On 21 February 2011, Mr. G.A., entrepreneur, citizen of Hrazdan city of Kotayk marz, owner of a small shop, applied to Kotayk AAC and provided a video material which introduced the suspicious and unlawful actions of several employees of taxation cervices towards him and his business. In particular the video material provided the activities of the taxation officials aimed to create artificial grounds for imposing unlawful administrative discipline against G.A. for misfeasance in office and in result the employees of Hrazdan department of taxation service compiled an inspection act and imposed a fine of AMD 150.000 against Mr. G.A and grounded it by the artificial fact of not providing a cash register coupons.
The AAC immediately informed about the beneficiary’s application to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the RA, to Kotayk Marz Prosecution Office and to the RA State Revenue Committee by the Government. After examining the case Kotayk Marz Prosecution Office initiated an action and sent it to Hrazdan Department of the RA Police. Simultaneously according to the order N 2/220 of 10.03.2011 of the Head of the RA State Revenue Committee, a service investigation was initiated against the employees of taxation service on 23 March 2011, and the police started investigation with regard of the case, and it was recommended to the AAC to appeal the act of the taxation body in court.
On 12 April 2011 the AAC received a reply which informed that the inspection act, which was the ground for administrative fine, which was imposed arbitrarily by the employees of Hrazdan taxation service department, was annulled by the decision 20/6 of 1 April 2011 of the Appeals Committee of the RA State Revenue Committee by the Government, and the fine of 150.000 AMD was eliminated.
The 10 May 2011 reply of the RA State revenue committee informed that the above mentioned employees of taxation service underwent different disciplinary liabilities.
The corruption risks in this case were that 4 (four) officials of taxation services allowed misfeasance in office, and abuse of their official authorities, which was registered in the video material. They committed undue preference; in particular the state officials pursued certain interest prior to imposing administrative fine over the beneficiary.  When they were convinced that the beneficiary disagree with the “breaches”, and what is even more he protected his rights and interests even more decisively they compiled an illegal inspection act and impose administrative fine over the beneficiary.
Due to inadmissibility of corruption by the beneficiary and consistency to protect his rights and interests, as well as high professionalisms of the AAC staff and high level of their involvement and provided support it was possible to prevent the case that include high level corruption risks as well as to restore the infringed rights of the citizen and finally reach the proportional punishment of the state officials for their violations.

The success story is borrowed from www.shpak.am.