Criminal complaint about extortion

Attention! The Law and Law Law Company draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in drafting any legal document that suits your situation. For more information, please contact lawyer Kenesbek Islam by phone.; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (727) 971-78-58.

Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court

Lawyer .......... legal address: Almaty .......... Tel. 8 ..........

acting in the interests of the convicted person ............. Born on 09/02/1982,

convicted under paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to 3 years of imprisonment

THE APPEAL

on the verdict of the district court no.2 Bostandyk district of Almaty city dated 07/25/20...

By the verdict of the district court No. 2 of the Bostandyk district of Almaty dated 07/25/20.. year ..................... He was found guilty of committing a crime under paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and sentenced to 3 years in prison. We do not agree with the Verdict of the court and believe that the conclusions of the court of first instance do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case and the actions of my client are subject to retraining. The said conviction is subject to change on the following grounds:

 

My client was convicted under paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Extortion committed with the use of violence." However, neither the pre-trial investigation nor the judicial investigation produced evidence that violence had been used against the victim. In accordance with Article 393, Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions and is decided only on condition that during the trial the defendant's guilt in committing a criminal offense is confirmed by the totality of evidence examined by the court. According to P. 6 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 23, 2006 No. 6 "On judicial practice in cases of extortion" "extortion with the use of violence should be understood as the commission of this crime involving restriction of freedom, infliction of physical pain, blows, beatings, causing mild or moderate harm to the victim's health." The court of first instance allowed the one-sidedness and incompleteness of the judicial investigation, the inconsistency of the court's conclusions set out in the verdict with the actual circumstances of the case, and the court incorrectly applied the criminal law.

In accordance with paragraph 12 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2006 No. 4, c (with amendments and additions dated 06/25/2010) "On certain issues of evidence assessment in criminal cases", a court verdict cannot be recognized as lawful if it is made only on the basis of the testimony of the defendant or victim, which have not been analyzed, They have not been compared for reliability and are not supported by other evidence: witness statements, protocols of procedural actions, expert opinions, physical evidence and other documents., except in cases of consideration of the case in an abbreviated manner provided for in Article 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). During the pre-trial investigation, the victim testified in a stressful state, and during the judicial investigation, the victim was confused when testifying and said that there had been no violence against him, thereby retracting his testimony in court given in the pre-trial investigation. In addition, during the pre-trial investigation, ............. I have fully compensated the material damage caused to the victim. Also, when sentencing, the court did not take into account such mitigating circumstances as voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime, positive characteristics from the place of work, from the place of residence, as well as a sincere confession provided for in art. 53 of the CPC RK.

Based on the above and in accordance with Articles 414, 423, 431, part 1, paragraph 2, Articles 433, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

ask:

Verdict of the Bostandyk District Court No. 2 of Almaty dated 07/25/20.... of the year in respect of ............. according to paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, amend and reclassify the acts from paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to part 1 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and impose a minimum term of restriction of liberty.

Lawyer .............. I am familiar with the defender's complaint and support it. .......... "_____" August 20...

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