Criminal denial of the sale of forged payment documents, receipts for the payment of administrative fines, the use of knowingly forged documents
By the verdict of court No. 2 of the city of Ust-Kamenogorsk, East Kazakhstan region, dated December 12, 2011, K., - sentenced under Part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Code to 4 years in prison, with confiscation of property, and serving his sentence in a correctional colony of general regime. Z.,- sentenced under Part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Code to 4 years of imprisonment. Based on Article 63 of the Criminal Code, the sentence imposed on Z. was decided to be considered conditional with a probation period of 3 years. The measure of restraint – the arrest was canceled, immediately released from custody in the courtroom. G., - sentenced under Part 1 of Article 207 of the Criminal Code to 2 years of imprisonment with a fine of 500 MCI in the amount of 756,000 tenge to the state income, under Part 1 of Article 325 of the Criminal Code to 1 year of imprisonment, under Part 3 of Article 325 of the Criminal Code to 1 year of restriction of freedom. According to Part 2 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, the final punishment was imposed for a combination of crimes by absorbing a less severe punishment with a more severe 2 years of imprisonment with a fine of 500 MCI in the amount of 756,000 tenge to the state income. 63 of the Criminal Code, the imposed punishment in the form of imprisonment was decided to be considered conditional with a probation period of 2 years.
By the verdict of the court, K. was found guilty that in the period from February to May 2011, at his home at the address: Ust-Kamenogorsk, Menovnoye village, Yaroslavskaya St., using computer technology, having a sample of the payment receipt of JSC "N", JSC "A" with the necessary details and an impression of the seal, he made they knowingly provided false information about the payment of administrative fines to Z., K., M., D., A.V., S., M., K., B., S. and L. subsequently sold forged receipts that are not securities. According to Part 2 of Article 32 of the Criminal Code, K. was found innocent and acquitted due to the absence of corpus delicti in his actions. He was found guilty of repeatedly selling 9 forged payment documents, receipts for payment of administrative fines, which are not securities in the name of K., S., M., D. 44 in Ust-Kamenogorsk. He was found guilty of selling forged payment documents, receipts for payment administrative fines, which are not securities of S., and also used a deliberately forged document, a temporary driver's license when driving a car and forged an official document - a temporary certificate in his own name, granting rights.
By a decision of the appellate judicial board of the East Kazakhstan Regional Court dated January 25, 2012, the court's verdict against K. was changed, his actions were reclassified from Part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Code to Part 2 of Article 325 of the Criminal Code, which imposed a sentence of 4 years of suspended imprisonment, with the application of Article 63 of the Criminal Code with a probation period of 2 years. Based on Article 3 of the Law "On Amnesty in connection with the twentieth anniversary of the State Independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan" dated December 28, 2011. He was released from the prescribed punishment. By a decision of the cassation judicial board of the East Kazakhstan Regional Court dated August 28, 2012, the decision of the appellate instance was overturned, and the verdict of the court of first instance against K. was upheld. The convicts Z. and G. did not appeal the verdict on appeal or cassation. When considering the case at the request of the defense, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court issued a decision of the cassation judicial board of the East Kazakhstan Regional Court in respect of K. overturned and upheld the decision of the appellate judicial board of the East Kazakhstan Regional Court, stating the following. The court's conclusions about the evidence of K.'s guilt in forgery of the payment receipt, under the circumstances set out in the verdict, are based on evidence objectively examined at the court session and duly evaluated, and are not disputed in the lawyer's petition. At the same time, the lawyer's arguments about the incorrect qualification of K.'s actions under Part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Code are well-founded. According to Article 207 of the Criminal Code, criminal liability under this article occurs for the manufacture and sale of counterfeit payment cards and other payment and settlement documents that are not securities. However, other payment and settlement documents that are not securities, in relation to Article 207 of the Criminal Code, are not all payment documents, but only those that provide a non-cash form of settlement between individuals and legal entities (for example: payment requests, payment requests-orders). Since, in accordance with Article 1 of the Law "On Payments and Money Transfers", this Law regulates relations arising from payments and money transfers in the Republic of Kazakhstan, except for relations related to money transfers by postal organizations. The relations regulated by art.2 of this Law arise when making: - payments and (or) money transfers in accordance with the terms of payment for civil transactions; - money transfers on behalf of a client of a Bank or an organization performing certain types of banking operations (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), when such orders are not related to the fulfillment of payment terms for civil transactions; - mandatory payments and (or) money transfers made in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
In this case, there are no payments, payment or money transfer to. they were not carried out, therefore, the cassation instance's reference to this law is unfounded. In connection with the above, the supervisory judicial board considered that the conclusion of the appellate instance that the payment receipt is an official payment document confirming the legal fact of payment of the fine, and entails appropriate legal consequences, is justified. Therefore, the actions of K. the appellate judicial board correctly reclassified them from Part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Code to Part 2 of Article 325 of the Criminal Code, that is, as a forgery of an official document granting rights or relieving of duties, committed repeatedly. The Supervisory Judicial Board also considers it justified for the appellate instance to apply a suspended sentence to K., taking into account the mitigating circumstances, and his subsequent release from the sentence imposed on the basis of paragraph 3, Part 3, Article 2 of the Law "On Amnesty in connection with the twentieth Anniversary of the State Independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan." Since in this criminal case Z. If G. is found guilty under Parts 1, 2 of Articles 207 of the Criminal Code, the supervisory judicial board considers it correct due to the requirements of Part 12 of Article 467 of the CPC, as well as taking into account paragraph 25 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 2 dated April 28, 2000 "On the procedure for criminal proceedings in a supervisory instance" and their actions in these episodes should be qualified under Part 2 of Article 325 of the Criminal Code for the same reasons and considers it possible to apply the rules of the above-mentioned amnesty act to them and further release them from the imposed punishment.
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
