The court hearing in the case of the former Chairman of the Investigative Committee, former Supreme Council Deputy, former Prosecutor General Aghvan Hovsepyan continued at the Anti-Corruption Criminal Court on November 29. The presiding judge is Tigran Davtyan.
According to Iravaban.net, witness Manvel Gharibyan, who was one of the owners of “Yerevan” TV company, was questioned at this session. The other owner was his brother, Varsham Gharibyan.
According to the charges, after learning from former “Yerevan” TV company owner Varsham Gharibyan about the existence of criminal cases against him, Aghvan Hovsepyan demanded 50 shares of the TV company as a bribe, which after receiving he donated to his son.
Hovsepyan’s defender Anna Mantashyan spoke with the witness about his and his brother’s joint business. She asked how the company became his property, how the share was registered in his brother’s name, and what information he has about Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son becoming a shareholder. In response to the defender’s question, the witness responded that he didn’t have a business with his brother; simply one part was in his brother’s name.
The witness stated that he was a member of the compatriotic union council, which decided to acquire a TV company without political views. The goal was to prepare charitable programs for the union. As a council member, Gharibyan approached the union’s president Aghvan Hovsepyan, who remains in that position to this day.
The witness is unaware of how Aghvan Hovsepyan handled the process. Later it was revealed that there were other shareholders of the TV company as well. The witness informed Aghvan Hovsepyan about this, and the latter transferred their shares without payment.
Through the judge’s clarification, it was confirmed that no money was paid for the TV company. The shares were registered in the witness’s brother Varsham Gharibyan’s name, at Aghvan Hovsepyan’s suggestion.
Aghvan Hovsepyan mentioned compatriotic union member Vladimir Hovhannisyan, who was one of the first creators of “Yerevan” studio, and on his advice they took the studio to serve their union.
Since the witness mentioned in his statement that the studio was initially in poor and weak condition, the judge asked who made the investments. Gharibyan told the court that in 2008, the expenses for acquiring new equipment were from his personal funds. The TV company didn’t make a profit. Salaries were also paid from his financial resources.
Aghvan Hovsepyan objected: it wasn’t only from his resources, investments were also made, as union president, “Vrezh was also giving money, district head Rubik, and others.”
Defender Anna Mantashyan insisted that the witness confirm to the court that the TV company was registered in Varsham Gharibyan’s name only due to circumstances – because he didn’t have a passport. To the second part of the question – what information does he have about Aghvan Hovsepyan’s son, Arman Hovsepyan, becoming owner of “Yerevan” TV company’s share, the witness couldn’t answer, saying he doesn’t know what happened, but has heard from others that every 5-7 years a license needs to be obtained, and with Aghvan Hovsepyan’s demand, they can receive a license.
The witness also clarified to the court questions regarding the building taken for the TV company: “I did everything, Varsham has no information. By government decision, I asked Andranik Margaryan to privatize the area. Since Varsham was 100% shareholder, it wasn’t possible to do it in another person’s name. I asked one cord of the ministers to privatize it for 50 dollars, he said they privatized to Levon Petrosyan for 150 dollars, I asked them to apply to the government, present that we’re not able to pay 150 dollars… that’s how we privatized it for 50 dollars in Varsham’s name, but that doesn’t mean he bought it or it’s his, it was simply done in one person’s name with whom relationships were good. I don’t know what happened to this person…
The TV company’s license was sold, but the area remained with Varsham… for that area today they say 2000 to 2500 dollars,” tells Arman Gharibyan.
Aghvan Hovsepyan asked the witness about his brother’s action, for which a criminal case was initiated in 2008.
Ag to case materials, on the night of September 23, 2008, Varsham Gharibyan kidnapped Hovhannes Yeghiazaryan by beating him near his house, then, taking him to “Elite Shant” company, continued to beat him, torture him, causing bodily injuries to the latter. Gharibyan also forced Yeghiazaryan to sign a receipt stating that he allegedly owes 2 million drams and commits to hand over his Audi A6 car in return. They forced Yeghiazaryan to sign another obligation, according to which he had to give Gharibyan 10 million drams by November 29, 2008.
“Varsham subjected 8-10 relatives to something like this, which one should I remember… he took so many people, beat them, emptied their pockets, registered houses and cars in his name, took them… Varsham’s action is connected with dozens of people, I don’t know who to remember. Several times I went to Hrachik Vazgenich, who was the head of the criminal department in the ministry, they would take Varsham, I would go and bring him back,” responds Gharibyan.
Regarding the 2008 incident, Manvel Gharibyan noted: “That’s how Varsham was… he took him with his bodyguard, they beat him, he put the car in his name. Later the bodyguard came to apologize to me, brought and gave me the car passport and driver’s license.”
Defender Khachatryan tried to clarify the circumstances of the dispute between Manvel and Varsham Gharibyan.
-What happened… what was the cause of your business activity’s split?
-When I registered the factory in Varsham Gharibyan’s name, probably someone explained that you might not have a brother anymore and Varsham decided that way, since the factory was already in his name… When Varsham was in Lvov, my daughter-in-law begged me a lot, saying do something, Varsham is getting married there, in short I said I’m buying a factory, come let me register it in your name. Well then I wasn’t needed anymore, I was expelled.
-And after that, what steps resulted in a dispute between you?
-I was hiring people, he would spit on them, insult them, kick them, and expel them from the factory. A dispute started between us, I left, I don’t know… I think my brother is sick, I have nothing else to say.
-Were there disputes during 2008 to 2014?
-There were disputes, he sued me for blackmail, he likes such things, and I was acquitted in court.
Aghvan Hovsepyan intervened, trying to rephrase defender Armen Khachatryan’s question: “In the criminal case where charges are brought against me, the logic is such that this land was formalized as a guarantee against the property dispute between you and your brother… Was that land expensive, or the entire property of the dispute between you and your brother?”
Answering the question, the witness said: “How can property be more expensive than our brotherhood, Mr. Hovsepyan? Yes, maybe for him, not for me. And the subject of our dispute – mainly the properties, remained in the factory. The factory’s property is in my name, the factory is Varsham’s. Since I’m expelled, I sued to take those properties. 520 million drams is proven by court instead of a billion and a half.”
Continuing the questioning, lawyer Arman Khachatryan asked:
-As a result of your disputes, would you ever consider any situation where they would transfer to you say 3 or 4 thousand square meters from that land, and you would give up the disputes or demands that you had against your brother?
-No, under no circumstances… there was such an idea – half to me, half to him, or 60/40, but that had nothing to do with the remaining properties. The land is a separate issue, the rest is separate.
-Regarding the dispute between you, particularly financial issues, compensations or compromises, has there ever been an offer or mediation for 3 thousand square meters of land to be conceded to you, and you would give up the remaining demands? Have there been such offers from your friends, relatives or union members?
-Nothing like that happened. 6 and 3, 6 and 3 hectares should have been divided between us two, such talk happened, but that 3 hectares or something in return for conceding, why or what should I concede?
The judge intervened noting that it wasn’t the witness’s to be able to concede or not, the witness confirmed that the land had nothing to do with conceding or not conceding… it wasn’t his. To the question why it should have been divided 6/3, 6/3 between them if it wasn’t theirs, the witness answered:
-Well, if he takes from everyone, shouldn’t we take half from him?
-Why would you take it in your name?
-Well whose name is then?
-The union’s.
-Well maybe taxes and stuff would arise in the union’s name… I would take it personally, would donate it personally right away.
-You say I would take, I would donate… let him donate half right away.
-Well that was just talk, it hasn’t been done and won’t be done. I personally didn’t need that land, how can I take 3 hectares, concede something in return… in return for what? Where is it written that I should take the union’s land and concede something to him… I don’t know what this is about.
-I also want to understand, if it wasn’t your land, you had nothing to do with that land…
-That’s why I didn’t take it, it didn’t happen… You know what, since he was my brother, I felt bad too, I felt responsibility… I got involved in all this… I felt bad that he was saying I won’t give.
-Did he win in the auction?
-In the auction, yes, he won, I paid. It was registered in his name, but that’s not the reality… 10 years later he understood there was land in his name.
Aghvan Hovsepyan asked:
-Tell me, please, my younger brother Rubik, where does he live, in what apartment?
-Rubik lives in Ararat Massif in a 2 or 3 room apartment.
-Now, if that land was taken for a residential district, does my brother have the right to build a house for himself there on about 1000 meters of area?
-Of course.
-Then why didn’t he build?
-I don’t know. Who was Varsham letting build anyway.
-Were you questioned by the investigator during the preliminary investigation?
-Yes.
-And it appears from the case that it remained incomplete. After that, were you called for questioning?
-No, I wasn’t called.
-If called, would you give the same testimony you gave in court during the investigation?
-To tell the truth, whatever we were telling, the investigator was writing. Then he gave it to me to sign, I was with a lawyer, I took it to sign, the lawyer read it, half was distorted… I said, friend, what have you written, why have you written such lies, well it was a typo… I got angry, to tell the truth.
-If called, would you give the same testimony you gave in court?
-Yes, I would give the same. Even if they wake me up at night, I’ll say the same, because I’m telling the truth.
The witness confirmed that Aghvan Hovsepyan became a shareholder of “Yerevan” TV company without paying for it, without buying shares. The prosecutor was interested: “Was it normal that an official was resolving issues related to a closed joint-stock company… who would acquire it, in whose name it would be registered, and so on?”
The witness also denied that businessman Samvel Aleksanyan has any connection with the TV company.
“During Soviet Union times, Volodya Hovhannisyan was managing the TV company. In the whole TV company there was one block. When everything collapsed and we moved to a capitalist system, it’s not like they were forcing these TV companies on some businessmen, income earners, to take and maintain them so they wouldn’t collapse. Senik, who we’re talking about, who had 51% share, what did he need the TV company for… he was in Moscow, was afraid of airplanes, that’s why he sent the paper that he’s giving me his share.
Similarly, Aleksanyan Samvel himself, testified in court to you, honorable court, that Bogo is his friend. I don’t know what happened there… what did Bogo need the TV company for,” noted Aghvan Hovsepyan.
The session was postponed, witness questioning will continue at the next court session as well.
Mariam Abrahamyan
