MOTION TO THE PROSECUTOR FOR TERMINATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR FRAUD

To the Prosecutor of the Medeu District of AlmatyI.B. Masakbayev

From the defense counsel of the suspect,Boi Mi Tursungalievna,Attorney Sabit Davletovich Nigmetov

IIN: 820125350700Office 304, 79 Abylai Khan Avenue, AlmatyTel.: 87009785755

MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Criminal case ERDR No. 267570031000133 against my client, Boi M.T., is currently pending before the Police Department of the Medeu District Police Directorate of the Police Department of Almaty.

The act of Boi M.T. has been qualified under Article 190, Part 3, Subparagraphs 1) and 4) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, i.e. fraud — misappropriation of another person's property by deception and abuse of trust, committed on a large scale and repeatedly.

At present, Boi M.T. and the victims, K.A.G., A.S.T., and K.A.T., have reconciled through mediation.

According to the agreements on reconciliation of the parties through mediation in the course of the criminal proceedings, the victims K.A.G., A.S.T., and K.A.T.:

The victim K.A.G. agreed to accept KZT 2,040,000 as compensation for the damage and has no claims against Boi M.T.

The victim A.S.T. agreed to accept KZT 3,700,000 as compensation for the damage and has no claims against Boi M.T.

The victim K.A.T. agreed to accept KZT 7,000,000 as compensation for the damage and has no claims against Boi M.T.

Thus, the criminal case was initiated prematurely and is subject to termination on the following grounds.

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Judicial Practice in Cases of Fraud,” an essential element of fraud is the presence of a mercenary intent on the part of the perpetrator, i.e. the intention to unlawfully and gratuitously convert another person's property into his or her own property.

However, Boi M.T.'s consistent statements demonstrate that she borrowed money from the victims with the payment of remuneration (interest), namely:

– KZT 3,000,000 from the victim K.A.G., with remuneration of 10% per month. She repaid KZT 1,000,000 to him prior to the initiation of the criminal case.

– KZT 12,000,000 from the victim K.A.T., with remuneration in the amount of KZT 1,200,000. She repaid approximately KZT 7,000,000 to her prior to the initiation of the criminal case.

– KZT 2,600,000 from the victim A.S.T., with remuneration of 15% per month. She repaid KZT 2,300,000 to her prior to the initiation of the criminal case.

Boi M.T.'s statements are consistent with the materials of the criminal case, namely the screenshots of correspondence with the victims, the account statements of Boi M.T. held with Kaspi Bank JSC, and the Kaspi Gold receipt submitted to the pre-trial investigation body.

According to the agreements on reconciliation of the parties through mediation in the course of the criminal proceedings, the victims K.A.G., A.S.T., and K.A.T. confirmed that they agreed with the arguments of Boi M.T.

In addition to the foregoing, it should be taken into account that, despite the fact that the money was allegedly misappropriated by Boi M.T. from the victims in 2023–2024, the latter applied to the police only in 2026. This also indirectly confirms Boi M.T.'s statements that she had been paying remuneration to the victims and that, for this reason, they did not apply to the police or to the court.

Under criminal law, fraud may be committed only with direct intent to appropriate another person's property through deception or abuse of trust. An essential condition for fraud is the existence, at the time of entering into the transaction, of an intent to gratuitously appropriate such property.

The case does not establish that Boi M.T. engaged in deception or had the purpose of unlawfully and gratuitously taking possession of another person's property. Therefore, she cannot be held criminally liable under Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

If Boi M.T. is held criminally liable under Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, this would violate the requirement of Paragraph 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, according to which any doubts concerning the guilt of a person shall be interpreted in favor of the accused.

Thus, the circumstances indicate the existence of civil-law relations between Boi M.T. and the victims K.A.G., A.S.T., and K.A.T. arising from the conclusion of loan agreements and Boi M.T.'s failure to perform her obligation to repay the loan amounts.

Pursuant to Article 35, Part 1, Subparagraph 2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, criminal proceedings shall be terminated due to the absence in Boi M.T.'s act of the elements of the criminal offense provided for by Article 190, Part 3, Subparagraphs 1) and 4) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Articles 70 and 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I hereby

REQUEST:

– To terminate criminal case ERDR No. 267570031000133 due to the absence in the actions of Boi M.T. of the elements of the criminal offense provided for by Article 190, Part 3, Subparagraphs 1) and 4) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Defense Counsel – Attorney S. Nigmetov

09 April 2026

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