Government Decision N10645, adopted on September 4, 2008, deals with the procedure for “Supplying the mass media with statistics subject to publication of the property and income of government officials.” We should note that this new decision invalidated former Decision N304, adopted on April 1, 2002, that similarly dealt with mandated publication of property and income information of individuals in the upper echelons of the RoA government and their spouses.

According to the new decision, as of January 1 of this year, the mass media will no longer be provided with the financial affidavits of an official’s spouse. Also no longer provided are figures as to how much land, property and other construction has been acquired. In addition, prior to the new decision, explanatory notes were also provided with the affidavits as to the government official’s property. Now, however, only information on the monetary revenues and acquired/sold fixed and movable property is provided. Given that it was the government that initiated the new decision, we went to Aram Ananyan, Assistant to Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan, who also deals with media issues, for some answers. Mr. Ananyan requested that we submit our questions by e-mail. Later, he told us that the State Revenue Committee (SRC) would respond to our queries. The SRC’s Press Department, rather than arranging an interview with us, chose to reply in writing to the general theme of the interview, and with just a few sentences. Since we had wanted a more in-depth discussion of the issue, we decided to send some additional questions to the SRC. The Press Department should have taken these and posed them to Mr. Ananyan in the form of an interview. Two weeks later they again opted for the easy way out and sent us a few sentences in response. We present our questions and the SRC’s comments below.

Is it safe to say that in a democratic nation it would be considered incorrect to conceal an official’s assets from the public and media? The new decision only obligates public disclosure of property transactions during the year.

Contrary to the RoA Law “Regarding disclosure of the property and revenue of RoA officials in government management positions”, which aimed to create mechanisms in the struggle against government corruption and abuse and to build public trust regarding the property and revenue sources of those officials providing disclosure, the RoA Law “Regarding the disclosure of property and revenue of physical entities” (henceforth “Law”), in addition to the above-mentioned objectives, also pursues an economic aim, that of taxation. According to the “Law”, disclosure statements are not only provided by government officials but also certain groups of physical entities, including those who submit revenue statements in accordance with the RoA Law “Regarding Revenue”. Taking into account that the segment providing disclosure is expanding, i.e., physical entities, such disclosure also assist the taxation process, and for taxation purposes what is needed are statistics regarding property transactions and not just about the existence of property. The “Law” thus obligates disclosure regarding the purchase or sale of property.

What was the reason for the change of the law and the government’s decision?

In essence, there has been no change to the law. Rather a new law has been adopted that encompasses a new segment of those providing disclosure for taxation purposes in mind. There also was been no change to the RoA government’s decision. According to the new law’s stipulations, RoA Government Decision 1065 was adopted on September 4, 2009, which specifies the disclosure of property transactions, rather than property figures of government officials.

What are the penalties for those officials who fail to provide such disclosure of property and revenue? Are there officials who have been hit with such penalties?

Penalties are prescribed by Article 169.17 of the RoA Criminal Code regarding administrative violations of tax disclosure deadlines. First, the tax authorities issue a warning, followed by fines if disclosure is not provided within a thirty day period after the initial warning. The fines range from thirty times minimum wage for average citizens and up to two hundred times minimum wage for certain government employees. As of October 1, 2008, some 216 individuals have been subjected to such measures.

Who checks these public disclosure statements for accuracy? Are they checked at all?

It is the tax authorities that verify these statements when obligated by the law; if and when the law regarding verification is passed.