Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Deputy Speaker's Husband Is Not Charged

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Deputy Speaker's Husband Is Not Charged

    Why Deputy Speaker's Husband Is Not Charged

    Roza Hovhannisyan, Reporter
    Law - 27 September 2014, 17:33



    Davit Beglaryan, the husband of the deputy speaker of the National
    Assembly Hermine Naghdalyan, has openly stated in his testimony that
    he has asked money from the real owners of the apartments in the
    building at 14/3 Gevorg Cha'ush, Yerevan built by Norashen 2007
    cooperative to return their apartments. He states that he has returned
    two apartments for 10,000 dollars each and returned one of the
    apartments for 20,000 dollars and signed a sales agreement with them.

    Beglaryan also noted that he refused to return the apartment to Vahe
    Mayilyan for 5000 dollars and demanded 10,000 dollars. He dismissed
    the testimonies by the heads of Norashen 2007 cooperative that he had
    lent them money on interest and accepted the apartments as collateral.

    "Armen and Lyova sold me the apartments for 260 USD per square meter.
    We have simply agreed with them that later they will be able to buy
    back the apartments paying an additional 20-25%," he said.

    Interestingly, for the section of this case concerning Davit
    Beglaryan, V. Janazyan, investigator of cases of the special
    importance of the Special Investigative Service, has found out the
    following: "According to the agreement reached with the president of
    Norashen 2007 consumer cooperative Armen Tadevosyan and his partner
    Lusabek Manvelyan, in November 2009 Davit Beglaryan provided them
    300,000 USD at a monthly interest of 5% which exceeds the monthly
    nominal interest set by the RA Central Bank. As a guarantee of
    repayment of the money, he in person and relatives and friends signed
    fictive contracts with Armen Tadevosyan for 14 apartments at 14/3
    Gevorg Cha'ush."

    Nevertheless, the investigator did not prosecute Davit Beglaryan due
    to lack of corpus delicti in his act.

    Davit Mayilyan's apartment is now registered in the name of Davit
    Beglaryan's driver. Vahe Mayilyan's advocate Haik Alumyan told
    Lragir.am that Davit Beglaryan's testimony is not a straightforward
    testimony.

    "There is a lot of information in the criminal case that show it was a
    pawn. There was a fictive sales agreement but the investigation found
    out that in reality it was a pawn. Instead of collateral there was a
    sale. According to the document, the cooperative does not have the
    apartment that it has to hand over to Vahe Mayilyan," Alumyan said.

    He also said that the criminal case contains information on lending
    money on interest. According to the advocate, it is allowed by law to
    lend money on interest unless the interest does not exceed the rate
    established by the Central Bank twice. In this case, however,
    according to him, there is information in the criminal case that the
    rate twice exceeded the rate established by the Central Bank.

    "But now there is nothing the court can do, the investigative body
    should have done what was necessary - bring charges. Since the
    investigative body has not brought such charges, we have applied to
    court with a civil claim to apply the collateral agreement instead of
    the sales agreement, in other words, the agreement which the sides
    meant. We demand application of the rules of the real transaction. We
    think the real transaction was collateral, not sales. In other words,
    the apartment must be considered the property of Norashen 2007 hence
    it belongs to the person to whom it was to be handed over under the
    agreement," Haik Alumyan said, adding that there is sufficient ground
    to claim the apartment from Davit Beglaryan.

    Note that Armen Tedovosyan and Lusabek Manvelyan were charged under
    Article 178 Para 3.1. Armen Tadevosyan stated in his testimony that
    the majority of those who have certificates of ownership of apartments
    are not the real owners of the apartments but the people who lent him
    money on interest or their relatives.

    The article was financed by Fund for Investigative Journalism. http://fij.org/

    http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/right/view/33028#sthash.8avMqOb7.dpuf

Working...
X