The preliminary court session continued at the Anti-Corruption Civil Court regarding the confiscation case of allegedly illegally obtained property of former SRC Deputy Chairman Armen Sakapethoyan, presided over by Judge Lili Drmeyan.

The Prosecutor General’s Office demands to confiscate in favor of the Republic of Armenia from Armen Sakapethoyan and related persons:

1. Apartment at 15-2 G. Sundukyan St., Arabkir, Yerevan
2. Apartment 11, Building 3, Sasna Tsrer Street, Davtashen, Yerevan
3. Apartment 87, Building 58/20, K. Ulnetsu St., Kanaker-Zeytun, Yerevan
4. Apartment 100, Building 75/1, Halabyan St., Ajapnyak, Yerevan
5. Real estate located at 14 Olimpavan Street, Tsaghkadzor, Kotayk
6. LAND ROVER DEFENDER SE 3.0 vehicle with identification number SALEA7BW9P2111201
7. The right to claim 4,500,000 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to Armen Aslanyan amounting to 8,800,000 AMD
8. The right to claim 192,829 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to Armen Ter-Tachatyan amounting to 20,900,000 AMD
9. The right to claim 2,000,000 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to Edgar Yeganyan amounting to 4,000,000 AMD
10. The right to claim 46,071,268 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to Artak Andreasyan amounting to 113,700,000 AMD
11. The right to claim 18,025,198 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “Yerra” LLC amounting to 995,167,207 AMD
12. The right to claim 1,808,222 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “1SQ Agro” LLC amounting to 47,090,000 AMD
13. The right to claim 1,413,512 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “Almond Agro” CJSC amounting to 1,500,000 AMD
14. The right to claim 64,917,015 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “Best Properties” LLC amounting to 105,942,592 AMD
15. The right to claim 3,150,000 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “Immobilier” LLC amounting to 60,620,380 AMD
16. The right to claim 25,000 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “Armeniak” LLC amounting to 25,000 AMD
17. The right to claim 7,508,064 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “Gevorg Mara” LLC amounting to 18,000,000 AMD
18. The right to claim 525,068 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “Karapi Lich” LLC amounting to 700,000 AMD
19. The right to claim 7,746,107 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “Park Development” LLC amounting to 25,000,000 AMD
20. The right to claim 2,421,146 AMD of the illegal portion of the unreturned part of the loan provided to “S.T.Jacob” LLC amounting to 7,935,000 AMD

• From Areg Sakapethoyan, to confiscate in favor of the RA 652,681 shares of “Almond Agro” CJSC.
• From Hayk Sakapethoyan, to confiscate in favor of the RA:

1. HONDA ENP vehicle
2. LEXUS IS 250 vehicle

• From Armen Sakapethoyan, to confiscate in favor of the RA:

1. 136,604,398 AMD as a balance of illegal funds
2. Amount of 923,509,183 AMD which is not justified by the person’s legal income, has illegal origin, has been transferred to a bona fide acquirer or cannot be identified and confiscated.

According to Iravaban.net, in this case, the respondent side directed questions to the plaintiff regarding the presented evidence.

At the beginning of the session, Nelli Ter-Torosyan, prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property, stated that a recalculation would be made regarding “Almond Agro” CJSC mentioned in the lawsuit, but a motion about it would be presented later.

Armen Sakapethoyan directed his first question to the plaintiff, which concerned the sale of a ZAZ 11 02 car in 1998 and the preceding 1997, as well as the sale of a VAZ 21 00 car during that period.

He noted that he had presented available evidence to the competent authority regarding the last vehicle, which included sales documents: “A situation arises where evidence presented by me has been interpreted to my detriment, particularly, the money generated from the sale of the vehicle was considered illegal on the grounds that there is no evidence serving as the basis for the acquisition of the vehicle – I would ask you to interpret this methodologically.”

The plaintiff’s representative Nelli Ter-Torosyan responded that since the acquisition value of the property has not been preserved, the competent authority cannot make a final judgment about its legality: “Taking into account the presumption of the property having illegal origin, the income received from the alienation of the property was considered illegal, as well as taking into account the fact that you sold it for 500,000 drams, presumably, you should have acquired it for more than that value, while at the corresponding year you did not have that much legal income.”

Armen Harutyunyan, representative of the respondent Armen Sakapethoyan, clarified whether if this data had not been presented, would the 500,000 drams have been less in the calculation, to which the prosecutor said presumably yes, there is other evidence that has been presented in favor of the respondent, while this evidence has been calculated to their detriment, as there was not sufficient legal income during that period.

Armen Sakapethoyan also noted that in other cases, the competent authority has an approach where if illegal income or property is discovered in the period preceding the period under study, it does not participate in the calculation. He asked what explains the competent authority’s different approaches in the same situation.

The prosecutor responded that in cases under her jurisdiction, the study periods and evidence collection periods for such transactions do not coincide, and the competent authority nevertheless evaluates transactions made in the period preceding the period under study.

“The study period has no limitations, we’re talking about the period under review during which acquired property is subject to confiscation. Yes, this period was unlimited, and until the new period under study, the competent authority had access to established property acquisitions – if the property was legal, income was calculated as legal, if illegal, then illegal. Before 2007, the competent authority reviewed and gave legal assessment to the list of corresponding property acquisitions,” said Nelli Ter-Torosyan.

Armen Harutyunyan noted that there is a time period, and properties must exclusively relate to that: “If we’re talking about illegal property outside the period under study, the law prohibits presenting certain claims against that property.”

Presiding Judge Lili Drmeyan clarified from the plaintiff when the receipt of funds from the alienation of vehicles was recorded; the plaintiff said in 2004, while the period under study is 2007.

To the question whether funds received from the alienation of the vehicle are included in any way in the subject of the claim, the prosecutor said the 500,000 drams had been transformed and distributed among other property acquisitions. The judge also asked whether it had been converted into other property for which there is a confiscation claim in the subject of the lawsuit, to which the prosecutor said yes, it had been included.

Armen Sakapethoyan’s next question concerned his period of working as a teacher at Nrnadzor school in 1999-2000 (1 year and several months) and receiving salary. He inquired how the salary was calculated and whether the statistics included supplementary payments given to workers in remote border villages.

The economist of the PG’s Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property, Karlen Apinyan, stated that there is information from the Statistical Committee about average salaries from both public and private sectors, and this data was used.

Nelli Ter-Torosyan clarified: “We have presented data from the Statistical Committee regarding minimum wages on 2 bases – public and private sectors, we received salary data. Why did we take this as a basis? Because for 2004-2012, information is provided by the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, after 2013 by the SRC, and for work activities performed before that, if we find out, we take as basis the data presented by the Statistical Committee, if the person doesn’t provide actual information.”

Varazdat Asatryan, another representative of Armen Sakapethoyan, asked whether the presence or absence of probable income was considered, to which the plaintiff responded that they considered confirmed the fact that the person worked during those years, and the received income was calculated based on data provided by the Statistical Committee.

He emphasized that data regarding receiving 50% supplementary payment would be reviewed if there is a corresponding legal act, that would also be evaluated.

Armen Sakapethoyan said that in 1995 he was registered as an individual entrepreneur, engaged in 2 activities, had gas kiosks, and asked why the plaintiff doesn’t follow the same principle here, applying average income data from the Statistical Committee.

Nelli Ter-Torosyan noted that merely the fact that he was registered as an individual entrepreneur doesn’t imply he also received income: “There should be corresponding data regarding income receipt, meaning you should present that you conducted business activity, and we, guided by that, will understand whether to calculate the data presented to the Statistical Committee or not.”

Sakapethoyan disagreed with the plaintiff’s representative, as according to his assertion, the legal basis here is precisely his having an IE: “There too (working at Nrnadzor school) it’s known how much I received, here too, there we put average statistics, here we don’t, IE is that legal status which equates to an employment contract.”

The plaintiff’s representative said that data regarding average income is provided for salaries, information about entrepreneurial activity is not provided.

Lawyer Varazdat Asatryan, in response to the plaintiff, said that this issue should be evaluated, an issue of position review by the competent authority may arise.

The prosecutor recorded the following: “It is assumed that the person also incurred expenses, meaning we’re talking about a gas station, this implies renting certain space, installing technical equipment, presence of workers. Merely the fact that the person had an IE and the competent authority was obliged to calculate some income – first, which income are we talking about, if the Statistical Committee at that time provides salary data taking into account public and private sectors, and if so, what are those expense directions that the competent authority should clarify and the corresponding profit that the person had to count as income.”

Varazdat Asatryan countered: “We will present additional grounds that, naturally beyond our will, have not been preserved. Armen Sakapethoyan, being a 17-year-old boy, shouldn’t have assumed that he would need it 30 years later, meaning there was no objective necessity to preserve documents. After all, not all entrepreneurs in the state pursued income, this methodology, probability is a global issue, the competent authority should review this approach.”

At this session, the responding party also directed other questions regarding the presented evidence.

The next preliminary court session in the case will take place on February 3.

Mariam Shahnazaryan