Former Minister of Finance and prominent economic-political figure, Artag Ayoyan, has made a statement through his lawyer Gor Vardanyan. According to the statement, the audit conducted regarding the alleged embezzlement has undergone some changes. The new development includes the selection of a residential property as a means of embezzlement, with a three-month deadline and a bail amount of two million Armenian drams.

It is important to note that Ayoyan has been facing charges of embezzlement since a post was published on his Facebook page in June. His lawyers argue that the post was merely an expression of his opinion and not intended to incite any form of overthrow.

This recent update provides a significant twist in the ongoing case against Ayoyan. The choice to select a residential property instead of previously identified means of embezzlement indicates a shift in the direction of the investigation. The imposed deadline and substantial bail amount further add to the tension surrounding the situation.

The accusations against Ayoyan have generated considerable attention, both within Armenia and internationally. As a former Minister of Finance and a prominent figure in the economic-political sphere, his actions and legal battles have far-reaching implications. These developments serve to intensify the public’s interest and curiosity regarding the outcome of the case against him.

Ayoyan’s lawyer, Gor Vardanyan, has voiced his concerns about the charges and their alleged connection to his client’s online activities. Vardanyan firmly argues that the post in question was merely a statement of opinion, protected by freedom of speech, and not an explicit call for any form of overthrow.

Legal experts and observers are closely monitoring this case due to its potential impact on political and social discourse in Armenia. The balance between freedom of expression and the boundaries of acceptable speech is a challenge faced by many societies, and this particular case serves as an example of the ongoing struggle to strike the right balance.

The decision to shift the focus of the investigation towards a residential property raises numerous questions. What evidence prompted this change? Will there be further investigations into other potential means of embezzlement? These uncertainties propel the public’s intrigue, as they eagerly await more information and developments in this high-profile case.