Application to the Anti-Corruption Agency on the initiation of a criminal case
To the Chairman of the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for
anti-corruption measures
A.Zh. Zhumagali
from the defender of Dr. Kosaevna R-ieva, AGCA's lawyer
Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov
Law and Law Law Firm
BIN 201240021767
050002, Almaty, Almaly district,
79/71 Abylai Khan Ave., office 304
info@zakonpravo.kz www.zakonpravo.kz
tel.: +7 708 578 57 58 / 8 727 971 78 58.
Statement.
The Police Department of the Auezovsky District Police Department of the Almaty City Police Department investigated criminal case No. 247540031001166 against D.K. R-ieva on suspicion of committing a crime under paragraphs 1), 4) of Part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Subsequently, the criminal case was referred to the court by the prosecutor of the Auezovsky district of Almaty.
During the consideration of the criminal case by the Auezovsky District Court of Almaty, facts of corruption were revealed at KazNMU named after S.Zh. Asfendiyarov, as well as at the Kazakh-Russian Medical University in Almaty.
The above facts were confirmed in the verdict of the Auezovsky District Court of Almaty dated February 10, 2025 against R-ieva D.K. and in a private decision of the Auezovsky District Court of Almaty dated February 10, 2025 based on the results of the criminal case.
In particular, the Auezovsky District Court of Almaty city stated in a private ruling: "During the consideration of this criminal case, the court found a gross violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code by the investigator of the District Police Department at the Auezovsky District Police Department Ermek M.E. during the pre-trial investigation of this criminal case.
In particular, criminal procedure in accordance with paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), one of the reasons for the start of a pre-trial investigation is sufficient data indicating signs of a criminal offense, in the absence of circumstances precluding proceedings in the case of "a statement by an individual or a report by an official about a criminal offense":
In court, the defendant, D.K. R-ieva, explained that in 2022, after enrolling seven of the nine students, with the assistance of U.M.D., she fully trusted U.M.D.U. in the specialty of residency at KazNMU. The money of the non-enrolled students of the U. M. D. was returned in parts.
During the meeting, Dr. U.M. told her to give him cash from the students who were applying to the residency, the victims credited the money to her account, after which she cashed the money and handed it to Dr. U.M. and gave him the lists of students who were applying for a residency grant, who for which specialty I did. The money was collected personally by Dr. M. in the cafe opposite the Grand Park trading house three or four times, in the Kazakhstan hotel, in the Moscow trading house, in the Aksai-5 microdistrict, house 25, apartment 6, in the cafe on Zhandosova Street and other places, she either handed it over to her personal driver, or passed it through her husband Ashilov Kasymkhan. In case of late repayment of the money of the students who did not receive it, Dr. U.M. instructed to close the debts at the expense of money given by other incoming students. Later, when the students who were enrolled by Dr. M. said that they had enrolled themselves and began demanding their money back, she informed Dr. U.M. about this, before calling him on the phone, and also wrote on WhatsApp about the refund.
The defendant, R-ieva D. K., also explained both during the investigation and in court that she transferred the money received from the victims to the settlement accounts of Dauletkhan N., K. A., according to her testimony, they took the victims' money to be credited to the State Medical University or to a grant from local executive bodies, and U.M. D. took the money. to enroll students for a grant in the KazNMU residency and for transfer from a paid department to a grant.
The victims also explained both in court and during the investigation that D.K. R-ieva had told them that she would enroll them in education through the vice-rector of the university, U.M. D.A.
During the investigation, it was established that money in the amount of 8,400,000 tenge was received from the account of K-oi A.S. from the account of R-ieva D.K. in the period from August 8 to August 16, 2024.
N.Dauletkhan was also questioned by the investigator as a witness entitled to defense, where in his testimony he explained that D.K.R-ieva had transferred 5,500,000 tenge from her account to his account for enrolling students, and in court he explained that students were enrolled in a residency program for 6,000,000 tenge. if a student enrolled in the residency program, he received 100,000 tenge from each student.
During the consideration of this criminal case in court, it was established that the victims, having studied for seven years at the Kazakh National Medical University named after S. Zh. Asfendiyarov, holding positions in the medical field, solve issues for admission to the residency through the Whatsapp social network and that among students admission to the residency is solved only by money, and their actions in turn the queue entailed the commission of a crime by R-ieva D.K.".
In addition to the private decision of the Auezovsky District Court of Almaty dated February 10, 2025, the facts of corruption at KazNMU named after S.Zh. Asfendiyarov and the Kazakh-Russian Medical University in Almaty were established by the Decision of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated April 2, 2025.
In particular, the Judicial Board of the Criminal Division of the Almaty City Court stated in its ruling: "The Court of First Instance, in support of its decision to issue a private ruling, concluded in its ruling that in the separate criminal case against the accomplices of the convicted R-ieva D.K. – D-a U.M., To- No comprehensive, complete investigative actions have been carried out against A. and others, and no corresponding procedural decision has been taken.
This conclusion of the court is based on the norms of criminal law and the actual circumstances of the case.
As established by the court, D. K. R-ieva spoke in her interrogations about the involvement of Dr. U. M. and K.A. in this criminal offense, and about their active role in this crime. However, the pre-trial investigation authorities, having identified the convicted woman's accomplices, i.e. Dr. U.M., K-U.A., limited themselves to questioning them as witnesses, without using all the actions provided for by law to investigate comprehensively, fully and objectively all the circumstances, did not carry out other investigative actions.
Also, no procedural decision was made regarding Dr. U.M., K.A., and no investigative actions were carried out to determine their involvement in this crime.
As a result of the above-mentioned gaps and violations of the law, the rights and freedoms of the victims in this case were harmed.
Thus, the pre-trial investigation authorities violated the requirements of Article 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, did not establish factual data, did not fully and objectively investigate the circumstances relevant to the case.
The prosecutor's arguments in the petition that investigative actions have been fully carried out in the highlighted criminal case cannot serve as a basis for canceling a private court decision, since according to the case file, the court did not establish the fact of carrying out the necessary investigative actions during the study of the highlighted case.
Based on the above, the judicial board recognizes the private decision of the court of first instance as legitimate, and finds no grounds for its cancellation and satisfaction of the petition."
By the verdict of the court, R-ieva D.A. Kosaevna was found guilty of committing a crime under paragraphs 1), 4) of part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and she was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 4 years. The verdict and the private decision of the Auezovsky District Court entered into force on April 2, 2025. However, the defense does not agree with the qualification of the act imputed to her and believes that the pre-trial investigation body intentionally imputed to her alone the commission of a crime under Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, whereas the actions of D.K. R-ieva should have been qualified under Article 368 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and D.U.M. and K.A. according to Article 366 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The private decision of the Auzovsky District Court of Almaty entered into force on April 2, 2025.
According to part 3 of Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a report on the detection of a criminal offense may be drawn up in the event of receipt of a private resolution or a private court ruling containing relevant information.
Based on the above, I ask you:
– to institute criminal proceedings against Dr. U.M., K.A., indicated in the private decision of the Auezovsky District Court of Almaty dated February 10, 2025 under Article 366 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
Appendix: notice of protection, lawyer's certificate, verdict of the Auezovsky District Court of Almaty dated February 10, 2025, private decision of the Auezovsky District Court of Almaty dated February 10, 2025, decision of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated April 2, 2025.
With respect,
Lawyer Sarzhanov G.T.
05/06/2025
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
