The Anti-Corruption Court today, January 21, held a hearing on the case of alleged illegal asset forfeiture of former Chairman of the Urban Development Committee and former Chief Architect of Stepanavan, Vahagn Vermishyan. The hearing was presided over by Judge Karapet Badalyan.
According to Iravaban.net, during this session, Prosecutor Naira Artashesyan from the Department of Illegal Asset Forfeiture filed a motion to admit documents regarding Vahagn Vermishyan’s purchase and subsequent sale of shares as evidence, despite the court-established deadline for submitting evidence by the Plaintiff having expired. Additionally, the Prosecutor’s representative challenged the legitimacy of property owned by the defendants located outside Armenia’s borders.
The Plaintiff noted that while the property certificate under discussion has been examined within the case, data regarding the property’s acquisition and its price is now needed to assess the legitimacy of rental payments.
Defendant Vahagn Vermishyan’s representative, Armen Melkumyan, asked the Plaintiff whether the Prosecutor’s Office was interested in determining if the person acquired the property in Russia through legal income. Artashesyan responded that their position is to verify the legitimacy of the property’s origin, and if it’s legal, then the rental income would be legal as well.
Armen Melkumyan said this issue is perplexing for the defendant’s side, as the matter of property acquisition outside Armenia falls under another country’s jurisdiction and, according to the defendant, shouldn’t concern the competent authority, especially since they have presented the original property ownership certificates with Armenian translations.
“Nevertheless, nothing prevented the prosecutor’s office during the investigation from independently obtaining and applying the tools specified by the Law on Forfeiture of Illegal Assets, and secondly, the legitimacy of property acquired outside Armenia’s borders is not within the prosecutor’s domain. We are ready to present documents related to property acquisition, though we haven’t even received such an inquiry.”
The presiding judge asked when the inquiry was sent, to which the prosecutor replied: yesterday (January 20).
The defendant’s representative insisted that the motion to request written evidence should be rejected, as no justification was provided for requesting such evidence at this stage for property both within and outside Armenia, given that the prosecutor’s office was not restricted from obtaining these during the initial investigation phase.
Regarding the missed deadlines, the prosecutor stated that the presented evidence was not initially known to the competent authority and was obtained through verification of evidence presented by the defendant.
Melkumyan countered: “I believe this once again proves that the investigation of our client was incomplete and deficient, does not reflect the objective reality we have stated in our positions, and in no way proved the impossibility or obstacle that prevented the prosecutor’s office from obtaining such evidence within the established deadline. We maintain that the motion should be rejected.”
After hearing the parties’ positions, the court decided to accept the plaintiff’s motion to consider the missed deadline excusable and admit the written evidence. The presiding judge noted that the actions to obtain this evidence were taken to verify the authenticity of submitted documents, and the deadline was missed due to objective reasons beyond the plaintiff’s control.
At the end of the session, the plaintiff’s representative informed the court that considering they had contacted Vahagn Vermishyan’s wife, Margarit Vermishyan, to obtain data regarding the purchase value of the relevant real estate, this session should be postponed to await the response, and if she doesn’t respond, they would appeal to the court.
Armen Melkumyan stated that they first need to understand which documents are being discussed, potentially contact relevant Russian authorities as needed, obtain these documents, translate them, and present them, which is quite a time-consuming process.
The session was postponed, with the next hearing scheduled for February 21.
Iravaban.net approached Vahagn Vermishyan’s defender, attorney Armen Melkumyan, to comment on the Anti-Corruption Court’s decision and the legitimacy of the prosecutor’s request.
Attorney Melkumyan presented the following:
“The prosecutor’s request contradicts the RA Law on Forfeiture of Illegally Obtained Property in several significant aspects:
- Violation of Mandatory International Cooperation Procedure
Article 11, Part 1, Point 6 of the Law exhaustively defines two possible ways to obtain information about property located abroad:
- Using online databases
- Sending requests to foreign competent authorities
The Prosecutor’s Office has bypassed this requirement by attempting to directly compel the respondent to obtain and transfer evidence regarding the legitimacy of property in Russia at their own expense.
- Territorial Jurisdiction Issue
The matter of property acquisition outside Armenia falls under another country’s jurisdiction. Articles 27-32 (Chapter 5) of the Law clearly regulate the international cooperation procedure, which was not followed in this case.
- Disproportionate Distribution of Burden of Proof
Although Article 22 of the Law establishes a presumption of illegal origin of property, this cannot be interpreted as grounds for bypassing mandatory international cooperation procedures, nor as grounds for avoiding the obligation to make international inquiries imposed imperatively on the Prosecutor’s Office by the Law on Forfeiture of Illegally Obtained Property.
- Investigation Deficiencies
As we stated during the court session, “this once again proves that the investigation of our client was incomplete and deficient.” The Prosecutor’s Office did not previously use the tools provided by law and failed to fulfill its duty, specifically:
- Did not apply to Russian competent authorities
- Did not utilize international cooperation mechanisms
- Did not prove the existence of any obstacle that prevented carrying out actions aimed at obtaining such evidence within Armenia’s territory.
Therefore, our position is that the motion should have been rejected by the Court. Moreover, even in this situation, based on our clients’ interests and taking on the positive obligation placed on the state to ensure fair trial implementation, we are ready to cooperate and present additional facts about property acquisition in our possession, but this must be done in accordance with the law and established procedures.”
Mariam Shahnazaryan
