What property do they want to deprive Bagrat Galstanyan of?

ArmInfo.Following the news of the lawsuit against Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, his lawyer, Tatevik Soghoyan, has provided specific details regarding the property at the center of the legal battle.

Earlier, ArmInfo, citing the judicial information portal "Datalex,"  reported that the supervisory authority, in a lawsuit filed with the  Anti-Corruption Civil Court, is demanding that Galstanyan be deprived  of his property rights. The lawsuit was received on March 17 and  initialed by Judge Lili Drmeyan. The second defendant in the case is  "Converse Bank." However, the website does not specify what property  is at issue. 

According to the lawyer, nine years ago, Archbishop Bagrat received a  plot of land from a third party in the border village of Navur in  Tavush. Along with friends and via bank loans, he established a meat  processing plant and agricultural complex (widely known for the brand  "Bichinai"). According to the defense, the primary goal of the  enterprise was to create local jobs and support the border community.  Operations were halted in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the  military crisis. The Archbishop currently carries the burden of  servicing the outstanding loans.

"In 2023, the prosecutor's office filed a lawsuit demanding that the  transaction, by which the land was initially transferred from the  state to a third party in 2014, be declared invalid and that the  property be returned to the state. Archbishop Bagrat, as a bona fide  purchaser, and Tavush Eco Mit, as an investment company, were named  as third parties in the case.

During the investigation, the prosecutor repeatedly refused to  provide evidence to clarify the statute of limitations. At times he  presented false evidence, while other times he claimed no such  evidence existed.  Ultimately, he only provided the necessary  documents at the court's request.

In December 2025, the Anti-Corruption Court dismissed the claim on  the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. The verdict  was not final because the prosecutor's office appealed it. However,  realizing that the case had no prospects (due to numerous errors on  the part of the prosecutor's office), the prosecutor did not wait for  the appellate court's decision. "He decided to go to court on the  same issue, or rather, for the same purpose: to once again demand the  confiscation of Archbishop Bagrat's property," Soghoyan wrote on  social media. She emphasized that the archbishop is not yet aware of  this new lawsuit, and she hasn't even consulted him about making it  public. However, Soghoyan  pointed out that there's nothing to hide,  "there is nothing and there can be nothing."