What Assets Does Former Minister Araam Harutyunyan Own from Illegal Origins? Prosecutor's Office Demands Seizure

On June 1, the Anti-Corruption Court continued the examination of a lawsuit filed by the General Prosecutor's Office against former Minister of Environment Araam Harutyunyan, his wife, and son-in-law regarding the seizure of assets of illegal origin. The presiding judge was Karapet Badalyan. This was reported by "Hetq".

The Prosecutor's Office demands the seizure from Araam Harutyunyan and his wife, Hasmik Abgaryan, for the benefit of the Republic of Armenia, as illegally obtained property:

• 95.1% of the apartment number 11 on G. Parpetsi Street 17/3 in Yerevan, or, in case of impossibility, 95.1% of the average market value of the property, which is 59 million 249 thousand 249 drams.
• 97.81% of the ⅞ part of the property located at D. Anhkht Street number 10/1 in Yerevan, or if impossible, the seizure of the average market value of 97.81% amounting to 1 billion 612 million 8 thousand 444 drams.
• The apartment on Bayron Street 3/14 in Yerevan in full, or if impossible, seizure of the average market value of the property amounting to 264 million 630 thousand drams.
• The garage located on Bayron Street 3/25 in Yerevan in full, or if impossible, seizure of the average market value of the property amounting to 21 million drams.
• 54.47% of a land plot of 0.25 hectares located in the village of Chknagh in Aragatsotn province.
• The entire 0.8-hectare land plot in Dilijan, or, if impossible, the seizure of the average market value of the property amounting to 62 million 725 thousand drams.
• 94.23% of the shares of "Incomservicing" LLC, i.e., 313.8 shares.
• 96.93% participation in "Nairi CSS" LLC, i.e., 3.947 shares.
• 99.972% participation in "Hanardnakhid" LLC, i.e., 14.420 shares.
• 3 billion 962 million 560 thousand drams equivalent to 8 million dollars.
• A deposit of 1 million 661 thousand 638 dollars.
• 275 million 600 thousand 897 drams as unused illegal income.
• 198 million 590 thousand drams equivalent to 98 million 365 thousand 598 drams, as a deposit made from illegal income that was then cashed out.
• 55 million 278 thousand 804 drams as property converted into monetary form from illegally obtained properties.
• 272 million 975 thousand 855 drams which is not covered by the individual's legal income, has illegal origins, and cannot be identified and seized.

From Araam Harutyunyan's son-in-law, Arshak Javadyan, the property located at 50/1 Ulnetsi Street in Yerevan is to be seized, or in case of impossibility, the average market value amounting to 555 million 252 thousand drams.

During the court session, Siro Amirkhanyan, head of the General Prosecutor's Office's division on the seizure of illegally obtained property, submitted a motion regarding changing the grounds of the lawsuit. According to the prosecutor, based on the data obtained during the investigation, 95.57% of the shares of "Incomservicing" LLC are considered to be of illegal origin, rather than 94.23%.

In September 2017, Araam Harutyunyan allegedly sold 124 of those shares for 90 million drams, thus, the corresponding amount which is 95.57% is deemed illegal. It amounts to 86 million 13 thousand drams instead of the previous 84 million 807 thousand drams.

Shortly after this transaction, in October 2017, Araam Harutyunyan deposited 125 thousand dollars into the bank, but according to the prosecutor's office, he could not have such legal income because the amount left after selling shares of "Incomservicing" LLC should have been only 8204 dollars; therefore, 116 thousand 795 dollars of his deposit was illegal. By the end of that year, the illegal portion of the deposit amounted to 1 million 477 thousand 430 dollars.

Araam Harutyunyan's representatives, Arthur Hovhannisyan and Aram Orbelyan, stated that the change of the grounds of the lawsuit cannot be implemented, as there is a final conclusion in which the prosecutor's office specified what percentage of shares they consider to be illegal, and based on that conclusion, the lawsuit cannot be subject to changes.

“Allowing a change of the grounds of the lawsuit means allowing the prosecutor's office to continue investigations during the court phase, which is not in accordance with the law,” Hovhannisyan stated.

The prosecutor responded that there are no restrictions on their part to submit a motion for changing the ground and subject of the lawsuit.

A representative from "Incomservicing" LLC, Lernik Hovhannisyan, suggested that what the prosecutor's office presented was not only a change of grounds but also a change of the lawsuit's subject. Hovhannisyan pointed out that the prosecutor's office intends to seize an excess of 2 million 206 thousand drams from the shares of "Incomservicing" LLC as illegally gained. Arthur Hovhannisyan added that the prosecutor's office also wants to seize a greater amount from the deposit account than previously indicated, thus finding this to also be a change of the lawsuit's subject.

In response to this question, the prosecutor stated, “We did not change the subject of the lawsuit, nor do we intend to.” The court decided to allow the change of grounds of the claim and gave time for the representatives of the defendants to respond. The next session of the case is scheduled for June 26 at 10:00.

After the session, lawyer Lernik Hovhannisyan informed that the entire foundation of the case is based on the fact that according to the prosecutor's office, Araam Harutyunyan had insufficient means in 1994 to acquire shares of "Incomservicing" LLC, amounting to about 4.5 million drams. And since those shares were reportedly acquired illegally, any properties obtained after that are also considered illegal and subject to seizure.

According to Hovhannisyan, the prosecutor's office based its investigation on the presumption that in 1994 Araam Harutyunyan and his wife had no money other than their salaries to purchase those shares. He finds this presumption to be incredible. His belief is that the prosecutor's office intentionally did not research or concealed the years preceding 1994.

Hovhannisyan further asserts that Araam Harutyunyan engaged in business in the Russian Federation from 1992 to 1994 and received support from his parents and is still registered at his familial home. He also emphasized that a significant portion of the shares was acquired through certificates, some of which were held by Harutyunyan and his family members, while the others were purchased. The nominal value of certificates reported by the prosecutor's office as 20 thousand drams, according to the lawyer, was actually 1000-1200 drams.

During the court session, Lernik Hovhannisyan posed a clarifying question to the prosecutor regarding whether they were operating under the presumption that in 1994 Araam Harutyunyan had no income other than his salary. The prosecutor positively affirmed this. Hovhannisyan stated that if it is proven that Araam Harutyunyan legally acquired the shares of "Incomservicing" LLC, then the prosecutor's office will automatically waive the demands for seizure of other properties. He believes there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the legality of acquiring shares in "Incomservicing" LLC.