ArmInfo. Director of the National Security Service Arthur Vanetsyan Director of the National Security Service of Armenia Artur Vanetsyan admitted that speaking about the corruption deal with the participation of the second President Robert Kocharian, he showed excessive emotionality.
"From the moment I took office as director of the National Security Council, I spoke only once, based not on facts, but" emotionally ", and this led to such processes. We usually present loud revelations after they are fully proven not to give rise to Speculations. This time there was a certain haste, the facts were, but they were incomplete, "Artur Vanetsyan said in an interview with journalists on October 16. At the same time, Vanetsyan assured that in the near future the National Security Service will make public the video, which will provide details about the connection between Kocharyan, his family and the Congress Hotel. The director of the National Security Service declined other comments, stating that "from now on, he will speak only facts."
Earlier, on September 11, Vanetsyan, during a press conference, stated that a new criminal case had been launched against Robert Kocharian over the fact that the Kocharian's family had bought the Congress hotel for taking a bribe of $ 6 million. He also said that a criminal case had been opened . However, the other day, the head of the National Security Service clarified a number of earlier statements he had made about Kocharyan, presenting them as "a consequence of the rapid manner of speech." "I want to make only one amendment: during the press conference, I announced a bribe of 6 million. Remember? This was" the result of a quick manner of speaking. "This is not about a bribe, but about the proceeds of crime," said Vananets. Soon the son of Robert Kocharyan, the second president of Armenia, Sedrak Kocharyan, filed a lawsuit against the director of the National Security Service of Armenia, President of the Football Federation Arthur Vanetsyan. According to the judicial information system, the plaintiff demanded payment of compensation for defamation and publicly refute the statement.