Taking part in an unauthorized rally, spreading information that is deliberately false, discrediting honor and dignity and undermining reputation

By the verdict of the Kazybekbi district Court of Karaganda dated July 2, 2014 Z. convicted under part 2 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code to a fine to the state revenue in the amount of 200 monthly calculation indices in the amount of 370,400 tenge. Z. found innocent and acquitted under part 3 of Article 129 and part 2 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code for the absence of corpus delicti in her actions. Sh. found innocent and acquitted under part 3 of Article 129 and part 2 of Article 130 of the Criminal Code for the absence of corpus delicti in her actions. Recovered from Z. and Sh. in favor of S. for moral damage, 200,000 tenge, proportionally 100,000 tenge each, and a state fee of 463 tenge per share. jointly and severally collected the procedural costs in the amount of 17,833 tenge. By a court verdict, Z. and Sh. were found guilty of committing a crime under part 2 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code. By the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards of the Karaganda Regional Court, the verdict of the court remained unchanged. The Supervisory Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court quashed the contested judicial acts regarding the conviction of Z. and Sh. According to part 2 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code, S. filed a private complaint and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal on the following grounds. In the petition, the convicted Z., disagreeing with the judicial acts that had taken place, claimed that she had not spread false information about S., but had only expressed her opinion. She pointed out that in the verdict the statements: "S. is an incompetent employee, carries out private orders from individuals with whom she has corrupt ties, exceeded her official powers, bought a diploma" - are given in the affirmative.

Taking part in an unauthorized rally, spreading information that is deliberately false, discrediting honor and dignity and undermining reputation

Whereas she said: "S.'s work, when she does not separate the boundaries between psychology and medicine, prescribes personal data in the act without my consent, it is either a diploma she bought, or corrupt connections ..." and these statements took the form of reasoning, not statements. The statement "incompetent employee" is considered an expression of his opinion, the statement "corrupt connections" does not contain specific facts about the crime. In addition, Z. points out that neither in the private complaint nor in the verdict are her statements separated from those of Sh. and there is no evidence of defamation. She claims that her assumption about the purchased diploma was attributed to S., who did not say such words. During the picket, she did not say anything about S.'s abuse of office, about fulfilling orders from private individuals, and this accusation was groundlessly imputed. She believes that the lack of differentiation between her actions and those of Sh. deprives her of the opportunity to defend herself from the charges, the deliberate falsity of their statements is not substantiated by anything in the verdict. She claims that her actions were motivated by expressing opinions that did not contain false information about specific facts concerning S. Indicates that the court imputed fragments of phrases in which there is no corpus delicti, the intent, falsity, time and circumstances of the libel are not established in the judicial acts. He also considers it illegal to collect 100,000 tenge in favor of S. due to compensation for moral damage. In this connection, he asks to be acquitted for lack of corpus delicti. In respect of the convicted Sh., to whom the petition was not brought, judicial acts were reviewed in accordance with the provisions of part 14 of Article 494 of the CPC. The supervisory judicial board has the right to review judicial acts in respect of other convicted persons in a case against which a complaint or protest has not been filed, provided that their actions are inextricably linked to the actions of the person against whom the verdict has been appealed or protested, and a change in the qualification of the crime of one convicted person entails a change in the qualification of the actions of another convicted person, if this does not worsen their the position. As follows from the verdict, the actions of Z. and S. they are inextricably linked. It is clear from the materials of the criminal case that S. she filed a private prosecution complaint with the court about bringing Sh., Z. to criminal responsibility under part 2 of Article 130, parts 2, 3 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code, in which she stated that on April 04, 11, 12, 2013, at the location of her work, located at: Karaganda, Shakhterov Ave., house 81, where she works as the chief specialist of the State Institution "Department of the Committee for Control of Medical and Pharmaceutical Activities of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the Karaganda region", Z. and Sh. took part in an unauthorized rally. At this rally, in public, in the presence of people, as well as through the media, caricatures with offensive statements addressed to her were humiliated and discredited in the eyes of the public as a competent employee of the state body responsible for control and supervision in the field of healthcare.. In addition, Z. and S. publicly, in the presence of a large number of people, they spread deliberately false information about her, discrediting her honor, dignity and undermining her business reputation, that she was allegedly a "corrupt official, criminal, bribe taker and corrupt official", "received money for the Inspection Act", although the inspection was carried out by the Department as part of the commission on the basis of representations of the Deputy prosecutor of the Karaganda region in relation to IP M. and based on the results of the audit of M. She was brought to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Article 322 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan for carrying out her psychotherapeutic activities and medical psychology without a state license. By a decision of the specialized interdistrict economic court of the Karaganda region dated September 20, 2012, at the request of the Department of M., it was prohibited to carry out subspecies of medical activity "psychotherapy" and "medical psychology" until the identified violations were eliminated and a state license was obtained. In addition, Z. and S. They said that she had allegedly bought a diploma and, being a civil servant, was abusing and exceeding her official powers, that she was corrupt and fulfilled private orders from individuals for monetary remuneration, including by order of the director of the public association Victoria Artemyeva, who provided psychological and legal assistance to people affected by negative religious and religious beliefs. under the psychological influence of various sects, she fabricated the above-mentioned act of checking the activities of IP M., stating in it false information about, that she was incompetent and her moral character did not correspond to her position and that she caused harm to people's health. M. and Z. publicly, in the presence of a large number of people, spread deliberately false information about her, discrediting her honor, dignity, undermining her business reputation, accusing her of committing corruption crimes under articles 307, 308, 311 CC. There is no description of the criminal act in the verdict of the court of first instance, which found Z. and Sh. guilty under part 2 of Article 129 of the Criminal Code on S. 's private complaint. Instead, the descriptive part of the verdict by the court contains a summary of S.'s private complaint without providing specific statements by Z. and Sh., which the court recognized as deliberately false information discrediting the honor and dignity of the private prosecutor and undermining her reputation. Whereas, in accordance with the requirements of Articles 375, 379 of the CPC, the descriptive part of the sentence must contain a description of the criminal act recognized by the court as proven, indicating the place, time, method of its commission, the form of guilt, motives and consequences of the crime. Meanwhile, the court verdict did not establish the circumstances to be proved. The unauthorized rally was held for several days - on April 4, 11 and 12, 2013, near the building and in the building of the Department of the Committee for Control of Medical and Pharmaceutical Activities of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the Karaganda region, as follows from the video recordings. However, the court verdict did not establish at what time, where, and exactly what actions Z. committed, which ones Sh. committed, and which of them contain the elements of the crime for which they were convicted. In order to be found guilty of committing a criminal act in accordance with article 128 of the CPC, a set of relevant, permissible and reliable evidence sufficient for the proper resolution of a criminal case is required. In accordance with the requirements of Article 117 of the CPC, the time, place, method and other circumstances of the commission of a crime attributed to the event and the legally prescribed basis of the crime are circumstances subject to mandatory proof. According to the clarifications of paragraph 15 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 19 dated August 15, 2002 "On the judicial verdict", one of the conditions for the resolution of a lawful verdict is the conformity of the descriptive and motivational part of the case materials examined at the court session. The descriptive part of the verdict must contain a description of the criminal act recognized by the court as proven, the reasoning part contains evidence, their analysis, the court's conclusions on the evidence of the charge, and the qualification of actions. However, the court did not comply with these requirements of the law. In the reasoning part of the verdict, the court stated that the statements made by Z. and Sh. Both at the pickets and in the media, the information that S. is an incompetent employee, carries out private orders from individuals with whom she has corrupt ties, exceeded her official powers, bought a diploma, contains information that, if untrue, can be classified as discrediting the honor and dignity of a person. But these conclusions of the court do not follow from the descriptive part of the verdict.

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