February 20, 2024


Get Into Fashion

Charges brought against former and current directors of Yerevan jewelry factory, director of Gnomon | Morning:


The study conducted in the State Interests Protection Department of the RA General Prosecutor’s Office received information that the responsible officials of “Yerjan Jewelry Factory” OJSC within the framework of the civil case in 2017-2018. Gnomon OJSC was not brought to courtThe agreement with the Court of Cassation did not correct the shortcomings registered, as a result of which the company was deprived of the opportunity to receive the receivable debt of 1,092,593,543 AMD, եռ overburdened to pay about 56,000,000 AMD state duty commitment.

A criminal case was initiated in the State Interests Protection Department of the RA Prosecutor General’s Office under Article 315, Part 2 of the RA Criminal Code.

Based on the evidence obtained during the preliminary investigation, it was substantiated that the director of “Gnomon” OJSC E. G. came to a preliminary agreement with the director of “Yerevan Jewelry Factory” OJSC G. With K., to motivate him to exercise his powers provided by law by means of material interest. In particular, in the above-mentioned conditions, GK violated the requirements of the RA Law on Open Joint-Stock Companies, 2012-2016. In the absence of a positive opinion of the board meeting held by the shareholders of “Yerevan Jewelry Factory” OJSC, in case of not having the authority to conclude a large single deal, it signed mutual settlement verification agreements with EG, which unreasonably extended “Yerevan Jewelry Factory-1” Terms of payment of Gnomon OJSC liabilities.

As a result, the state-owned company was deprived of the opportunity to receive its AMD 1,092,593,543 receivables on time.

In addition, E. G. reached an agreement with GK within the framework of a civil case pending in the Court of General Jurisdiction of the city of Yerevan with the intention of canceling the receivables owed by Gnomon OJSC to the Yerevan Jewelry Factory OJSC and intentionally embezzling the receivables. By which “Yerevan Jewelry Factory” OJSC filed a demand for confiscation of AMD 1,146,889,564 543 against “Gnomon” OJSC, not to provide the contract substantiating the claim, which is the basis of the existing deed-agreements between the companies. As a result, as a result of the examination of the lawsuit, the court rejected the claim of “Yerevan Jewelry Factory” OJSC, arguing that the reasons referred to by the plaintiff did not prove to the court that they were in a contractual relationship. This decision later entered into force.

That is. G., knowing full well about the existence of the contract in question, taking advantage of his influence over GK, agreed not to grant the said contract, initially realizing that the claim was unfounded in the absence of a contract. Thus, E. G. embezzled a particularly large amount of 1,092,593,543 AMD from a state-owned company through embezzlement.

The investigation revealed that the current director of “Yerevan Jewelry Factory” OJSC A. A. or in 2017 On May 12, 2007, he filed a lawsuit in court, requesting to invalidate the “Mutual Account Verification Acts” signed with Gnomon OJSC, as well as confiscating AMD 1,092-593-543 from the latter, but did not submit a lawsuit between the companies during the trial. The cooperation agreement signed on January 15, 2006 և did not prove the fact of being in a contractual relationship. The court therefore rejected the company’s claim.

With the combination of sufficient evidence obtained, decisions were made by the former director of “Yerevan Jewelry Factory” OJSC G. K. was charged with Article 309, Part 3, Article 38-179, Part 3, Clause 1 of the RA Criminal Code. G. under Article 38-309, Part 3, Article 179, Part 3, Clause 1 of the RA Criminal Code, and the director of “Yerjan Jewelry Factory” OJSC A. On involving A. as an accused under Part 2 of Article 315 of the RA Criminal Code.

The Court of First Instance of the city of Yerevan submitted motions to apply the detention of E.G. և GK as a measure of restraint, which were rejected.

E. The bail in the amount of AMD 100,000,000 was chosen as a precautionary measure by the body conducting the proceedings against G. As for GK և AA, a signature not to leave.

The investigation is underway.

Notification. presumed crime in: the suspect or: the accused considered is: innocent, how many yet: her guilt Proven: no RA: criminal: trial by code established in order:`: of the court`: legal force: in: entered: by verdict:

According to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, the reproduction of excerpts from news materials should not reveal a significant part of the news material. When reproducing excerpts from news materials on the site, it is mandatory to mention the name of the media outlet in the title of the excerpt, as well as to place an active link to the site.


Source link