"Fact" daily writes:
A few days ago, the government adopted a decision to approve the projects to amend the Tax and Criminal Codes, as well as to amend the Criminal Procedure Code, to consider the initiative as urgent and to submit it to the National Assembly. The government proposes to revise the thresholds of large and particularly large criminal liability in case of tax evasion, to differentiate between obligations formed in one or several tax years. The draft sets a higher threshold, from 10 million to 30 million AMD (or 45 million AMD for 2 years) and from 20 million to 50 million AMD (or 75 million AMD for 3 years), respectively. Let us repeat: the government considered this initiative urgent.
That is, it must be adopted before the elections. The question is, however, that as early as January 24, 2025, the "Armenia is me" initiative officially appealed to the RA government, proposing to revise Article 290 of the RA Criminal Code. The proposal was clear: to establish a threshold of criminal responsibility in the amount of 50 million drams, as well as to specify in the law that the basis for exemption from responsibility can be the complete repayment of unpaid taxes, duties or other fees, without the calculation of penalties.
The proposal was presented with its full justifications aimed at increasing the predictability of the business environment, getting rid of unnecessary criminal risks and promoting economic activity. However, the government "watered down" the issue, saying that there is no need for changes. But, as is often the case with this government (well, for a couple of months there was neither money nor the need to raise the pension, and they "suddenly" decided to raise it), in this case, one more year later, before the parliamentary elections, it was "turned out" that the need for these changes "appeared".
Moreover, it appears that the change stems from the "vision" of the State Revenue Committee. How that "vision" appeared before the elections, which was absent a year ago, is thought-provoking. In other words, it does not give rise to either. it is obvious that this is another pre-election "vision" that the government is trying to present as a great good, although, according to experts, this change should have been made a long time ago. But, well, elections have their "rules".
Details in today's issue of "Past" daily.
