Armenian Citizen Accused in Bribery Case, while Ruling Party MP Remains Unpunished: 'Jamanak'

An Armenian citizen, Ashot, has found himself on the defendant's bench in a bribery case involving ruling party MP Hokik Aghazaryan, who remains unpunished to this day, according to 'Jamanak' newspaper.

According to exclusive information obtained by the newspaper, testimonies were given to the Anti-Corruption Committee concerning MP Aghazaryan, stating that he solicited a bribe of $300,000 in exchange for facilitating the illegal export of livestock from Armenia to the United Arab Emirates.

Reports from informed sources indicate that the Anti-Corruption Committee has charged Ashot, the individual who testified against the MP, with agreeing to facilitate the bribe to Aghazaryan. A ban on leaving the country has been imposed on him as a preventive measure; however, no charges have been brought against the MP.

The Anti-Corruption Committee is currently awaiting a decision from Armenia's Prosecutor General Anna Vardapetyan, who may be waiting for political instructions from Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan regarding the stripping of Aghazaryan's parliamentary immunity in order to press charges against the MP as well.

Notably, further details surrounding this scandal were revealed to 'Jamanak'. Ashot recounted to law enforcement that the initial $300,000 bribe was not delivered, and the agreement was ultimately modified to $100,000. A meeting was arranged in a park near the National Assembly, where an offer of $20,000 was made to Aghazaryan; however, the MP was reportedly angered, stating they had agreed on $100,000 and refused to accept the lesser amount, insisting they return with the full sum.

'Jamanak' also spoke with MP Hokik Aghazaryan regarding these accusations:

-Mr. Aghazaryan, Ashot has been charged with bribing you, and there is an ongoing criminal proceeding in the Anti-Corruption Committee. Have you been summoned for questioning in this case?

-Yes, I have been summoned.

-Did you go in person and testify?

-Yes, I did.

-What did you recount there? Ashot states that he agreed to pay you $300,000 in bribes to facilitate the illegal export of livestock.

-The discussion was not about $300,000; it was about $200,000.

-So you sought $200,000?

-No, it was a bit different, it’s a long story.

-Can you provide us with a brief overview of this story? Do you know or have you met Ashot?

-Yes, I know him; I met him once through a friend I’ve known for a long time. I assume the person I met was Ashot.

-Is your long-time acquaintance Slavik?

-Yes, Slavik came to me before the meeting with Ashot, saying, 'There is a problem.' I didn’t discuss it long and said I would talk later. Naturally, we later met, Ashot was there at that time, and I told them, 'Your claims have no basis, you can do what you want within the regulations.' Later, the law enforcement agencies were investigating another case.

-Are you referring to the forged driving license case? According to our information, the Anti-Corruption Committee investigated a case regarding forged driving licenses and recorded conversations revealed discussions about your bribery.

-No, my conversations do not exist. I don’t know, but I assume the conversations between Slavik and Ashot are what they recorded, where those numbers were mentioned.

-But there is information suggesting that there is a specific conversation involving you.

-There’s no such thing, since no such conversation took place, there cannot be a recording.

-So you did not solicit a bribe of $300,000 or, as you say, $200,000?

-Of course not, such a conversation did not take place.

-In that case, Mr. Aghazaryan, why has Ashot been charged with bribery and has been in a defendant's status for months?

-I am not aware of that… Has Ashot been charged?

-He has been charged with bribery.

-So he gave it, let’s assume, to Slavik, who then gave it to me?

-Have they come to you for a meeting at the National Assembly?

-No.

-Ashot has told law enforcement that they could not deliver the $300,000 bribe and eventually agreed to give you $100,000. They met and offered $20,000 to you, but you got angry and said you had agreed on $100,000.

-Absolutely not, they have never come to the National Assembly, and Slavik has never entered there. I've seen Ashot only once, and that’s it. This is some internal conflict among them. The investigation will clarify; of course, it’s not like Aghazaryan Hokik has requested that much bribe.

-There are wiretaps, there are recordings.

-There can't be a wiretap of something that did not happen; I did not discuss such matters with them.

-In that case, why is Ashot naming you?

-Now, if someone spoke with Ashot on the phone and said that Aghazaryan Hokik wants $200,000 to help us, and Ashot said that is too much and so on, and then logically it’s conceivable that he offered $20,000; he also said that Aghazaryan Hokik does not agree; at least we need to give $100,000. Let’s assume this is the case; naturally, there is a criminal implication here. How can law enforcement agencies listen to a conversation where the name of an MP is mentioned and take no action?

-Let’s reach an important question. Law enforcement has appealed to the Prosecutor General and is waiting for the actions of the Prosecutor General.

-What actions are they waiting for?

-To come to the National Assembly, grant you immunity, and bring charges.

-When I am summoned, should I not go? When I am called, I go.

-One strange point is why Ashot or Slavik would name you in a bribery case, claiming it’s you who solicited the bribe.

-That question was also posed by the investigator, and I told him that I would not respond to that question, as the answer is known.

-You, if you think for a while, will understand; when the airwaves are closed, I’ll tell you.

-Why don’t you tell me now?

-No, it’s preliminary investigation secrecy; I cannot disclose much.

-What you told us, is it the same as you told in the Anti-Corruption Committee?

-I’ve told far more things there, explaining where that story might have originated from, etc. I’ve disclosed everything. There is preliminary investigative secrecy; I cannot disclose much.

-No coherence with what is presented, can't exist in conversations where no such talk occurred.

-There’s no conversation there because if it was presented earlier before the investigation of the case itself, wouldn’t we have a lecture on the deceit of these scandals?

-We will report as events unfold.