Today, on 3 March, the Anti-Corruption Court presided over by judge Narine Avagyan held the session on the case of the alleged illicit property of Lieutenant General Manvel Grigoryan the relatives.
The General Prosecutor’s Office demands to confiscate 28 real estates and 16 cars from the family of Manvel Grigoryan. According to the lawsuit, the Prosecutor’s Office demands confiscations from Elya Koryun Grigoryan, Naira Manvel Grigoryan, Karen Manvel Grigoryan, Arman Manvel Grigoryan, Nazik Hovhannes Amiryan, Ara Manvel Grigoryan, Samvel Manvel Grigoryan, Aitsemnik Manvel Grigoryan, Arpenik Manvel Grigoryan and Vazgen Manvel Grigoryan.
Gevorg Kocharyan, Senior Prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Property of Illicit Origin of the RA General Prosecutor’s Office, filed a motion to include Luiza Grigoryan as a new defendant, who is the wife of another person related to Manvel Grigoryan, Arman Grigoryan.
The representative of the defendants, Levon Baghdasaryan, stated that he does not object to the petition, because the range of defendants is decided by the plaintiff, in this case, the Prosecutor’s Office.
The court decided to reject the submitted motion on the basis of not submitting a substantive material claim against Luiza Grigoryan.
“We have a range of properties, which, in our opinion, are illicit and were transferred to the heirs by the right of inheritance after Manvel Grigoryan’s death of. Part of our demand is the confiscation of such property. But there are also properties that belonged to Manvel Grigoryan, but were justified with legal income or will be justified with evidence to be presented by the defendants. 19,236,606 and 17,027,871 monetary claims must be secured at the expense of properties supported by legal income belonging to Manvel Grigoryan. The monetary claim should be confiscated at the expense of other properties,” the representative of the Prosecutor’s Office said.
Levon Baghdasaryan tried to clarify: if the inheritance is considered a legally acquired property, then why was a request for confiscation of such properties made, referring to the property transferred by Manvel Grigoryan’s father and mother to their son as an inheritance.
Gevorg Kocharyan mentioned that if properties were received by inheritance, which according to the position of the Prosecutor’s Office were acquired by Manvel Grigoryan’s funds and not by his parents, then their transfer to another person by the right of inheritance does not matter. “Inherited properties were included in the claim, because we consider that they were originally acquired by Manvel Grigoryan. Manvel Grigoryan was their real beneficial owner from the beginning.”
The prosecutor also noted that Manvel Grigoryan’s father and mother, Sektor Grigoryan and Arpenik Avagyan, after their death, bequeathed the property registered in their name exclusively to Manvel Grigoyan, in the conditions when they had other children. “That circumstance, among other circumstances, proves that they originally belonged to Manvel Grigoryan. The latter was the most wealthy compared to other children. In addition, no data was received regarding the incomes of Sektor Grigoryan and Arpenik Avagyan, that is, they did not have any source of income to purchase these properties.”
Levon Baghdasaryan announced that he presented the relevant evidence to the Prosecutor’s Office that Manvel Grigoryan’s father and mother had the appropriate means to acquire property. “What would you say in this regards?
According to the representative of the Prosecutor’s Office, the scope of their study is summarized in the submitted claim and the materials attached to it.
The court found it expedient to postpone the hearing in connection with the clarification of the issues to be clarified. The date of the next court session was set for 27 March.
