In the General Department of the RA Criminal Police in the result of large-scale operational-search measures conducted within the framework of criminal case initiated on August 10, 2012, were found out cases of leading of a group of criminal subculture by a person with the highest status in the criminal hierarchy - "thief in law" and people with the highest status in the criminal hierarchy - "criminal authority" and a citizen's appeal to a person with the highest status in the criminal hierarchy - "thief in law" to resolve dispute regarding a particular problem with the use of their illegal influence.

 

For the commission of the above crimes on August 13, 2020 under Point 5 of Part 2 of Art. 223.2 of the RA Criminal Code a charge was brought against the person with the highest status in the criminal hierarchy - "thief in law" A. M / known in the criminal world with the nickname "Alo" /, who was detained on the specified day, and against the member of the group with the nickname "Tiz" a charge was brought under Part 1 of Art. 223.3 of the RA Criminal Code.

 

The body of the preliminary investigation filed a motion to the court for the selection of detention as a measure of restraint.

 

However, the first instance court of general jurisdiction of Yerevan, as a result of the investigation, rejected the motions.

 

On August 25, 2020 Department for Crimes against Public Security of the RA Prosecutor General 's Office launched appeals to the RA Court of Appeal regarding the request to cancel the above-mentioned decisions of the first instance court and to make judicial acts on the selection of a measure of restraint against the indicated persons.

 

As a result of the investigation, on September 8, the RA Court of Appeal partially satisfied the appeals of the RA Prosecutor General's Office regarding the measure of restraint against the accused A.M., canceled the decision of the first instance court and sent the case to the same court for a new investigation.

 

The RA Court of Appeal considered grounded the justifications presented in the appeal of the RA Prosecutor General's Office regarding the unjustified decision made by the first instance court.

 

In particular, the RA Court of Appeal considered that as a result of considering the motion, the first instance court did not sufficiently assess the content of the factual data regarding the results of the relevant operational-search measures and did not take into account all the factual data presented with the petition, as a result of which the court came to consequences that did not stem from the materials of the case.

 

The RA Court of Appeal, composed of other judges, partially satisfied the appeal of the RA Prosecutor General's Office against the decision of the court of first instance regarding A.S., rejecting it and sending it to the same court for a new investigation.

 

Besides the mentioned persons, within the framework of criminal case charges were brought against 2 persons.

 

Notice: Every person suspected in or charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent unless proved guilty in the manner prescribed by the RA Criminal Procedure Code and unless the verdict comes into legal force.