Criminal Defense Lawyer in Almaty, a guilty verdict cannot be based on the initial testimony of the convicted person and the charge cannot be considered illegal if there are unexplored circumstances in the case that are important to the case.

By the verdict of the Petropavlovsk City Court of the North Kazakhstan region: B., - convicted under paragraph "b" of Part 3 of Article 177 of the Criminal Code to 4 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property while serving his sentence in a correctional colony of general regime. By the verdict of the court, B. was found guilty of committing fraud, that is, of stealing someone else's property, by deceiving a group of persons by prior agreement, on a large scale. By the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court dated May 22, 2012, the verdict of the court remained unchanged. By the decision of the Cassation Judicial Board of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court dated December 26, 2012, the verdict and the decision of the appeals board remained unchanged. Having studied the materials of the criminal case on the basis of a petition from the defense, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that judicial acts against convicted B. are subject to review on the following grounds. It can be seen from the case file that B., being the owner of a 1997 V-brand car, put it up for sale in the car market in mid-July 2007. Petropavlovsk, where he met L.L., not having the entire amount of cash to purchase a car and being unemployed, which B. could not have known about, he offered him to purchase a car by applying for a car loan from a Bank, which B. did not object to. On July 22, 2007, L. applied for a loan from NCF JSC "B" and provided false information about his place of work in LLP "A" as a senior manager with a salary of 80,000 tenge per month, fictitious copies of a driver's license and a work record. Employees of the Bank, having received from L. For unknown reasons, the authorities of the preliminary investigation and the court did not verify these documents with the originals, which L. did not have, and without further checking his solvency, they approved the issuance of a car loan. Then L. gave B. a deposit of 740,000 tenge, about which he wrote a receipt to L., who in turn provided a receipt to the Bank of the North Caucasus Federal District JSC "B". On July 30, 2007, B. and L. signed an official purchase and sale agreement for the specified car, certified by a notary T., after which the car was reissued in the UDP of North Kazakhstan Region in the name of L. From the moment of registration of the purchase and sale agreement in the UDP of North Kazakhstan region, a new technical passport was issued in his name and the Bank issued a pledge agreement for this car to secure repayment of the loan in the amount of 1,103,000 tenge.

Criminal Defense Lawyer in Almaty, a guilty verdict cannot be based on the initial testimony of the convicted person and the charge cannot be considered illegal if there are unexplored circumstances in the case that are important to the case.

According to the cash withdrawal order dated August 01, 2007, L. received 1,103,000 tenge and handed over to B. as final payment for the car sold, and B. handed over the car to L.. Subsequently, L. did not make monthly payments to the Bank, as a result of which the Bank of SKF JSC "B" suffered damage totaling 1,622,325 tenge 06 tiyn. Thus, the convicted B. had nothing to do with the legal relationship between L. and the Bank of SKF JSC "B" and assumed no obligations to the Bank. The court of first instance stated in the verdict that "under unknown circumstances, B. fictitious copies of a driver's license and a work record were made and transferred to L. in his name," that is, the court, having officially recognized the circumstances of the production and transfer of fictitious copies of documents to B. as unknown, justifies the conviction, which is contrary to the law. At the same time, the court of first instance did not show a proper critical attitude to the formulation of the charges against B. about the unspecified circumstances of the events imputed to him as criminal acts and did not give this a correct assessment. The courts of the first and appellate instances did not question the Bank employee K. and, the testimony of E., whose direct responsibility is to verify the documents provided by borrowers with the original, has not been properly evaluated. In addition, these Bank employees did not check L.'s solvency in accordance with the procedure established by law.  The appellate and cassation instances, without delving into the essence and significance of the testimony of these persons for the case, duplicated similar arguments given in the verdict. In accordance with paragraph 12 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court No. 4 of April 20, 2006, a court verdict cannot be recognized as lawful if it is pronounced only on the basis of the testimony of the defendant or victim, which have not been analyzed, compared for reliability and not confirmed by other evidence: witness statements, protocols of procedural actions, expert opinions, physical evidence. and other documents. The guilty verdict against B. It cannot be based on the initial testimony of the convicted L., given by him during the consideration of his criminal case and which he categorically refused during the judicial investigation of the case against B. In addition, the courts did not properly assess L.'s testimony that B. was not involved in the crime, there was a legal relationship between them under a car purchase agreement of the "V" stamp, when applying for a car loan at the Bank, he forged the documents provided himself. At his request, B. He signed a copy of the workbook after paying for the car and handing it over to him, they did not see each other and did not maintain any relations. In such circumstances, the incompleteness and one-sidedness of the court's consideration of the case led to a premature conviction against B. When the case is reviewed again, the court of appeal must carefully examine and fully analyze all the evidence available in the case, eliminate the above violations of the law and make a lawful decision based on the results. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court in respect of convicted B., the case was sent for a new judicial review to the court of appeal for criminal cases of the regional court. 

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