In Armenia, a dispute over a car arranged through leasing has moved to court. A customer who signed an agreement with ID Leasing and Euro Motiv LLC to import an electric vehicle from China never received the car, yet the leasing obligation remains in force and penalty charges continue to accrue.
The case concerns Suren Nazaryan. Under a three-party agreement signed on January 12, 2026, Euro Motiv undertook to import a Lixiang L6 Max electric vehicle from China and deliver it to the customer within 60 days. The total value of the car was set at 13.3 million drams. ID Leasing transferred 70% of that amount — 9.3 million drams — to the supplier. Of that sum, 2 million drams came from Suren Nazaryan as an advance payment, while the remaining 7.3 million drams were provided by ID Leasing. The remaining 30% was to be paid after the vehicle was actually handed over to the customer.
Eight months later, however, the vehicle has still not arrived in Armenia. In addition to the 9.3 million drams, the customer says he also paid a leasing fee and a separate amount for car wrapping.
The Central Bank of Armenia, responding to inquiries, said relations between financial institutions and consumers are contractual in nature and that it cannot intervene in their ongoing dealings. The regulator stressed that it licenses and supervises the entities under its remit, but does not bear responsibility for the execution of private contractual relationships.
At the same time, the case has exposed a notable contradiction. ID Leasing had previously said that during the approval stage it assessed the supplier’s business reputation and financial reliability and had already completed several successful transactions with that company. The central bank, by contrast, said in its reply that the customer chose both the supplier and the delivery terms, and that the leasing company had no involvement in that process.
According to Suren Nazaryan, he began by reviewing offers from banks and credit institutions before choosing ID Leasing. He says company employees told him they worked with a defined circle of suppliers and asked him to name a company so they could confirm whether they cooperated with it. He then chose Euro Motiv LLC, also known as Import Auto, and received confirmation that the company worked with that supplier.
One of the central issues in the dispute is disclosure of risk. Suren Nazaryan says he was not properly informed at signing about a key term stating that if the car was not delivered, the leasing company would not be liable and the lessee would still have to repay the financing. According to him, that clause appeared in a file accessible through a Google Drive link.
On that point, the Central Bank of Armenia said its rules require material information, tariffs and service terms to be presented on a separate webpage dedicated to the specific service, in a clear and easily accessible form for consumers. General leasing terms may be attached to that page. The regulator did not specify, however, whether it had found a violation in this particular case.
Another disputed issue is the 17% upfront payment. The central bank said the obligation to pay it is set out in clause 3.8 of the contract, while the calculation method is defined in clause 3.1 of the general leasing terms. It added that the agreement contains no requirement for payment of any additional service, meaning other transfers are considered voluntary actions by the lessee.
The regulator also said its legal acts do not impose mandatory insurance or a bank guarantee in cases where a financial institution transfers most of the funds to a supplier before the goods are imported or cleared through customs. Such risks, it said, are managed independently by the financial institutions themselves.
The central bank added that it continuously reviews signals received from various sources and applies supervisory intervention where legal non-compliance is identified. Still, it did not say whether any specific review or intervention had been carried out at ID Leasing in connection with this case.
The result is a case with key questions still unresolved: the leasing company’s role in the choice of supplier, whether the customer was properly informed of the risks, and why payment obligations continue for a car that was never delivered. The dispute is now before the courts.
