Vahagn Vermishyan’s defender Alexander Kochubayev addressed the second episode of charges against Vahagn Vermishyan – the episode of allegedly receiving a bribe from John Farkhoyan.
According to case materials, J. Farkhoyan approached Vermishyan to ensure the process of documentary formalization. Upon learning that Vahagn Vermishyan had fulfilled his request as agreed, Farkhoyan met Vahagn Vermishyan near the Ramada Hotel and gave him a large sum of $2,000, equivalent to 952,000 drams, as a bribe.
The defender noted that John Farkhoyan and Vahagn Vermishyan were close friends, which was confirmed by testimonies from both sides. John Farkhoyan also insisted that he provided the money solely to help his friend – to pay rent during Vahagn Vermishyan’s son’s studies. The amount transferred ($2,000) and its purpose (rent payment) correspond to the logic of friendly assistance and cannot be considered as a bribe.
According to Kochubayev, money provided within the framework of friendly relations cannot be qualified as a bribe.
“We don’t have data in the case that Vahagn Vermishyan’s apartment, car, or street walking were under internal surveillance, according to case data, only the office was under internal surveillance, and here, naturally, for example, if Mr. Vermishyan had spoken with John Farkhoyan from his apartment via mobile applications, this conversation would not have been documented,” he said.
It is noted that Vermishyan personally transferred the money to his son, while later it was revealed that the transferor was Vermishyan’s wife. The defender emphasizes that in testimonies, Vermishyan said “we transferred,” later saying “maybe me, maybe my wife,” and no investigation was conducted in this direction.
The circumstances pointed out by the defense regarding the money transfer episode were also confirmed by John Farkhoyan while he was still in custody.
Also, let’s add that this episode in Iravaban.net‘s judicial coverage contains the following:
“The defense presented substantial arguments regarding the charges in this episode:
Long-term friendship: John Farkhoyan and Vahagn Vermishyan had been friends for more than a decade, which was confirmed by testimonies from both sides.
Friendly assistance: John Farkhoyan insisted that he provided the money solely to help his friend – to pay rent during Vahagn Vermishyan’s son’s studies.
Legal assessment: The defense emphasized that money provided within the framework of friendly relations cannot be qualified as a bribe. According to the RA Criminal Code, a bribe implies receiving material values by an official for performing or not performing an action within their authority, which is absent in this case (Iravaban.net: According to Article 435, Part 1 of the RA Criminal Code: “Receiving a bribe – by an official personally or through an intermediary for himself or another person property, including money, securities, other payment instrument, right to property, service or any other advantage, demanding, presenting a bribe offer or accepting a bribe offer or promise – using their power or official authority or influence conditioned by them to perform or not perform an action in favor of the bribe-giver or their indicated person”).
Behavior: It is noteworthy that John Farkhoyan had warned Vahagn Vermishyan about possible surveillance. The defense insisted that such a warning contradicts the intention of giving a bribe and emphasizes the trustworthy relationship between them.
Amount and circumstances: The defense noted that the amount transferred ($2,000) and its purpose (rent payment) correspond to the logic of friendly assistance and cannot be considered as a bribe.
Other facts: Completely refuting the preliminary investigation body’s justifications in this episode, Vahagn Vermishyan’s defense presents a different reality. In conversation with Iravaban.net, Vahagn Vermishyan’s advocate Alexander Kochubayev described it as the “most ridiculous episode” of the case. Details are available in Iravaban.net‘s publication.
Conclusion: These arguments were presented as substantial evidence that the money given to Vermishyan by Farkhoyan cannot be qualified as a bribe. The defense insisted that the charges in this episode should be reviewed considering the presented facts and legal analysis.”
Details in the video.
