A court hearing was held today, November 11, in the Anti-Corruption Civil Court regarding the confiscation of allegedly illegal property belonging to Armen Sakapetyan, former Deputy Chairman of the State Revenue Committee (SRC), presided over by Judge Lili Drmeyan.

According to Iravaban.net, Nelli Ter-Torosyan, prosecutor from the Department of Confiscation of Illegally Obtained Property of the Prosecutor General’s Office, presented the main claim at this hearing, demanding the confiscation from Armen Sakapetyan of:

• An apartment on Sundukyan Street in Yerevan, which Sakapetyan bought in 2007 for 20 million drams, while his legal income totaled 19,915,156 drams
• An apartment in Davtashen administrative district of Yerevan, for which 836,625 drams was paid in 2020, while only 408,812 drams was justified by legal income
• An apartment in Kanaker-Zeytun administrative district, for which 836,625 drams was paid, while only 408,812 drams was justified
• A building and parking spaces in the same location, for which 63,061,244 drams was paid in 2022, of which 51,869,814 drams was legal
• Real estate in Kotayk province, which Ani Sakapetyan bought in 2022 for 100 million drams, of which 83,560,602 drams was legal
• A LAND ROVER DEFENDER SE 3.0 vehicle, purchased in 2023 for 48 million drams, while 47,956,878 drams was legal
• The current market value of real estate in Central administrative district; in 2022, Sakapetyan bought the property for 191.7 million drams, of which 169,025,416 drams was justified, which he invested in “Karapi Lich” LLC
• The current market value of land in Vanand community, Armavir province; in 2021, Sakapetyan bought the property for 49 million, of which 30,758,079 drams was legal
• In 2021, Sakapetyan invested lands in Vanand and Artamet communities in his “Almond Agro” CJSC; according to the plaintiff, the market value of the property is subject to confiscation, similarly for the land in Artamet community; in 2021, Sakapetyan bought this property for 18,078,310 drams, of which 14,379,693 drams was considered legal by the prosecutor’s office

Additionally:

• 0.07% participation in another company
• The right to claim 1,322,913 drams from the illegal portion of 11.3 million drams of unreturned transfers
• The right to claim 12,695,540 drams from the illegal portion of 1,047,117,207 drams of unreturned loan to “Yerra” LLC
• The right to claim 2,148 drams from the illegal portion of 26.9 million drams of unreturned loan to “1SQ Agro” LLC
• The right to claim 382,464 drams from the illegal portion of 2.55 million drams of unreturned loan to “Almond Agro” CJSC
• The right to claim 520,731 drams from the illegal portion of 3,527,582 drams of unreturned loan to “Best Properties” LLC
• The right to claim 25,000 drams from the illegal portion of 25,000 drams of unreturned loan to “Armeniak” LLC
• The right to claim 875,615 drams from the illegal portion of 33 million drams of unreturned loan to “Gevorg Mara” LLC
• The right to claim 817,679 drams from the illegal portion of 2,386,000 drams of unreturned loan to “S.T.Jacob” LLC

From his son, Hayk Sakapetyan, the following is subject to confiscation in favor of the Republic of Armenia:

• A HONDA ENP vehicle, purchased by Armen Sakapetyan in 2023 for 10.5 million drams, of which 10,004,835 drams was justified as legal income
• An apartment on Ulnetsu Street, purchased in 2023 for 18,475,600 drams, of which 14,708,988 drams was justified by legal income

As illegal monetary funds, 59,608,302 drams is subject to confiscation from Armen Sakapetyan as remaining illegal funds, and 246,204,682 drams, which, according to the prosecution, was not justified by his legal income, has illegal origin, and was transferred to a bona fide acquirer.

The prosecutor also announced that Areg Sakapetyan is no longer included in this motion because the acquisition of “Almond Agro” CJSC was justified by Armen Sakapetyan’s legal income, and there is no claim right for the corresponding shares.

The defendant’s representative, lawyer Varazdat Asatryan, said regarding the claim that Article 4 of the claim recorded illegally obtained properties, and a disproportionate claim is being made on the entire property mass, questioning whether it is permissible to apply seizure to such an extent based on the percentage ratio of the claim.

“If we record that there is an illegal portion of 0.01% on some vehicle and the entire vehicle is subject to confiscation, here the logic of the law, in my opinion, deviates from the path it should serve, and in this context, such a volume of change is not permissible. The confiscation claim is permissible in part, taking into account the approach recorded by the plaintiff,” said Asatryan.

According to him, the formulations in the claim are not specific, and the approach does not correspond to the logic of Article 3 of the law: “Here, in my observation, there is a process of, quote-unquote, roughly speaking, taking Mr. Sakapetyan hostage within the framework of this claim. I believe the claim is permissible in part.”

The defendant’s other representative inquired whether the claim demands confiscation of the entire market value of the apartment on Tumanyan Street or just 10.33% of it.

The prosecutor said that the subject of the claim recorded the market value in full, as in the case of immovable and movable property: “That is, immovable property in full, movable property as well, but in the factual basis, we recorded that it is partially illegal.

Percentage differences in property are not excluded, perhaps during the proceedings, such evidence will be presented that may subsequently change the proportion, that is why the subject of the claim cannot derive from the factual basis of the claim, meaning a claim for confiscation of property in full is presented, not excluding the reasonable probability that the percentage ratio may change, but what is presented in the claim, the plaintiff will prove that exactly that much – 10.33% – was not justified by legal income.”

In response to Varazdat Asatryan’s objection, the prosecutor noted that if there is even a 1-dram difference in property not justified by legal income, it will be considered illegally obtained property under the law and subject to confiscation.

Armen Sakapetyan asked the prosecutor until what point the calculation was made, to which Nelli Ter-Torosyan said until April 2024.

Sakapetyan also inquired about the existence of evidence regarding parking spaces on Ulnetsu Street, to which the prosecutor said it was substantiated by evidence attached to the claim, but at this point, they are not in the evidence examination phase, only discussing the legally protected interest or right.

The defendant asked whether the percentages in the claim could have been converted to monetary claims, to which the prosecutor said there is not yet data on market value, and it is not excluded that there will be corresponding changes in the subject of the claim, and a monetary claim will be presented.

She added that until the distribution of the burden of proof, the plaintiff can use this right arising from the principle of disposition.

At the request of the defendant’s representative, the calculation file will be presented to the party within 3 working days, and he requested 1 week to study them and express a position.

According to Iravaban.net, at this hearing, the defendant’s representative made a motion to remove the claim security measure.

He noted that under the conditions of admissibility of the initial claim and the modified claim, the difference should be taken into account both in terms of monetary and property mass, and also that there is no longer a secured claim, accordingly, he moved to remove the seizure of the corresponding properties.

The court will make a decision in the form of a separate judicial act regarding the presented claim, and the examination of the last motion was postponed, taking into account that the prosecutor still needs to express a position on it.

The next court hearing in this case will take place on November 28.

Mariam Shahnazaryan