Attempts to organize mass riots group formation are characterized by signs of the distribution of duties between participants in the riot, and these actions are carried out with direct intent.

By the verdict of the Aktau City Court of Mangistau region dated May 21, 2012, B. previously not convicted: sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment with Part 1 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code, 5 years of imprisonment with Part 1 of Article 241, 5 years of imprisonment with Part 3 of Article 58, final 5 years of imprisonment with sentence in a correctional colony of the general order. E., previously not convicted: sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment under Part 1 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code, 5 years of imprisonment under Part 1 of Article 241, 5 years of imprisonment for the final 5 years of imprisonment under Part 3 of Article 58, serving a sentence in the general procedure of a correctional colony. Also, no appeal or protest was brought against the verdict on the convicted: D., A., K., K., N., E., zh., R. and acquitted. By the verdict of the court B. and E. he was found guilty of committing crimes of damage to vehicles, signage, other ways of bringing them into disrepair, as well as violation of the normal functioning of transport communications by blocking transport communications, causing large-scale damage to railway institutions and organizing mass riots associated with the use of force, arson, destruction. Plaintiffs from convicts: 14,021,750 tenge in favor of Passenger Transportation JSC; 2,534,930 tenge in favor of Mangistau Road branch JSC were jointly and severally charged; 165,567 tenge of duties and 116,349 tenge of court costs for examinations were collected on equity responsibility for state revenues. A period of one month is established for the voluntary execution of the civil claims part of the sentence. The decision of the Appellate Judicial Board of the Mangistau Regional Court left the verdict unchanged, the Cassation judicial board left the verdict of the court of First Instance and the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board unchanged. The defense counsel of the convicts did not agree with the court's rulings and applied to the supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court. He wrote in the application B. and E. the gathered people, police officers were told about the peaceful solution of the problem, the Prevention of bloodshed, showed that people were called to calm down and did not talk about the use of force, the commission of disorder, the verdict was carried out unilaterally, only in the direction of prosecution, the decision was not fair, the convicted persons were asked to justify them on the grounds that there was no corpus delicti in their actions, and the criminal case was dismissed from production.

Attempts to organize mass riots group formation are characterized by signs of the distribution of duties between participants in the riot, and these actions are carried out with direct intent.

In the appeal of the public defender K. said that his son B. went to the place of criminal acts, he is a disabled person of the 2nd Group and has 5 dependent children, believes that the imposed punishment does not correspond to the personality of the convicted person, asked to change the court decisions, commute the sentence of convicted B. and impose a suspended sentence with the application of Article 53 of the criminal code.  The supervisory judicial board heard the opinion of the prosecutor, who left the court's decisions on the convicts unchanged, asked to refuse to satisfy the appeals, the arguments of the defense attorney and the public defender who supported the appeals, studied the case materials and partially satisfied the appeals. According to Article 24 of the CPC, the procedural authorities are obliged to take all measures provided for by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances necessary and sufficient for the correct resolution of the case. Convicted B., M. and A. was accused of organizing a mass riot, calling for disobedience to the legal requirements of government representatives, however, the charges are contrary to the actual data established in the case. In particular, for the corpus delicti provided for in Part 1 of Article 241 of the Criminal Code, the organizational actions of the perpetrators must be characterized by the signs of the formation of a group specified in this code, the distribution of duties between participants in mass riots, and these actions must be carried out with the intention of committing mass riots. According to the data collected in the case, on December 17, 2011 in the village of Shetpe, a group of people, including B., M., A., gathered near the railway station to protest in connection with the incident that occurred on December 16 in Zhanaozen. Everyone went to the station on their own, that is, they planned a mass riot, formed a group, distributed duties among its participants, determined who was armed with what, there is no sufficient reason to say that the representative of the authorities foresaw other actions aimed at uniting the group or leading it for armed resistance, and according to the verdict, they were not chargedHence B. I have not found evidence to refute M.'s arguments that he did not recognize the charges of organizing a Mass Riot, did not know anything in advance, only heard that people were gathering in connection with the incident in Zhanaozen, accompanied the group to the railway station, did not participate in organizing a mass riot.

At the main trial, the convicted B. showed that a group of people gathered on the street accompanied people to the railway station, did not know the people gathered, people in military uniforms at the station, after the arrival of the district Akim, went home so that the incident would go away, they did not know who organized the riot.  At the main trial, the convicted M. also gave a similar answer. However, the answers of the victims and witnesses specified in the court verdict do not correspond to the answers of the convicted. In particular, several witnesses B. I pointed out that A. had a stone, a bottle in his hands, among others that they threw these objects towards the police officers, but could not say for sure who the stone and bottles they threw touched. The victim L. during the main trial recognized among the defendants two people who stood out among the crowd gathered at the station (P. he said that he heard B. say: "guys, don't shoot, we are all Kazakhs, let's go," when a group of people gathered unexpectedly threw stones, bottles from the side, at the same time he was injured by a stone in his face, no one gave orders to use weapons there, after a threat to his life and health, he fired three times in the sky as a warning, he did not recognize people who threw stones, he had no claims to anyone.  The Victims Were N., K., A., M., T., D. they gave answers that correspond to this, showed that during the incident, they received minor injuries when Stones and bottles were thrown from all sides, they did not know the defendants, they did not know whose stones hit them, they had no claims to anyone. On the basis of the above circumstances, convicted B. the court verdict and decisions of the appellate and Cassation judicial boards in respect of M. are subject to change, the criminal behavior of convicted B. is subject to re-qualification with Part 2 of Article 241 of the Criminal Code, criminal behavior of convicted M. is subject to re-qualification with Part 3 of Article 241 of the criminal code, as it is established that there was no direct use of force in their actions, except for a colloquial call for disobedience to representatives of the authorities. In accordance with the requirement of Part 12 of Article 467 of the code of criminal procedure, the legality, validity and fairness of the verdict is checked in full by the court considering the case. It is indicated that it is allowed to make changes on the grounds not specified in the application, as well as in relation to other convicted persons about whom the application has not been submitted, if at the same time the situation of convicted persons does not deteriorate, when changing the qualification of the crime committed with the participation of the convicted person about whom the application has been submitted. In this regard, the criminal activity of A., sentenced by this sentence to 3 years of imprisonment under Part 1 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code, 7 years of imprisonment under Part 1 of Article 241, 7 years of imprisonment under Part 3 of Article 58, and serving a sentence under the strict regime of a correctional colony, is subject to re-qualification under Part 2 of Article 241 of the criminal code.

When imposing sentences on convicted B. and M., their first conviction, family circumstances, positive characteristics are considered as mitigating circumstances, and the previous conviction of A. as aggravating circumstances.  Supervisory Judicial Board B., M., A. the criminal act of the convicted B. was re-differentiated by Part 2 of Article 241 of the criminal code, assigning him a sentence of 3 years in prison, leaving unchanged the part of the court decisions that convicted him by Part 1 of Article 299 of the criminal code, and finally imposing a sentence of 3 years in prison on the basis of Part 3 of Article 58 of the criminal code. The convicted person re-classified the criminal behavior of A. with Part 2 of Article 241 of the Criminal Code and assigned him a sentence of 4 years of imprisonment, leaving unchanged the part of the court decisions that convicted him with Part 1 of Article 299 of the Criminal Code, and finally imposed a sentence of 4 years of imprisonment on the basis of Part 3 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code; The criminal activity of the convicted E. was re-differentiated by Part 3 of Article 241 of the criminal code, imposing a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment on him, leaving unchanged the part of the court decisions convicted him by Part 1 of Article 299 of the criminal code, and finally imposing a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment on the basis of Part 2 of Article 58 of the criminal code, applying Article 4 of the law of December 28, 2011 "on amnesty in connection with the twentieth anniversary of State independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan".-he was released from serving a sentence and from custody. 

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