Dissemination of deliberately false information connected with the accusation of committing a serious crime, discrediting honor and dignity and undermining reputation
By the verdict of the Almalinsky District Court of Almaty dated March 13, 2015, D. was found guilty of committing a crime under part 3 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code. Based on part 1 of Article 65 of the Criminal Code She was released from criminal liability due to active repentance. 500,000 tenge was recovered from D. in favor of M. as moral damage, and a state duty of 992 tenge was collected into the state income. By the verdict of the court, D. was found guilty of spreading deliberately false information, combined with charges of committing a serious crime, discrediting the honor and dignity of M. and undermining her reputation. By a decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated May 22, 2015, the court's verdict against D. was overturned and a new sentence was imposed. By the verdict of the Appellate judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated May 22, 2015, D. was found innocent and acquitted under part 3 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code for the absence of corpus delicti in her actions. M.'s civil claim against D. was left without consideration. By the decision of the Cassation judicial board of the Almaty City Court of July 27, 2015, the decision and verdict of the appellate instance against D. remained unchanged.
Dissemination of deliberately false information connected with the accusation of committing a serious crime, discrediting honor and dignity and undermining reputation
The Supervisory Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court overturned the decision and verdict of the appellate and cassation judicial boards in respect of D., upholding the verdict of the court of first instance due to the following circumstances. The conclusions of the court of first instance on the evidence of D.'s guilt in spreading deliberately false information connected with the accusation of committing a serious crime, discrediting the honor and dignity of M. and those undermining her reputation under the circumstances set out in the verdict are based on evidence comprehensively and fully examined at the court session and correspond to the actual circumstances of the case. So, in a private complaint filed by D. herself, on behalf of DB "A" JSC, against the ruling of the specialized interdistrict Court for Economic Affairs of Almaty dated June 9, 2014, the following are fully indicated: the surname, first name and patronymic of the plaintiff – M. and her place of residence. In M.'s statement of claim, in the introductory and operative parts of the decision of the court of first instance of July 28, 2014, it is also stated - M. Consequently, D., who received a copy of the statement of claim and the court's decision, reliably knew that the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court of April 4, 2013, submitted by her to the court during the consideration of the civil case, was issued against another person, M., born on June 16, 1974, convicted under paragraph "b" part 3 of Article 177 of the Criminal Code.
However, having a higher legal education and, by virtue of her professional activity, knowing the procedure for filing claims and considering cases in courts, D. deliberately indicated at the hearing that the plaintiff M. had previously been convicted of committing a serious crime – fraud and that other courts in Almaty were also considering cases on her claims. The very fact of searching for compromising materials in the form of forged court orders indicates D.'s goal to slander the plaintiff, thereby misleading the court in order to positively resolve the civil case in favor of his principal. Thus, the court of first instance reasonably concluded that D., knowing the personal data of the victim M. and the contents of the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court of April 4, 2013 against M., deliberately slandered M. in committing a serious crime in order to discredit her honor, dignity and undermine her reputation. D.'s actions by the court of first instance were correctly qualified under part 3 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code. Based on the above, the supervisory judicial board considers that the conclusions of the appellate and cassation instances of the Almaty City Court that D.'s actions lacked the corpus delicti provided for in part 3 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code, since she did not realize the falsity of the information she provided, but was conscientiously mistaken about their reliability and was confident in the truthfulness of the information at the time of the speech. in the appellate judicial board for civil and administrative cases of the Almaty City Court, they are insolvent.
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
