ON RESTORATION OF THE PROCEDURAL TIME LIMIT FOR FILING A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RULING OF THE SPECIALIZED INTER-DISTRICT INVESTIGATIVE COURT
To the Specialized Inter-District Investigative Court of Astana
From the Representative – Attorney-at-Law: Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov
Law Firm “Zakon i Pravo”
BIN 201240021767
Office 304, 79 Abylai Khan Avenue, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 727 578 57 58; +7 708 578 57 58
Acting in the interests of: Ba A Bicha
IIN: ....
Republic of Kazakhstan, Zhetisu Region,Kerbulak District, A.. village, ..., Building 35.
MOTION
to restore the procedural time limit for filing a complaint against the Ruling of the Specialized Inter-District Investigative Court of Astana dated August 8, 2025
On August 8, 2025, Investigating Judge D.N. Mukeshev of the Specialized Inter-District Investigative Court of Astana, having considered individually the motion of S.T. Kosherbayev, Head of the Investigation Department of the Police Department of Astana, regarding authorization to impose seizure on property within the framework of the pre-trial investigation materials under ERDR No. 257123031001142, issued a ruling granting the motion for authorization to impose seizure on property.
We disagree with the court's ruling in part, namely insofar as it concerns the seizure of the following property:
- 20. The motor vehicle of the “LEXUS LX 570” make, VIN: JTJHY00W2B4077221, transferred to N.A. Mekenkyzy, IIN ..., whose current owner is B. Arkhan Bich, born on February 8, 1989, IIN ..., state registration plate No. 557/AEV/19;
We consider the ruling unlawful and unfounded in this part for the following reasons.
A criminal case is pending before the Police Department of the Nura District of the Police Department of Astana, registered in the ERDR under No. 257123031001142 dated May 22, 2025, under Article 190, Part 4, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The criminal case was initiated based on a statement by a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, N.A. Mekenkyzy, IIN ..., requesting that the executives of “Asyl-Nur Qurylys” LLP, BIN 210840004976, be held criminally liable. According to the statement, the executives, by means of deception and abuse of the trust of residents, despite having no right to raise funds from equity holders for the construction of the “Mardan” residential complex located at the intersection of Ch.A. and E-164 Streets in Astana, misappropriated funds of equity holders in an especially large amount, thereby causing significant material damage.
Within the framework of the criminal case, 200 citizens have been identified and questioned as victims.
In the course of entering into agreements under the “Trade-in” program with “Asyl-Nur Qurylys” LLP, the equity holders re-registered their property (motor vehicles and apartments) in the names of persons indicated by the developer.
The investigation established that the depositor/victim A.M. Nurbayeva transferred to “Asyl-Nur Qurylys” LLP, under the Motor Vehicle Transfer Agreement dated June 12, 2024, a LEXUS LX 570 motor vehicle, VIN: JTJHY00W2B4077221, which was notarized.
Subsequently, the partnership sold the vehicle to other individuals, who subsequently resold it. Ultimately, on October 30, 2024, my client, B.A.B., purchased the above-mentioned motor vehicle from citizen A.A.N., IIN ..., through the “KOLESA” mobile application, using a loan provided by “Kaspi Bank” JSC, with a loan term of 60 months.
At present, the owner of the above-mentioned motor vehicle is citizen B.A.B., born on February 8, 1989, IIN ....
Pursuant to Article 161, Part 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, seizure may be imposed on property held by other persons if there are sufficient grounds to believe that such property was obtained as a result of criminal acts of the suspect or accused, or was used or intended to be used as an instrument or means of committing a criminal offense, or for financing extremism, terrorism, an organized group, an illegal military formation, or a criminal organization.
However, the court failed to take into account the position of the current owner of the vehicle, who purchased it using a loan.
According to the terms of the Vehicle Purchase Agreement No. 866487680 dated October 31, 2024, the following provisions apply:
1.2. The Buyer undertakes, through the Mobile Application, to make an initial payment to Kaspi for the purchase of the Vehicle in the amount of KZT 3,800,000 (three million eight hundred thousand) (hereinafter, the Initial Payment), which shall be transferred to the Seller after fulfillment of all conditions stipulated by Clause 4.4 of the Agreement.
1.3. The Buyer shall pledge the Vehicle to Kaspi as security for the obligations under the loan agreement, ensure registration of the pledge at his own expense, and enter into a loan agreement and a Vehicle pledge agreement with Kaspi.
1.4. By signing the Agreement, the Buyer gives his consent/instruction to Kaspi, on the date of granting the loan, to debit directly from the Buyer's account specified in the loan agreement (hereinafter, the Buyer's Account) the Loan amount of KZT 15,100,000 (fifteen million one hundred thousand) and the Initial Payment amount, and to transfer these amounts, on the basis of a payment order initiated by Kaspi or another payment document, to the Seller's bank account specified in the Agreement (hereinafter, the Seller's Account) for the purpose of making full payment for the Vehicle.
2.1. The Seller agrees to sell the LEXUS LX 570 motor vehicle, manufactured in 2011 (hereinafter, the Vehicle) to the Buyer. The purchase price of the Vehicle is KZT 18,900,000 (eighteen million nine hundred thousand).
Thus, my client B.A.B. ultimately acquired the above-mentioned vehicle, taking into account the bank's remuneration, for a total amount of KZT 34,000,000.
B.A.B.'s loan obligations to “Kaspi Bank” JSC have been fully discharged, as evidenced by the Notice of Removal of the Pledge of Movable Property from State Registration.
Article 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that ownership is guaranteed by law. No one may be deprived of his or her property otherwise than by a court decision.
Article 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that state and private property shall be recognized and equally protected in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Pursuant to Article 259 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the owner has the right to demand recognition of his or her ownership right.
Pursuant to Article 261 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, if property has been acquired for consideration from a person who had no right to dispose of it, and the acquirer did not know and could not have known this circumstance (a bona fide purchaser), the owner may reclaim such property from the acquirer only where the property was lost by the owner or by a person to whom the owner had transferred it into possession, or was stolen from either of them, or otherwise left their possession against their will.
Accordingly, pursuant to Articles 259 and 261 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, B.A.B. is a bona fide purchaser.
Pursuant to Article 107, Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, during the pre-trial investigation, the suspect, his or her defense counsel, legal representative, victim, his or her legal representative, representative, and a person whose rights and freedoms are directly affected by an act of the investigating judge shall have the right to appeal against the ruling or authorization of the investigating judge, while the prosecutor may file a motion against such ruling, including:
4) regarding the imposition or refusal to impose seizure on property.
B.A.B. became aware of the encumbrance imposed on his property on January 8, 2026, when checking the relevant information through the “Kaspi” application.
Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provide that, upon the motion of an interested person, a time limit missed for a valid reason may be restored by a ruling of the inquiry officer, investigator, prosecutor, or judge in whose proceedings the case is pending. In this case, the time limit shall be restored for the person who missed it, but not for other persons, unless otherwise provided by the relevant decision of the body conducting the criminal proceedings.
A refusal to restore the time limit may be appealed, or reviewed upon a motion of the prosecutor in accordance with the procedure established by this Code.
Pursuant to Article 107, Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a ruling of an investigating judge issued in accordance with the rules of this Article may be appealed within three days from the date of its pronouncement by the persons specified in Part 1 of this Article, and the prosecutor may file a motion against it with the criminal chamber of the court of Astana through the court whose investigating judge issued the ruling. A time limit missed for a valid reason may be restored upon the motion of an interested person in accordance with Article 50 of this Code.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Articles 48, 50, 107 and 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
I REQUEST THE COURT TO:
- Restore the procedural time limit for filing a complaint with the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Astana against the Ruling of the Specialized Inter-District Investigative Court of Astana dated August 8, 2025.
Respectfully,
Representative under Power of Attorney: G.T. Sarzhanov
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
