19 Փտր 2025
KAREN MAMIKONYAN
PhD in Economics, Associate Professor,
Head of the Scientific Research and Technical Testing Coordination
Department, Expert of the Department of Economic and Accounting Expertise
of the National Bureau of Expertises of the Republic of Armenia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.10-12-82
Annotation.
The article is dedicated to the methodology of financial and economic expertise for determining the value of a company’s trademark as an intangible asset. The aim of the research is to propose a new methodological approach within the existing framework, based on the company’s liquidity, net profit, and balance sheet indicators, which will allow for a more accurate valuation of the company’s trademark. In the calculation and analytical system developed for determining the trademark’s value, the royalty rate can be derived from the operational margin by dividing the arithmetic average of the “Net Profit” growth indicator over previous years by the arithmetic average of the “Revenue” growth indicator over the same period. The discount rate can be determined using the cumulative model, which sums the risk-free rate and premiums for risk factors, creating a new calculation and analytical system for the distribution of the risk premium based on a pre-selected maximum percentage point. This system will indicate the risk level related to ensuring the “Arithmetic Average Growth” indicator for net profit.
SUREN BAGHINYAN
PhD student of the Criminal Procedure and Criminalistics
Department of Yerevan State University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.10-12-72
Annotation.
In this article, the author has addressed the issues and peculiarities of the stages of investigation of criminal proceedings in cases of state treason. Based on the fact that state treason has an extremely high degree of public danger, it is qualified by domestic criminal legislation as a particularly serious crime, with all the consequences arising from it, both in the past and now. The effectiveness of the investigation of criminal proceedings initiated under the elements of the crime of state treason in general, and state treason proceedings in particular, is significantly conditioned by the planned and organized implementation of the investigation process, one of the most important guarantees for ensuring which is the identification of issues at certain stages of the investigation. As with any type of crime, each stage of the investigation of state treason has its own characteristic features, in the context of which the issues of increasing the effectiveness of the investigation can be identified. Taking into consideration the structural analysis of the methodology for investigating cases of state treason, the author has found that the classification of investigative actions depending on their purpose can be considered more characteristic and accordingly has made the appropriate division of investigative actions. Then the author has referred to both the secret investigative actions defined by the RA Criminal Procedure Code carried out in cases of state treason, as well as the operational-investigative measures defined by the RA Law “On Operational-Investigative Activities”.
Generalizing, the author has come to the conclusion that during criminal proceedings initiated under the features of the crime of state treason, attention must necessarily be paid to each of its components, taking into consideration modern challenges and the state’s imperative duty to effectively combat them.
HOVHANNES BAYANDURYAN
Member of the Chamber of Advocates of the RA,
PhD Student at the Chair of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure
Law of RAU Institute of Law and Politics
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.10-12-59
Annotation.
The article analyzes the security measures applied to legal entities in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Armenia. These measures are aimed at preventing criminal activity, preserving evidence and ensuring compensation for damage. The article examines legislative innovations, including seizure of property, restriction of activities and other instruments. The author identifies a number of gaps in the legislation, which creates risks of abuse and legal uncertainty. The need for a balanced approach to the application of measures that minimizes their impact on the economic activities of legal entities is emphasized.
The author highlights the differences between interim measures applied in criminal proceedings and similar measures in civil and administrative proceedings, emphasizing their preventive and protective nature. The legal grounds for applying these measures, their procedural aspects, and the conditions under which they become necessary are examined.
INGA AVAGYAN
‘‘Private Legal Center’’ Law Firm, Founding Director, Advocate,
Applicant at ‘‘Gladzor’’ University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.10-12-48
Annotation.
Each piece of evidence, from the point of view of reliability, must be assessed in the totality of all the evidence presented with a comprehensive and detailed assessment of the sources of factual data and prove the entire process of constructing evidence. The final decision on the reliability of evidence can be made as a result of comparing its content with information from other sources. In order to assess the reliability of a certain fact obtained from one source or another, it is necessary to analyze the content of the information received, compare it with other evidence, find out their compliance or contradiction, and in case of contradiction, identify the reasons for the discrepancy. Summarizing the powers granted to the defense attorney in criminal procedure, we come to the conclusion that any evidence obtained by the defense attorney is proper in terms of admissibility, reliability, relevance and should be used as the basis for the preliminary investigation by the investigating authority when making a final decision during the preliminary investigation in criminal proceedings, but on the other hand, there is a legislative gap, which consists in the fact that the protocol of private interrogation of the witness and victim participating in the criminal process may contradict the content of the testimony obtained by the inquiry authority, and in this case, are they proper evidence or not?
The procedural order and methods of obtaining evidence by the lawyer are also a legislative gap.
It is important to emphasize and highlight the gap, which consists in the fact that the motions filed by the defense attorney during the preliminary investigation of a specific criminal case, which will be aimed at obtaining evidence or attaching already obtained evidence to the criminal process, are also not regulated, and are actually implemented at the discretion of the body conducting the proceedings, as a result of which the defendant's right to defense may be violated, and in order to avoid this, it is proposed to include in the Criminal Procedure Code a norm according to which motions to obtain or attach obtained evidence, certain circumstances and requirements of the law and / or justified and essential for making a final decision are an obligation and should be included in the scope of judicial guarantees of the legality of pre-trial proceedings.
ARMAN BABAKHANYAN
Assistant to the Judge of the Criminal Chamber of the RA Cassation Court,
Lecturer at YSU Chair of Criminal Law
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.10-12-38
Annotation.
The article is dedicated to some issues of legislative fixation of the terms characterizing the criminal subculture, the reference to which is of essential importance during the study of the issues related to the criminal legal norms necessary to fight against the criminal subculture.
In particular, in the article, the author referred to the question of the relationship between the subculture described in Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia and the criminal subculture. As a result, the author came to the conclusion that these terms are not equivalent and these subcultures are related as whole and part.
In addition, the author, developing the previously expressed positions, found that at the legislative level, it is permissible not only to use terms characterizing the status of members of the thieves’ world but also to use other terms used in the thieves’ world. At the same time, the author has made an attempt to clarify the limits of the admissibility of the use of thieves’ speech, the terms used in the thief’s world, at the legislative level, finding that their use is permissible only as the last, exceptional measure (ultima ratio), when there are no terms expressing the essence of the phenomena and statuses related to the criminal subculture in the literary speech, and only in the case when these terms do not demean the honor and dignity of a person.