No one is obliged to prove their innocence, and irremediable doubts about the guilt of the accused are interpreted in their favor.

By the verdict of the Atyrau city Court No. 2 of the Atyrau region dated June 27, 2019: A., who had no previous convictions, was found innocent of committing a criminal offense under part 3 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) and acquitted due to the absence of elements of a criminal offense in her act. The acquitted A. was recognized as having the right to compensation for damage caused by her unlawful criminal prosecution under part 3 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code. The civil claim was dismissed. By the verdict of the court of A. She was found innocent of committing a criminal offense under part 3 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code and acquitted due to the absence of elements of a criminal offense in her act. By the decision of the judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Atyrau Regional Court dated September 3, 2019, the verdict of the court remained unchanged. In the petition, private prosecutor H., disagreeing with the judicial acts, asks them to cancel, hold A. accountable for defamation and recover from her the amount of 1,000,000 tenge. As follows from the verdict, A. was accused by private prosecutor X. the fact that on May 5, 2017, through a written appeal to the Atyrau city Police Department, she spread deliberately false information discrediting his honor and dignity, undermining his reputation, accusing him of committing a serious crime, namely that H., promising to sell the Standard production base, seized funds for a total the amount of 100,000 US dollars and caused property damage to A.

No one is obliged to prove their innocence, and irremediable doubts about the guilt of the accused are interpreted in their favor.

As can be seen from the case materials, the victim A., in the order of civil proceedings, appealed to the Atyrau City Court with a claim against H. to declare the agreement of June 14, 2016 invalid and recover the amount of 38,100,000 tenge. The decision of the Atyrau City Court of February 6, 2018 denied the claim. By the resolution of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Atyrau Regional Court dated May 11, 2018, this decision was changed. Regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim for invalidation of the agreement dated June 14, 2016 and recovery of the amount of 8,190,750 tenge, it was canceled with the issuance of a new decision on the satisfaction of the claim. The agreement concluded between H. and A. dated June 14, 2016 was declared invalid. With H. in favor of A. 8,190,750 tenge was collected, and a state duty in the amount of 81,907 tenge was paid to the state revenue. By the decision of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 7, 2018, the decision of the appellate instance was canceled, while the decision of the Atyrau City Court dated February 6, 2018 remained in force. However, these decisions of the courts in civil cases cannot serve as evidence of A.'s guilt. in this criminal case, since, according to article 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the factual circumstances established by the final court decision that resolved the case in civil proceedings do not prejudice the court's conclusions about the guilt of this person in the criminal case. A court decision that resolved a case in civil proceedings may not prevent the consideration of a criminal case based on the principle of the presumption of innocence of a person accused of committing a criminal offense. According to private prosecutor Kh., the reason for the initiation of criminal proceedings against him was A.'s statement to the police about taking action against X. regarding the seizure of her funds in the amount of 100,000 US dollars. By a resolution dated June 19, 2017, the criminal case on this application was terminated due to the absence of signs of a criminal offense in Act X. on the basis of paragraph 2) of part 1 of Article 35 of the CPC. According to the statement of A. On January 3, 2019, the Deputy prosecutor of Atyrau region cancelled the procedural decision on the criminal case in order to organize further investigation.

By a decree dated January 30, 2019, the criminal case against H. was terminated due to the absence of a criminal offense on the basis that there is a civil agreement between H. and A. and the consideration of this issue is subject to a civil procedure. Thus, the case materials established that A. applied to the police and the court for protection of her rights. A., referring to the authorized bodies, assumed the presence of X in the actions. There was no evidence of a crime and, being in good faith, she had no intention of slandering him. She contacted the law enforcement agencies, which are legally required to verify the information received, and stated in a statement her subjective opinion about X's actions. Whereas, according to the law, criminal liability for libel, provided for in Article 130 of the Criminal Code, occurs only when it is established that there is a mandatory element of this crime – the deliberate falsity of the disseminated information and the existence of direct intent to disseminate it. Knowing false information means that the perpetrator is aware that the information he is spreading is really false and does not correspond to reality. In the event that a person, assuming the reliability of the information provided by him, is in good faith mistaken about the authenticity of the information disseminated by him, these actions also do not contain defamation. Meanwhile, no evidence has been established that A. reliably knew about the falsity of the information and had the intention to disseminate it. In accordance with article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and article 19 of the CPC, no one is required to prove his innocence, and irremediable doubts about the guilt of the accused are interpreted in his favor.

After examining the materials and circumstances of the case, checking the arguments of A. and Kh., evaluating each evidence in terms of admissibility, relevance and reliability, and all the evidence collected together from the standpoint of sufficiency to resolve the case, the courts came to the correct conclusion about A.'s innocence. In accordance with article 440 of the CPC, an acquittal cannot be overturned on grounds of a significant violation of the criminal procedure law specified in Article 436 of the CPC, including in connection with consideration by an illegal court, if the innocence of the acquitted person, the grounds for justification or the essence of another decision rendered in favor of the defendant are not disputed. government agencies and report violations of the law. In this regard, her appeals to law enforcement agencies cannot be considered the dissemination of false information. In such circumstances, the conclusions of the judicial authorities about A.'s innocence are based on the law. There are no grounds for revoking the acquittal of A. Based on the above, the judicial board for criminal Cases of the Supreme Court upheld the judicial acts against the acquitted A., and the petition of the private prosecutor H. was not satisfied. 

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