Termination of Criminal Proceedings in a Fraud Case (Misappropriation of Funds by Deception and Abuse of Trust)
The pre-trial investigation authority suspects B. M.T. of having, during the period from 2023 to 2025, while in the city of Almaty, repeatedly misappropriated funds belonging to the victims by means of deception and abuse of trust, namely KZT 4,100,000 belonging to victim Aoy S.T., KZT 13,200,000 belonging to victim K. A.T., and KZT 6,200,000 belonging to victim Ka. A.G., thereby causing the victims material damage in the respective amounts.
Pre-trial investigations were registered in respect of the above-mentioned facts and subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding under the principal case number No. 267570031000133.
On 18 March 2026, at 8:00 p.m., the suspect B. M.T. was detained pursuant to Articles 128 and 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”) and placed in the temporary detention facility of the Almaty City Police Department.
On 19 March 2026, the criminal acts of B. M.T. were classified under subparagraphs 1) and 4) of paragraph 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
On 20 March 2026, investigator D.K. Kabitova issued a resolution initiating a motion seeking judicial authorization to impose pre-trial detention on the suspect B. M.T. for a period of two months. The resolution was approved by I.B. Masaqbayev, the prosecutor of the Medeu District of Almaty, and on the same day the motion, together with the case materials, was submitted to the court.
The prosecutor supported the investigator’s motion and requested that it be granted.
The suspect B. M.T. denied the allegations against her. In her statement to the court, she explained that she had not deceived anyone but had borrowed money from the victims at interest, and that the amounts owed had increased as interest accrued. She stated that she had partially repaid the funds to the victims, that she had two minor children dependent on her, and that she had no intention of absconding. She requested that house arrest be imposed and that she be given an opportunity to compensate the victims for the damage caused.
The defence counsel supported the suspect and requested that the court take into account the fact that the suspect had no prior convictions and had never been prosecuted, maintained strong social ties, and lived with her family, including two minor children. The defence further noted that the damage suffered by the victims had been partially compensated, that contractual arrangements existed between the parties, and that both the suspect and her spouse were currently prepared to compensate the victims. Emphasizing the absence of information indicating that the suspect might abscond or obstruct the pre-trial investigation, the defence requested that house arrest be imposed.
Victim K. A.G. informed the court that on that day, namely 20 March 2026, he had met with the suspect’s spouse, who had expressed a willingness to compensate the damage. However, due to the absence of a notary, the repayment of the funds was postponed until the following day, in the presence of the investigator and the victim’s counsel.
Having examined the materials submitted in the criminal case and heard the opinions of the persons participating in the court hearing, the investigating judge, without prejudging the issue of the suspect’s guilt, reached the following conclusions.
Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 136 of the CPC, where there are sufficient grounds to believe that a suspect or accused may abscond from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, obstruct the objective investigation of the case or its judicial examination, continue criminal activity, or where necessary to ensure the enforcement of a judgment, the authority conducting the criminal proceedings may, within the scope of its powers, apply one of the preventive measures provided for in Article 137 of the CPC.
Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 138 of the CPC, when deciding whether a preventive measure is necessary and which particular measure should be applied, in addition to the grounds specified in Article 136 of the CPC and the need to establish additional restrictions provided for in Part 2 of Article 137 of the CPC, the following circumstances must also be taken into account: the gravity of the offence committed; the suspect’s personal characteristics, age, and state of health; marital and family status; the presence of dependants in the family; the strength of social ties; the suspect’s reputation and occupation; whether the suspect has a permanent place of employment or study; financial circumstances; the availability of a permanent place of residence; and other relevant circumstances.
The suspicion that B. M.T. committed a criminal offence under the circumstances described above is substantiated. Without considering the issue of B. M.T.’s guilt or assessing the evidence, the court established that an event constituting a criminal offence had occurred, that sufficient information existed indicating the presence of the elements of a criminal offence, and that there was a possibility that she had committed the offences in question.
B. M.T. is suspected of committing a serious criminal offence. However, in addition to imprisonment, the applicable legislation also provides for restriction of liberty for a term of three to seven years.
Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 147 of the CPC, the person conducting the pre-trial investigation is required, in a resolution initiating a motion before the court for authorization of detention, to substantiate the reasons for selecting that preventive measure and the impossibility of applying less restrictive preventive measures.
The judge takes into account that B. M.T. has no prior convictions and has never been prosecuted, has a permanent place of residence in Almaty Region, is employed, and maintains strong social ties, including a family and children: K. Zh.A., born on 17 September 2009, and K. T.A., born on 3 January 2020. The judge also takes into account the partial compensation of the damage caused to the victims and the willingness to provide further compensation.
Furthermore, the materials submitted contain no information indicating that B. M.T. has absconded or may abscond from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, that she may obstruct the pre-trial investigation, or that she may continue engaging in criminal activity.
In these circumstances, the seriousness of the suspicion alone cannot constitute the sole ground for applying the strictest preventive measure.
No bail was offered to the court.
At the same time, taking into account the nature of the offence of which B. M.T. is suspected, the judge considers the setting of bail or the application of a less restrictive preventive measure inappropriate. The judge therefore considers it necessary to impose house arrest, subject to restrictions, including a prohibition on using electronic devices and the internet.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 136, 147, and 148 of the CPC, the investigating judge
HEREBY RESOLVES:
The investigator’s motion is denied.
Authorization of the preventive measure of detention pending trial in respect of B. M.T. is refused.
The preventive measure of house arrest is imposed on B. M.T. for a period of two (2) months.
The period of house arrest shall be calculated from the time this resolution is announced, namely from 8:33 p.m. on 20 March 2026, until 8:33 p.m. on 20 May 2026.
B. M.T. shall be released from custody.
On 19 May 2026, by resolution of the Specialized Inter-District Investigative Court of Almaty, the previously imposed preventive measure of house arrest in respect of suspect B. M. was extended for a further two months, bringing its total duration to three months, namely until 20 June 2026.
During the pre-trial investigation, the criminal case was reclassified under subparagraph 2) of Part 4 of Article 195 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
In addition, applications were received from the victims requesting the termination of the criminal proceedings against B. M.T. on the grounds of reconciliation between the parties pursuant to subparagraph 12) of Part 1 of Article 35 of the CPC, as the material damage suffered by them had been compensated.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 153 and 198 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the investigator of the Investigation Division of the Police Department under the Medeu District Police Administration of the Almaty City Police Department
HEREBY RESOLVES:
The preventive measure of house arrest imposed on suspect B. M.T. shall be revoked.
During the pre-trial investigation, written applications were received from victims A. S.T., K. A.T., and Ka. A.G., requesting the termination of the criminal proceedings against B. M., stating that the parties had reconciled, the material damage suffered by them had been fully compensated, and they had no claims against one another.
Furthermore, a counter-application was received from suspect B. M., addressed to the Head of the Police Division under the Medeu District Police Administration, stating that the suspect consented to the termination of the pre-trial investigation on non-exonerating grounds pursuant to Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and subparagraph 12) of Part 1 of Article 35 of the CPC, as the suspect fully admitted guilt and had reconciled with the victim.
Accordingly, pursuant to Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a person who has committed a criminal offence of medium gravity may be released from criminal liability if that person has reconciled with the victim and made amends for the damage caused.
In accordance with Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 21 June 2001, “On Judicial Practice in the Application of Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,” the provisions of Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code apply to persons who have committed criminal offences of minor or medium gravity, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
- The criminally punishable act committed falls within the category of offences of minor or medium gravity and is not associated with causing death.
- Reconciliation has taken place between the person who committed the criminal offence and the victim or applicant, including through mediation.
- The person who committed the criminal offence has made amends for the damage caused to the victim or applicant as a result of the offence.
If even one of the above conditions is absent, the application of Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code is impermissible.
The proper application of the institution of reconciliation between the parties contributes to enhancing the role and active participation of the victim or applicant in criminal proceedings and to the full and prompt restoration of their violated rights and freedoms. At the same time, it reflects the principle of humanity towards persons who have committed criminal offences and subsequently demonstrated positive conduct by reconciling with the victim and making amends for the harm caused.
Where the parties submit a motion requesting the appointment of a mediator for the purposes of reconciliation in the case, the pre-trial investigation authority may not refuse to grant such a motion.
In view of the above circumstances, the criminal case against B. M. is subject to termination pursuant to Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code and subparagraph 12) of Part 1 of Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
An agreement reached during the reconciliation process, including through mediation, to compensate for the damage in the future cannot be regarded as having made amends for the damage caused to the victim and therefore cannot constitute grounds for applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code. The pre-trial investigation authority must explain this to the suspect and the victim.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 60, 198, 203, 204, 206, and 207 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code and subparagraph 12) of Part 1 of Article 35, and Articles 198, 288, and 289 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the investigator of the Investigation Division of the Police Department under the Medeu District Police Administration of the Almaty City Police Department
HEREBY RESOLVES:
- The proceedings in respect of the pre-trial investigation materials No. 6757031000133 shall be terminated pursuant to Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and subparagraph 12) of Part 1 of Article 35 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
- This resolution shall be forwarded to the supervising prosecutor.
- The interested parties shall be notified of the decision taken, and their right to appeal the resolution to the court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Article 106 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall be explained to them simultaneously.
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
