Seiran Ohanyan Has Not Received Salary for Four Months: Lawyer

Seiran Ohanyan, a member of the National Assembly of Armenia, has not received his salary for the past four months, according to his lawyer Karen Mejlumyan.

In a statement, Mejlumyan said, "Do you know that Mr. Seiran Ohanyan, the leader of the largest opposition faction in the National Assembly, has not received his salary for four months? You may ask why. I will explain: In the so-called March 1st case, the investigator imposed a seizure on the property and financial assets of Mr. Ohanyan and other defendants by a decision dated January 11, 2019. Until the case was sent to court, prosecutor Petros Petrosyan noted in the decision to confirm the indictment that 'decisions have been made regarding the release of the property of... and defendant Seiran Mushig Ohanyan from the seizure.' We also believed that Mr. Ohanyan's property (bank accounts) had been released from seizure. On April 26, 2021, Judge A. Danibekyan acquitted Mr. Ohanyan and mentioned in the final part of the decision that 'the seizure on the movable and immovable property, financial (monetary) assets, shares, securities, and assets of Seiran Mushig Ohanyan should be lifted.'

When Mr. Ohanyan was elected as a member of the National Assembly, it turned out that the seizure on his bank accounts had not been lifted, and he has not received a salary or any payments to support his activities as a deputy for four months, thereby violating both his property rights and his rights as a deputy.

When this was discovered, a request was submitted to Judge Danibekyan for providing a document confirming that the property seizure was lifted. Since the case was being handled in the Court of Cassation, a motion was also submitted there regarding lifting the seizure or providing a certificate confirming it was lifted. Judge Danibekyan did not address the request, stating that the case was in the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation, in turn, discussed the motion before the completion of the examination of the appeals. During that discussion, prosecutor Petros Petrosyan stated, 'Dear court, the restrictions on the property have been lifted at the stage of confirming the indictment, and my decisions have been sent to all operating commercial banks in the Republic of Armenia. If there is any technical problem, the prosecution side has no objection to addressing again that the seizure has been lifted at that stage.'

The Court of Cassation, believing the prosecutor's words, did not address the motion in its decision. However, the bank states that it has not received any decision regarding the lifting of the seizure of property and financial assets, the decision of the first instance court has not yet taken legal effect, and thus it does not unfreeze the accounts for receiving the deputy's salary. Moreover, I have also approached prosecutor Petrosyan back in December, requesting to provide the decision mentioned by him and send it to the bank. To this day, that decision has not been found, provided to us, or sent to the bank.

Such is the situation we live in, where the prosecutor blatantly misleads the court, claiming that the seizure has been lifted, and this 'bluff' passes with the court making no decision, even though on paper Mr. Ohanyan's property and financial assets have been free from seizure since April 2019 but are actually still under seizure, and an opposition member of the National Assembly has not received his salary for months without any resolution in sight.

I am confident that if a representative of the ruling party faced such an issue, it would be resolved in one day. In the case of an opposition deputy, the prosecution and the courts do everything to prevent a solution.

Note 1: As the case is currently in the Court of Cassation, I have submitted a request to the Court of Cassation for a document confirming that Mr. Ohanyan's property has been lifted from seizure. Let’s see what response will be received.

Note 2: Even if a decision is made regarding seizing a person’s financial assets, the seizure cannot exceed half of the salary. In Mr. Ohanyan's case, there is no such decision, but there are decisions regarding releasing the financial assets from seizure; however, the entire salary continues to be seized.