The court hearing in the case of former Police Chief Vladimir Gasparyan continued today, January 22, at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Suren Khachatryan.
The indictment states that Gasparyan, being aware that Susanna Sardaryan (Gasparyan), who was in a de facto marital relationship with him, never reported to the Ministry of Defense Military Police service and never performed her official duties derived from the position, paid her a salary.
The state suffered damages amounting to 17 million 275 thousand 721 drams in particularly large amounts.
According to Iravaban.net, four witnesses were questioned during this session.
Anania Harutyunyan was the first of the summoned witnesses to be questioned. He stated that he doesn’t personally know any of the trial participants. He noted that when questioned by the investigator about the case, he also stated that he had never seen or known Vladimir Gasparyan and other persons involved in the case.
The witness said that he was involved in construction work at the police department, and during that time, if there were any issues, he received relevant instructions from his immediate supervisor, Firdus.
Public prosecutor Armen Muradyan clarified whether Firdus was the “foreman” during construction, to which the witness gave an affirmative answer. To another question about whether he received any assignments from any police employee during that time, the witness answered no.
Vladimir Gasparyan’s defense lawyer Alexander Kochubaev inquired about what kind of work they performed, to which the witness said they carried out various works, both at the city department and the ministry.
Public prosecutor Arsen Gevorgyan asked the witness if he remembers which years he’s talking about, the witness answered it was after 2010, lasting about 2-3 years.
“During your work, did you ever see police employees, including female employees, come to check your work, guide, or give instructions?” “We didn’t receive specific instructions, I wasn’t paying that much attention, I can’t remember.”
The first witness’s questioning ended, and Sargis Hovhannisyan was questioned next.
He also stated that he doesn’t know any of the trial participants and is seeing them for the first time. When questioned by the investigator about the case, he said he knew nothing about it, there was construction being done at the police department at that time, his father was a truck driver who transported necessary items.
He said he was there with his father only once, and when the prosecutor asked who organized the work, the witness said he doesn’t know, can’t say. The prosecutor also asked whether any other relative was there, to which he gave a negative answer.
The witness was also unaware of who handled the financial matters for these works.
“Did any police employee give you instructions or directions about how to carry out your actions?” “Not to me, maybe to my father.”
When asked approximately which years he’s talking about, the witness said 2012, 2013. The public prosecutor said there was a contradiction regarding the presence of other relatives among the involved persons, as well as regarding recognizing a specific police employee.
The witness said the relative was his uncle, and among police employees, he saw a man named Razmik when financial matters were being discussed with his father.
The second witness’s questioning ended. Next, witness Vahagn Galstyan was questioned.
He said he knows Vladimir Gasparyan but has had no relationship with anyone.
The witness’s questioning was related to his work activities; he worked as an accountant in various stores.
The prosecutor asked how the police procurement process took place, to which he replied that purchases were made from various institutions, contracts were sent, invoices were issued, and a representative with appropriate authorization would come and take them.
“Do you have any information about Vladimir Gasparyan’s or his wife’s participation in these processes?” “No.” “Did they ever visit, make purchases?” “I don’t think Vladimir Gasparyan ever visited, if he had, they would have mentioned it, I don’t know his wife, don’t know.” “In your opinion, if his wife came, wouldn’t they inform about that either?” “If they recognized her, I think they would have informed.”
The third witness’s questioning ended, and witness Armen Gevorgyan was questioned after him.
He stated that he is the founder-director of “Luxe” LLC. The witness noted that among the trial participants, he knows Vladimir Gasparyan (since the 1980s) and is in friendly relations with him.
He was questioned by the investigator regarding purchases from his gift shop by various state bodies, including the police.
“They asked who from internal affairs came and made purchases at your place: first, let me clarify that when people come to make purchases, I don’t see anyone because I’m sitting in my office, besides, when institutions come to shop, including from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the economic department with its employees handled the purchases, they just kept me informed that people from this institution came, what price offers should be made,” said the witness.
According to him, the police employee would come, buy what was needed for the given occasion, and the manager’s name was never mentioned at that time.
“Did Vladimir Gasparyan’s wife, Susanna Gasparyan, ever have any involvement in the procurement process?” “Although I am very close with him (Vladimir Gasparyan), I have never had any dealings with Susanna Gasparyan, I don’t even know her.”
Alexander Kochubaev asked whether there were cases in the economic department where souvenirs were sold to the Ministry of Internal Affairs at unjustifiably high prices or one price was written but sold at a different price, the witness said they used the established 20% discount.
The presiding judge announced that summons were also sent to witnesses Hmayak Avetisyan and Artash Barseghyan, the first returned marked “unknown” and the second “unclaimed.”
The court decided to send summons to the latter through the police and also notify other witnesses from the witness list for questioning.
The next session in this case will take place on February 19.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
