On October 17, the Anti-Corruption Court held a hearing on the case of confiscation of allegedly illegally acquired property of Vahagn Vermishyan, former chairman of the Urban Development Committee and former chief architect of Stepanavan city.
According to Iravaban.net, at the beginning of the session, Naira Artashesyan, the prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property, noted that the respondent’s representatives had presented several pieces of evidence, including extracts received from the Republic of Slovenia, employment contracts, as well as information received from the Russian tax authority. The prosecutor’s office has recalculated based on these documents.
“I should note that as a result of the recalculation, property exceeding 50 million drams still remains. The claim is reduced, but there will be no withdrawal from the lawsuit because, as a result of recalculating the presented evidence, property worth 50 million drams is still present,” she said.
Armen Melkumyan, the representative of the respondent Vahagn Vermishyan, stated that in addition to the presented documents, there are a number of data for which the other advocate has applied to the Russian Federation to obtain this information from commercial banks, and they still don’t have an answer.
“Considering that we regularly talk with our colleague, this tax information took about more than 2 months, I think the banking data should be sooner, as it’s about a commercial organization. Probably within 1 month,” said Melkumyan.
The plaintiff’s representative noted that under the conditions of receiving these responses, the case could be prolonged for years: “We want to understand when you are planning to present the final volume of your evidence, because new evidence is presented every time, we are constantly recalculating, and it turns out we are working ineffectively. Please let us know how much time it will take for this evidence to be obtained and presented so that we can understand from the perspective of effectiveness.”
Armen Melkumyan said they are dealing with evidence in another country, his client has been conducting commercial activities outside the borders of Armenia since 1990, and they are trying to obtain information from different countries through private inquiries, which creates additional complications.
“We are doing everything on our part to be able to get this information, therefore we estimate that it will take approximately 1 month to get the expected information that is expected from private banks regarding Mr. Vermishyan’s banking data,” said the advocate.
It should be noted that at this court session, the respondent’s representatives came up with a motion that referred to obtaining certain information about Vahagn Vermishyan from the Central Bank. In the motion, the respondent’s side considered it important whether any report has been submitted regarding the transactions made, and if so, which specific transactions they related to.
To the prosecutor’s question about why they are presenting this motion now when the burden of proof has long been distributed between the parties, which set the deadlines for evidence and motions aimed at obtaining them.
The other representative of the respondent noted that new circumstances that could be essential for the objective examination of the case are constantly emerging in the framework of the case. He emphasized that during the distribution of the burden of proof, the court stated that the parties would be given the opportunity to present the relevant evidence, as well as motions to obtain that evidence.
Armen Melkumyan stated the following regarding the motion: “We have been given the responsibility to present evidence regarding the legality of the acquisition of the mentioned properties, this motion is a part of obtaining that evidence, where, in essence, we petition the court to obtain information from the Central Bank if possible on whether these transactions seemed suspicious at the time of property acquisition or not.”
The court will address this motion in a separate judicial act.
For more details, see the video.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
