Yesterday, on December 14, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Armenia issued a statement, which coincidentally follows the unsuccessful attempt to illegally detain former Minister of Finance, 68-year-old Gagik Khachatryan, who is currently receiving inpatient medical care. From yesterday’s report, we have already learned that a decision was made to bring new charges against Gagik Khachatryan’s son and nephew, businessmen Artyom and Aram Khachatryan. The criminal proceedings have been sent to the court with an indictment.
Understanding the Context and Essence of the Matter
In order for the public to understand the context of published complex texts and some unattainable numbers, it is crucial to note that the occasional escalations by the investigative bodies and the prosecutor’s office against the Khachatryan family follow a pattern of a very random and sudden communication terror, aimed at tarnishing the family’s business reputation and indirectly hindering their operations.
At this point, let’s just recall that in 2020 Gurgen and Artyom Khachatryan faced charges related to money laundering and aiding in the receipt of bribes. The charges arose subsequent to their refusal to comply with the direct and indirect demands made by high-ranking officials of the country. Specifically, they were pressured to facilitate the expropriation of Ucom to a person under the auspices of the government, with an unprofitable proposal accompanied by acts of sabotage.
Read also
In addition, the prosecutor’s office is well aware that accusing the Khachatryan brothers of aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering is clearly illegal. This is not only because the money was received within the framework of a simple business relationship, and the Khachatryan brothers transparently presented the information to the NSS in response to the inquiry. It’s also due to the fact that already in 2016, the RA NSS investigation department decided not to initiate a criminal case. This decision, which remains unrevoked expressly prohibits the initiation of a criminal case and the filing of charges for the same case. However, despite this obvious fact, the prosecutor’s office proceeded to file evidently illegal charge against the Khachatryans.
What are Khachataryans accused of?
The Khachatryans are facing a hastily formulated new charge of money laundering by the prosecutor’s office. It’s important to note that basic business transactions conducted through banks were already within the investigative and prosecutorial bodies’ knowledge as early as 2019. These transactions underwent thorough scrutiny for four years without any indication of criminal activity being discovered. However, approximately four years later, these same transactions are being construed as criminal. Moreover, in order to present groundless accusations and inflated figures against the Khachatryans, the prosecution has artificially linked a bank driver with the Khachatryans and attributed the money he deposited in the bank to them.
However, we assert that the Khachatryans are entirely unfamiliar with this individual and have never had any association with him. Consequently, they cannot be connected to the transactions he conducted in the bank and the funds he deposited.
In order to find out those circumstances, we submitted an extensive petition to the investigator and the prosecutor, but that petition was disregarded and left unexamined.
How Reasonable are the Charges?
It’s crucial to reiterate that categorizing loans executed within business dealings as “bribery” is fundamentally flawed. This classification would lead law enforcement officers to approach any transaction within the business sphere with an assumption of corruption. Additionally, the perplexing nature of the qualifications made by these law enforcement agencies becomes evident when we observe the case of the “IUnetworks” company, where the amount of tax paid to the state budget was deemed as embezzlement—an assessment that is simply unacceptable.
If a comprehensive 5-year preliminary investigation involving various governmental agencies failed to uncover any evidence indicating that these companies concealed their actual turnovers and taxes payable, it raises significant questions about the prosecution’s assertion of tax evasion. Why hasn’t the prosecutor’s office brought charges that align with these substantial numbers uncovered during the investigation? Instead, they have artificially incorporated these figures into their statements to fabricate the semblance of a grave crime.
Consequently, the reinterpretation of old information within a new criminal context and the exaggerated numerical representation of completed transactions only hint at the existence of other, real motives driving this legal process.
In conclusion, despite the repression carried out by the state, the “Galaxy” Group of Companies belonging to the Khachatryan family, one of the largest employers in Armenia, continues to fulfill all their obligations: pay taxes to the country’s budget, employee salaries and implement new business and social programs. The legal team hopes that the further investigation of the criminal case will be carried out within the framework of the law and legality, promising that during the public trial, the public will be presented with facts and evidence refuting the accusations.
