Complaint to the prosecutor's office about the illegal writing off of the material in the nomenclature file and the failure to make a decision on the registration of the criminal case
To the Prosecutor's Office of the Turksib district of Almaty
Almaty, Y. Pomerantseva street, 7.
from the Applicant: Aa Ia Saidulaevich
IIN ....
3 Zh... street, Almaty.
+7 701 ...
Representative by proxy:
Law and Law Law Firm
BIN 201240021767
79 Abylai Khan Ave., office 304, Almaty.
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+ 7 708 971 78 58.
complaint
on the illegal write-off of the material in the nomenclature file
and the failure to take a decision on the registration of a criminal case
within the framework of the 105 CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan
On February 23, 2026, A. I. Saidulaevich applied to the UP of the Turksib district of the DP of Almaty with a statement on bringing to criminal responsibility for Ba Nasirdinovich on the grounds of a criminal offense provided for in subparagraph 1) part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, namely fraud committed on a large scale.
The specified appeal was registered in the CUI for No. 267519030001493.
According to the response of the UP of the Turksib district of the DP of Almaty dated April 14, 2026, No. ZT-2026-01460627, the material on the application of Aa I.S. was left without consideration and written off to the nomenclature file due to the "absence of a criminal offense"
We do not agree with this decision, we consider it illegal, unjustified and made in gross violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
During the inspection, the police officers did not give a proper legal assessment to all the factual circumstances of the case and the available materials, which directly indicate the presence of signs of fraud in the actions of Mr. Nasirdinovich.
Thus, it follows from the materials that Z. B. Nasirdinovich, abusing the trust of AA I.S. as his former colleague, as well as by knowingly providing false information about his property, received funds from the latter totaling 10,000,000 tenge.
At the same time, Z. B.N.:
he reported false information about the ownership of two machines for the production of expanded metal mesh;
provided false information about the ownership of the apartment indicated as collateral.;
He used the difficult financial situation and circumstances related to the alleged accident to mislead the victim.;
after receiving the funds, he did not fulfill his obligations and did not return the funds.
In addition, the inspection materials contain a receipt and written explanations for Nasirdinovich, in which he actually acknowledges the debt owed to I.S. AI, and also confirms the fact of seizing funds by deception.
The inspection materials also contain: receipts; bank transfers; audio recordings; video recordings; explanations from the parties; information that the property indicated as collateral does not actually belong to Zu BN.
Also, in the initial statement, A.I.S. explicitly stated that there were video recordings that were of significant evidentiary value for the correct legal assessment of the actions of Nasirdinovich. In particular, there are videos from November 18, 2025 and December 03, 2025 (the name of the videos: "WhatsApp_Video_2026-04-01_at_14.01.51.mp4" and "WhatsApp_Video_2026-04-01_at_13.58.47.mp4"), which are based on He personally acknowledges the debt owed to I.S. AI, requests that he be given additional time to repay the funds, and actually confirms the circumstances of receiving the funds. There is also a video dated 04/15/2026 for B.N., where he admits that he received 10,000,000 tenge by deception from Aa I.S. (name of the videos: WhatsApp Video 2026-04-15 at 11.28.58). However, despite the presence of these video materials and a direct reference to them in the statement on the commission of a criminal offense, the police authority did not give a proper legal assessment of these evidences, did not ensure their full investigation and procedural consolidation, which indicates the incompleteness of the audit and the formal approach to the consideration of the application.
Despite the availability of sufficient data indicating signs of a criminal offense under Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the pre-trial investigation body did not make a decision to register the criminal case with the ERDR and initiate a pre-trial investigation.
According to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 10 of the Regulatory Decree of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On judicial practice in fraud cases", fraud occurs in cases where a person deceives or abuses trust to mislead the victim in order to voluntarily transfer property, while the intent to steal occurs before or at the time of receiving the property.
In this case, these signs are present in full.
Moreover, due to the requirements of Article 179 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, if there is sufficient data indicating signs of a criminal offense, the criminal prosecution authority is obliged to register a criminal case with the ERDR and initiate a pre-trial investigation.
However, the staff of the UP of the Turksib district of the DP of Almaty actually evaded the performance of their procedural duties, limiting themselves to formal verification and illegal writing off of the material in the nomenclature file.
According to article 10 of the CPC, criminal prosecution authorities are required to strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, CPC and other regulatory legal acts.
In accordance with articles 100 and 105 of the CPC, decisions and actions (inaction) of the pre-trial investigation bodies may be appealed to the prosecutor.
Based on the above and in accordance with Articles 100 and 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
ask:
· To cancel the decision of the staff of the UP of the Turksib district of the DP of Almaty on leaving the material of the CUI No. 267519030001493 without consideration and writing it off to the nomenclature file;
· To oblige the pre-trial investigation body to register a criminal case in the ERDR on the grounds of a criminal offense provided for in subparagraph 1) part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in relation to Za Ba Nasirdinovich;
· Ensure that a comprehensive, complete and objective pre-trial investigation is conducted;
· To give a legal assessment of the actions (inaction) of officials of the UP Turksib district of the DP of Almaty, who allowed the illegal copying of material in the presence of obvious signs of a criminal offense.
With respect,
Representative by proxy: 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
