Prime Minister Wants Bad Things? Of Course Not, But the Central Bank is Putting Him Under Its Power: Arpine Hovhannisyan

Former Vice President of the National Assembly Arpine Hovhannisyan wrote on her Facebook page:

“On March 1, 2019, an operational group was established by Nikol Pashinyan to organize discussions related to the implementation of the institutions anticipated by the concept developed by the Central Bank on 'Confiscation of property obtained through criminal means without a guilty verdict.'

This concept has officially received approval from the inter-agency relevant commission headed by the President of the Central Bank of Armenia. This news received almost no attention and has disappeared from official news channels. Meanwhile, the concept which is the foundation for the creation of this operational group is a slow-acting bomb not just for our statehood but for Nikol Pashinyan's government itself. Interestingly, the concept is not accessible to the public.

For this reason, I will present it in my comments. There is an impression that the document has been created at all costs to fulfill the political ambitions of the 'chief' – the Prime Minister, because if the Prime Minister said it, then it must be done. However, proper legal tools are necessary to realize political ambitions, and if the provided tools, to put it mildly, do not correspond, a dramatic series begins, where the dismantling of opera cafes would seem a good fairy tale to you. So, the Prime Minister wants to take back property from all 'thieves.' Does he want bad things? Of course not.

Are they showing the right path? Certainly not. In terms of 'quality' solutions of this concept, apart from those individuals who come to mind as potential culprits, anyone who has ever been related to these individuals—either in Armenia or outside of it—will face major problems. One day it may turn out that the legality of a money transfer sent to you from your relative in Russia is being inspected because your relative has had any third-party connection with someone you have designated as guilty and whose property's legality they want to check. This is a very simple example. And you should definitely forget about the investors. Additionally, the existence of this institution means that the law enforcement system is incapable of proving something in a criminal case, therefore, they want to shift the burden off their shoulders. Regarding the burden of proof—long and detailed—later. And about the architects of this effort, name after name in order—also later. For now, just a few examples of how adequately the document prepared by the Central Bank proposes 'effective' mechanisms.

• The Prime Minister, while speaking at the National Assembly about the confiscation of property without a guilty verdict, meaning the institution proposed by this document, talked about the 'presumption of the person's guilt', yet the Prime Minister has not been informed that, in international practice, it concerns the property, not the prosecution of the person. In other words, in this case, the state is not against any individual; rather, the state is against a hundred thousand dollars, for example. In terms of the vocabulary favored by the Prime Minister, one should find not the 'thief', but the 'booty', only after that can something be taken back. Even if it is proven that the property is connected with a crime. And if the law enforcement system were capable of normal justification, the necessity of this institution would not exist. Merely believing that the property should not have been owned by this individual is not sufficient to deem it illegal. Whereas from the Prime Minister's speech, it was clear he was uninformed about this.
• As a forward-looking example, a reference was made to Bulgaria's 2005 legislation, which has lost force.
• There is talk of the 2002 legislative regulations of Great Britain, while it was fundamentally revised in 2017, and there isn’t even a note regarding this.
• The entire concept concerns confiscation of property without a guilty verdict, and they present the experience of Georgia; meanwhile, Georgia's 2007 law talks about confiscation after a guilty verdict, and so on and so forth.

And these are just the simplest examples, and they can be continued at length.

The format of the Facebook status does not allow for addressing each provision of the concept separately. In the coming period, our non-governmental organization will publish an analytical material highlighting all the issues present in that concept and what problems will arise in case it is implemented in this form.

Regardless of my political path and the attitude towards Pashinyan's government, this is a matter where, in addition to pointing out shortcomings, Pashinyan's government needs effective and professional support. Please consider our upcoming publication as support for the government.”