Pashinyan’s Government Wins First‑Reading Vote to Nationalize Jailed Tycoon’s Energy Company

Armenia’s parliament has taken a major step toward nationalizing the country’s largest power utility, the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA), in what has become a politically charged standoff involving jailed billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

On Wednesday, lawmakers passed the controversial bill in its first reading. The vote—65 in favor, 30 against—reflected the sharp divide over the government's push to take control of ENA, which is owned by Karapetyan’s Tashir Group. The move follows weeks of legal and political pressure against the Moscow-based businessman, who was arrested last month after voicing strong support for the Church and openly criticizing Pashinyan’s political leadership.

The proposed legislation would allow the Armenian government to temporarily take over ENA’s management and then force its sale within three months. Approval from the Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC) is required to finalize the action. However, critics note that the commission is led by a former member of Pashinyan’s own party, raising concerns about its independence.

This development comes just days after Karapetyan and his family warned they would seek international legal action if the state seizes ENA, calling the move “arbitrary, discriminatory, and politically motivated.”

Despite claims from the Prime Minister that the legislation had been under discussion long before Karapetyan’s political statements, the timing tells a different story. The push to nationalize ENA began shortly after the tycoon expressed his support for the Church, which itself is under increasing pressure from the government.

As the vote took place, law enforcement officers conducted a six-hour raid on Tashir Group’s Yerevan headquarters, seizing computers and other electronic equipment. Officials claim the search is tied to an ongoing investigation into tax evasion and money laundering, though no formal charges have been announced.

Karapetyan’s legal team called the investigation baseless and warned of a coordinated campaign aimed at silencing a government critic. Two opposition lawmakers who visited the site also connected the raid to Karapetyan’s June 18 arrest. He was charged with calling for regime change, a move his allies say was retaliation for his defense of the Church and opposition to Pashinyan’s concessions to Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Opposition leaders and analysts have raised alarms that this is more than a legal matter—it’s a shift in how Armenia treats private business and political dissent. If ENA is nationalized, it would be the first forced seizure of a private company of this scale in Armenia’s modern history.

This unprecedented move is expected to have ripple effects far beyond Armenia. Foreign investors, already cautious about putting money into the country, may now see it as an unstable environment where property rights can be overturned through political pressure.

The message is clear: major investors who oppose the ruling government may face serious consequences.

The Armenian government has also turned its attention to the employees of ENA. In a Facebook post, Prime Minister Pashinyan warned that any worker involved in political activity or protest will be fired. He went even further, threatening prosecution for anyone who forces ENA staff to join rallies in support of Karapetyan.

At the same time, Pashinyan claimed that loyal employees will be protected, and that anyone wrongfully dismissed now will be reinstated and paid in July. But the warning has cast a chill over the ENA workforce as they await the state takeover.

Karapetyan’s lawyers have responded by promising support for employees facing retribution based on “their social or religious beliefs,” signaling that legal protections may be sought in international courts if workers are mistreated.

This moment is significant not only because of what it means for Karapetyan and his business empire, but because it shows deeper challenges in Armenia’s political and legal system. Critics argue that the government is using its power to silence a high-profile opponent while undermining the independence of the judiciary and the business climate.

The Armenian Apostolic Church, long considered a core pillar of Armenian identity, has also been drawn into the conflict. Karapetyan’s vocal support for the Church—at a time when the state appears to be marginalizing its role—has made him a symbol of resistance for many.

What began as a legal dispute over business ownership has now grown into a national debate about democracy, religious freedom, investor trust, and political power.

As the bill awaits its second reading, and with the threat of international arbitration looming, all eyes remain on how far the Armenian government is willing to go—and what this means for the country's future.

—

Support independent reporting from the region by subscribing to The Armenian Report. Our team is funded solely by readers like you.