Petition from the defender to the investigator for termination of the criminal case

To the senior investigator of the OP at the UE of the Medeu district of the DP of Almaty

to Police Major Kabitova D.K.

from the defender of the suspect, Boya Tursungalievna

– lawyer Sabit Davletovich Nigmetov

IIN ....

79 Abylai Khan Ave., office 304, Almaty

Phone: 87009785755

Petition for termination of the criminal case

The Police Department of the Medeu district Police Department of the Almaty City Police Department is investigating the criminal case of ERDR No. 267570031000133 against my client, Boya Tursungalievna.

The act of Boy M.T. is qualified under art. 190, part 3, paragraphs 1), 4) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, i.e. fraud – theft of other people's property by deception and abuse of trust on a large scale, repeatedly.

At present, Ba M.T. and the victims To A.G., Aa S.T., and Ka A.T. have reconciled through mediation.

According to the texts of the agreement on reconciliation of the parties through mediation during the criminal process, the victims are K A.G., Aa S.T., Ka A.T.

The victim agreed to A.G. to accept 2,040,000 tenge as compensation for damage, and M.T. has no claims against him.

The victim, AA S.T., agreed to accept 3,700,000 tenge as compensation for damage, and M.T. has no claims against the Boy.

The victim, Ka A.T., agreed to accept 7,000,000 tenge as compensation for damage, and M.T. has no claims against the Boy.

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

According to paragraph 1 of the regulatory decree of the Supreme Court "On judicial practice in cases of fraud", an obligatory sign of fraud is the presence of a selfish purpose in the guilty person, that is, the desire to unlawfully and gratuitously convert someone else's property into their own.

However, it follows from the stable testimony of Boy M.T. that she borrowed money from the victims with the payment of remuneration (interest), namely:

- the victim A.G. has 3,000,000 tenge, with payment of remuneration in the amount of 10% per month. She returned 1,000 000 tenge to him before the criminal case was initiated.

- the victim Koi A.T. has 12,000,000 tenge with payment of remuneration in the amount of 1,200,000 tenge. I returned about 7,000,000 tenge to her before the criminal case was initiated.

- the victim has Aoi S.T. 2,600,000 tenge with payment of remuneration in the amount of 15% per month. I returned 2,300,000 tenge to her before the criminal case was initiated.

The testimony of Boy M.T. is consistent with the materials of the criminal case, namely the provided screenshots of correspondence with the victims, the statements on the account of Kaspi Bank JSC Boy M.T. and the receipt of Kaspi Gold provided to the pre-trial investigation body.

According to the agreements on reconciliation of the parties through mediation during the criminal process, the victims, K A.G., Aa S.T., and Ka A.T., confirmed that they agreed with the arguments of Boy M.T..

Along with the above, it should be noted that despite the fact that the Boy M.T.'s money was allegedly stolen from the victims in 2023-2024, the latter filed a police report only in 2026. This also indirectly confirms the testimony of Boy M.T. in the part that she paid compensation to the victims and therefore they did not contact the police or the court.

According to the criminal law, fraud can be committed only with the direct intent to appropriate someone else's property by deception or abuse of trust. A prerequisite for fraud is the presence of intent (intention) at the time of the transaction for the gratuitous appropriation of this property.

The case did not prove that the Boy M.T. had deception or the purpose of illegal and gratuitous seizure of other people's property, so she cannot be held criminally liable under art. 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan will violate the requirement of paragraph 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, according to which any doubts about the guilt of a person are interpreted in favor of the accused.

Thus, we see the fact of civil law relations between Boy M.T. and the victims Kim A.G., Aoi S.T., Koi A.T. in the form of concluding a loan agreement and the failure of Boy M.T. to fulfill the obligation to repay the loan amount.

In accordance with art.35, part 1, paragraph 2) of the CPC, the criminal case is subject to termination due to the absence of a criminal offense in the act of Boy M.T., provided for in art.190, part 3, paragraphs 1), 4) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 70, 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I request:

- To terminate the criminal case of the ERDR No. 267570031000133 due to the absence of elements of a criminal offense in the actions of Boy M.T., provided for in art. 190, Part 3, paragraphs 1), 4) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The defender is lawyer S. Nigmetov

                                                                            04/09/2026

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