The Return of Looted State Wealth Is a Public Demand

By KRIKOR KHODANIAN

The arrests taking place in Armenia in recent days have caused considerable controversy, particularly because among those detained are former high-ranking government officials and prominent public figures.

Opposition circles immediately characterized these actions as politically motivated and as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s campaign of retribution against his opponents.

First, it should be recalled that Pashinyan is not new to calling for the return of wealth stolen from the state. He has been speaking about this issue for years, and numerous legislative amendments have been adopted for that purpose. However, the measures taken in this direction have not produced the expected results. With the exception of certain cases in which illegally acquired real estate has been returned to the state, the fate of hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth accumulated through illicit means remains uncertain.

Consequently, whenever law-enforcement authorities take action in this direction, there will be circles that attempt to portray those actions as politically motivated. If that were truly the case, these individuals would have been investigated from the very beginning, and their wealth would already have been returned to the state. However, by adhering to the principles of the “velvet” revolution and democracy, the authorities allowed these matters to proceed within the framework of the law.

The Prime Minister himself, however, acknowledges that there are problems within the investigative bodies and the courts, where cases can drag on for months and even years until the statutes of limitations expire.

Over the past several months, certain aspects of Gagik Tsarukyan’s vast fortune have already come to light, including instances in which he allegedly extorted or deceived others in order to acquire their property. A man who has never distinguished himself for his knowledge or intellectual abilities was nevertheless able first to acquire ownership of the state-owned Ararat cement factory and then to enter dozens of different sectors, including a winery, casino, fitness centers, hotel complexes, a furniture factory, and many others.

Tsarukyan has amassed enormous wealth, a tiny portion of which he distributes as charitable donations, while another portion is reportedly used from one election to the next to bribe voters.

According to the Anti-Corruption Committee, several dozen investigators worked for months on the alleged wrongdoing connected to the Kocharyan family. Therefore, it would have been impossible to gather all the evidence and bring charges in a single day simply on the basis of a statement by the Prime Minister.

For example, the Committee reports that Kocharyan’s son became a 30-percent shareholder in Toyota in exchange for concessions granted by his father’s government to the company’s owner. Another son reportedly received $6 million in connection with the sale of a mine, even though he had never owned a mine. State property was sold at a nominal price to a 19-year-old woman and subsequently became the property of the Kocharyan family. The same thing was repeated with the woman’s sister, and once again, state-owned property changed hands and eventually ended up in the possession of the Kocharyans.

There are several dozen such examples, which Robert Kocharyan and his sons will find difficult to deny, particularly given that they had already become dollar millionaires by the age of 20.

If these cases were the result of a political vendetta, Pashinyan could have initiated them before the elections and ensured that he secured the large parliamentary majority he wanted. Although some people had demanded that political parties distributing bribes be barred from participating in the elections, the government did not take that step, leaving it to the courts to determine how to deal with them.

Eight years after the change of government brought about by a popular uprising, society’s expectations regarding the exposure of state looting and illicit enrichment during the two decades of rule under Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan have still not been fulfilled. The public continues to hold the current authorities responsible for this failure.

It should be clear to everyone that the return of what was looted from the state is, first and foremost, a public demand. It has nothing to do with political retribution.

“MASSIS”