Exemption from administrative responsibility in view of the insignificance of the offense
The reasons for which the court concluded that there were grounds for applying insignificance, including evidence indicating the existence of specific circumstances, are of legal importance. The conclusions of the court are questionable, based on circumstances not investigated by the court, for which evidence is not provided in the case file by the Resolution of the SMAS of the city of Nur-Sultan dated April 25, 2019, IP K. released from administrative responsibility due to the insignificance of the offense, the court limited itself to an oral comment on part 2 of Article 283 of the Administrative Code. Motives: - only one bottle of alcoholic beverages worth 4,200 tenge was found, the price of which is less than the amount of the fine (63125 tenge), - the commission of an offense for the first time due to negligence, - property status, - positive characteristics, - the presence of dependent minor children.
However: - in the case file there is no information about the financial situation of IP K., characteristics, information about the presence of dependent minor children; - the offender did not participate in the consideration of the case, she submitted an application for consideration without her participation, which raises questions about how in this case the court established information that it recognized as circumstances indicating insignificance. - in the decision, the court indicates that at the court session it was established that the sole proprietor stored alcoholic beverages without a license, although, according to the protocol, an administrative case was initiated for the turnover of excisable goods subject to labeling with excise and (or) accounting–controlled stamps (hereinafter referred to as UKM), committed in the form of storage, sale and (or) transportation of excisable products without excise and (or) UKM, as well as with stamps of an unidentified sample and (or) unidentifiable, for which liability is provided under part 2 of Article 283 of the Administrative Code.
The court makes reference to part 2 of Article 283 of the Administrative Code, but sets out about engaging in entrepreneurial activity without registration, permission..., which does not correspond to the disposition of part 2 of Article 283 of the Administrative Code; - on the issue of the sale of one bottle of UKM of an unidentified sample and the proportionality of the offense to the amount of the fine. The norms of part 2 of Article 282 of the Administrative Code are aimed at preventing illegal trafficking in alcoholic beverages, including those with an unknown source of origin. The degree of public danger of this offense is so great that the amount of wine and vodka products sold does not matter legally; - the court did not take into account that the offender is a person engaged in entrepreneurial activity and has a license.
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
