The scope of criminal cases against Gagik Tsarukyan continues to expand. The leader of the Prosperous Armenia Party has been hit with a third set of charges, this time involving the alleged extortion of $2.5 million in assets and money laundering. Sedrak Arustamyan, director of the Multi Group concern, is also a suspect in the case.
According to the Investigative Committee, the case is linked to Lebanese-Armenian businessman Gevorg Toramanyan. Law enforcement officials allege that in 2008, Tsarukyan reached an agreement with Toramanyan to launch a joint business venture focused on jewelry sales and the construction of a water bottling plant. Prosecutors claim that Tsarukyan’s team later used threats to force the businessman to relinquish his 50 percent stake in the Multi Aquamarine company. Authorities assert that Toramanyan signed the necessary documents under duress, and that subsequent efforts were made to conceal the transactions through money laundering.
The defense team categorically denies the allegations. Tsarukyan’s lawyer, Emin Khachatryan, stated that the charges are baseless and bear no relation to reality. The lawyer questioned why Toramanyan remained silent for over 12 years, only coming forward during ongoing legal proceedings against Tsarukyan. The defense notes they possess evidence of fraudulent activities by the businessman, which they claim investigating authorities are ignoring. Sedrak Arustamyan’s attorney, David Mantashyan, also stated that his client denies the charges, labeling them false. As both Tsarukyan and Arustamyan are already in custody for other cases, no additional pre-trial restrictive measures were applied regarding these new charges.
This new indictment represents another milestone in the legal proceedings against Tsarukyan, once again raising questions about the relationship between the business-politician and the state law enforcement system. The defense's argument that the complaints have surfaced a decade later casts doubt on the strength of the evidence base.
At the same time, it remains to be seen how the law enforcement system evaluates incidents subject to statutes of limitations and to what extent they are based on documentary evidence rather than subjective testimony alone. The outlook for the case will depend on how successfully the prosecution can substantiate the claim of coercion, which remains a difficult task given that the transactions were notarized.
