The judicial examination of the case regarding the confiscation of allegedly illegally acquired property belonging to “Prosperous Armenia” party leader, former MP, and businessman Gagik Tsarukyan and his affiliated persons continued on March 17 at the Anti-Corruption Civil Court, presided over by Judge Lili Drmeyan.
According to Iravaban.net, during this session, the respondent’s representatives continued to ask questions to the plaintiff directed at clarifying the basis of the claim.
The first question from the respondent’s representative Varazdat Asatryan concerned the acquisition of a 30 percent share in one of the companies by his client, regarding which Hamlet Harutyunyan, prosecutor of the Department for Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property, said that 15,000 drams of the amount was considered legal.
Asatryan said that the Prosperous Armenia Party Support Foundation was established in 2006, it was noted that Tsarukyan transferred 500,000 drams to that foundation, and asked what connection this transfer has with Tsarukyan’s participation in the foundation if the latter had stated that the money was made as a transfer.
The plaintiff’s representative said that the fact of the transfer became known from studying the registry file, where the creation of the foundation was mentioned, and during the establishment process, 500,000 drams were transferred to the settlement account, which was later liquidated.
The next question concerned the acquisition of 14 land plots in Arinj village of Kotayk region by Tsarukyan in 2006 and whether he was the real beneficiary of the property, or if the competent authority had considered the lands belonging to Gagik Tsarukyan before that.
Harutyunyan replied: “There is no such mention in our claim, it is recorded the specific day and acquisition of a specific amount, if there was a real beneficiary, there would be a mention of it in the claim earlier.”
The lawyer addressed the acquisitions of 2 vehicles – Bentley Continental GT(Coupe) and Nissan NISSAN PATROL v6, worth 47,797,700 drams and 14,284,592 drams respectively, and accordingly asked whether the competent authority accepted the value specified in the contracts or acquired other evidence confirming the fact in the case. Hamlet Harutyunyan answered that in both cases of the vehicles, the import customs declaration was taken as the basis.
The respondent’s representative asked when it was mentioned that the acquisition of 50 percent of the share of “ARMAMENT” LLC was made with 10 pieces of 50,000 drams, whether that 50,000 dram transfer was made in cash or by non-cash method, to which the prosecutor replied that the data was brought from the registry file, it was transferred not by bank but by cash method.
To the lawyer’s observation whether his client had that much non-cash money or not, Harutyunyan said that answering that question would require a long time, as they would need to look at all the transactions, and the excel files are also available to the respondent.
“The accounts that participated in the calculation, including family members, based on their comparison, we can say that on that day there was 175,000 drams in the account, but no transfer has been recorded from these accounts for the acquisition of this company’s stock,” he said.
A question was raised about investments made for the renovation of real estate at Gorky Street in Dilijan, which was carried out for 20 million drams in 2004.
The lawyer reported that in 2006, Robert Mkrtchyan acquired it for 1,400,000 drams, and in 2015, he donated that land plot to Roza Tsarukyan.
He asked if Gagik Tsarukyan is the real beneficiary, why was the donation made 9 years later, whether the competent authority considered whether the transaction between Robert Mkrtchyan and Roza Tsarukyan in 2015 was a donation or not, and if it was a sale, whether the competent authority would still continue to insist that those properties belonged to Gagik Tsarukyan.
He also asked what data the competent authority had at the time of acquisition of those properties.
In his response, Harutyunyan referred to the proceedings related to Gagik Tsarukyan’s son-in-law, former governor of Kotayk, former mayor of Abovyan Karapet Guloyan, where Roza Tsarukyan is also a respondent, noting that evidence has been presented that Tsarukyan declared that he donated that land to Roza Tsarukyan: “We will present that evidence in this proceeding at the appropriate stage, it seems your client does not dispute this fact, if after that this issue is still relevant – why did we consider him the real beneficiary.
We did not question that evidence, we questioned the construction carried out on it later, regarding the land donation, we fully believed both in that and in this proceeding.”
Regarding the later construction on the land plot, Harutyunyan noted the following: “These land plots, which were given to Roza Tsarukyan by donation, after that a vacation house was built on these land plots, and the competent authority’s assertion was that the vacation house was built by Roza Tsarukyan and Karapet Guloyan, particularly with Karapet Guloyan’s allegedly illegally obtained funds.
We questioned the part of the statement that the construction works of the vacation house were also carried out with Gagik Tsarukyan’s funds, to date there is a process on this part, there is no court act that has entered into legal force, if that will be and it will be confirmed by another proceeding that the construction was actually carried out by Tsarukyan, in that case, taking that into account and presenting the court act, we will ask the court in this proceeding to add the construction costs to the calculation.”
In response to the lawyer’s question, the plaintiff’s representative also said that no fact has been cited regarding Roza Tsarukyan being a bona fide acquirer; they asked the court to confiscate the market value of the property.
During the session, data regarding the acquisition and donation of apartments to several athletes by Gagik Tsarukyan was also discussed.
To the question of whether the identification of these apartments has been carried out or not, the prosecutor answered that the address is specified, both apartments are located in the same building on Abovyan Street.
“We have noted in the claim that Sedrak Arustamyan has presented a position regarding these properties within the framework of another study being carried out by the competent authority and has not reported any information. We deemed it necessary to note that on November 22, 2010, Arustamyan donated apartment No. 6 on the 3rd floor of the administrative-residential building at 9 Abovyan Street to weightlifter Tigran Martirosyan, and on November 14, 2016, he donated apartment No. 8 on the 3rd residential floor of the same building on the same street to wrestler Arthur Aleksanyan.”
The prosecutor emphasized that they also cited a video published on the website of “Kentron” TV company, according to which Tsarukyan donated an apartment located at the intersection of Tumanyan-Abovyan streets in Yerevan to various athletes, including Arthur Aleksanyan, and also Tigran Martirosyan gave an interview to News.am Sport website, in which the latter stated that Gagik Tsarukyan gave him a house in Yerevan, besides that, regarding Sedrak Arustamyan, they noted that he has always been authorized by Gagik Tsarukyan, there have been numerous financial transactions between the two.
He added that there is evidence that more than substantiates that these apartments were donated by Gagik Tsarukyan and not by Sedrak Arustamyan.
The respondent’s representatives also directed other questions to the plaintiff’s representative.
The question and answer session between the parties will continue at the next session, which will take place on April 16.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
