The investigative body set a new bar for illegality: it brought another accusation without any evidence of relevance, without any minimal legal and legitimate basis. Karapetyan's advocacy group

On August 15, 2025, the Anti-Corruption Court extended the detention of national philanthropist and businessman Samvel Karapetyan for another two months. Karapetyan's legal team issued a statement.

"Let us recall that the Court had recorded that even reasonable doubt had not been overcome regarding the economic acts with which he was charged. But, at the same time, it had "surprisingly" considered the part of the accusation that qualified Karapetyan's interview defending the Mother See as an appeal to be confirmed."

The Court of Appeals had taken a similar position, rejecting both our and the prosecutor's office's appeals. The defense, as well as the prosecutor's office, filed cassation appeals. The filing of a cassation appeal by the prosecutor's office is noteworthy insofar as the aforementioned authority should be exercised in exceptional cases. It turns out that it is not enough for the prosecutor's office that Samvel Karapetyan has been detained for about 110 days; reasonable suspicion should also have been established on an absurd accusation of an economic nature.

It is also necessary to note that the investigative body, consisting of more than 50 investigators, has not taken any action with the participation of Samvel Karapetyan since August 15, 2025, rejecting our petitions to take procedural action. Without terminating the episodes with economic charges, that is, simply ignoring the mandatory court decisions, the investigative body recently set a new benchmark of continuous illegality: it brought another economic charge without any relevant data, without any minimal legal and legitimate basis.

These actions are beyond legal logic. The indisputable fact of political persecution against Samvel Karapetyan is confirmed by the public promise of retaliation against him on social networks on June 17, 2025, and the instructions given to law enforcement officers.

At the same time, it is certainly noteworthy that even when the defense did not have any information regarding the motion to extend the detention, the government media outlet, "referring to its sources," had already published such information.

"Additional information about the court hearing date will be provided as soon as it is known," the statement said.