Commentary on Article 416 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Falsification of Evidence and Operational-Investigative and Counterintelligence Materials
1. Falsification of evidence in a civil case by a person participating in the case or by their representative —
shall be punishable by a fine in an amount of up to three thousand monthly calculation indices, or corrective labour in the same amount, or community service for a period of up to one thousand hours, or restriction of liberty for a period of up to three years, or deprivation of liberty for the same period.
2. Falsification of evidence in cases concerning administrative offences, committed by an official authorized to draw up administrative offence reports —
shall be punishable by a fine in an amount of up to four thousand monthly calculation indices, or corrective labour in the same amount, or community service for a period of up to one thousand two hundred hours, or restriction of liberty for a period of up to five years, or deprivation of liberty for the same period, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to five years.
3. Falsification of operational-investigative or counterintelligence materials, or records of covert investigative actions or appendices thereto, by an employee of a body carrying out operational-investigative or counterintelligence activities —
shall be punishable by a fine in an amount of up to five thousand monthly calculation indices, or corrective labour in the same amount, or restriction of liberty for a period of up to six years, or deprivation of liberty for the same period, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to six years.
4. Falsification of evidence in the course of criminal proceedings by a person conducting a pre-trial investigation, a prosecutor, a specialist participating in procedural actions, or defence counsel —
shall be punishable by a fine in an amount of up to six thousand monthly calculation indices, or corrective labour in the same amount, or restriction of liberty for a period of up to seven years, or deprivation of liberty for the same period, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to seven years.
5. Acts provided for in paragraphs one, two, three or four of this Article, which resulted in the issuance of an unlawful verdict, decision or other judicial act —
shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of three to eight years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to seven years.
6. Falsification of evidence in a criminal case concerning a crime against the sexual inviolability of a minor, a serious or particularly serious crime, as well as falsification resulting in grave consequences —
shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of five to ten years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to eight years.
The public danger of the crime under consideration lies in the fact that, as a result of the falsification of evidence, establishing the truth in a civil case becomes more difficult, which may result in violations of legality in law enforcement activities and substantial infringement of an individual's rights and interests.
The object of this crime is the social relations ensuring the proper administration of justice by the court, as well as the rights, freedoms and interests of a participant in judicial proceedings (the plaintiff or the defendant).
The subject matter of the crime is evidence in a civil case.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, evidence in a case consists of information about facts obtained by lawful means, on the basis of which the court establishes the existence or absence of circumstances substantiating the claims and objections of the parties, as well as other circumstances relevant to the proper consideration and resolution of the case.
Information about facts may be obtained from explanations given by the parties and third parties, witness testimony, expert opinions, physical evidence, records of procedural actions, records of court hearings, audio and video recordings, data obtained through the use of videoconferencing systems reflecting the course and results of procedural actions, and other sources (Part 2 of Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Code).
The objective aspect of the crime consists in the deliberate distortion of evidence in a civil case (for example, powers of attorney, receipts, contracts, audit reports, etc.) through forgery, erasure, or the introduction of corrections that distort the actual meaning of the evidence.
The forgery of documents that do not constitute evidence does not constitute this criminal offence. Such actions may be classified as official forgery or forgery of payment and settlement documents under Articles 369 or 232 of the Criminal Code.
By its legal construction, the corpus delicti is formal. The crime is considered completed from the moment falsified evidence is presented to the court in accordance with the procedure established by procedural legislation, regardless of the role it played in the consideration of the case.
The subjective aspect of the crime is characterized by direct intent. The person is aware of the socially dangerous nature of the distortions of evidence in a civil case that they are committing, foresees their implementation and desires it. The motives and purpose of the crime are irrelevant to its legal classification.
The purpose of this act is the desire to present false information to the court as truthful. In this regard, as a rule, a prospective objective is pursued: to win the case in favour of an interested person through the falsification of evidence or to mitigate the adverse legal consequences for that person.
The subject of the crime is special. It is a sane individual participating in the case or their representative who has reached the age of 16.
According to Article 43 of the Civil Procedure Code, persons participating in a case are recognized as: the parties; third parties; the prosecutor; state bodies; local self-government bodies; legal entities or citizens entering the proceedings on the grounds provided for in Articles 55 and 56 of the Civil Procedure Code; applicants and other interested persons in cases considered by the court under special proceedings (Article 302 of the Civil Procedure Code).
Citizens have the right to conduct their cases in court personally or through representatives. A representative in court may be a legally capable person who has duly formalized authority to conduct a case in court, based on a power of attorney, the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a court decision or an administrative act (Article 57 of the Civil Procedure Code).
The falsification of evidence in a civil case by other persons, apart from those participating in the case or their representatives, does not constitute this criminal offence and, where appropriate grounds exist, must be classified under other articles of the Criminal Code.
Part 2 of the Article under commentary provides for liability for the falsification of evidence in cases concerning administrative offences committed by an official authorized to draw up administrative offence reports.
The public danger of the crime under consideration lies in the fact that, as a result of the falsification of evidence in cases concerning administrative offences, establishing the truth in the case becomes more difficult, which may result in violations of legality in law enforcement activities, the normal procedure of public administration, and substantial infringement of an individual's rights and interests.
The object of the crime is the social relations ensuring the proper administration of justice by the court, as well as the rights, freedoms and interests of the individual and the established procedure of public administration.
In accordance with Article 766 of the Code of Administrative Offences, the following circumstances are subject to proof in a case concerning an administrative offence:
the event and the elements of the administrative offence prescribed by the Code of Administrative Offences;
the person who committed the unlawful act (action or omission) for which administrative liability is provided under the Code of Administrative Offences;
the guilt of the individual in committing the administrative offence;
circumstances mitigating or aggravating administrative liability;
the nature and amount of damage caused by the administrative offence;
circumstances resulting in exemption from administrative liability;
the reasons and conditions that contributed to the commission of the administrative offence, as well as other circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 765 of the Code of Administrative Offences, evidence in cases concerning administrative offences consists of factual data lawfully obtained, on the basis of which a judge or a body (official) conducting proceedings in a case concerning an administrative offence, in accordance with the procedure established by the Code of Administrative Offences, establishes the existence or absence of an act containing all the elements of an administrative offence, whether or not the act was committed by the person against whom proceedings in the administrative offence case are being conducted, the guilt or innocence of that person, as well as other circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
Such factual data are established through: explanations given by the person subject to administrative liability; testimony of the victim and witnesses; opinions and testimony of experts and specialists; physical evidence; other documents; administrative offence reports and records of procedural actions provided for by the Code of Administrative Offences.
When considering materials concerning administrative offences, data obtained through the use of scientific and technical means may be used as evidence (Part 2 of Article 765 of the Code of Administrative Offences).
The objective aspect of the crime consists in the falsification of evidence in administrative cases, which is generally expressed in the distortion of factual data constituting physical or other evidence, including written evidence. Such falsification manifests itself in the introduction of false information into documents (for example, through erasure or forgery), the destruction of written or physical evidence, etc.
By its legal construction, the corpus delicti is formal. The crime should be considered completed from the moment an official falsifies evidence in a case concerning an administrative offence, regardless of whether the person was ultimately held administratively liable.
The subjective aspect of the crime is characterized by direct intent. The official is aware of the socially dangerous nature of the distortions of evidence in an administrative case that they are committing, foresees their implementation and desires it. The motives and purposes of the conduct of the perpetrator are irrelevant to the legal classification.
The subject of the crime is an official authorized to draw up an administrative offence report. When determining the subject of a criminal offence, it is necessary in each particular case to be guided by the jurisdiction established in the relevant chapter of the Code of Administrative Offences.
Part 3 of the Article under commentary establishes criminal liability for the falsification of operational-investigative or counterintelligence materials, or records of covert investigative actions or appendices thereto, by an employee of a body carrying out operational-investigative or counterintelligence activities.
The public danger of the crime under consideration lies in the fact that, as a result of the falsification of evidence, establishing the truth in the case becomes more difficult, which may result in violations of legality in law enforcement activities and substantial infringement of an individual's rights and interests.
The object of the crime is the social relations ensuring normal, objective, complete and comprehensive proceedings in a criminal case, the establishment of the truth in the case, the conduct of operational-investigative and counterintelligence activities, as well as the rights, freedoms and interests of the individual.
The subject matter of the crime is operational-investigative or counterintelligence materials, or records of covert investigative actions or appendices thereto.
The objective aspect is expressed in the falsification of the results of operational-investigative or counterintelligence materials, or records of covert investigative actions or appendices thereto, by an employee of a body carrying out operational-investigative or counterintelligence activities.
According to subparagraph 15-1) of Article 1 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 15 September 1994, “On Operational-Investigative Activities”, the results of operational-investigative activities are information, documents, objects or materials obtained for the purpose of resolving the tasks listed in Article 2 of this Law.
Materials obtained in the course of operational-investigative activities may be used for the preparation and conduct of investigative actions and operational-investigative measures aimed at preventing and suppressing criminal offences, as well as in the process of proving criminal cases, provided that they are verified in accordance with the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan governing the collection, examination and assessment of evidence (paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Operational-Investigative Activities”).
In accordance with subparagraph 20) of Article 1 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 28 December 2016, “On Counterintelligence Activities”, counterintelligence activities are a system of counterintelligence and organizational measures carried out by special state bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan to protect the national interests of the Republic of Kazakhstan against intelligence and subversive activities.
Materials obtained through counterintelligence activities are used for:
developing the National Security Strategy of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other strategic and programme documents in the field of ensuring the national security of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
making decisions by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on matters concerning the national security of the Republic of Kazakhstan; making decisions by state bodies, state legal entities and entities of the quasi-public sector in the field of protecting the national interests of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
developing draft regulatory legal acts and international treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
analysing, assessing and forecasting threats to the national security of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
preventing, exposing and suppressing intelligence and (or) subversive operations;
bringing persons to administrative or criminal liability in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the administrative or criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Article 12 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Counterintelligence Activities”).
Information obtained in the course of operational-investigative and counterintelligence activities acquires the status of evidence only after being duly formalized.
Falsification of the results of operational-investigative and counterintelligence activities may be expressed in the distortion of factual data obtained during operational-investigative or counterintelligence measures, for example, through the destruction or forgery of materials containing recorded surveillance results, etc., or through the distortion or destruction of video or audio recording data, other information systems, cinematographic and photographic recordings, and so forth.
The procedure for submitting the results of operational-investigative and counterintelligence activities is regulated by regulatory legal acts of the bodies carrying out operational-investigative and counterintelligence activities.
Departmental control over operational-investigative and counterintelligence activities is ensured by the bodies carrying out these types of activities (Article 24 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Operational-Investigative Activities”, Article 19 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Counterintelligence Activities”).
Supervision over compliance with the law in the conduct of operational-investigative and counterintelligence activities is entrusted to the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan and prosecutors authorized by him (Article 25 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Operational-Investigative Activities”, Article 20 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Counterintelligence Activities”).
According to subparagraph 12) of Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a covert investigative action is an action carried out in the course of pre-trial proceedings without prior notification of the persons whose interests it concerns, in the manner and in the cases provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code. Covert investigative actions are regulated by Chapter 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In accordance with Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the following covert investigative actions are carried out:
covert audio and (or) video surveillance of a person or a location;
covert monitoring, interception and retrieval of information transmitted through electrical (telecommunication) communication networks;
covert acquisition of information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices;
covert retrieval of information from computers, servers and other devices intended for the collection, processing, accumulation and storage of information;
covert monitoring of postal and other consignments;
covert entry into and (or) examination of a location;
covert surveillance of a person or a location;
repealed by Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 03.07.2017 No. 84-VI;
covert test purchase...
Covert investigative actions are carried out where, in order to establish circumstances subject to proof in a criminal case, information about facts must be obtained without notifying the persons involved in the criminal proceedings whose interests are affected by such actions.
Covert investigative actions, with the exception of covert monitoring of postal and other consignments, are carried out on the instructions of the pre-trial investigation body by an authorized unit of a law enforcement or special state body using the forms and methods of operational-investigative activities (Part 2 of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Covert investigative actions provided for in subparagraphs 1)-6) of Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code are carried out with the authorization of an investigating judge of a specialized investigative court or a specialized inter-district investigative court. The procedure for obtaining such authorization is established by Article 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Part 3 of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Covert investigative actions are carried out where one of the following grounds exists:
in cases concerning crimes for which the applicable sanction provides for punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty for a period exceeding one year;
in cases involving crimes prepared and committed by a criminal group (Part 4 of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
For the detection, suppression and investigation of other criminal offences not provided for in Part 4 of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only the covert investigative actions provided for in subparagraphs 7) and 9) of Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be carried out (Part 5 of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Covert investigative actions against lawyers providing professional legal assistance are prohibited, except in cases where there are grounds to believe that they are preparing or have committed a serious or particularly serious crime (Part 8 of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
The conduct of covert investigative actions, as well as the use of information obtained during their conduct, for the achievement of goals and objectives not provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code shall not be permitted (Part 9 of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
A record of covert investigative actions is drawn up following the examination of the results of the covert investigative action (Part 1 of Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Factual data relevant to the investigation are attached to the record (Part 2 of Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Records of the examination of the results of covert investigative actions, audio recordings and video recordings, photographs, other results recorded using scientific and technical means, seized objects and documents or copies thereof are used in the process of proving on an equal basis with evidence obtained as a result of investigative actions (Part 2 of Article 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Appendices to the record of covert investigative actions include information obtained as a result of their conduct. These include: audio and (or) video surveillance of a person or a location (Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code); monitoring, interception and retrieval of information transmitted through electrical (telecommunication) communication networks (Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code); obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices (Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code); retrieval of information from computers, servers and other devices intended for the collection, processing, accumulation and storage of information (Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code); monitoring of postal and other consignments (Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code); as well as other results obtained through the use of technical means, objects and documents seized during their use, or copies thereof.
The procedure for conducting covert investigative actions is determined by law enforcement and special state bodies in coordination with the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Part 10 of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
By its legal construction, the act under consideration belongs to the category of formal offences and is considered completed from the moment evidence falsified by an employee of a body carrying out operational-investigative or counterintelligence activities is attached to the case materials.
The subjective aspect is characterized by an intentional form of guilt. The person is aware of the socially dangerous nature of the distortions of evidence that they are committing, foresees the occurrence of negative consequences and desires them.
The subject is special — persons authorized to conduct operational-investigative or counterintelligence activities.
According to Article 6 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Operational-Investigative Activities”, the bodies carrying out operational-investigative activities include: 1) internal affairs bodies; 2) national security bodies; 3) the authorized body in the field of foreign intelligence; 4) military intelligence bodies of the Ministry of Defence; 5) the anti-corruption service; 6) the State Security Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 7) the economic investigation service.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Counterintelligence Activities”, the bodies carrying out counterintelligence activities include the special state bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 13 February 2012, “On Special State Bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, establishes that the special state bodies include the national security bodies, the authorized body in the field of foreign intelligence, and the State Security Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Part 4 of the Article under commentary provides for liability for the falsification of evidence in the course of criminal proceedings by a person conducting a pre-trial investigation, a prosecutor, a specialist participating in procedural actions, or defence counsel.
The object of the crime is the normal functioning of pre-trial investigation bodies in obtaining reliable evidence, as well as the interests of the victim.
The subject matter of the crime is evidence in a criminal case. According to Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, evidence in a criminal case consists of factual data lawfully obtained, on the basis of which the body of inquiry, the interrogating officer, the investigator, the prosecutor and the court establish, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code, the existence or absence of an act provided for by the Criminal Code, whether or not such act was committed by the suspect, accused or defendant, their guilt or innocence, as well as other circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
Factual data relevant to the proper resolution of a criminal case are established through the testimony of the suspect, accused, victim, witness, witness entitled to defence, expert and specialist; the opinion of an expert or specialist; physical evidence; records of procedural actions and other documents (Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
The objective aspect of the crime provided for in Part 4 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code is characterized by the falsification of evidence in a criminal case. It may be expressed in various forms of falsification of criminal case materials: drawing up interrogation records when no interrogation actually took place, entering false information into documents, forging or erasing them, dating them with another date, making amendments to an expert opinion, etc.
In this case, the person conducting the inquiry, the investigator or the prosecutor commits a special type of official forgery, which the legislator has distinguished as an independent crime. Therefore, additional classification of such actions under Article 369 of the Criminal Code is not required.
The forgery of documents that are not evidence (for example, investigators' decisions) does not constitute the criminal offence under consideration.
In a criminal case, defence counsel may falsify documents and physical evidence attached to the case upon their motion.
The moment of completion of the crime is determined depending on the person who committed it. The falsification of evidence by a person conducting the inquiry, an investigator or a prosecutor constitutes a completed crime from the moment the specified actions are committed; the falsification of evidence by defence counsel constitutes a completed crime from the moment such evidence is presented to the bodies of inquiry, preliminary investigation or the court.
From the subjective standpoint, the crime is committed with direct intent. The person is aware of the socially dangerous nature of the distortions of evidence in a criminal case that they are committing, foresees the occurrence of negative consequences and desires them. Motives are irrelevant to the legal classification, but are taken into account when determining the punishment.
The subject of the crime is a person conducting a pre-trial investigation, a prosecutor, a specialist or defence counsel. This list is exhaustive. Therefore, an employee of a body carrying out operational-investigative activities cannot be the subject of the crime under consideration if they falsified information collected by them that was recognized as evidence and attached to the criminal case in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The specified group of subjects is examined in detail in the analysis of Articles 407 and 408 of the Criminal Code.
Part 5 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code provides for liability for the falsification of evidence in a civil case, a case concerning an administrative offence or a criminal case, which resulted in the issuance of an unlawful verdict, decision or other judicial act.
Judicial acts in criminal proceedings include:
a verdict — a court decision issued by a court of first or appellate instance on the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused and the application or non-application of punishment to them (subparagraph 52) of Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code);
a ruling — any court decision other than a verdict, as well as a decision of an interrogating officer, body of inquiry, investigator or prosecutor adopted in the course of proceedings in a criminal case (subparagraph 16) of Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, courts adopt the following judicial acts in civil proceedings:
— a court of first instance adopts judicial acts in civil cases in the form of court orders, judgments, rulings and resolutions;
— courts of appellate and cassation instances adopt judicial acts in the form of rulings and resolutions.
Judicial acts in administrative proceedings, pursuant to Part 1 of Article 151 of the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 29 June 2020, by which the court resolves a dispute on its merits, are issued in the form of judgments.
Part 6 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code provides for liability for the falsification of evidence in a criminal case: a) concerning a crime against the sexual inviolability of a minor; b) concerning a serious or particularly serious crime; c) where such falsification results in grave consequences.
On the basis of subparagraph 42) of Article 3 of the Criminal Code, crimes against the sexual inviolability of minors are acts provided for in Articles 120 “Rape”, 121 “Violent Acts of a Sexual Nature”, 122 “Sexual Intercourse or Other Acts of a Sexual Nature with a Person Under the Age of Sixteen”, 123 “Coercion into Sexual Intercourse, Sodomy, Lesbianism or Other Acts of a Sexual Nature”, 124 “Corruption of Minors”, 134 “Involvement of a Minor in Prostitution”, 144 “Involvement of Minors in the Production of Erotic Content”, and Parts 2 and 3 of Article 312 “Production and Circulation of Materials or Objects Containing Pornographic Images of Minors or Their Involvement in Participation in Entertainment Events of a Pornographic Nature” of the Criminal Code, committed against young children and minors.
Minors are persons who have not reached the age of 18, while young children are persons who have not reached the age of 14.
According to Article 11 of the Criminal Code, serious crimes are intentional acts for which the maximum punishment provided for by the Criminal Code does not exceed 12 years of deprivation of liberty (Part 4), while particularly serious crimes are intentional acts for which punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty for a period exceeding 12 years, life imprisonment or the death penalty is provided (Part 5).
In accordance with subparagraph 4) of Article 3 of the Criminal Code, grave consequences may be recognized as the death of a person; suicide by the victim or their close relative(s); infliction of serious harm to health; and other consequences indicating the severity of the harm caused.
In conclusion of the examination of the crime under consideration, I would like to draw the legislator's attention to the following: the Code of Administrative Offences establishes administrative liability for the falsification of evidence in cases concerning administrative offences. Thus, Part 2 of Article 660 of the Code of Administrative Offences states: “Falsification of evidence in cases concerning administrative offences, if this action did not result in harm to a person's health or significant damage, ...”.
At first glance, it may appear that Part 2 of Article 660 of the Code of Administrative Offences conflicts with Part 2 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code. However, a literal interpretation of these provisions leads to the opposite conclusion. There is no competition between them; rather, there are omissions on the part of the legislator. Thus, according to Part 2 of Article 660 of the Code of Administrative Offences, administrative liability arises for falsification if this action did not result in harm to a person's health or significant damage. Consequently, if harm to a person's health or significant damage is caused, criminal liability should arise. However, Part 2 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code does not provide for these conditions as grounds for criminal liability. The very fact of falsification of evidence in cases concerning administrative offences, committed by an official authorized to draw up an administrative offence report, constitutes the elements of the crime provided for in Part 2 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code. There is an obvious contradiction between the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code. The legislator should eliminate these contradictions.
The acts provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code are classified as crimes of medium gravity.
The acts provided for in Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Article 416 of the Criminal Code are classified as serious crimes.
Eliminate the inconsistency between the parts of the Article.
Align the analysis with the title of the Article.
Commentary of 2021 on the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan by Isidor Shamilovich Borchashvili, Honoured Figure of Kazakhstan, Doctor of Law, Professor, Academician of the Kazakhstan National Academy of Natural Sciences, member of the Scientific Advisory Councils under the Constitutional Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, member of the working group on the reform of the law enforcement system under the Security Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Honoured Employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Constitution Law Code Regulatory Act Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal Service Legal Consultation Civil Criminal Administrative Cases and Disputes Defence Arbitration Legal Company of Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases Declaration Order Decree Decision Report Conclusion Application Conclusion Convention Contract Memorandum Methodology Rules Note Regulations Programme Charter Charter Article Commentary Resolution Regulation Protocol Draft Programme Rules Addresses
