Actions in favor of the bribe giver, using his official powers contrary to the interests of the service
By the verdict of the specialized Inter – District Court for criminal cases of the South Kazakhstan region dated June 20, 2018: Z. previously not convicted, sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment with life deprivation of the right to work in law enforcement agencies under the fourth part of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code), serving his sentence in the highest security institution of the Penal correction system. In accordance with Article 49 of the criminal code, he is deprived of the special rank of "adviser of Justice". 160,750 tenge of process costs were collected from Z. By the court verdict Z. While serving as a prosecutor of the city of Turkestan, South Kazakhstan region, being an official, using his official powers contrary to the interests of the service, by means of extortion for actions in favor of the bribe giver and General Care, repeatedly through an intermediary K.'s money in a particularly large amount in the amount of 34,878,000 tenge at the official exchange rate and a total area of 0.1819 hectares with a property value of 8,650,000 tenge. he was found guilty of receiving 5 land plots as a bribe. By the decision of the Judicial Board of the Turkestan Regional Court on criminal cases dated October 16, 2018, the sentence was left unchanged. Lawyer K. in his petition, he disagreed with the court decisions against the convicted Z., On the basis of his accusation, the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code) were grossly violated, unilaterally falsified, deliberately defamed, organized by provocation, illegally accumulated evidence was removed, serious contradictions in the answers of the parties were not eliminated, the verdict was based on doubtful evidence, the set of evidence was not correctly evaluated, he asked to cancel judicial acts and issue an acquittal. The conclusion of the convicted Z. that the crime accused was committed by the court in the sentence in the stated circumstances is based on the evidence that was thoroughly checked and duly evaluated at the court session. The guilt of the convicted Z. In the main trial, despite not admitting his guilt, is fully confirmed by the answers of the witnesses specified in the sentence and the totality of other written evidence collected in the case. At the main trial, the witness was K. Z., who at that time served as a prosecutor. according to a letter received from the city administration, he handed over the check to his deputy zh., after detecting violations, he was summoned to his office through zh., threatened with criminal liability, if he gave us долл 100,000, he would restore the violations that occurred by filing a lawsuit in court without initiating a criminal case, A. when Z. asked himself "how much did you give A." when he said "I gave us АҚШ 100,000", he told him that he was "right", when he demanded to give a bribe, Z. indicated that he wrote the amount on a piece of paper.
Actions in favor of the bribe giver, using his official powers contrary to the interests of the service
A. K., who answered in court, did not initiate a criminal case against him, and in order to resolve the issue against him, he took the US долл 100,000 that he gave to K. in two installments to Z., but did not solve the problem at all because of K., and K. demanded from him to return the money that he gave, he met with K. in the same house to get us долл 20,000, returned it in front of M., B. and Sh., in addition to the dollar, he also knew that Z. received 5 land plots from K. "No," he said. "I don't know," he said. It is shown that K. was given АҚШ 20,000 back, and АҚШ 80,000 was not returned, and Z. also came to the second meeting, at which point he promised K. that he would return the remaining dollar. In February 2016, the city prosecutor's office received a letter from the Turkestan city akimat about the illegal transfer of land plots, the inspection of which was entrusted to the then prosecutor Z. and called K. to his office, at the last visit he was brought to Z., They did not know what they were talking about, and subsequently Z. he called himself and said that he could not draw up a land plot in his name, and asked to find a person who did not work in the Civil Service, who had the opportunity to draw up a land plot in his name, to whom he suggested his classmate S. The witness said that he was a classmate and friend of S. zh., in April 2016, zh. asked him to draw up a land plot in his name, said that the land was legal and transferred to the prosecutor, and a few days later someone called "I am from the prosecutor's office, come to the notary", when he went to the notary, he called him K. "I don't know," he said. The witness indicated that he is S. Z.'s brother-in-law, in 2016 he bought 4 land plots from the head of the land Cadastre Department K. Witness E. said that in April 2016, sister E. and her sister E. had 4 land plots on the territory of Turkestan, and K. said that "I am under pressure from the prosecutor, it is necessary to issue land plots belonging to you to the people of the prosecutor", they agreed to it and showed that they issued land plots to strangers through a notary. The guilt of the convicted Z. is also confirmed by the answers of witnesses B., K., E. and N. In such a context of the case, the judicial board considers that the actions of the convicted Z. were correctly differentiated under the fourth part of Article 366 of the criminal code. After all, the materials proving the commission of this crime by the convicted person are collected in the case and fully supported by the totality of the studied evidence. The court, in compliance with the requirements of Article 52 of the criminal code, imposed a fair punishment on the convicted Z.
The judicial board considers the lawyer K.'s argument unfounded that in the petition, on the basis of the accusation of the convicted person, the requirements of the CPC were grossly violated, illegally accumulated dubious evidence was obtained, an incorrect assessment of the totality of evidence was given, and the judicial acts against him were canceled and subject to acquittal. As it turned out from the verdict, after the court returned the case against him to the prosecutor for prosecution of the convicted Z. to send the case under the conviction of the court, it took as a basis not the accumulated evidence, but only the evidence accumulated during the initial pre-trial investigation of the case and the answers studied in the main trial, and At the same time, the release of A. from criminal liability in connection with the amnesty law, brought to justice in this case by the first part of Article 368 of the criminal code, and the conviction of K., who passed as a witness in the case, by a court verdict of April 25, 2019 in connection with land plots that caused a bribe to the convicted Z. To get rid of criminal liability is another proof of the guilt of the convicted Z. The judicial board for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan left unchanged the judicial acts of local courts in relation to the convicted Z. The petition of lawyer K. was dismissed.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
