On August 27, a hearing took place in the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Judge Narine Avagyan, on the case of confiscation of illegally acquired property of the 2nd President of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan, and persons associated with him.

The Department for Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property of the Prosecutor General’s Office has filed a lawsuit against Robert Kocharyan and his wife Bella Kocharyan, daughter Gayane Kocharyan, her husband Vigen Chatinyan, two sons Levon and Sedrak Kocharyan, and their wives singer Sirusho (Siranush Kocharyan) and Zaruhi Badalyan.

According to Iravaban.net, the respondents’ representatives were completely against video and photo recording of the court session.

Arthur Hovhannisyan, representative of the respondent side, filed a motion on behalf of “Target Group” CJSC to partially lift the claim security measure. This referred to a 2018 Toyota Camry car belonging to the company. In July 2024, it was decided to update the car fleet, and a 2023 Lexus was acquired.

Hovhannisyan noted that the company has 4 cars, and there is a need to sell the Toyota Camry and direct the funds to current operations, as the amount for the Lexus has been paid in full. He requested permission to release the car from arrest so that the funds could be used for the company’s current operations, considering that the director is prohibited from alienating property, and the company’s shares belong to Sedrak Kocharyan and have been viewed as illegally acquired property.

There were no objections from the plaintiff’s side, and prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan stated that there is no reason to hinder the company’s normal operations. The court’s decision on this motion will be sent to the parties.

Next, the question and answer session aimed at clarifying the basis and subject of the claim continued.

Aram Orbelyan, the lawyer representing the respondents Robert Kocharyan and Bella Kocharyan, asked the plaintiff’s side the following question: What is the legal basis for confiscating in favor of the Republic of Armenia the listed properties acquired during the joint life, but belonging to Robert Kocharyan in the sense of the law, from Sedrak Kocharyan and Zaruhi Badalyan?

He emphasized that the definition of a real beneficiary is given in 3 points:

• A natural person on whose behalf, for whose benefit, or on whose account the transaction was carried out,
• A natural person who controls or has controlled the transaction,
• The third is the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the transaction was carried out.

He asked which of the three points justifies Robert Kocharyan being the real beneficiary, and what factual data exists.

Prosecutor Hamlet Harutyunyan replied that the presence of one of the components is sufficient for a person to be considered the real beneficiary of property registered in another person’s name: “In this case, all components of the real beneficiary are present for all properties, and the factual circumstances are presented in the claim.”

Aram Orbelyan insisted that the answer regarding the factual circumstances is not clear, as they are general and not given for each property.

Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan said that the factual circumstances are not general, they are presented in the claim for each property, stating that the specific property was acquired in the specified period, the amount was acquired by person x, and other data.

Aram Orbelyan noted that the availability of funds to acquire property is one circumstance, while the fact of the property belonging to a person, being the real beneficiary, is another.

“Now I want to understand at least – the list of certain properties that are provided in the claim as properties belonging to the person, and you clarified that in all cases you mean Article 3, Part 1, Clause 5, Subclause B, that is, according to you, R. Kocharyan is the real beneficiary of these properties. When I asked you to clarify, you said he is in all points. For any property in point b, point c, or other point, tell me the factual circumstances for that property,” said Orbelyan.

Gevorg Kocharyan replied that all the grounds regarding the properties are presented in the claim, the position is the same for all properties, and if there were additional circumstances, they would also be mentioned.

“Our approach is general, which has applied to both the primary properties acquired and the income received from the use of primary properties and the properties obtained through their use,” he said.

Aram Orbelyan said that, for example, Levon and Gayane Kocharyan are considered to have separate economies, and it has also been noted for them that separate expenses are not justified by legal income. He asked what is the factual circumstance by which Robert Kocharyan should be considered the real beneficiary of the properties.

Responding to this question, Gevorg Kocharyan said that the logic of the law is that if a person is an official, and even if they or persons associated with them have unjustified assets or property, it is subject to confiscation within the framework of the study and proceedings.

“It was done as a result of a comprehensive analysis of all the data, taking into account that, for example, Levon and Gayane Kocharyan were not state officials, in our assessment, they could not generate illegal income as a result of their personal activities without Robert Kocharyan’s intervention or using his person. We have attributed everything that is not justified by legal income to R. Kocharyan. Levon Kocharyan, in our conviction, could not have acquired the ‘Nairi Insurance’ company with hundreds of millions of drams without working anywhere, Sedrak Kocharyan could not have acquired several real estate properties with hundreds of millions of drams with symbolic salaries, moreover, giving gifts to his brother or sister. The arguments are not one, not two, they are numerous, they are presented in the claim,” said Gevorg Kocharyan.

Aram Orbelyan again insisted that his question relates to the circumstance on the basis of which facts the plaintiff decided that the latter did not have sufficient funds to acquire these properties.

According to the prosecutor, at this moment, from a procedural point of view, they are in the phase of clarifying the basis and subject of the claim, not the goals and desires of the prosecutor’s office. The basis and subject of the claim are presented, and apart from that, they are not trying to clarify anything else at this moment.

During the discussion of this issue, Aram Orbelyan motioned to hold the court session behind closed doors.

After a 15-minute break, the issue of holding the session behind closed doors was discussed; the court rejected it, and the session continued in open mode.

Gevorg Kocharyan, expressing his position on this issue, said that this proceeding is generally about probabilities, and based on these principles, they considered more probable the version presented in the basis of the claim.

Orbelyan countered, saying that here we are talking about people conducting separate activities, running economies, whose incomes attributed to Robert Kocharyan cannot become a subject of discussion in the field of probabilities. He insisted that all the incomes of his clients were received as a result of legal activities.

Prosecutor Hamlet Harutyunyan said: “All facts should be considered in combination. We say the following: in the claim, all those facts based on which, as a result of the presence of the fact set and its comprehensive analysis, we come to the conclusion that, yes, this family has conducted such an economy, which gives grounds to assert that the financial movements were unified, and we have come to the conclusion that Robert Kocharyan was the real beneficiary: this was formed as a result of the combination of all the facts we cited.”

Lawyer Harutyun Harutyunyan again inquired why Sedrak Kocharyan’s properties are considered as belonging to Robert Kocharyan in the sense of the law, and whether the plaintiff’s side excludes the possibility that the remaining transactions were carried out by Sedrak Kocharyan.

Gevorg Kocharyan said that they cannot exclude anything 100%, it is possible that Sedrak Kocharyan had enough funds to justify all transactions formalized in his name, Robert Kocharyan’s name, and Levon and Gayane Kocharyan’s names, but they have recorded assessments about them based on the data known to them, and this data indicates that Sedrak Kocharyan’s income was not sufficient to make certain expenses.

Harutyunyan also asked if there is a study regarding Zaruhi Badalyan before marriage, to which Gevorg Kocharyan replied that data on income and property transactions are available without time limitations, while bank secrecy was obtained after marriage.

The session was adjourned. At the next court session, the representatives of the respondent side will continue to ask questions aimed at clarifying the claim and the subject.

The next court session is on September 24.

Mariam Shahnazaryan 

The photos were taken during other court sessions.