Two case numbers. One building. HKD/0136/02/25 lists Mari Movsesyan as Respondent #4 in a criminal asset confiscation case. Every morning, she walks past HKD/0100/01/25 -- her father's criminal prosecution -- on her way to her desk at the Criminal Court of Appeals.
This is the seventh part of OWL's Movsesyan investigation. Unlike the previous six parts, this article relies on a single category of evidence: court records. Every claim below corresponds to a case number filed in Armenia's Anti-Corruption Court and searchable on datalex.am. There are no anonymous sources. There are no statistical inferences. There are case numbers, party names, and judges' names -- filed by the Republic of Armenia's own Prosecutor General.
COURT RECORD -- DATALEX.AM ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT FILING PROSECUTOR GENERAL CLAIM
1. The Two Case Numbers
Everything in this article flows from two case numbers. They are public. They are searchable. They are the foundation.
| Detail | Case 1: Criminal Prosecution | Case 2: Civil Confiscation |
|---|---|---|
| Case Number | HKD/0100/01/25 | HKD/0136/02/25 |
| Case ID | 1876601 | 1955497 |
| Court | Anti-Corruption Court | Anti-Corruption Court (Civil Division) |
| Judge | Sargis Simon Dadoyan | Karapet Seryozhayi Badalyan |
| Filed | 2025 | 2025-06-12 |
| Claimant | RA Prosecutor General | RA Prosecutor General |
| Nature | Criminal -- abuse of authority, state damage | Civil -- confiscation of illegally obtained property |
| Mari Movsesyan's role | Defendant's daughter (works at appeals court) | Respondent #4 (named party) |
| Status | ACTIVE | ACTIVE |
Two cases. One family. The criminal case prosecutes the father for abuse of official authority as head of the General Department of Civil Aviation. The civil case seeks to confiscate the family's property -- and names the daughter as a respondent. That daughter is employed at the Criminal Court of Appeals, which is the next court in the appellate chain for her father's criminal case.
Both cases were filed by the same institution: the Prosecutor General. Both are heard at the Anti-Corruption Court. Both are active as of the date of this publication. Both are verifiable on datalex.am by anyone with an internet connection.
2. The Conflict
Here is what the court records mean in plain language.
Mari Movsesyan Artyomi is employed as a judge's assistant at the Criminal Court of Appeals of the Republic of Armenia. This is her workplace. She arrives there every morning, interacts with judges, handles case files, and participates in the daily administration of appellate justice.
Her father, Artyom Movsesyan Zhorayi, is a defendant in criminal case HKD/0100/01/25 at the Anti-Corruption Court. When the Anti-Corruption Court reaches a verdict -- conviction or acquittal -- the losing side will appeal. The appeal goes to the Criminal Court of Appeals. Mari's workplace.
Simultaneously, in civil case HKD/0136/02/25, the Prosecutor General has named Mari herself -- not just her father, not just her family in the abstract, but Mari Movsesyan Artyomi personally -- as Respondent #4 in a confiscation claim targeting illegally obtained property.
A person who is personally named as a respondent in a criminal asset confiscation case works inside the court that will hear the criminal appeal of the primary defendant in the underlying criminal case -- her own father.
She is not a distant relative. She is not tangentially connected. She is Respondent #4. Her name is in the filing. The Prosecutor General typed it.
No one stopped this. No one checked for conflicts. No one asked whether a named respondent in a Prosecutor General confiscation case should be employed at the appeals court that will adjudicate the related criminal case.
This is not a question of whether Mari Movsesyan has done anything wrong. This is a question of institutional design. In any functioning judicial system, a person personally named in a prosecution-related case filing should not be working inside the court that will hear the appeal of that prosecution. The conflict is structural. It does not require bad intent. It requires only that it exists.
3. The 10 Respondents
Case HKD/0136/02/25 names ten respondents. The Prosecutor General is asking the Anti-Corruption Court to confiscate property from all of them. The list is a map of the Movsesyan family network -- and it reveals something that was not previously known.
- Artyom Movsesyan Zhorayi -- husband, father, former GDCA head, primary defendant
- Albina Markosyan Vahani -- wife (maiden name: Markosyan), $14.5M declaration holder
- Areg Movsesyan Artyomi -- child of Artyom and Albina
- Mari Movsesyan Artyomi -- daughter, judge's assistant at Criminal Court of Appeals
- Nare Movsesyan Artyomi -- child of Artyom and Albina
- Avet Movsesyan Artyomi -- child of Artyom and Albina
- Evelina Markosyan Vahani -- Albina's sister (Markosyan family)
- Vahan Markosyan Alberti -- Albina's relative (Markosyan family)
- Vahe Movsesyan Arseni -- extended Movsesyan family
- Karen Aroyan Oniki -- associate (relationship to family undetermined)
The Prosecutor General's filing covers three categories of people: the nuclear family (Artyom, Albina, and their four children), the Markosyan relatives (Albina's sister and a relative named Vahan), an extended Movsesyan family member (Vahe), and one associate whose connection to the family is not immediately clear from the filing (Karen Aroyan).
The breadth of the respondent list is itself significant. The Prosecutor General is not targeting Artyom alone. The state is claiming that illegally obtained property is distributed across at least ten people -- two families and an outside associate. This is not a case about one corrupt official. It is a case about a network.
Previous OWL articles identified Artyom's wife as Albina Movsesyan -- her married name, as it appears on CPC declarations and most public records. Case HKD/0136/02/25 lists her under her maiden name: Albina Markosyan Vahani.
This is significant because two other respondents share the Markosyan surname: Evelina Markosyan Vahani (sharing the same patronymic as Albina -- they are sisters) and Vahan Markosyan Alberti (a Markosyan family member).
The Prosecutor General is not only targeting the Movsesyan family. The state is claiming that illegally obtained property was also distributed to the Markosyan family -- Albina's birth family. The confiscation case covers two family networks, not one.
4. The Criminal Charges
What exactly is Artyom Movsesyan accused of? Case HKD/0100/01/25 provides the answer.
The criminal prosecution charges Artyom Movsesyan Zhorayi with abuse of official authority during his tenure as head of the General Department of Civil Aviation (GDCA) from 2004 to 2016. The charges allege that he used his position to cause substantial damage to state interests.
The case is heard by Judge Sargis Simon Dadoyan at the Anti-Corruption Court. Case ID: 1876601.
The specific allegations documented across the prosecution relate to Artyom's 12-year control of Armenia's aviation sector. As OWL documented in Part 5, the GDCA under Artyom's leadership operated through a network of entities including the Aviation Training Center and Main Aviation Technics LLC -- companies that functioned as instruments of the corruption ring.
| Charge Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Primary offense | Abuse of official authority as GDCA head |
| Period | 2004-2016 (12 years) |
| Position held | Head, General Department of Civil Aviation |
| Alleged harm | Substantial damage to state interests |
| Mechanism | Used Aviation Training Center and related entities as personal revenue sources |
| Court | Anti-Corruption Court, Judge Dadoyan |
| Status | ACTIVE |
5. The Co-Defendants
Artyom does not stand alone in the criminal case. Two co-defendants complete the picture of the GDCA operation that OWL first mapped in Part 5.
Frida Muradyan Sargsi
Director of the Aviation Training Center. The prosecution alleges that Muradyan participated in document forgery connected to the GDCA's operations. The Aviation Training Center, nominally an educational institution, functioned as a revenue extraction point under Artyom's control. Muradyan ran it day-to-day.
Karen Movsisyan Rafiki
Artyom's nephew (or cousin -- the familial relationship is Movsisyan, a variant transliteration of Movsesyan). Karen served as director of Main Aviation Technics LLC, another entity within the GDCA orbit. As OWL documented in Part 5 using Hetq's 2013 investigation, Main Aviation Technics was part of the three-company corruption ring that operated within Armenia's aviation sector.
Hetq exposed the GDCA ring in 2013. Artyom was fired in 2016. It took until 2025 for the prosecution to reach court. The three figures at the center of the ring -- the GDCA head, the Training Center director, and the nephew running the technical company -- are now co-defendants in HKD/0100/01/25.
What Hetq reported as journalism in 2013, the Prosecutor General is now prosecuting as a crime in 2025. Twelve years between exposure and indictment.
6. The Appeal Path
This is where the two case numbers converge into a single institutional failure.
Armenia's criminal court system works in a standard hierarchy. A verdict at the Anti-Corruption Court can be appealed. The appeal goes to the Criminal Court of Appeals. This is not optional. This is the legally mandated appellate pathway.
Read the diagram. The criminal case against Artyom Movsesyan is at the Anti-Corruption Court. When it produces a verdict, the appeal goes to the Criminal Court of Appeals. Mari Movsesyan works at the Criminal Court of Appeals. She is a judge's assistant -- a staff member who works directly with the judges who hear appeals.
She does not need to be assigned to her father's specific case for this to be a conflict. She works in the building. She interacts with the judges. She is part of the institutional fabric of the court. And she is simultaneously a named respondent in the parallel confiscation case filed by the same Prosecutor General who is prosecuting her father.
When case HKD/0100/01/25 reaches the Criminal Court of Appeals, will Mari Movsesyan still be working there? Will she be recused? Will she be transferred? Will anyone check?
As of this publication, no action has been taken. She remains employed at the court. The case remains active. The appeal path remains unchanged.
7. The Bank Debt
There is a third case in the court records that provides context for the family's financial maneuvering.
| Detail | Case 3 |
|---|---|
| Case Number | ED2/6431/02/19 |
| Year Filed | 2019 |
| Claimant | Inecobank CJSC |
| Defendant | Artyom Movsesyan |
| Nature | Debt collection |
In 2019, Inecobank -- one of Armenia's largest commercial banks -- sued Artyom Movsesyan. A bank does not sue a client casually. Debt litigation means that standard collection efforts failed and the bank escalated to the courts.
The timing matters. Artyom was fired from the GDCA in June 2016. By 2019, a major bank was suing him for unpaid debts. The sequence suggests financial pressure: the loss of the GDCA position (and its revenue streams) created a cash flow problem that eventually reached the courts.
2016: Artyom fired from GDCA. REALINVEST SPE and Trchnafarika Getamej registered immediately.
2019: Inecobank sues Artyom for debt -- financial pressure is real.
2018-2024: Assets systematically moved to Albina's name. By 2024, she declares $14.5M. Artyom's name appears on nothing.
2025: Prosecutor General files confiscation case -- but Artyom holds no assets. The assets are in Albina's name, her children's names, and her birth family's names.
The restructuring was not random. It was a response to financial and legal pressure that began with the 2016 firing and escalated with the 2019 bank lawsuit.
8. What International Law Says
Armenia is not operating in a legal vacuum. International standards on judicial independence and conflict of interest are well-established. Armenia has endorsed many of them.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002)
Adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council, the Bangalore Principles are the international benchmark for judicial ethics. They apply not only to judges but to the judicial system's integrity as a whole.
"A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially." -- Bangalore Principles, Value 2 (Impartiality), Application 2.5
The Principles establish two tests: actual bias and the appearance of bias. A judicial system does not need to prove that Mari Movsesyan influenced a case. The existence of circumstances that would make a reasonable observer question impartiality is sufficient.
Council of Europe Standards
As a Council of Europe member state, Armenia is bound by Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 on judges, which states that judicial independence must be guaranteed at every level of the judicial process -- including the employment of court staff who interact with judges and case materials.
Armenia's Own Law
The Armenian Judicial Code includes provisions on conflicts of interest for judicial officers. The question is not whether the law exists. The question is whether anyone applied it when a person whose father was under criminal investigation -- and who would later be named as a respondent in a related confiscation case -- was employed at the court that sits in the direct appellate path of that criminal case.
Under the Bangalore Principles, the test is not whether Mari Movsesyan actually influenced a case. The test is whether a reasonable observer would question the impartiality of a court that employs a person who is:
1. The daughter of a criminal defendant whose case will be appealed to that court
2. Personally named as a respondent in a related confiscation case filed by the same Prosecutor General
The answer to the reasonable observer test is self-evident.
9. The Question No One Asked
Who approved Mari Movsesyan's appointment?
Mari was appointed as a judge's assistant at the Criminal Court of Appeals in November 2023. At that time, her father's legal troubles were not secret. The Prosecutor General's investigation into the GDCA was underway. Hetq's 2013 investigation was a decade old and fully public. The family's wealth -- $14.5 million on Albina's CPC declaration -- was a matter of public record.
Someone reviewed her application. Someone approved her hiring. Someone decided that the daughter of a former GDCA head under investigation for corruption could work as a judge's assistant at the court that would hear his appeal.
That person's name is not in the court records. But the decision they made is now visible in two case filings.
OWL is not accusing anyone of intentional wrongdoing. OWL is stating a fact: either no one checked, or someone checked and decided this was acceptable. Both possibilities indicate a failure in the system designed to protect judicial independence.
10. $480 000 -- призрак. Кто такой Петросян Ваэ Камоевич?
Во второй части этой серии мы описали, как начальник полиции Артавазд Саргсян заплатил Альбине Мовсесян $300 000 -- в 20 раз больше его годовой зарплаты. Но есть более крупный неидентифицированный платеж, который OWL удалось частично отследить.
Согласно декларации КПК Альбины (3_160448), некто, записанный как "Петросян Ваэ", перевел ей $480 000. Этот человек не значится в базе КПК. У него нет публичного профиля. На бумаге он невидим.
OWL обыскал все доступные публичные базы. Среди 345 скачанных деклараций КПК нет Петросяна Ваэ как декларанта. Ни в реестрах компаний, ни в государственных справочниках совпадений не найдено.
Но судебные записи на datalex.am выявляют важную деталь: человек по имени Ваэ Петросян с отчеством КАМОЕВИЧ имеет несколько уголовных дел в Араратской области -- той самой области, где начальник полиции Артавазд Саргсян командует Арташатским подразделением:
| Номер дела | Год | Обвинение | Место |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVD/0087/01/13 | 2013 | Мошенничество | Араратская область |
| AVD/0165/01/21 | 2021 | Нападение | Араратская область |
Человек с уголовными делами в юрисдикции начальника полиции, платящий $480 000 семье сотрудницы уголовного суда. Если это тот самый Петросян Ваэ, модель коррупции становится ясной: подсудимые из Арарата платят семье Мовсесян, имеющей своего человека в Уголовном апелляционном суде.
Артавазд Саргсян -- начальник полиции Арташата, Араратская область. Заплатил Альбине $300 000 при зарплате $15 000.
Петросян Ваэ Камоевич -- уголовные дела в Араратской области (мошенничество, нападение). Заплатил Альбине $480 000. Отсутствует в государственных базах.
Трчнафарика Гетамеж 2016 -- птицефабрика семьи. Расположена в Араратской области. Получила $2,78 млн в беспроцентных займах от Альбины и Мари.
Три связи с одной областью. $780 000 из этой области в семью. И дочь в Уголовном апелляционном суде.
OWL не может с уверенностью утверждать, что Ваэ Петросян Камоевич из записей datalex.am -- тот самый человек, заплативший Альбине $480 000. Декларация КПК указывает лишь "Петросян Ваэ" без отчества. Но географическое совпадение с Араратской областью и закономерность платежей подсудимых семье Мовсесян требуют дальнейшего расследования.
11. How to Verify
This article makes no claim that cannot be verified by any reader with internet access. Here is how.
Step 1: Go to datalex.am -- the official judicial information portal of the Republic of Armenia.
Step 2: Search for case number HKD/0136/02/25 (the civil confiscation case). Read the respondent list. Find Mari Movsesyan Artyomi at position #4. Find Albina Markosyan Vahani at position #2. Count all ten respondents.
Step 3: Search for case number HKD/0100/01/25 (the criminal prosecution). Find Artyom Movsesyan Zhorayi as a defendant. Find Frida Muradyan Sargsi and Karen Movsisyan Rafiki as co-defendants. Note the judge: Sargis Simon Dadoyan.
Step 4: Search for case number ED2/6431/02/19 (the Inecobank debt case). Confirm that Inecobank CJSC sued Artyom Movsesyan in 2019.
Step 5: Look up the structure of Armenia's court system. Confirm that the Criminal Court of Appeals is the appellate court for Anti-Corruption Court criminal verdicts.
Every name. Every case number. Every court. Every judge. It is all there. OWL did not create this data. The Republic of Armenia did.
This article contains zero anonymous sources. Zero leaked documents. Zero hacked data. Every fact is a court filing made by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia and published on the official judicial database of the Republic of Armenia.
The Court Filing That Speaks for Itself
OWL has published seven articles on the Movsesyan family. The first six required CPC declarations, company registries, Hetq archives, financial analysis, and cross-referencing of public databases. They built a picture piece by piece.
This article is different. This article needs only two case numbers and one employee roster.
HKD/0136/02/25 -- ten respondents, including Mari Movsesyan Artyomi, in a confiscation case filed by the Prosecutor General.
HKD/0100/01/25 -- criminal prosecution of Artyom Movsesyan Zhorayi, which on appeal goes to the Criminal Court of Appeals, where his daughter works.
The Prosecutor General typed these names into these filings. The Anti-Corruption Court accepted these cases. The judicial system assigned these case numbers. And at no point did any institution ask whether a named respondent in a confiscation case should be employed at the appeals court that will adjudicate the related criminal case.
Case HKD/0136/02/25. Case HKD/0100/01/25. Datalex.am. Enter the numbers. Read the names. This is not analysis. This is a court filing.
The Movsesyan Investigation -- All Parts
- Part 1: The Judge's Assistant Whose Mother Controls $14.5 Million
- Part 2: The Police Chief Who Paid $300,000 to a Judge's Family
- Part 3: The Aviation Chief -- 12 Years of Power, $14.5 Million
- Part 4: The Father Is Being Prosecuted. The Daughter Works at the Appeals Court.
- Part 5: Aviation, Vienna Shell Companies, and a Nephew -- The GDCA Corruption Ring
- Part 6: Three Presidents, One Family -- How the Movsesyans Survived Every Government
- Part 7: The Respondent Who Works at the Appeals Court (You Are Here)