On March 24, the Anti-Corruption Court continued hearing the claim filed by the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property of the General Prosecutor’s Office against the 13th Prime Minister of Armenia, Hovik Abrahamyan, and his affiliated persons, demanding the confiscation of allegedly illegally obtained property. The hearing is presided over by Judge Karapet Badalyan.
According to Iravaban.net, the parties are in the question-and-answer phase aimed at clarifying the claim. Attorney Lusntag Bezhanyan, representing the defendants Bagratuni Barseghyan and Anna Hayrapetyan, was the first to start questioning the plaintiff.
Note that Bagratuni Barseghyan was Hovik Abrahamyan’s security officer, and Anna Hayrapetyan is his wife.
In his first inquiry, the defendants’ representative asked what legal basis was applied in the lawsuit to consider Hovik Abrahamyan the real beneficiary of the property to be confiscated from his client.
Deputy Head of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property, Tigran Yenoqyan, stated that they attributed Bagratuni Barseghyan’s property acquisitions to Hovik Abrahamyan, taking into account the connection between the employee and the latter, their working relationship, and the fact that this employee had even been abroad with Abrahamyan.
He noted that funds were transferred to the former prime minister both in cash and through transfers, and it was stated in the lawsuit that these were funds belonging to Hovik Abrahamyan, made to his account and under his supervision.
The lawyer asked whether the amounts of property subject to confiscation, registered in his clients’ names, had any connection with the acquisition of these properties. Yenoqyan said no, the amounts are not related to the acquisition, because in addition to the funds presented by Bagratuni Barseghyan, other individuals also deposited large amounts of money, and now he cannot differentiate whether the property acquired in the latter’s name was from this amount or not.
To the defendant’s representative’s assertion about what basis these amounts are again attributed to Hovik Abrahamyan, the prosecutor replied that there are many transactions where Bagratuni Barseghyan himself was authorized to participate in the sale of a house belonging to Abrahamyan: “Not everyone would trust their security officer to participate in such a transaction; we have considered, by combining several pieces of evidence, that Bagratuni Barseghyan’s transactions were controlled by Hovik Abrahamyan.”
The defendants’ representative said that if the properties belonging to Bagratuni Barseghyan and Anna Hayrapetyan were acquired in Hovik Abrahamyan’s name and for his benefit, then what prevented Barseghyan from acting again with the same power of attorney and making the transaction for Hovik Abrahamyan’s benefit rather than acquiring the property in his own name, if the real beneficiary is Hovik Abrahamyan.
The prosecutor responded that in his opinion, this circumstance is related to Abrahamyan’s holding of state positions, as well as, in the case of Anna Hayrapetyan specifically, the prohibition on engaging in entrepreneurial activities.
The plaintiff’s representative emphasized once more that they viewed in combination the similar relationships between Bagratuni Barseghyan and Hovik Abrahamyan, and the competent authority concluded that the real beneficiary of Bagratuni Barseghyan’s properties mentioned in the lawsuit is Hovik Abrahamyan, which is proven by the latter acting on behalf of Abrahamyan with a power of attorney, being abroad with him, and registering vehicles belonging to him under his own name later.
Lusntag Bezhanyan clarified whether he could record that the competent authority based its decision exclusively on the fact that they were close, had working relationships, and executed transactions on behalf of Abrahamyan with a power of attorney.
The prosecutor replied: “Banking transactions are also mentioned: that is also a circumstance, that more than 1 billion drams were deposited into the accounts of Hovik Abrahamyan and his family members, and we know both the positions held by Bagratuni Barseghyan and his received income. I don’t think another person would provide Barseghyan with that much money for him to manage.”
Barseghyan’s representative asked whether the competent authority had considered the circumstance of Abrahamyan transferring any property to his clients without compensation or alienating it at prices significantly below market value.
Tigran Yenoqyan said that regarding the vehicle, there is data that Bagratuni Barseghyan alienated it at a below-market price, but he had difficulty answering the question about gratuitous transfers or alienations from Hovik Abrahamyan himself.
Prosecutor Artashes Harutyunyan of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property continued his colleague’s statement, telling the defendant’s representative that the person was controlled by Abrahamyan, and by virtue of this fact, the competent authority considered the former prime minister as the real beneficiary, and in this respect, the legislator has linked the fact of being a real beneficiary with controlling a person.
The lawyer inquired whether the competent authority had determined how the sale contracts for vehicles with license plates 50 ZZ 005 and 50 NN 005, previously registered and owned by Bagratuni Barseghyan, as well as Mercedes and Bentley brand cars, took place, whether they were concluded under Hovik Abrahamyan’s supervision or not.
Prosecutor Yenoqyan replied that these license plates coincided with those of vehicles registered to Hovik Abrahamyan and his family members, especially his son.
“Specifically 50 NN 005, if I’m not mistaken, was previously registered in Argam Abrahamyan’s name, later it was registered in Bagratuni Barseghyan’s name, meaning we have considered that the license plate numbers at that time belonged to Hovik Abrahamyan. There are frequent acquisitions and sales of vehicles, the basis was the magnitude of the average values of customs declarations, and, yes, during those transactions, Bagratuni Barseghyan was supervised by Hovik Abrahamyan.
Again, I note that we view everything in combination. Bagratuni Barseghyan transferred to Hovik Abrahamyan during those years 2 million 898 thousand dollars and 1 million 351 thousand euros: with these enormous amounts, how can we focus only on the registration license plate?” he said.
The court also discussed the acquisition of rather large land areas in Dilijan, apartments on Yerevan’s David Bek, David Anhaght, and Amiryan streets, which were also made at the expense of Hovik Abrahamyan and under his supervision.
The plaintiff’s representative noted that there were both non-cash and cash transfers, the apartments were mainly acquired in cash, and the other transferred amounts were spent by Hovik Abrahamyan and other family members abroad.
A question was also raised about the security officer’s obligation to escort with the given vehicle, to which the prosecutor responded that there were cases when he was absent from Armenia for personal purposes, and when he departed by plane, these were considered unofficial visits, as they resulted in recorded movements of millions of dollars spent.
To the lawyer’s question about whether there is any concrete evidence that they were abroad on a private rather than an official visit, the prosecutor replied: “I don’t think it would be an official visit for someone to, for example, spend some money in Baden-Baden.”
According to him, one of Hovik Abrahamyan’s security officers was also Grigor Gevorgyan, but more often it was Bagratuni Barseghyan who went to various places with the latter on work visits; he was considered a trusted employee.
Regarding the vehicle license plates and the conducted study, he also noted: “Bagratuni Barseghyan, who drives a vehicle with the license plate 50 005, transferred 3 million dollars to Hovik Abrahamyan; we are combining several things together. It’s not as if we’ve attributed it to another person; we’ve viewed all this with specific facts. I don’t think Bagratuni Barseghyan was so well-off, had such a wide opportunity that he could deposit 3 million dollars to his superior’s account, but I don’t know, is it a hobby to work as a security officer? That’s why it’s stated that these were precisely Hovik Abrahamyan’s funds.”
At this hearing, questions to the plaintiff’s representatives were also posed by Narek Kocharyan, the representative of defendant Gagik Poghosyan.
The parties will continue the question-and-answer session at the next hearing, which will take place on April 7.
For more details, see the videos.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
