What is Robert Kocharyan’s new accusation about?

A new criminal case has been initiated against the second president of RA, Robert Kocharyan.

Let’s start from the beginning.

On June 14, President Kocharyan’s office announced that he was leaving Armenia on a three-day visit. The office, well aware of the working style of this government, emphasized: “We have never provided information about the president’s many previous visits in advance because of their private nature. However, taking into account the recent lies spread by the authorities regarding the visits of representatives of the opposition, we consider it necessary to protect the public from the expected dose of government lies.”

At the end of the same day, President Kocharyan’s office reported that the president’s exit from the country was prohibited illegally and without any reason. “The petty dictator has actually turned the “bastion of democracy” so praised by his European masters into a “democracy concentration camp”. If anyone wearing Aliyev’s shoes even thinks that President Kocharyan can flee the country, he is terribly mistaken. “One person will escape from Armenia, and that one person is Aliyev’s aide (if, of course, he is lucky enough to escape),” the message said.

The investigative bodies of Armenia informed the press that Robert Kocharyan’s border exit was not restricted within the framework of any proceedings being investigated in their structures. It turns out that this was done on the illegal instructions of a specific person.

Two days later, on June 16, it turns out that the prosecutor’s office filed criminal charges against the second president. Well, what is it about?

And so, the 2nd president of RA is accused of abuse of official position and money laundering, allegedly for “2004 being the President of the Republic, having selfish motivations to alienate the state property to his son at a low price, instructed the members of the Government to adopt a decision by which the educational institution “Tennis Olympic Shift Children’s Sports School” owned by SNOC, c. 29,033 square meters located at 7/1 of Tsitsernakaberd branch, Yerevan. meters of land and the 1705 square meter building on it were sold to “Kinetik” LLC company for about 12 mln. in drams, when that property was valued at 1.1 billion drams in 2006.” Moreover, they claim that this property was not subject to alienation, because it belonged to the educational institution, and the Law on Education provided that the property of the educational institution, when alienated, should be used exclusively for educational purposes.

Also, it is noted that then 50% of the share of “Kinetik” LLC company was acquired by “Stream Force” SP company owned by Sedrak Kocharyan, and with that, they allegedly justify money laundering, considering that, after all, the property acquired at a cheap price actually passed to R. Kocharyan’s affiliated company.

According to the accusation, as a result, significant damage was caused to the state and severe consequences arose, because the process of privatization of property was grossly violated, the possibility of participation of other persons in that process was limited, 12 million drams of property with a cadastral value and a market value of 1.1 billion drams were withdrawn from the state property fund through a corruption scheme, and the sports school was also deprived of its property for educational purposes. from the law.

Well, what is the participation of President Kocharian here? the fact that he ratified the Government’s decision with his signature, and that a part of the property, after all, was transferred to the company belonging to his son.

This is the whole irony of the accusation. like this

In 1995 According to Article 86 of the Constitution of the editorial office, “Government decisions are signed by the Prime Minister and ratified by the President of the Republic.” According to Article 89 of the Constitution, “The Government manages state property”. According to Article 85 of the Constitution, “The Government consists of the Prime Minister and Ministers.”

There is no legal act that authorized the President of the Republic to, so to speak, veto the decisions of the Government, not to ratify them, or to check the legality of those decisions before ratification. There is no known case (during the 1995 edition of the Constitution, that is, until 2005) when the President of the Republic did not ratify any decision of the Government that the Prime Minister had signed. Moreover, the authority to manage state property belongs to the Government. therefore, in this regard, the President of the Republic was not authorized to interfere in the activities of the Government.

By validating the decisions taken by the government (that is, the collegial body, the Prime Minister and the ministers), the President of the Republic cannot bear any responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.

In other words, the allegations about the crime are irrelevant, and the Government’s decision to ratify the action is completely within the framework of the immunity granted to the President of the Republic, that is, the law enforcement agencies are not authorized to make this action the subject of investigation on their own.

Even though initiating such a criminal case against President Kocharyan is a joke in itself, this criminal case is illogical even if President Kocharyan’s name was not circulated. There are no grounds for considering the decision adopted by the government to be illegal. Why?

In the context of the regulations of the “Education” Law, “Olympic Tennis Children’s Sports School” is not considered an educational institution. Moreover, in the founding decision of that SNOC, it is also mentioned that the main purpose and object of its activity is the implementation of physical culture-health and sports activities. Therefore, the restriction of Article 45, Part 4 of the Law on Education did not apply in this case.
Even if that SNOC was an educational institution, it was not property belonging to SNOC that was expropriated, but state-owned property that was given to SNOC for free use (it was taken back and expropriated).
And finally, by the decision of the Government, it was stated that the person acquiring the property should maintain the activity profile of the sports school, that is, the property should continue to be used for the same purposes as the purposes for which it was given to SNOC for free use.
The reasoning of the Prosecutor’s Office that the transfer of state property to another person by direct sale disrupted the privatization process, limited the possibility of participation of other persons in that process, is also groundless, because the 2003 RA Government Resolution According to the decision No. 882-N of June 13 (which defined the order and methods of expropriation of state property), it was planned that the state alienation of property is carried out by auction, tender or direct sale based on the decision made in accordance with this order.

In other words, in 2004 Chief: expropriation of property in the form of direct sale was provided for (now there is also such a possibility) by RA legislation, so it cannot be considered as an illegal act in any way.

What about the selling price then?

According to the government’s decision on property expropriation and the justifications of the draft decision, it is obvious that the land was not sold first (it was given on lease), but buildings considered to be in a third-degree emergency (by the way, the Prosecutor’s Office did not object to the conclusion that the building was in an emergency), so it is natural that the estimated value of the property should be lower than its cadastral value.
In 2005, the leased plot of land was transferred to the acquiring company as ownership. on the basis of the adopted Land Code (provided that the Organization will be obliged to pay its cadastral value when expropriating that property). It is assumed (and the prosecutor’s office confirms in its decisions) that the cadastral value in the amount of 444,489,528 AMD was paid during the privatization in 2021 (while part of the land remains leased).
According to the government’s decision, the buyer of the property should invest AMD 200,000 in the first year, 300,000 in the second year, and 300,000 in the third year. Therefore, the value of the property as of July 2006, taking into account the reconstruction of the buildings and the acquisition of ownership rights to the leased land based on the Land Code, could be estimated at 1.1 billion.
What about the relationship of Sedrak Kocharyan regarding the acquisition of property? First of all, it should be noted that the founder of the company acquiring the property was the President of the Tennis Federation, Harutyun Pambukyan, who, wanting to give a second life to the tennis sports school, applied to the Government with an appropriate investment program (this fact is also indicated in the justification of the draft decision of the Government), and the Government, assessing that the school was in a poor state at that time, approved the investment program, which, by the way, was implemented, and we currently have an international tennis sports school that meets the standards.

What about the company owned by Sedrak Kocharyan in 2009? The acquisition of a 50% share of “Kinetik” LLC was due to the fact that after the crisis of 2008, Marzadprots had financial problems and was looking for suitable investors. S. acted as such an investor. The company “Stream Force” owned by Kocharyan (including Harutyun Pambukyan and Sedrak Kocharyan also knew each other before that), which, by the way, acquired the shares through a bank transfer at a rather impressive price – 1 billion drams.

In fact, this also refutes the hypothesis of the Prosecutor’s Office that from the beginning the motivation of this property expropriation was to transfer state-owned property with a high market value to the son of the President of the Republic for a small amount of money.

CONCLUSION:

The Prosecutor’s Office, without examining the circumstances of whether or not the SNOC is an educational institution (in the sense of the Law on Education), the circumstances of whether or not the expropriated property is the property of the latter, not even having information at the level of supposition, by what action the President of the Republic abused his powers, and only having the information that part of the shares of the company acquiring that property was acquired by the company owned by Sedrak Kocharyan 5 years after its acquisition (and a significant amount paying), rushes to accuse R. Kocharyan, who did not have any authority regarding property alienation. Moreover, the charge was brought under such articles of the Criminal Code, the statute of limitations has expired.

Let’s emphasize: if we, as a news-analytical site, are able to bring all this up from publicly available sources, the law enforcement officers were surely obliged to do so before initiating criminal prosecution.

Ստացվում է՝ Ռոբերտ Քոչարյանին տասնյակ տարիներ մեղադրել են աշխարհի բոլոր մեքերի մեջ, բայց գործնական փուլում կա՛մ մեղադրանք են հարուցում հակասահմանադրական հոդվածով կամ էլ՝ հազիվ կարողանում են գտնել 22 տարի առաջվա կառավարության որոշում և մեղադրում են այն վավերացնելու մեջ։ This is even in the case when the president of 22 years ago, according to the Constitution, did not have the authority to disapprove the decisions of the government.

Աղբյուր՝ Yerkir.am

—