LSA Law Firm

Recently, there has been a clear intensification in the fight against crimes directed at economic activities, within which we frequently encounter cases where various economic entities use the “1-C” commercial information program, and its data becomes the subject of study within preliminary investigation.

As a rule, the data from the “1-C” program is kept strictly confidential from trial participants and is only presented to tax inspection bodies as extracted digital data, without disclosing the full content of the information within the program. This practice deprives the defense side of the opportunity to familiarize itself with all the information underlying the accusation and to express a position on it.

To provide full defense for our client, G.G., in the criminal case, the lawyer from the “LSA” law office, Gurgen Nersisyan, submitted a motion to the investigator, requesting access to the data of the “1-C” commercial information database, but the motion was denied (unsurprisingly, as this is an established practice).

The complaint against the investigator’s decision, submitted to the supervising prosecutor, was satisfied by the prosecutor’s office, and the investigator’s decision was declared illegal. The prosecutor also instructed the investigator to carry out procedural actions derived from the lawyer’s motion.

The examination of numerous criminal cases initiated concerning economic crimes reveals that they disproportionately limit the rights of individuals and legal entities engaged in entrepreneurial activities. Specifically, in the overwhelming majority of these cases, computers and other electronic devices (data storage devices) belonging to individuals and legal entities engaged in entrepreneurial activities are seized. These devices are often held by the investigating body for extended periods (up until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings), with the justification that they may contain data relevant to the case or could be deemed material evidence.

As a result, significant challenges arise for businesses’ regular operations, as most of their activities are conducted via computers and other electronic devices.

To ensure full protection in the criminal case concerning our client, G.E., lawyer Andranik Mnatsakanyan of the “LSA” Law Office petitioned the investigator to return the computers seized during the search, which had undergone digital examination. The investigator postponed the resolution of the petition, citing the entrenched practice of needing to examine the large volumes of data retrieved from the computers, conduct subsequent investigative and procedural actions, and determine essential circumstances relevant to the criminal case.

The investigator’s decision was appealed by the defense attorney to the supervising prosecutor, resulting in the prosecutor deciding to uphold the complaint and declare the investigator’s decision unlawful. The prosecutor also instructed the investigator to lift the restrictions placed on the business’s computers.

Our client, T. Gh., was under investigation and wanted on charges of committing a serious crime, with detention selected as a preventive measure. Thanks to the correct strategy chosen by our lawyers, the client’s voluntary appearance before the investigative body was properly arranged. As a result, the RA Anti-Corruption Court, upon re-examining the investigator’s motion to apply detention as a preventive measure, decided to impose house arrest and a prohibition on leaving the country instead.

We are grateful to Judge Givi Hovhannisyan of the Anti-Corruption Court for conducting an exemplary trial and issuing a fair judicial act. The interests of T. Gh. in court were represented by lawyer Edgar Ayvazyan.

Between June and November 2024, foreign nationals B.F., F.E., E.F., and M.O., involved in the same criminal case, sought legal representation from our office.
In this criminal case, the defendants were charged under Part 1 of Article 319, Points 1 and 3 of Part 3 of Article 257, Points 1 and 3 of Part 2 of Article 285, and Points 1 and 3 of Part 3 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, namely: participating in a criminal organization, committing large-scale computer fraud by a criminal organization, aiding the illegal activities of companies recognized as legal entities under the direction of a criminal organization leader, and money laundering on a large scale by a criminal organization.
Since January 2024, the defendants had been wanted, with detention chosen as the preventive measure. B.F. was located and detained in April 2024, and M.O. in October 2024. The detention measure was confirmed for both defendants.
Within days of our office’s attorneys Andranik Mnatsakanyan and Arpine Gevorgyan taking on the defendants’ representation, the detention measures were replaced with alternative preventive measures due to the correctly chosen defense strategy and the objective approach of the investigator from the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Armenia and the prosecutor supervising the case.

Due to the competent work of attorney Tatevik Malkhasyan of the “LSA” law firm, the clame filed against Shushanik Arevshatyan, director of “Radio Van”, was dismissed. The plaintiff “Davs Group” LLC claimed in the lawsuit that Sh.A. had allegedly caused damage to the company’s business reputation by publishing on her Facebook page and demanded Sh.A. pay 5,000,000 AMD as compensation for defamation.

Earlier, we reported that the RA Administrative Court of Appeal had upheld the appeal filed by our office and referred the case for a new review. Now, the Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia, presided over by Judge Tigran Santrosyan, has upheld the claim submitted by our office’s lawyer, Vahe Mnatsakanyan, against the RA Cadastre Committee as a result of the new review.

The court ruled that, despite the plot of land being listed within the restrictions outlined in Article 60 of the RA Land Code, the Cadastre Committee’s incorrect state registration of the land plot violated our clients’ rights (Administrative Case No. VD/5715/05/20).

Our clients’ interests were represented in court by lawyers Vahe Mnatsakanyan and Edgar Ayvazyan.

Residents of Abovyan city, Kotayk region of Armenia, A.A. and A.S.A., were accused of committing a murder as part of a group and acquiring and possessing weapons as part of a group—actions prohibited under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia. As a result of nearly a year of persistent work by lawyers Edgar Ayvazyan and Gurgen Nersisyan of the “LSA” law firm, on December 13, 2024, the court (Judge Gegham Margaryan of the First Instance General Jurisdiction Criminal Court of Kotayk region) issued a verdict recognizing A.S.A.’s innocence and acquitting him. At the same time, A.A. was found guilty under the first part of the article of the Criminal Code that prescribes criminal liability for murder and was sentenced to the minimum punishment provided by the sanction—eight years of imprisonment.

Although the defense believes that, in the present case, there were grounds and conditions to consider A.A.’s actions as falling within the framework of self-defense or self-defense exceeding lawful limits, or for imposing a punishment milder than prescribed by law, the lawyers nevertheless highly value the justice implemented by the court and its “bold” outcomes, taking into account the emotional aspect of the case.

On December 17, 2024, the Yerevan First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction, presided over by Judge Vahe Jivanyan, reviewed the investigator’s motion to uphold the detention applied against our client, A.G., who is accused of grave and particularly grave crimes. The court denied the motion and applied a combination of alternative preventive measures against him.

We express our gratitude to Judge Vahe Jivanyan for conducting a professional and exemplary trial and for rendering a fair judicial act.

The Armenian office of the German International Cooperation Organization allocated funds to an Armenian company for programs aimed at the development of tourism in Armenia. However, after receiving the allocated funds, the Armenian company failed to fulfill its obligations properly and did not carry out the work it had undertaken. Our office filed a lawsuit in court demanding the recovery of the funds provided to the Armenian company.

On December 12, 2024, the Shirak Region First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction, after examining the presented lawsuit, fully satisfied it (Civil Case No. ՇԴ/5390/02/22).

Due to the efforts of attorney Tatevik Malkhasyan from the law firm ‘LSA,’ the legal case that lasted nearly two years, involving the illegal actions of the Border Guard troops of the National Security Service against our client A.B. and his family members, was successfully concluded. Thanks to the lawyer’s skilled negotiations, the NSS was compelled to provide the required financial compensation.

It is worth mentioning that the Administrative Court of Armenia acknowledged the illegal actions of the NSS Border Guard troops, and the higher courts upheld the first-instance court’s decision without changes.