The limits of the trial - the court should not go beyond the limits of the charge

By the verdict of the specialized interdistrict criminal Court of Kostanay region dated January 20, 2014: G., who had no previous criminal record, was sentenced under part 4 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to 6 years in prison with deprivation of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies for a period of 7 years, with confiscation of property, 5 of Article 28, paragraph "a" of part 4 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code to 15 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property. On the basis of part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, by partial addition of punishments, He was finally sentenced to 15 years and 6 months in prison, with the deprivation of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies for a period of 7 years, with confiscation of property, and with serving his sentence in a high-security penal colony. The term of serving the sentence has been calculated since October 23, 2012. In accordance with part 1 of Article 50 of the Criminal Code, he was stripped of the special rank of "senior police lieutenant." The same verdict convicted A., P., K., N., I., Ts., B., M., Sh., E., T., U., in respect of which no petitions were received.

The limits of the trial - the court should not go beyond the limits of the charge

By a court verdict, G. was found guilty of using his official powers contrary to the interests of the service, in order to extract benefits and advantages for himself and others, entailing a significant violation of the legally protected interests of the state, committed in the interests of an organized group, as well as complicity in the illegal acquisition, transportation, storage for the sale and sale of narcotic drugs in a particularly dangerous manner. a large-scale crime committed using official position by an organized groupurt verdict, G. was found guilty ofgsl powers contrary to the interests of the service, in order tot benefits and advantages for himself and others, entailing a significant violation of the legally protected interests of the state, committed in the interests of an organized grou,s well as complicity in the illegal acquisition, transportation, storage for the sale and sale of narcotic drugs in a particularly dangerous manner. a large-scale crime committed using official position by an organized group. By the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Kostanay Regional Court dated May 20, 2014, the verdict against G. remained unchanged. By the decision of the Cassation judicial board of the Kostanay Regional Court dated July 10, 2014, the judicial acts against G. were left unchanged. By court decision No. 2 of the Semey city of the East Kazakhstan region dated February 7, 2019, G.'s petition for a review of the court's verdict in accordance with Article 6 of the Criminal Code was denied. By the resBy the resolution of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the East Kazakhstan Regional Court dated March 20, 2019, the court's decision was canceled, and a new resolution was issued. It was decided to consider G. convicted by the verdict of the specialized interdistrict criminal court of Kostanay region dated January 20, 2014 under paragraph 2) of part 4 of Article 361 of the Criminal Code to 5 years in prison, under part 5 of Article 28, paragraph "a" of part 4 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code to 15 years in prison. Based on part 4 of ABased on part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, 15 years and 2 months of imprisonment have been definitively determined for the total number of crimes by partial addition of punishments. The rest of the verdict remains unchanged. The court's conclusions about G.'s guilt in committing crimes under the circumstances set out in the verdict were confirmed by the totality of evidence collected in the case, examined by judicial authorities, which were given a proper legal assessment. G.'s guilt is confirmed by the testimony of convicts A., P., K. and members of the criminal group S., C., witnesses M., T., J., B., N., D., V., L., C., E., C., G., P., S., F., S., O., E., protocols of investigative actions, conclusions of forensic phonographic, forensic chemical examinations and other objective evidence in the case.

The arguments of convict G. regarding the lack of proof of his guilt were the subject of investigation by the courts of lower judicial instances and were reasonably recognized as untenable. All the members of the organized heroin trafficking group explicitly stated that they had transferred money to police officers fThe arguments of convict G. regarding the lack of proof of his guilt were the sbject of investigation by the courts of lower judicial intances and were reasonably recognized as untenable. All the members of the organized heroin trafficking group explicitly stated that they had transferred money to police officers for complicity in the heroin trade. It follows from the testimony of convicts K., P., A., S., and Ch. that they paid police officers, including G., with cash or heroin. Complicity in G.'s actions was expressed in the fact that he repeatedly provided assistance to A. and M. by y not holding members of an organized group accountable for the sale of heroin. The court gave a proper legal assessment to G.'s actions. At the same time, the court unreasonably recognized G.'s violation of his oath as aggravating criminal liability and punishment. The materials of the criminal case against G. contain documents characterizing his personality, however, there is no information that he took an oath or a professional oath upon joining the service in the case. G. himself explained at the hearing that for some unknown reason he had not taken the oath, had not taken the oath. According to part 1 of Article 340 of the CPC, the main trial is conducted only against the defendant and within the limits of the charge on which he is being tried. In the indictment against G., there is no information about the presence in his actions of a circumstance aggravating his criminal responsibility and punishment – violation of the oath. However, the court, going beyond the scope of the charges, recognized G.'s aggravating criminal liability and punishment as a circumstance – violation of his oath or professional oath. This circumstance is subject to exclusion from the court veThis circumstance is subject to exclusion from the court verdict, which, in accordance with part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, entails a reduction in the punishment imposed on G. under Article 307 of the Criminal Code. Thus, the court recognized the circumstances mitigating the criminal responsibility and punishment of G. as the presence of a dependent minor child and positive characteristics at the place of residence and work. The crime provided for in part 4 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code is classified as serious and is punishable by imprisonment for a period of 4 to 8 years. According to paragraph 2) of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, ifording to paragraph 2) of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, if there is a mitigating circumstance that is not provided for as a sign of a committed crime and there are no aggravating circumstances, the term and amount of the main type of punishment may not exceed two thirds of the maximum term or amount of punishment when committing a serious crime. Consequently, according to part 4 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code, no more than 5 years and 4 months of imprisonment should be imposed. Taking into account the reduction of punishment under part 4 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code, the final penalty imposed by partial addition is subject to reduction. In addition, it follows from the case file that the court's verdict regarding additional punishment in the form of confiscation of property was not executed at the time of consideration of the petitions.

Consequently, judicial acts are also subject to revision in this part. In accordance with article 48 of the CConsequently, judicial acts are also subject to revision in this part. In accordance with article 48 of the Criminal Code, property obtained by criminal means or acquired with funds obtained by criminal means, or property that is an instrument or means of committing a criminal offense, is subject to confiscation. According to paragraph 20 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2015 No. 4 "On certaAccording to paragraph 20 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2015 No. 4 "On certain issues of criminal punishment", confiscation can be applied only to property that was owned by the convicted person and (or) third parties and was obtained by criminal means or acquired with funds obtained by criminal means, as well as on property that is an instrument or means of committing a criminal offense. If there is no information about the criminal nature of the origin of the property in the case, or the property has not been established at all, confiscation is noIf there is no information about the criminal nature of the origin of the property in the case, or the property has not been established at all, confiscation is not imposed, including under the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, which provide for the mandatory imposition of this type of additional punishment. Based on the above, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court amended the judicial acts of the local courts in respect of G. and canceled the recognition of a circumstance aggravating criminal liability and punishment – violation of the oath. The main punishment imposed by G. according to part 4 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code 

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