A hearing was held today, February 21, at the Anti-Corruption Court regarding the case of confiscation of allegedly illicitly acquired property belonging to Vahagn Vermishyan, the former chairman of the Urban Development Committee and former chief architect of Stepanavan city. The hearing was presided over by Judge Karapet Badalyan.
According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of the session, Prosecutor Naira Artashesyan from the Department of Confiscation of Illicitly Acquired Property presented a motion.
The motion concerned the recognition of a missed deadline as valid and the provision of evidence. She stated that during the court session on December 5, 2024, the responding party submitted a motion to allow written evidence concerning the lease agreement and inspection act for the property located on the specified street in Saint Petersburg.
One of the key issues in the case is that the prosecution has not legally justified the grounds for extending the investigation period regarding the respondents to January 1, 2006. The defense maintains that this circumstance significantly affects the outcome of the case.
The plaintiff has agreed to allow this evidence under the conditions of missed deadlines, taking into account the fact that these documents have been and remain in the possession of the participating party.
On January 20, 2025, the plaintiff sent an inquiry to the participating party, Margarit Vermishyan, requesting evidence of the acquisition of real estate property at the specified address in Saint Petersburg, but no response has been received to date.
According to the prosecutor, information about income received from property rental has been presented, but to assess its legitimacy, it is necessary to clarify the basis for acquiring this real estate: “The purchase contract for the aforementioned property must be presented to the court, which will allow for the assessment of the property’s legitimacy.”
Accordingly, she requested that the missed deadline for obtaining evidence be considered valid and that Margarit Vermishyan be required to provide the relevant evidence to the plaintiff.
The respondent’s representative, Armen Melkumyan, objected to the motion, noting that since the respondents’ representatives only learned about the inquiry during the aforementioned session, the relevant hearing was postponed to allow time to respond to the plaintiff’s inquiry.
“From the mentioned document, we learned that for the assessment of the legitimacy of previously submitted evidence by the respondent, the plaintiff needs to possess evidence of property acquisition (value and purchase period), particularly evidence regarding the property located at Saint Petersburg, Gorokhovaya Street, Building 26, Lit. A, Space 3N,” he said.
The lawyer insisted that information regarding the purchase period of this property has already been presented to the court and the plaintiff, emphasizing that according to the “Law on Confiscation of Illicitly Acquired Property,” the term “proceedings for confiscation of illicitly acquired property” defines a procedure that begins with the decision to initiate grounds for investigation, includes the filing of a civil confiscation claim, and ends with a final judicial act that has entered into legal force or on other grounds provided by law.
According to Armen Melkumyan, the circumstances serving as the basis for extending the investigation period concerning the respondents until January 1, 2006, have not been disclosed and justified within the framework of this case.
Summarizing his statement and addressing the issue of providing the property purchase contract, Melkumyan said: “We deem it necessary to note that it is currently not in Margarit Vermishyan’s possession, the latter has no information about where it might be, therefore the mentioned document cannot be provided. At the same time, we inform that if the mentioned document were in respondent Margarit Vermishyan’s possession, it would be immediately provided to the plaintiff purely for informational purposes.”
The plaintiff’s representative noted that these pieces of evidence are in the person’s possession, and the document expected through the motion is necessary to assess the legitimacy of both the property and the income received from rent.
“This contract, in our deep conviction, is essential for resolving the case or issue, for resolving the case entirely insofar as it relates to the assessment of legitimate income presented by you, and for resolving the issue insofar as it becomes necessary to assess the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the lease agreement,” stated Artashesyan.
Vermishyan’s representative countered by saying that despite the fact that the plaintiff is authorized by law to conduct investigations and make inquiries about obtaining contracts outside of Armenia, it has not adequately implemented this and has not applied the appropriate tools.
The defense side specifically emphasized that the prosecution, having all necessary legal tools, has not taken sufficient steps to obtain contracts located outside of Armenia. This is a significant omission since it concerns property located abroad.
Summary
In concluding, it should be noted that in the case of confiscation of illicitly acquired property of former Urban Development Committee Chairman Vahagn Vermishyan, the defense side, represented by lawyer Armen Melkumyan, substantiated two essential circumstances:
- The unjustified extension of the investigation period by the prosecution until 2006
- Insufficient application of the legally established toolkit for obtaining documents from abroad
These circumstances may not only have a significant impact on the further course of the case but also question the legitimacy of the evidence obtained so far. The motion hearing concluded, and Judge Karapet Badalyan announced that the decision will be sent to the parties in the form of a separate judicial act, which will also set the date and time of the next court session.
Details are available in the video.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
