Why Millions were “presented” to Offshore Company and Who is in Charge for it.
An enforcement proceeding was initiated on July 4 this year in the Shengavit department of Yerevan’s Compulsory Enforcement Service (CES), and a search was initiated against the Iranian “Tobacco” company registered in the offshore zone.
This was reported by the press service of the Compulsory Enforcement Service, in response to 168 Zham poll. On March 1, 2013, the Court of General Jurisdiction of Shengavit Administrative District of Yerevan According to the writ of execution of the RFE / RL 0913/02/09 it is necessary to confiscate 247.489.200 AMD from the National Bank for the benefit of the State Budget by the RA Ministry of Finance on 29.09.2011. the amount of paid state duty.
“168 Hours” touched upon this issue in its previous papers, and the interesting thing is that the Compulsory Enforcement Service has instituted proceedings against “Numar trading” only after our request. Back in early July, we had sent a request to the Compulsory Enforcement Service to find out how much money has been collected from “Nurnberg Trading” so far, but it turned out that there was no enforcement proceeding as of July 3. In any case, the Compulsory Enforcement Officer is now in a dark room seeking a black cat. The “Nomard Trading” company is registered in the Seychelles and has no representation in Armenia and, according to media reports, it was created only for the realization of some of the dark affairs of the Nairit plant.
It should be reminded that one of the disclosures in the “Nairit” factory by the Financial Supervision Inspection of the Ministry of Finance of Armenia was the “games” associated with “Tobacco Trade”, in particular, In July, the company filed a lawsuit to the Shengavit Administrative Court of First Instance with a request to levy 4 billion 949 million drams from Nairit Plant CJSC as compensation for an unfulfilled liability, and Judge Ara Kubanyan satisfied the company’s motion for exemption or exit from the state duty, and the application was adjudicated without a payment receipt. The state fee in the first instance makes up 2% of the claim, in this case – 98 million drams. 2010 In September, Judge Kubanyan satisfied the claim, in order to confiscate 4 billion 949 million Drams from “Nairit” CJSC for the benefit of “Numar Trading” CJSC, at the same time it decided to confiscate the State Duty of the state budget for the 98 million Dram. The situation changed after the Ministry of Finance’s checks and “Hetq” scandals, when more than a year later, Nairit appealed and won the trial.
The appellant had overturned the case in 2012. In May, the first instance, for a new investigation, was settled in November last year from the “Numar trading” in favor of the state budget as a state duty, seized more than AMD 247.5 million, of which AMD 98 million is the unpaid state fee.
The question is why A. Kubanyan satisfied the motion of the offshore company and did not demand the payment of the state duty, so far it depends on the air. On what grounds can a judge be released from a company’s duty or postpone it?
In a conversation with us, the founder of “Avenue Consulting Group” Georgy Khachatryan stated that the judge has no right to accept a case without a state duty. According to the RA Law on State Duty, there are certain types of cases and persons who are exempt from state duty and have certain privileges (Article 21). Technically, according to According to Khachatryan, the applicant should submit a payment receipt or proof of payment that satisfies the requirement of a state-owned entity or a petition for any other privilege, such as a delay in payment.Khachatryan mentioned that the court should examine the grounds for mediation, that is, the applicant should prove that his property situation does not allow paying the state duty and the court must evaluate whether the evidence is sufficient to set a precedent. “An offshore company will either be local, it should try to convince the court that its property or financial status does not allow paying, and the court judges whether the information is reliable. In essence, within the law, one judge can satisfy the motion, and the other is not. ”
The “Nurnberg Trading” did not provide any guarantees to the court and does not fit into the logic why Ara Kubanyan has assisted the company. How much is this “flaw”? It should be noted that not taking such a size of state duty in this type of cases is a little accepted. The result is that today the “Nurnberg Trading” company, registered in the offshore zone of Iran, owes AMD 247.5 million to Armenia, and the likelihood that the Compulsory Enforcement Service will ever find one representative of that company is zero.
“168 Hours” inquired from the International Cooperation and Public Relations Service of the Judicial Department of the RA Justice Department that the Justice Council discussed or intends to discuss the negligence / risk behavior of the judge of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Shengavit district Ara Kubanyan related to the WTO / Non-custodial reparation of the state budget state duty (247,489,200 AMD) in favor of “Numar Trading” in the case of 0913/02/09 (November 21, 2012), as the mentioned company is not a resident of RA Iranian and registered in the offshore zone, and it was predictable that in case of defeat, it will no longer be difficult for the company’s representatives to levy the fee. We were told that the Disciplinary Committee of the Justice Council of the Republic of Armenia discusses the issue of subjecting the judge to disciplinary liability based on the application, mediation or program. Meanwhile, such application, mediation or announcement regarding Judge A. Kubanyan in the case of the Council of Europe / 0913/02/09 has not received the RA Justice Council staff.
At the same time, they were informed that according to Article 153 of the RA Judicial Code, the grounds for disciplinary liability are: obvious and gross violations of the material and procedural law norms in the administration of justice, regular or gross violation of disciplinary rules, regular or gross violation of the rules of conduct, Article 72, part 2 of Article 105, part 3 of Article 156, part 3 of Article 159, Article 191, part 3, Article 167, Article 193 of the Convention; failure to comply with the ethics committee’s jurisdiction over other activities envisaged by law or other statutory powers, or other activities not envisaged by law.
In other words, Kubanyan’s behavior can be examined by the Justice Council if he or she presents an application to Nairit or the Minister of Finance. And this is unlikely. The problem is more acute in the sense that as we wrote in our previous publications in November 2009, when “Tobacco” filed a lawsuit against the Nairit plant, its lawyers seemed to have lost their target business.
It should be reminded that there was a point in the treaty, which the Iranian party had to submit to the customs office of Yerevan to find out what type and quantity of rubber he needed to go to Yerevan and transfer the goods.
However, the Iranians did not submit a petition or sent a car, and ignoring this gross violation of the contract to reject the suit, Nairit’s lawyer brought the statute as a basis, while knowing that the limitation could not be applied because it had already taken hold of it were recording a fake document in the background. All this would have been revealed if the law enforcement officers had not done this summer and had to conduct a truly impartial investigation.
Anyway. The history of the “Nairit” and the dark deal with the plant is quite mixed. But one thing is clear: As a result of this small episode with the Iranian company, the state has suffered millions of losses, and none of the responsibilities has been exposed. Behind the curtain, the hidden ones also enjoy the millions.