On May 20, the first preliminary court hearing took place in the Anti-Corruption Civil Court regarding the claim for recovery of funds from TV presenter, commentator, and former head of the RA Ministry of Defense Information and Public Relations Department Gevorg Altunyan, 4 other individuals, and “LG Media” LLC.

 Other defendants in the case are Karo Poghosyan, Arthur Avagyan, Artavazd Baghdasaryan, and Suren Aloyan (founder of the Dasaran.am and Koreez educational programs).

 According to Iravaban.net, the plaintiff in this case is senior prosecutor of the military prosecutor’s office, Aghavni Madoyan, who presented the relevant power of attorney.

 Powers of attorney for representation in this case were also presented by advocate Levon Sahakyan, representative of defendants Suren Aloyan and Artavazd Baghdasaryan, and representatives of defendant Gevorg Altunyan, Siranush Sahakyan and David Avagyan. Defendant Arthur Avagyan was also present at the court session.

 Let us recall that in 2023, Gevorg Altunyan and the mentioned 4 individuals were charged with embezzling 106 million 300 thousand drams from the state by inserting false information in documents as a result of the procurement process of the RA Ministry of Defense, and they have not admitted this charge. There is also a separate criminal case on this episode, which is being examined in the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Vardges Stepanyan.

 Presenting the factual and legal grounds of the claim, the prosecutor noted that procurement contracts were signed in 2019, 2020, and 2021, which were not implemented according to established procedures, and there were significant violations and abuses in the contracts.

 She presented the conditions intended for software provision that “LG Media” LLC had committed to implement. “The preliminary investigation revealed that Gevorg Altunyan reached an agreement with Suren Aloyan, director of the ‘New Generation School’ NGO, with whom he had close relations, regarding the acquisition of services from ‘LG Media’ LLC, founded and owned by Artavazd Baghdasaryan, using the dasaran.am trademark.

 To implement this prearranged agreement, defendant Altunyan approached the Defense Minister, proposing to allow the acquisition of minimum services for software support, development of data on professional abilities of draft-age youth, and software support for preliminary military training in general education schools from ‘LG Media’ LLC through a single-source procurement procedure within the framework of software development and maintenance services included in the department’s expenditure program for 2019.”

 The prosecutor stated that defendant Suren Aloyan sent a letter to Gevorg Altunyan on August 19, 2019, informing about providing the dasaran.am trademark for use by “LG Media” LLC for a period of 2 years, when in fact the transfer of the right to use the trademark had not been implemented.

 According to the factual grounds of the claim, defendant Karo Poghosyan did not have sufficient professional capabilities to design the application and technical description: “Defendant Gevorg Altunyan, being the head of the responsible subdivision, did not perform his functions, did not organize the procurement design by involving employees with the necessary professional knowledge to organize the procurement process, the preparation of the procurement item description.”

The value of services to be provided under the mentioned contract amounted to 50 million drams. Throughout the presentation of the procurement process, the prosecutor emphasized that the program was adapted only to the company’s capabilities. 

“According to the conclusion given by the expert, the technical description was unsuitable, of poor quality, the software was outdated, and it was not possible to ensure data security with these programs,” said the prosecutor.

 Defendant Gevorg Altunyan’s representative, David Avagyan, asked the plaintiff how the technical conditions should have been presented, to which the prosecutor said that all this is clearly presented in the expert’s conclusion, which served as the basis for inclusion in the claim.

The advocate did not agree with the plaintiff’s position, saying that they had studied that conclusion, but no such thing was mentioned there. To his other question about what functions his client had as the head of the responsible subdivision, the prosecutor replied that his rights and obligations are defined by the “Law on Procurement,” on how he should organize the procurement process.

The advocate again countered the plaintiff’s representative, stating that the data regarding technical descriptions had nothing to do with his question.

Defendant Gevorg Altunyan said he had several questions for the plaintiff, the answers to which would help him clarify whether the latter is “competent” to act as a representative of the authorized body in this case: “You are presenting information that is detached from reality and so superficial that anyone might get the impression that we don’t know what we were doing.”

He asked whether the prosecutor had read the technical description, to which she replied that it was not that important: “Moreover, if I had read it, I might not have understood anything, as we have understood that even the signatory and the head of the responsible subdivision did not understand the technical description.”

Altunyan responded as follows: “Any literate person who read it would understand what it’s about, if you haven’t read it, don’t make such claims. Are you aware that before creating this description, a working group was formed for the functions of the program to be created?”

The prosecutor said: “Mr. Altunyan, as for what I am aware of, I read for approximately 20-30 minutes and presented the factual grounds that allowed the prosecutor’s office to present this claim, I would ask you not to give unnecessary qualifications.”

Gevorg Altunyan directed other questions to the prosecutor, which related to presenting this technical description to the Security Council meeting, presenting the software project to 4 defense ministers, to which the prosecutor responded that she has no information about these, and if there is additional data, they can present it.

Levon Sahakyan, representative of defendants Suren Aloyan and Artavazd Baghdasaryan, asked the plaintiff what unlawful behavior his clients had exhibited. The plaintiff’s representative cited the factual and legal grounds of the claim, stating that all actions were taken to organize a single-source procurement and transfer to Artavazd Baghdasaryan’s company. The presiding judge requested that the manifestations of unlawful behavior be specified separately for all defendants, but the answers provided did not satisfy either the defendant side or the court.

During the question-and-answer session, the prosecutor again emphasized that the technical description presented was not suitable, was adapted to the capabilities of “LG Media” company and not to the needs of the ministry, about which defendant Gevorg Altunyan made the following statement: “If Ms. Madoyan henceforth says that the created program was worthless, please let her show the point in the expert conclusion or document where it is written that the program is worthless. As a person who has stood at its foundation and as a result of all this, a program of revolutionary significance for draft management has been created, which is being implemented right at this moment, it is incomprehensible and offensive to me when repeatedly saying the program was worthless.”

The court session ended at this point, the next one will take place on June 17.

Mariam Shahnazaryan