Armenian Court Orders Opposition Leader Held for One Month in Utility Case

Armenia’s Anti-Corruption Court ordered opposition leader and businessman Samvel Karapetyan held in pre-trial detention for one month on 5 November, following his arrest a day earlier in a criminal investigation involving Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA), according to Armenian news outlets reporting the court’s decision.

The court’s order is a detention measure, not a verdict. Investigators say they have initiated criminal prosecutions against 36 people in total, including Karapetyan, over alleged abuse of authority, embezzlement and money laundering connected with the electricity distributor. Those allegations have not been proved in court.

Armenia’s Investigative Committee alleges ENA sustained approximately 64.586 billion drams in damage. The figure is the investigators’ allegation, **not** an independently established loss, a recovery order or a judicial finding. According to the committee’s account carried by Public Radio of Armenia, investigators allege some loans exceeded operational needs and money was transferred through dividends, loans and advances. The investigation is ongoing.

Hetq reported that Karapetyan’s lawyer, Armen Feroyan, called the detention decision unlawful and politically motivated and said the defence planned to appeal. Karapetyan’s allies also describe the proceedings as political persecution. Their assertions are disputed allegations about the authorities’ motives, not findings established by this report.

The case comes amid a dispute over the government’s takeover of the power company and separate earlier proceedings involving Karapetyan. The new detention order must not be confused with the earlier house-arrest measure. The Investigative Committee reported searches at 65 premises on 4 November, but searches do not establish guilt.

The next independently verifiable developments are the written detention order, any filed appeal, the specific charge documents and any judicial ruling on the prosecution’s financial calculations. Until then, the distinction is clear: a court ordered custody for one month, while the alleged utility losses remain accusations subject to judicial scrutiny.