COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF AMCIT PLAINTIFFS IN CRIMINAL

UNCLAS YEREVAN 000744 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EINV PGOV CASC KJUS KDEM AM SUBJECT: COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF AMCIT PLAINTIFFS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ¶1. (U) On September 15, Yerevan's city court ended five years of legal proceedings by ruling in favor of U.S. citizen plaintiffs Carolann and George Najarian, granting them the disputed property and convicting Grigor Igityan, their former business partner in Armenia, to four and a half years imprisonment for major embezzlement and tax evasion. The Najarians had alleged that Igityan had defrauded them by selling the land and photo shop that they had purchased in his name in 1996 for his own personal gain. The Najarians claimed that they had made the investments in Igityan's name because Armenian law did not allow non-Armenian citizens to own land. They further alleged that due to corruption, the Armenian prosecutor's office had refused to prosecute the Armenian business partner. According to Armenian law, if Igityan does not file an appeal, the verdict will enter into force on October 15. ¶2. (SBU) Amcits Carolann and George Najarian, active members of the American-Armenian community, have been major private donors of humanitarian assistance to Armenia since the devastating earthquake in 1988. In September 2003, the Najarians filed a criminal complaint against Igityan, which the Yerevan Prosecutor's Office initially dismissed in December 2003. The Prosecutor General ordered the Yerevan prosecutor to reopen the case in March 2004. The Yerevan prosecutor again dismissed the case in October 2004, but this time the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court equivalent) ordered it to reopen the investigation in April 2005. The Najarians allege that while the Yerevan Prosecutor's Office reopened the case in response to the Court of Cassation opinion, due to corruption it had intimidated witnesses to change testimony harmful to Igityan. Also, court hearings were frequently postponed due to "illness" or "incapacitation" of the defendant or his attorney. ¶3. (SBU) COMMENT: Because of the nature of the charges and the frequency with which many Armenian-Americans encounter similar fraudulent behavior when they attempt to do business in Armenia, the trial drew much attention from the American-Armenian community. Despite the impediments set up in the judicial process, we view this verdict as a small triumph for the independence of Armenia's judiciary. PENNINGTON