The law enacted by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s administration in 2020 requires the ex-officials as well as their close relatives targeted by prosecutors to prove the legality of their holdings. Armenian courts can allow the nationalization of such assets even if their owners are not found guilty of corruption or other criminal offenses.
Pashinian has for years portrayed the law on asset forfeiture as a major anti-corruption measure that will help his government recover “wealth stolen from the people.” Armenian opposition figures say, however, that Pashinian has used it to try to suppress dissent and cement his hold on power.
In November 2021, lawmakers representing the country’s main opposition forces appealed to the Constitutional Court to declare the law unconstitutional. They said that it contradicts articles of the Armenian constitution guaranteeing the presumption of innocence and property rights.
In its ruling publicized on Wednesday evening, the court essentially upheld the law’s conformity with the constitution. But it also concluded that the authorities can seize only those assets that were acquired by individuals after their appointment to state positions and are “related to the relevant crime.”
The court dominated by judges installed by Pashinian’s party did not say why it took so long to pass judgment on the law. Nor did it comment on its failure to suspend the enforcement of the law pending consideration of the opposition appeal.
It was also not immediately clear whether the two caveats contained in the ruling will have a serious impact on ongoing asset forfeiture proceedings.
The prosecutors have filed 136 such court cases to date, seeking to nationalize a total of 1,381 properties and 527 billion drams ($1.3 billion) in cash. Armenian courts of first instance have been in no rush to grant those requests. So far they have handed down only 12 verdicts sanctioning the confiscation of assets worth a combined $17 million.
Despite growing media allegations that members of Pashinian’s own entourage are enriching themselves or their cronies, no asset forfeiture cases are known to have been brought against any serving government officials, lawmakers or law-enforcement officers.