Armenian Bank Struggles to Register Ownership Rights on Alleged Illegal Property Tied to Surik Khachatryan

On March 3, in the Anti-Corruption Court, the examination of the lawsuit filed by the Prosecutor General's Office for the confiscation of illegally obtained property belonging to former Syunik Governor Surik Khachatryan, his relatives, and connected individuals continued under the chairmanship of Judge Narine Avagyan.

The individuals included in the lawsuit are his wife Loreta Barseqyan, sons Tigran and Trdat Khachatryan, as well as their affiliated persons: Vardan Barseqyan, Manvel Malintsyan, Erik Hambardzumyan, Lusine Barseqyan, and Norair Mnatsakanyan, as reported by Hetq.

During today’s court session, a motion submitted by “Haybizesbank” LLC was discussed. According to this motion, “Haybizesbank” LLC requests to be involved in this legal process as a third party. The reason is that a lien has been placed on the immovable property located at Yerevan, Ayasi Street 10/1, which serves as collateral for the bank, thus infringing on the rights of the bank as the secured creditor. Consequently, the bank has been unable to obtain fulfillment from the collateral property.

Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan elaborated on the circumstances of this case during a conversation with journalists. According to him, this immovable property was pledged by Surik Khachatryan with “Haybizesbank” in 2017 in exchange for a loan. Subsequently, the loan obligations were not fulfilled, and in 2019 the bank filed for bankruptcy against Surik Khachatryan.

The demand was granted, and in 2019, Surik Khachatryan was declared bankrupt. “Since these loan obligations were secured by collateral, within the framework of the bankruptcy proceedings, the property was put up for public auction. The bank acquired the property through auction, paid the bankruptcy administrator, and the amounts paid were used to settle Surik Khachatryan's debt. However, since a lien had already been placed on the property at that time, identified as illegal property belonging to Surik Khachatryan, the bank is unable to register its ownership rights in the cadastre. In other words, although it paid for the property, it is unable to record its ownership rights in the cadastre,” said the prosecutor.

Gevorg Kocharyan stated that even before they filed the lawsuit, and prior to the investigations, the bank already had claims on the property in question. He noted that the bank's expectations are clear, and if there is a state registration confirming that the property belongs to “Haybizesbank” LLC, that property should be excluded from the prosecution’s claims.

It is noteworthy that the problematic property located at Ayasi Street 10/1 is part of point A in the prosecutor’s claim. The prosecution is requesting its confiscation in favor of the Republic of Armenia, or should that be impossible, its average market value of 1,176,167,500 AMD.

Regarding the motion of “Haybizesbank” LLC, the prosecution informed the court that it has no objections. The representatives of the defense side also had no substantial objections but expressed opposition to the discussion of this motion at the current session, suggesting that the court first issues a decision regarding the motion on the change of grounds and subject of the claim before proceeding to the other motions.

At the previous court session, Senior Prosecutor Gevorg Kocharyan presented a motion regarding the change of grounds and subject of the lawsuit, which the court allowed through a separate decision. At today’s session, before the discussion of the motion by “Haybizesbank” LLC, the prosecutor presented another motion regarding the change of grounds and subject, mentioning that it was solely for making technical corrections.

Vahagn Grigoryan objected to the motion regarding the change of subject, presenting the same arguments he had during the previous motion's discussion. Meanwhile, the representative of the defense had no objections to the change of grounds.

The court stated that decisions regarding the prosecutor’s presented motion, as well as the motion by “Haybizesbank” LLC, will be made in a separate act. The next session of the case is scheduled for March 31 at 15:00.