The judicial examination of the case regarding the confiscation of allegedly illegally acquired property belonging to “Prosperous Armenia” party leader, former MP, and businessman Gagik Tsarukyan and his affiliated persons continued on February 26 at the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Lili Drmeyan.

According to Iravaban.net, a motion from respondent Gagik Tsarukyan’s representative Harutyun Harutyunyan had been submitted to the court during this session, requesting postponement of the hearing due to ill health.

After discussing the motion with the participation of all parties, the court decided to reject it, informing the respondent’s side that although the attorney’s reason for absence was valid, there was no need to postpone the case examination since Gagik Tsarukyan has another representative in this case.

During this session, the respondent’s representatives continued to direct questions to the plaintiff regarding the prosecution’s claim. The respondent representative’s first question concerned the legality of acquiring a share in “Multi Group” LLC in 2006, the monetary funds received by Gagik Tsarukyan, and other companies mentioned in the lawsuit.

The plaintiff’s side stated that the payment data for the companies was obtained from registry files. According to Hamlet Harutyunyan, prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property, the lawsuit includes dozens of companies, but dividends were not received from all of them, conditioned by the fact that a company may have profit, but it might not be distributed and instead used for the company’s future operations or for some other activity altogether.

Attorney Varazdat Asatryan also inquired whether the plaintiff had information about the company’s assets and what methodology was chosen in this case. Harutyunyan responded: “We essentially don’t give any assessment regarding the company’s negative transactions, because the company’s business activity is not an indicator of Gagik Tsarukyan receiving income; it may have successful business activities, income, but not distribute profit; if we see that profit, we will record it.”

Asatryan countered by emphasizing that if there are companies that have been considered legal, the circumstance of providing loans to Gagik Tsarukyan in cash from the perspective of the principle of balancing probabilities means that certain dry approaches are not so applicable: “In any case, Gagik Tsarukyan is a recognizable subject in Armenia in the sense that he has the reputation of a conditional wealthy person, it is assumed that these funds weren’t hanging from a tree branch; he went and collected them, it should have been a consequence of certain economic activity.”

In response to the lawyer, the prosecutor said that during previous sessions there had been a long discussion about balancing probabilities, and he also insisted that there should be certain starting points at their foundation. He raised the following rhetorical question: “Let’s say 100 million was received in a company, what is the probability that a loan was given to Tsarukyan from that money, or whether 20 million drams of dividends were given or not?”

He stated that it is also mentioned in the lawsuit that regarding these companies, it has been exclusively recorded about the replenishment of the value of the authorized capital: “As we have noted in the lawsuit about other companies – the basis for large millions or billions in dividends is certainly not the 25 thousand authorized capital, because it is difficult to imagine that by replenishing the authorized capital exclusively with 25 thousand drams, profits reaching billions would result. Additional investments would have to have been made, and if at any stage income from such companies is presented, I think it will also be the court’s task to evaluate these investments in the same field of balancing probabilities, to determine whether the income is legal or not.”

Hamlet Harutyunyan also recorded the following: “Moreover, these are not tens of thousands of drams, not hundreds of thousands, not even millions of drams, there are profits of billions of drams, which have been known; now there is no such information about other companies.”

In response to the plaintiff, Varazdat Asatryan noted that the approaches of the competent authority differ in this and other cases: “During the initial study period, the competent authority applies an unrealistic methodology, taking starting points that did not exist. In particular, it considers salaries or other legal income using the averaged figures of the Statistical Committee: it is logical that a person may not have income in that field.”

The respondent representative’s next question concerned the real estate on Maxim Gorky Street, for which Tsarukyan made a 30 million investment, and to the lawyer’s question about in what sense the investment for the property was considered in the lawsuit, the plaintiff responded that the property was acquired in 2003 by Tsarukyan, and later he undertook an obligation to make investments, also to implement renovation works.

The prosecutor stated: “According to the data available in the registry file, in return for the investment, he received shares worth more than 1 billion.”

The parties will continue discussing the remaining and other questions from the respondent’s side at the next session, which will take place on March 17.