Legality and validity of the verdict
In accordance with Article 125 of the CPC, the court gave each of the examined evidence a correct legal assessment in terms of relevance, admissibility and reliability based on the materials of the preliminary and judicial investigation by the Verdict of the District Court No. 2 of the Saryarkinsky district of Astana on June 19, 2018: A., previously not convicted, convicted under part 2 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of the Republic Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to a fine in the amount of 60 times the amount of a bribe – 1,800,000 tenge with life imprisonment for holding positions in government bodies. On the basis of part 1 of Article 49 of the Criminal Code, he was stripped of the special rank of "police major". The fate of the material evidence in the case is resolved in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). By the verdict of the court, A. was found guilty of having received a bribe as an official for illegal inaction in favor of the bribe giver. The case was not considered on appeal. The Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan points out in the protest that the court incorrectly applied the norms of the criminal law. The fact that convicted A. received a bribe from G. failure to file a protocol on an administrative offense in respect of him under part 1 of Article 505 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code) and failure to bring him to administrative responsibility does not apply to illegal inaction. He requests that the court's verdict be changed, that A.'s actions be reclassified to part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code and that he be fined 50 times the amount of the bribe – 1,500,000 tenge. The grounds for cassation review of judicial acts that have entered into force, specified in part 1 of Article 484 of the CPC, are violations of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens committed during the investigation or judicial review of the case, or improper application of criminal and criminal procedure laws, which have entailed the consequences provided for in part 1 of Article 485 of this Code.
Legality and validity of the verdict
Such violations of the law are not allowed during the consideration of this case by the court. The court's conclusions about A.'s guilt, in addition to his full admission of guilt, are based on evidence comprehensively and fully examined in the main trial, corresponding to the factual circumstances of the case. In accordance with article 125 of the CPC, the court gave each of the examined evidence a correct legal assessment in terms of relevance, admissibility and reliability based on the materials of the preliminary and judicial investigation. The case has been fully investigated, and there have been no significant violations of the criminal procedure law regarding the investigation and evaluation of evidence of the convict's guilt. The court reliably established that convict A., being a senior inspector of the Department of Internal Affairs of the Saryarka district of Astana, was not brought to administrative responsibility for violating the rules of landscaping provided for in Part 1 of Article 505 of the Administrative Code, for storing building materials (bricks and cement in bags) on green spaces (lawn) near the facade of the Junior store, located on the ave . Bogenbai batyr, 48, of Astana city, that is, for illegal inaction, received a bribe from G. in the form of money in the amount of 30,000 tenge. The court came to this conclusion on the basis of the following circumstances established in the main court proceedings. The fact of G.'s unauthorized storage of building materials on the above-mentioned lawn was established by the testimony of the convicted A. and the bribe-giver G., as well as other case materials. According to the expert's conclusion, G.'s actions contain signs of an administrative offense provided for in part 1 of Article 505 of the Administrative Code. Meanwhile, having reliably established the fact of the commission of the specified administrative offense by the bribe giver G., A., as an acting police officer, contrary to the requirements of part 1 of Article 685, paragraphs 2) and 4) of part 2 of Article 685 of the Administrative Code, demonstrating illegal inaction in the interests of G., did not draw up a protocol on an administrative offense against him under part 1 of Article 505 of this Code. The Code. Thus, by the court, the actions of convicted A. a proper legal assessment has been given and they are qualified under part 2 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code as receiving a bribe by an official for illegal inaction in favor of a bribe giver, correctly.
A.'s punishment, imposed in accordance with the requirements of Article 52 of the Criminal Code, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the criminal offense committed by him, his personality, lack of criminal record, circumstances mitigating and aggravating responsibility and punishment, is fair. Under the circumstances described, the protest arguments that the fact that A. received a bribe for not providing administrative material in respect of G. under Part 1 of Article 505 of the Administrative Code and not bringing him to administrative responsibility do not relate to illegal inaction are untenable. Based on the above, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance against A.. The protest of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan was left without satisfaction.
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
