Will ‘Thief-in-Law’ Alon and ‘Zone Watcher’ Tiz Be Arrested?

Within the framework of a criminal case initiated by the Armenian Police's Criminal Investigation Department on August 10, 2020, extensive operational and investigative measures have led to the uncovering of a criminal group led by a 'thief-in-law,' a person of the highest rank within the criminal hierarchy, and a so-called 'zone watcher,' who is also a person of such rank. This investigation revealed the involvement of various individuals in these groups and instances where the 'thief-in-law' reportedly utilized his illegal influence to resolve civil disputes.

On August 13, 2020, charges were filed against A. M., known in the criminal world as 'Alon,' who was arrested on the same day under Article 223.2, Part 2, Point 5 of the Armenian Criminal Code for committing these criminal acts. Additionally, A. S., a member of the group and a recognized criminal authority known as 'Tiz,' was charged under Article 223.3, Part 1 of the Criminal Code.

The investigative body submitted motions to the court to choose detention as a preventive measure against them. However, the First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction in Yerevan rejected these motions, citing a lack of well-founded suspicion regarding their potential involvement in the alleged acts, thus failing to address the grounds for the proposed preventive measures.

On August 25, 2020, the Public Safety Crimes Division of the Armenian Prosecutor General’s Office filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, requesting the annulment of the above decisions of the First Instance Court and the selection of detention as a preventive measure.

In the examination, the Court of Appeals partially granted the Prosecutor General's appeal regarding the preventive measure concerning A. M. on September 8, reversing the decision of the First Instance Court and remanding the case back for new examination.

The Court of Appeals deemed the grounds presented in the appeal by the Prosecutor General as reasonable, indicating that the threshold for well-founded suspicion regarding the involvement of the aforementioned individuals in the acts attributed to them had been surpassed and that the First Instance Court had made a baseless and unreasoned decision.

Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that during the examination of the motion, the First Instance Court had inadequately assessed the factual data related to the results of the relevant operational and investigative measures, evaluating the existing evidence separately instead of in combination. It also failed to consider all the factual data presented along with the motion, leading to conclusions not supported by the case materials.

As an alternative to resolving the issue of preventive measures, the Court of Appeals conditioned its decision to return the case for new examination on the necessary consideration by the First Instance Court of the bases for the proposed detention.

Additionally, with a different composition of judges, the Court of Appeals partially granted the Prosecutor General's appeal concerning the other defendant, A. S., reversing the decision and sending it back to the same court for new examination.

Besides the aforementioned individuals, charges have also been brought against two other persons in connection with this criminal case.