Case of 40 million drams extortion from former accountant of 'Yans' by Vachagan Ghazaryan closed

The Prosecutor General's Office has rejected the complaint of the victim regarding the closure of the criminal case initiated against the former chief accountant of the 'Yans' restaurant complex, Susanna Aristakesyan, for extortion by the owner of 'Yans', Major General Vachagan Ghazaryan, who is also the former head of security of the third President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan.

The lawyer informed 'Factinfo' that they received the decision today and are preparing to appeal it in court.

Susanna Aristakesyan claims that Vachagan Ghazaryan extorted 40 million drams from her. She reported this after the change of power in Armenia. Previously, before the change of power, the former accountant had faced a criminal case for embezzlement.

According to data submitted by 'Selena' LLC, financial irregularities were revealed during internal audits conducted by the management of the 'Yans' restaurant complex owned by 'Selena' LLC back in 2017. Preliminary data indicates that the accountant, who was responsible for the financial and economic management of the complex, made embezzlements by altering order volumes and amounts from October 2012 until May 2017, causing approximately 25,000,000 drams in property damage to the company. Of this amount, 6,000,000 drams were returned to the director S. Garapetyan in June 2017 as restitution.

According to an official statement by the Investigative Committee, a criminal case was initiated under the first subparagraph of the third part of Article 179 of the Armenian Criminal Code, and the preliminary investigation is being conducted by the headquarters of the Yerevan Investigative Division of the Investigative Committee. During the investigation, the accountant fully compensated for the damages caused.

The lawyer of Susanna Aristakesyan stated that they expect the closure of the case based on the lack of criminal composition. “Two examinations have taken place, and the third one is in progress. In the first two examinations, it has not been possible to prove the fact of theft by Susanna Aristakesyan. Most likely, the third examination will also yield nothing for the prosecuting body, and we expect the case to be closed on the grounds of absence of a criminal composition,” said the lawyer.

He reported that during the preliminary investigation of Susanna Aristakesyan, detention was chosen as a preventive measure. During this time, according to the lawyer, the management of 'Yans', with the knowledge and demand of the owners, demanded and received 40 million drams from the relatives of Susanna Aristakesyan. Meanwhile, the accusation against her was for 25 million drams, which remains to this day. “The 40 million drams were demanded to ensure that there would be no appeal and to not obstruct Susanna Aristakesyan’s release. After paying the 40 million drams, the Appellate Court placed a bail on Susanna Aristakesyan, and she is now at liberty. All this happened in 2017. After the initiation of the illegal enrichment case against Vachagan Ghazaryan in 2018, Susanna Aristakesyan reported that 40 million drams were extorted from her and her relatives, and threats were made against her relatives by Vachagan Ghazaryan, his wife, son, and Sergei Garapetyan, the de facto director of 'Yans'. A report was submitted against them, but the case was closed as it was found that extortion had not occurred because Susanna Aristakesyan is recognized as a victim in her own case, so they could demand any amount,” said the lawyer.

Tamara Baghdasaryan also emphasized once again that even the episode involving 25 million drams has not been proven to this day. “Now, if Susanna Aristakesyan's case is closed on grounds of acquittal, what will this mean, and why was that 40 million demanded and received from her?” the lawyer pointed out, adding that her client's case has “wandered” through various investigative bodies. “It went to the Anti-Corruption Committee, returned to the Investigative Committee, then to the city administration, and back again to the Investigative Committee. Essentially, they do not know how to coordinate which body should investigate and complete the case,” concluded the lawyer, hoping that justice would ultimately prevail.

For more details, visit the source website.