MERI KHACHATRYAN

PhD student,

Lecturer at the Chair of Civil Procedure at YSU Faculty of Law

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2023.10-12-69

Annotation.

The introduction of mechanisms for non-conviction-based asset confiscation stemmed from the perceived inefficiency of traditional approaches in integrating assets acquired through criminal activities into legal circulation. The institution of confiscation of property of illegal origin in the legal system of the Republic of Armenia relies on the application of soft standards of proof to establish the criminal origin of assets, employing factual presumptions. This article discusses the unique evidentiary standard of balance of probabilities specific to these proceedings, a concept not previously known in domestic legislation but widely adopted in countries where this institution has proven successful. From the perspective of balancing the interests of litigating parties, the article highlights the principles governing the allocation of the burden of proof, distinguishing the trial participants with the main and conditional burden of proof. Upon analyzing the law, it was deduced that the scope of facts required to execute the presumption of illegal origin of property is not explicitly defined, potentially leading to the emergence of inconsistent practices. The article proposes criteria for determining the scope of these facts. Additionally, the article addresses the rules for distributing court costs, suggesting that if evidence substantiating the lawful acquisition of property is accepted during the judicial investigation stage, the court costs should be borne by the defendant, either in full or in part, irrespective of the case outcome, unless the defendant can prove the impossibility of presenting such evidence during the investigation stage.

PDF