Petition for the restoration of the procedural time limit for filing a complaint against the Decision of the investigative court
To the Specialized Interdistrict Investigative Court of Astana
From the Representative – Attorney: Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov
Law Office “Zakon i Pravo”
BIN 201240021767
Office 304, 79 Abylai Khan Avenue, Almaty.
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 727 578 57 58; +7 708 578 57 58.
In the interests of: Ba A Bicha
Republic of Kazakhstan, Zhetisu Region,Kerbulak District, village of A.., ..., Street, Building 35.
IIN: ....
MOTION
to Restore the Procedural Time Limit for Filing a Complaint against the Ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Investigative Court of Astana dated 8 August 2025
On 8 August 2025, Investigative Judge D.N. Mukeshev of the Specialized Interdistrict Investigative Court of Astana, having considered individually the motion of S.T. Kosherbayev, Head of the Investigation Department of the Police Department of Astana, based on the materials of the pre-trial investigation registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (ERDR) under No. 257123031001142, for authorization of the seizure of property, the Court ruled to grant the motion for authorization of the seizure of property.
We disagree with the court ruling in part, specifically with regard to the seizure of the following property:
· 20. N.A. Mekenkyzy, IIN ., was transferred the vehicle of the “LEXUS LX 570” make, VIN: JTJHY00W2B4077221. Currently, the owner is B Arkhan Bich, born on 08 February 1989, IIN .., state registration plate No. 557/AEV/19;
We consider the ruling in this part to be unlawful and unfounded for the following reasons:
The Police Department of the “Nura” District of Astana is conducting criminal proceedings registered in the ERDR under No. 257123031001142 dated 22 May 2025 under Article 190, Part 4, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Based on the statement of the citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan N.A. Mekenkyzy, IIN .., requesting that the heads of the construction company LLP “Asyl-Nur Qurylys”, BIN 210840004976, be brought to criminal liability, who, by deceiving and abusing the trust of residents, despite having no right to attract funds from shareholders for the construction of the residential complex “Mardan”, located at the intersection of Ch.A. and E-164 Streets, took possession of funds in an especially large amount, causing significant material damage.
Within the framework of the criminal case, 200 citizens have been identified and questioned as victims.
In the process of concluding agreements under the “Trade-in” program, the shareholders re-registered their property (vehicles and apartments) in the names of persons indicated by the developer.
During the investigation, it was established that the investor/victim Nurbayeva A.M. transferred to the developer LLP “Asyl-Nur Qurylys” the property under the Vehicle Transfer Agreement dated 12 June 2024, namely a “LEXUS LX 570” vehicle, VIN: JTJHY00W2B4077221, which was notarized.
Subsequently, the partnership sold it to other individuals, who then resold it, and ultimately, on 30 October 2024, my client B A.B. purchased the above-mentioned vehicle from citizen A.A.N., IIN ..., through the “KOLESA” mobile application on credit through “Kaspi Bank” JSC. The credit term was 60 months.
Currently, the owner of the above-mentioned vehicle is citizen B A.B., born on 08 February 1989, IIN ...
Pursuant to Part 8 of Article 161 of the CPC, seizure may be imposed on property held by other persons if there are sufficient grounds to believe that such property was obtained as a result of criminal acts of the suspect or accused, or was used or intended for use as an instrument or means of a criminal offense, or for financing extremism, terrorism, an organized group, an illegal military formation, or a criminal organization.
However, the court failed to take into account the opinion of the current owner of the vehicle, who purchased it on credit.
According to the terms of the Vehicle Purchase Agreement No. 866487680 dated 31.10№2024, the following is provided:
1.2. The Buyer undertakes, through the Mobile Application, to make an initial payment to Kaspi for the purchase of the Vehicle in the amount of KZT 3,800,000 (Three million eight hundred thousand tenge) (hereinafter referred to as the Initial Payment), which shall be transferred to the Seller after fulfillment of all conditions set forth in Clause 4.4 of the Agreement.
1.3. The Buyer shall provide the Vehicle as collateral to Kaspi to secure obligations under the loan agreement, ensure registration of the collateral at his own expense, and enter into a loan agreement and a Vehicle pledge agreement with Kaspi.
1.4. By signing the Agreement, the Buyer gives consent/instruction to Kaspi, on the date the loan is provided, to debit from the Buyer's account specified in the loan agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Buyer's Account) the Loan amount of KZT 15,100,000 (Fifteen million one hundred thousand) and the Initial Payment amount by direct debit and transfer them, on the basis of a payment order or other payment document initiated by Kaspi, to the Seller's bank account specified in the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Seller's Account) for the purpose of making full payment for the Vehicle.
2.1. The Seller agrees to sell the LEXUS LX 570 vehicle, manufactured in 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Vehicle) to the Buyer. The price of the Vehicle is KZT 18,900,000 (Eighteen million nine hundred thousand).
Thus, my client Ba A.B. ultimately purchased the above-mentioned vehicle, including the bank's remuneration, for the amount of KZT 34,000,000.
Ba A.B.'s obligations under the loan agreement with “Kaspi Bank” JSC were fully fulfilled, as evidenced by the Notification on the removal of the pledge of movable property from state registration.
Article 18 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that ownership is guaranteed by law. No one may be deprived of their property otherwise than by a court decision.
Article 6 of the Constitution provides that the Republic of Kazakhstan recognizes and equally protects state and private property.
Pursuant to Article 259 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the owner has the right to demand recognition of the right of ownership.
Pursuant to Article 261, if property was acquired for consideration from a person who had no right to dispose of it, of which the acquirer did not know and could not have known (a bona fide acquirer), the owner may reclaim such property from the acquirer only if the property was lost by the owner or by a person to whom the owner transferred it into possession, or was stolen from either of them, or otherwise left their possession against their will.
Thus, B A.B., pursuant to Articles 259 and 261 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, is a bona fide acquirer.
Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 107 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, during the pre-trial investigation, the suspect, his defense counsel, legal representative, victim, his legal representative, representative, and a person whose rights and freedoms are directly affected by an act of the investigative judge have the right to appeal, while the prosecutor may submit a motion against the ruling or authorization of the investigative judge: 4) on the imposition or refusal to impose seizure on property.
B A.B. learned about the imposed encumbrance on 8 January 2026, when checking through the “Kaspi” application.
Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 50 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan provide that, upon the motion of an interested person, a time limit missed for a valid reason may be restored by a ruling of the interrogating officer, investigator, prosecutor, or judge in whose proceedings the case is pending. In this case, the time limit is restored for the person who missed it, but not for other persons, unless otherwise provided by the relevant decision of the body conducting the criminal proceedings.
A refusal to restore the time limit may be appealed or reviewed upon the motion of the prosecutor in accordance with the procedure established by this Code.
Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 107 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a ruling of an investigative judge issued in accordance with the rules of this Article may be appealed within three days from the moment of its pronouncement by the persons specified in Part 1 of this Article, and the prosecutor may also submit a motion against it to the regional and equivalent court through the court whose investigative judge issued the ruling. A time limit missed for a valid reason may, upon the motion of an interested person, be restored in accordance with Article 50 of this Code.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Articles 48, 50, 107, and 108 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
I REQUEST:
· To restore the procedural time limit for filing a complaint with the Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases of the Court of Astana against the Ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Investigative Court of Astana dated 8 August 2025.
Respectfully,
Representative under Power of Attorney: G.T. Sarzhanov
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
