STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR REINSTATEMENT AT WORK

To the Taldykorgan City Court of the Zhetisu Region

53A N. Nazarbayev Avenue, Taldykorgan

Plaintiff: BMA

IIN: .....

Zhetisu Region, P. District, K. Village, 27 O. Zh. Street

Tel.: 8778...

Plaintiff: TAB

IIN: ...

Zhetisu Region, P. District,

Koktal Village, 90 Zh. Street

Tel.: 8708...

Representative: Attorney Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov

“Zakon i Pravo” Law Firm

BIN 201240021767

Office 304, 79/71 Abylai Khan Avenue,

Almaly District, Almaty, 050002

info@zakonpravo.kz

www.zakonpravo.kz

Tel.: 87085785758

Representative: Attorney Sabit Dauletovich Nigmetov

IIN 820125350700

Office 304, 79/71 Abylai Khan Avenue,

Almaly District, Almaty, 050002

Tel.: 87009785755

Defendants:

State Institution “Police Department of the Zhetisu Region of the 

Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan”

BIN 220840031965

91/95 I. Zhansugurov Street, Taldykorgan,

Zhetisu Region, 040000

Tel.: 8 (7282) 60-80-22

State Institution “Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan”

BIN 960340000514

1 Tauelsizdik Avenue, Astana,

Republic of Kazakhstan, 010000

Tel.: 8 (7172) 72-26-00

STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR REINSTATEMENT AT WORK

On 2 December 2025, by Order No. 883-z/k issued by S.Z. Kussainov, Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region (hereinafter referred to as the “Order”), BMA, Police Major, Head of the Criminal Police Unit of the Panfilov District Police Department, and TAB, Police Senior Lieutenant, operative officer of the Criminal Police Unit of the Panfilov District Police Department, were dismissed from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Subsequently, B.M.A. and T.A.B. received letters from the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region dated 13 February 2026, stating that they had been dismissed from the internal affairs bodies pursuant to Order No. 883-z/k of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region dated 2 December 2025, Order No. 79/zhk of the Ministry of Internal Affairs dated 10 February 2026, and the Order of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region dated 12 February 2026 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Orders”).

The above Orders are unlawful on the following grounds.

A criminal case based on the complaint of M.K. Dauletkeldi was under investigation by S.M. Sagatov, an investigator of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region. The criminal case was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations on 9 July 2025 under No. 253300041000026.

On 8 September 2025, investigator S.M. Sagatov of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region, pursuant to subparagraph 2) of part 1 of Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter — the “CPC RK”), issued a resolution terminating the pre-trial investigation in criminal case No. 253300041000026 registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. The resolution was approved by I.S. Beskempirov, Deputy Prosecutor of the Zhetisu Region, on 12 September 2025.

Thus, the criminal case was terminated due to the absence of elements of a criminal offence in the act.

However, despite the termination of the criminal case, investigator S.M. Sagatov of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region, on an unspecified date, unlawfully issued a submission on eliminating the circumstances that contributed to the commission of a criminal offence and other violations of the law (hereinafter — the “Submission”) pursuant to Article 200 of the CPC RK. The Submission, without a date or outgoing reference number, was sent to the Department of Internal Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In the Submission, investigator S.M. Sagatov stated as an established fact that on 2 July 2025, B.M.A., being an employee of a law enforcement body and using his official position, intentionally, for selfish motives, by means of deception and abuse of trust, demanded KZT 1,000,000 from the victim, Madiyar Dauletkeldi, in exchange for not bringing the victim’s brother, Miras Dauletkeldi, to criminal liability.

On 9 July 2025, M. Dauletkeldi applied to the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region regarding the above-mentioned fact, requesting that B.M.A. be brought to criminal liability. A criminal case was initiated and registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations under No. 253300041000026.

On 9 July 2025 at 11:18 a.m., as a result of covert investigative actions, conversations between B.M.A. and M.D. in B.M.A.’s office concerning the above circumstances, as well as the demand for money, were documented.

Thereafter, at 5:13 p.m., as a result of the continuation of the covert investigative actions, a meeting between M.D. and T.A.B. was documented. During the meeting, T.A.B. stated that he was aware of everything that had happened, namely, B.M.A.’s demand for KZT 1,000,000, and that he would speak with B.M.A. and resolve the matter positively.

At 5:22 p.m., T.A.B. and M.D. entered B.M.A.’s office, where, at the end of the conversation, B.M.A. told M.D. to transfer the monetary remuneration to T.A.B.

It was subsequently documented that at 7:53 p.m. T.A.B. met M.D. near M.D.’s residence, during which T.A.B. refused to accept the money that M.D. was supposed to transfer as remuneration. The covert investigative actions were then terminated.

No other investigative actions are mentioned in the Submission of investigator S.M. Sagatov of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region.

The Plaintiffs submit that investigator S.M. Sagatov had no grounds for issuing a Submission pursuant to Article 200 of the CPC RK.

In substantiating his conclusions concerning the alleged proven fact of the demand for money, investigator S.M. Sagatov relied on the results of covert investigative actions.

However, pursuant to Article 112 of the CPC RK:

1. Factual data shall be recognized as inadmissible as evidence if obtained in violation of the requirements of this Code where such violations, by depriving or restricting the rights of participants in the proceedings guaranteed by law or by violating other rules of criminal procedure during the pre-trial investigation or trial, affected or could have affected the reliability of the factual data obtained, including where such data were obtained:

1. through the use of torture, violence, threats, deception, or other unlawful acts and cruel treatment;
2. through misleading a person participating in criminal proceedings regarding his or her rights and obligations as a result of failure to explain, incomplete explanation, or incorrect explanation thereof;
3. in connection with the conduct of a procedural action by a person who had no right to conduct proceedings in the relevant criminal case;
4. in connection with the participation in a procedural action of a person subject to recusal;
5. through a substantial violation of the procedure for conducting the procedural action;
6. from an unknown source or a source that cannot be established in court;
7. through the use, in the course of proving, of methods contrary to modern scientific knowledge.

Pursuant to Article 124 of the CPC RK — Examination of Evidence:

Evidence collected in a case shall be examined comprehensively and objectively. Such examination includes analysis of the evidence obtained, comparison thereof with other evidence, collection of additional evidence for verification thereof, and verification of the sources from which the evidence was obtained.

Pursuant to Article 125 of the CPC RK — Assessment of Evidence:

1. Each item of evidence shall be assessed in terms of its relevance, admissibility and reliability, while all evidence taken together shall be assessed in terms of its sufficiency for resolving the criminal case.

2. Pursuant to Article 25 of this Code, a judge, prosecutor, investigator and inquiry officer shall assess evidence according to their inner conviction based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the evidence in its entirety, guided by law and conscience.

3. Evidence shall be deemed relevant to a case if it constitutes factual data confirming, refuting or calling into question conclusions concerning the existence of circumstances relevant to the case.

4. Evidence shall be deemed admissible if obtained in the manner established by this Code.

5. Evidence shall be deemed reliable if, as a result of verification, it is established that it corresponds to reality.

6. A body of evidence shall be deemed sufficient for resolving a criminal case if relevant, admissible and reliable evidence has been collected which, without any doubt and conclusively, establishes the truth concerning all and each of the circumstances subject to proof.

The only evidence of the circumstances constituting the alleged disciplinary offence of B.M.A. and T.A.B. referred to by investigator S.M. Sagatov in the Submission consists of the results of covert investigative actions recorded on an audio-video recording.

The Plaintiffs examined the criminal case.

However, in violation of the requirements of Articles 124 and 125 of the CPC RK, investigator S.M. Sagatov of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region did not examine the above-mentioned audio-video recording with the involvement of experts.

In particular, no forensic videophonographic examination was ordered in respect of the audio-video recordings obtained. Such examination would have established or refuted whether the voices recorded on the audio-video recording belonged to B.M.A., T.A.B. and the victim M.D., as well as whether the recordings contained any editing or alterations.

Furthermore, no forensic portrait examination was ordered to establish or refute whether the persons depicted in the audio-video recording were identical in appearance to B.M.A. and T.A.B.

Nor was a forensic psychological and philological examination ordered to establish or refute whether B.M.A. and T.A.B. had induced M.D. to transfer money, as well as to address other relevant questions.

Pursuant to part 1 of Article 24 of the CPC RK, the court, prosecutor, investigator and inquiry officer are obliged to take all measures provided for by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the circumstances necessary and sufficient for the proper resolution of the case.

Pursuant to part 3 of Article 60 of the CPC RK, an investigator is obliged to take all measures to comprehensively, fully and objectively examine the circumstances of the case and to carry out criminal prosecution of a person against whom sufficient evidence has been collected indicating the commission of a criminal offence, including by qualifying the act of the suspect, selecting a preventive measure in accordance with this Code, and preparing a report on the completion of the pre-trial investigation setting out the circumstances of the criminal offence and describing the evidence collected.

Thus, investigator S.M. Sagatov of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region exceeded the scope of his powers. Without examining the evidence as required by the CPC RK and without possessing special scientific knowledge, he effectively assumed the powers of an expert and, without obtaining the conclusions of the above-mentioned examinations, concluded that the audio-video recordings of the covert investigative actions constituted reliable and admissible evidence confirming that B.M.A. and T.A.B. had demanded money from the victim M.D.

On 19 September 2025, the Submission was received by the Department of Internal Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Subsequently, the Submission was forwarded to the Internal Security Directorate of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region for appropriate measures.

On the basis of the order to conduct an internal investigation dated 13 October 2025, the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region conducted an internal investigation, following which, on 16 October 2025, a conclusion was issued recommending the dismissal of B.M.A. and T.A.B. from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Subsequently, orders dismissing the Plaintiffs from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan were issued on 2 December 2025, 10 February 2026 and 12 February 2026.

Pursuant to part 3 of Article 180 of the CPC RK, the procedure for receiving and registering statements, reports or official reports concerning criminal offences, as well as the procedure for maintaining the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, shall be determined by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Rules for Receiving and Registering Statements, Reports or Official Reports Concerning Criminal Offences, as well as Maintaining the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, approved by Order No. 89 of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 19 September 2014 (hereinafter — the “URPI Rules”):

Maintaining the URPI consists of the completion by the official who made the relevant decision of the appropriate details of electronic information accounting documents — forms — for each action and decision in criminal proceedings, signed with an electronic digital signature in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 7 January 2003 “On Electronic Document and Electronic Digital Signature” and transmitted to the authorized body through the Unified Transport Environment of State Bodies.

Pursuant to paragraph 51 of the URPI Rules, the form for recording seized and destroyed narcotic drugs, psychotropic or poisonous substances, precursors (hereinafter — NPP), other physical evidence in a case, confiscated property, and submissions in accordance with Annex 16 to these Rules shall be completed upon the seizure, transfer and destruction of physical evidence, confiscation of property in a criminal case, as well as upon the submission of representations pursuant to Article 200 of the CPC RK and the results of their consideration.

Pursuant to paragraph 53-1 of the URPI Rules, the accuracy of the completion of the details concerning submissions made pursuant to Article 200 of the CPC RK and the results of their consideration, as well as information concerning confiscated property, shall be ensured by the person conducting the pre-trial investigation.

In addition to the above-mentioned Rules and provisions of the CPC RK, employees of the national security bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan are subject to the Rules for Making Submissions by the National Security Bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Eliminating the Causes and Conditions Contributing to the Realization of Threats to the Security of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Commission of Criminal Offences, the Investigation of Which Is Assigned by the Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the Jurisdiction of the National Security Bodies, approved by Order No. 20/қе of the Chairman of the National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 14 February 2024 (hereinafter — the “Rules for Making Submissions”).

Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules for Making Submissions:

A submission on eliminating the causes and conditions contributing to the realization of threats to the security of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the commission of criminal offences, the investigation of which is assigned by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the jurisdiction of the national security bodies, shall be drawn up in two copies. One copy of the submission on the official letterhead shall be delivered to the addressee (state body, military formation, unit or organization) against signature or sent by mail, while the other copy shall remain with the national security body of the Republic of Kazakhstan that issued the submission.

Pursuant to Annex 2 to the Rules for Making Submissions, the submission must contain:

• in the upper part of the submission, the name and address of the national security body issuing the submission;
• the name of the legal entity, details of its head, address and telephone number;
• date, reference number and city;
• the word “I REQUIRE”;
• information regarding the right to appeal the submission;
• a place for the signature and seal, as well as the date and time of receipt.

The Submission of investigator S.M. Sagatov of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region does not comply with the form established by Annex 2 to the Rules for Making Submissions. This constitutes a gross violation by investigator S.M. Sagatov of the requirements of the applicable legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

According to the response of the Department of the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Records of the General Prosecutor’s Office for the Zhetisu Region dated 11 December 2025, there is no information concerning the issuance of submissions in criminal case No. 253300041000026 registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

Pursuant to Article 200 of the CPC RK, having established during proceedings in a criminal case circumstances that contributed to the commission of a criminal offence, the person conducting the pre-trial investigation shall have the right to submit to the relevant state bodies, organizations or persons performing managerial functions therein a submission on taking measures to eliminate such circumstances or other violations of the law.

The Plaintiffs submit that investigator S.M. Sagatov of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region, having no authority or legal grounds to do so, issued an unlawful Submission addressed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Subsequently, on the basis of the unlawful Submission issued by investigator S.M. Sagatov of the Department of the National Security Committee for the Zhetisu Region, the following unlawful acts were issued: Order No. 318 of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region dated 13 October 2025 on conducting an internal investigation, and the Conclusion of the internal investigation dated 16 October 2025 concerning B.M.A. and T.A.B.

Moreover, pursuant to Article 57 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Enforcement Service”:

11. In cases where an internal investigation or pre-trial investigation is conducted against an employee, or an administrative offence case considered by a court has been initiated, a disciplinary sanction shall be imposed no later than one month respectively from the date of completion of the investigation, adoption of a procedural decision to terminate the criminal case, or proceedings in the administrative offence case, excluding the period during which the person at fault was absent from work due to illness or was on leave or business trip.

The Order dismissing B.M.A. and T.A.B. was issued on 2 December 2025. The resolution terminating the criminal case was approved by the prosecutor on 12 September 2025.

Thus, the Order of the Head of the Police Department was issued unlawfully after expiry of the one-month period prescribed by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Enforcement Service.”

Pursuant to Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, everyone shall have the right to judicial protection of his or her rights and freedoms.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, civil rights shall be protected by the court through recognition of rights; restoration of the situation that existed prior to the violation of the right; and suppression of actions violating the right or creating a threat of its violation.

Pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the objectives of civil proceedings are to protect and restore violated or disputed rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, the state and legal entities, ensure legality in civil circulation and public-law relations, facilitate the peaceful settlement of disputes, prevent offences, and foster respect for the law and the court in society.

Pursuant to paragraph 21 of Article 57 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Enforcement Service,” an employee shall have the right to appeal a disciplinary sanction imposed on him or her to a superior body or to a court in the manner established by the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Regulatory Resolution No. 9 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 6 October 2017 “On Certain Issues of Application by Courts of Legislation in Resolving Labour Disputes,” the court is not bound by the conclusions of the conciliation commission, and an individual labour dispute shall be resolved on the merits within the scope of the claims asserted by the plaintiff.

In relation to the present dispute, the Plaintiffs also request the Court to apply the requirement of this paragraph to the conclusion of the internal investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning the application of legislation by analogy.

Pursuant to Article 616 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget” (Tax Code), plaintiffs in claims for recovery of wages and other claims related to employment activities shall be exempt from payment of state duty in courts.

Pursuant to paragraph 12 of Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, claims against several defendants may be brought at the place of residence or location of one of the defendants at the plaintiff’s choice.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the plaintiff shall have the right to amend the grounds or subject matter of the claim, increase or decrease the amount of the claims by submitting a written application before the court retires to the deliberation room for rendering a judgment, provided that no additional procedural actions are required.

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to:

• declare unlawful Order No. 318 of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region, S.Z. Kussainov, dated 13 October 2025, on conducting an internal investigation based on the Submission of the Department of the National Security Committee concerning criminal case No. 253300041000026;
• declare unlawful the Conclusion of the internal investigation dated 16 October 2025 concerning B.M.A. and T.A.B.;
• declare unlawful Order No. 883-z/k of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region, S.Z. Kussainov, dated 2 December 2025, on dismissal from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan of B.M.A., Police Major, Head of the Criminal Police Unit of the Panfilov District Police Department;
• declare unlawful Order No. 79 zh/k of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 10 February 2026, on dismissal from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan of B.M.A., Police Major, Head of the Criminal Police Unit of the Panfilov District Police Department;
• declare unlawful Order No. 113 zh/k of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region dated 12 February 2026, on dismissal from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan of B.M.A., Police Major, Head of the Criminal Police Unit of the Panfilov District Police Department;
• declare unlawful Order No. 883-z/k of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region, S.Z. Kussainov, dated 2 December 2025, on dismissal from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan of T.A.B., Police Senior Lieutenant, operative officer of the Criminal Police Unit of the Panfilov District Police Department;
• declare unlawful Order No. 79 zh/k of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 10 February 2026, on dismissal from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan of T.A.B., Police Senior Lieutenant, operative officer of the Criminal Police Unit of the Panfilov District Police Department;
• declare unlawful Order No. 113 zh/k of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region dated 12 February 2026, on dismissal from service in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan of T.A.B., Police Senior Lieutenant, operative officer of the Criminal Police Unit of the Panfilov District Police Department;
• reinstate B.M.A. in his former position in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan effective from 2 December 2025;
• reinstate T.A.B. in his former position in the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan effective from 2 December 2025;
• recover from the State Institution “Police Department of the Zhetisu Region of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan” in favour of B.M.A. his wages for the period of forced absence from work from 2 December 2025 until the date of reinstatement;
• recover from the State Institution “Police Department of the Zhetisu Region of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan” in favour of T.A.B. his wages for the period of forced absence from work from 2 December 2025 until the date of reinstatement.

Attachments:

1. Order No. 79 zh/k of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 10 February 2026;
2. Extract from Order No. 113 zh/k of the Head of the Police Department of the Zhetisu Region dated 12 February 2026.

Plaintiff __________________ B.M.A.

Plaintiff __________________ T.A.B.

Representative

Attorney __________________ G.T. Sarzhanov

1 May 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