“168.am”: The “Rossia Mall” Case: Justice or a Convenient Display for the Authorities?
The Prosecutor General’s Office is demanding the confiscation of the “Rossia Mall” building, considered the property of Khachatur Sukiasyan’s family, on the grounds that investment obligations worth $1.55 million were not fulfilled. “168.am” raises the question of whether the authorities apply the same standards to all businesspeople.
On September 29, 2026, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a lawsuit with the Anti-Corruption Court, demanding the confiscation of the real estate located at 16 Tigran Mets Avenue in Yerevan. The case concerns the building of the former “Ayrarat” cinema and the adjacent areas, where “Rossia Mall” operates.
According to the Prosecutor General’s Office’s statement, the investment obligations undertaken under the property privatization transaction, amounting to the equivalent of 1.55 million US dollars in Armenian drams, had not been fulfilled by January 14, 2017.
The Anti-Corruption Court has accepted the lawsuit for proceedings and prohibited the relevant company from carrying out actions that would change the actual or legal status of the property.
The “Rossia Mall” and the premises of the former “Ayrarat” cinema were privatized by members of Khachatur Sukiasyan’s family in 2004. Now, more than two decades later, the state is demanding the confiscation of the property on the grounds of unfulfilled investment obligations.
“168.am” calls into question the consistency demonstrated by the authorities in matters of justice. In its assessment, the treatment of businesspeople with close ties to those in power differs from the measures applied to those who oppose the authorities.
From this perspective, the “Rossia Mall” case could give the authorities an opportunity to show that businesspeople in their own circle are not exempt from accountability either. However, the author of the publication raises the question of whether this is genuinely an application of the principle of equality or an attempt to create the impression of justice through a single, separate case.
The publication also draws a comparison between the measures applied to Khachatur Sukiasyan and those applied to Gagik Tsarukyan. While the claim concerning Sukiasyan’s family’s property relates to specific investment obligations, according to the author, much broader measures are being applied against Tsarukyan’s business and assets.
The author’s question is what accounts for this difference and whether the same standards apply to businesspeople.
Samvel Aleksanyan is also mentioned. “168.am” recalls that Nikol Pashinyan previously accused him of concealing taxes and causing damage to the state. After the change of power, those accusations did not lead to legal proceedings of that kind.
Thus, “168.am” calls into question the sincerity of the authorities’ statements about everyone being equal before the law. Is the government truly prepared to hold businesspeople close to it accountable as well, or are we dealing merely with formal steps that create the impression of justice while leaving open the possibility of punishing the political opponents of those in power?