COMPLAINT REGARDING THE UNLAWFUL FILING OF THE MATERIAL IN THE NOMENCLATURE FILE AND FAILURE TO DECIDE ON REGISTRATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE UNDER ARTICLE 105 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
To the Prosecutor's Office of the Turksib District of Almaty
7 Yu. Pomerantsev Street, Almaty.
From the Applicant: A IS
IIN .
3 Zh. Street, Almaty.
+7 701 ...
Representative under Power of Attorney:
Advocacy Office “Zakon i Pravo”
BIN 201240021767
Office 304, 79 Abylai Khan Avenue, Almaty.
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 708 971 78 58.
COMPLAINT
regarding the unlawful filing of the material in the nomenclature file and failure to decide on registration of a criminal case under Article 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
On February 23, 2026, A IS applied to the Turksib District Police Department of the Police Department of Almaty with a statement requesting that ZBN be held criminally liable for the elements of the criminal offense provided for by subparagraph 1) of part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, namely, fraud committed on a large scale.
The said application was registered in the KUИ under No. 267519030001493.
According to the response of the Turksib District Police Department of the Police Department of Almaty dated April 14, 2026, No. ЗТ-2026-01460627, the material concerning the application of A IS was left without consideration and filed in the nomenclature file due to the “absence of elements of a criminal offense.”
We disagree with the said decision and consider it unlawful, unfounded, and issued in gross violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
During the inspection conducted by police officers, no proper legal assessment was given to all factual circumstances of the case and the available materials, which directly indicate the presence of elements of fraud in the actions of ZBN.
Thus, it follows from the materials that ZBN, abusing the trust of A IS as his former colleague, as well as by providing knowingly false information regarding the existence of property owned by him, obtained from the latter monetary funds in the total amount of KZT 10,000,000.
At the same time, Z B.N.:
provided false information that he owned two machines for the production of expanded metal mesh;
provided false information that he owned the apartment indicated as collateral;
used the victim's difficult financial situation and circumstances related to an alleged traffic accident to mislead the victim;
after receiving the monetary funds, failed to fulfill his obligations and did not return the monetary funds.
In addition, the inspection materials contain a receipt and written explanations of Za B.N., in which he effectively acknowledges the existence of indebtedness to A IS, as well as confirms the fact of taking possession of the monetary funds through deception.
The inspection materials also contain: receipts; bank transfers; audio recordings; video recordings; explanations of the parties; information that the property indicated as collateral does not in fact belong to Zu B.N.
Furthermore, in the initial statement, A IS expressly indicated the existence of video recordings having significant evidentiary value for the proper legal assessment of the actions of Za B.N.
In particular, there are video recordings dated November 18, 2025 and December 3, 2025 (video file names: “WhatsApp_Video_2026-04-01_at_14.01.51.mp4” and “WhatsApp_Video_2026-04-01_at_13.58.47.mp4”), in which Z B.N. personally acknowledges the existence of indebtedness to A IS, asks to provide him with additional time to return the monetary funds, and effectively confirms the circumstances of receiving the monetary funds.
There is also video material dated April 15, 2026 involving Za B.N., in which he admits that he obtained KZT 10,000,000 from A IS through deception (video file name: “WhatsApp Video 2026-04-15 at 11.28.58”).
However, despite the existence of the said video materials and the direct reference to them in the statement concerning the commission of a criminal offense, the police authority failed to provide a proper legal assessment of these items of evidence, failed to ensure their full examination and procedural recording, which indicates the incompleteness of the inspection conducted and a formal approach to the consideration of the statement.
Despite the existence of sufficient data indicating the elements of a criminal offense provided for by Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the pre-trial investigation authority failed to make a decision to register the criminal case in the ERDR and commence a pre-trial investigation.
According to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 10 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Judicial Practice in Cases of Fraud,” fraud takes place where a person, through deception or abuse of trust, misleads the victim into voluntarily transferring property, while the intent to misappropriate arises before or at the time of obtaining the property.
In the present case, the said elements are present in full.
Moreover, pursuant to the requirements of Article 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where there is sufficient data indicating the elements of a criminal offense, the criminal prosecution authority is obliged to register the criminal case in the ERDR and commence a pre-trial investigation.
However, the officers of the Turksib District Police Department of the Police Department of Almaty effectively evaded the performance of their procedural duties, limiting themselves to a formal inspection and the unlawful filing of the material in the nomenclature file.
Pursuant to Article 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, criminal prosecution authorities are obliged to strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Criminal Procedure Code and other regulatory legal acts.
In accordance with Articles 100 and 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, decisions and actions (inaction) of pre-trial investigation authorities may be appealed to the prosecutor.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Articles 100 and 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
I REQUEST:
· To annul the decision of the officers of the Turksib District Police Department of the Police Department of Almaty to leave the material under KUИ No. 267519030001493 without consideration and to file it in the nomenclature file;
· To oblige the pre-trial investigation authority to register a criminal case in the ERDR against Z B.N. based on the elements of the criminal offense provided for by subparagraph 1) of part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
· To ensure a comprehensive, complete and objective pre-trial investigation;
· To provide a legal assessment of the actions (inaction) of the officials of the Turksib District Police Department of the Police Department of Almaty who allowed the material to be unlawfully filed despite the obvious elements of a criminal offense.
Respectfully,
Representative under Power of Attorney: Kenesbek I.M.
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
