defendant) must prove that after the study began, the lawsuit was filed in violation of the 3-year period, that is, on October 11, 2020.
The plaintiff must prove that the lawsuit was filed within 3 years after the decision to start the study was made, that is, on October 9, 2023.
To the presiding judge’s question whether the parties need time to present additional evidence, Aram Orbelyan said they need time to submit a motion aimed at obtaining evidence.
The session ended, the court gave time until February 3 to submit motions for obtaining evidence, and the next session was scheduled for February 13.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
