COMPLAINT TO THE CRIMINAL CHAMBER AGAINST THE COURT RULING ON SANCTIONING THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
To the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Astana City
From the Representative – Attorney: Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov
Law Office “Zakon i Pravo”
BIN 201240021767
Office 304, 79 Abylai Khan Avenue, Almaty.
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 727 578 57 58; +7 708 578 57 58.
In the interests of Ba A.B. Baktybekovich
IIN: ....
Republic of Kazakhstan, Zhetisu Region,Kerbulak District, Altynemel Village, .. Street
COMPLAINT
against the Court Ruling on Sanctioning the Seizure of Property dated 8 August 2025
On 8 August 2025, Investigating Judge D.N. Mukeshev of the Specialized Interdistrict Investigative Court of Astana City, having considered individually the motion of S.T. Kosherbayev, Head of the Investigation Department of the Police Department of Astana City, for sanctioning the seizure of property based on the materials of pre-trial investigation registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations under No. 257123031001142, the Court ruled to grant the motion for sanctioning the seizure of property.
We disagree with the court ruling in part, specifically with regard to the seizure of the following property:
· 20. A vehicle of the “LEXUS LX 570” make, VIN: JTJHY00W2B4077221, transferred to Nurbayeva Aizere Mekenkyzy, IIN 910907451170. The current owner is Ba A.B. Baktybekovich, born on 8 February 1989, IIN .., state registration plate No. 557/AEV/19;
and consider the ruling unlawful and unfounded in this part for the following reasons:
The Police Department of the “Nura” District of Astana City is conducting criminal proceedings registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations under No. 257123031001142 dated 22 May 2025 under Article 190, Part 4, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Based on the application of citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan N.A. Mekenkyzy, IIN .., concerning the prosecution of the heads of the construction company “Asyl-Nur Qurylys” LLP, BIN 210840004976, who, by deceiving and abusing the trust of residents, while having no right to attract funds from equity holders for the construction of the “Mardan” residential complex located at the intersection of Ch. Aitmatov and E-164 Streets, took possession of funds on an especially large scale and caused significant material damage.
Within the framework of the criminal case, 200 citizens were identified and questioned as victims.
In the process of concluding agreements under the “Trade-in” programme at “Asyl-Nur Qurylys” LLP, the equity holders re-registered their property (vehicles and apartments) in the names of persons indicated by the developer.
During the investigation, it was established that the depositor/victim Nurbayeva A.M. transferred to the developer “Asyl-Nur Qurylys” LLP, under the Vehicle Transfer Agreement dated 12 June 2024, a vehicle of the “LEXUS LX 570” make, VIN: JTJHY00W2B4077221, which was notarized.
Subsequently, the partnership sold it to other individuals, and they subsequently resold it, as a result of which, on 30 October 2024, my client Ba A.B., through the “KOLESA” mobile application, on credit through “Kaspi Bank” JSC, purchased the above-mentioned vehicle from citizen A.A.N., IIN .., for a credit term of 60 months.
Currently, the owner of the above-mentioned vehicle is citizen Ba A.B., born on 8 February 1989, IIN ..
Pursuant to Part 8 of Article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seizure may be imposed on property held by other persons if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it 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 a criminal offence, or for financing extremism, terrorism, an organized group, an illegal military formation, or a criminal community.
However, the court failed to take into account the opinion of the current owner of the vehicle, who purchased it on credit.
According to the terms of the Vehicle Purchase Agreement No. 866487680 dated 31.10.2024, the following is provided:
1.2. The Buyer undertakes, through the Mobile Application, to make to Kaspi an initial payment for the purchase of the Vehicle in the amount of KZT 3,800,000 (Three million eight hundred thousand) (hereinafter referred to as the Initial Payment), which shall be transferred to the Seller after fulfilment of all conditions of Clause 4.4. of the Agreement.
1.3. The Buyer shall pledge the Vehicle to Kaspi as security for the obligations under the credit agreement, ensure registration of the pledge at his own expense, and enter into a credit agreement and a Vehicle pledge agreement with Kaspi.
1.4. By signing the Agreement, the Buyer gives his consent/instruction to Kaspi, on the day the loan is provided, to debit directly from the Buyer's account specified in the credit agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Buyer's Account) the Credit amount of KZT 15,100,000 (Fifteen million one hundred thousand) and the Initial Payment amount and transfer them, on the basis of a payment order or other payment document initiated by Kaspi, to the Seller's bank account specified in the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Seller's Account) for the purpose of making full payment for the Vehicle.
2.1. The Seller agrees to sell the vehicle LEXUS LX 570, year of manufacture 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Vehicle) to the Buyer. The value of the Vehicle is KZT 18,900,000 (Eighteen million nine hundred thousand).
Thus, my client Ba A.B. ultimately purchased the above-mentioned vehicle for a total amount of KZT 34,000,000, including the bank's remuneration.
Ba A.B.'s obligations under the credit agreement with “Kaspi Bank” JSC were fully discharged, as evidenced by the Notification on the 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 their property otherwise than by a court decision.
Article 6 of the Constitution provides that state and private property are 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 the right of ownership.
Pursuant to Article 261, if property was acquired for consideration from a person who had no right to dispose of it, of which the acquirer did not know and could not have known (a bona fide acquirer), the owner may recover such property from the acquirer only where the property was lost by the owner or by the person to whom the owner had transferred the property into possession, or was stolen from either of them, or otherwise left their possession against their will.
Thus, Ba A.B., pursuant to Articles 259 and 261 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, is a bona fide acquirer.
Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, during pre-trial investigation, the suspect, his defence counsel, legal representative, victim, his 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, and the prosecutor shall have the right to file a motion against, a ruling or sanction of the investigating judge: 4) on the imposition or refusal to impose seizure of property;
Ba A.B. became aware of the encumbrance imposed on the property on 8 January 2026, when checking through the “Kaspi” application.
Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provide the right that, upon the application 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 and reviewed upon a motion of the prosecutor in accordance with the procedure established by this Code.
Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 107 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, within three days from the date of its pronouncement, be appealed by the persons specified in Part 1 of this Article, and the prosecutor may file a motion against it with the regional or equivalent court through the court whose investigating judge issued the ruling. A time limit missed for a valid reason may be restored upon the application of an interested person in accordance with Article 50 of this Code.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
I HEREBY REQUEST THE COURT:
· To amend the ruling of the Specialized Interdistrict Investigative Court of Astana City on sanctioning the seizure of property dated 8 August 2025;
· To cancel, insofar as it sanctions the seizure of the following property: 20. A vehicle of the “LEXUS LX 570” make, VIN: JTJHY00W2B4077221, transferred to Nurbayeva Aizere Mekenkyzy, IIN 910907451170. The current owner is Ba A.B. Baktybekovich, born on 8 February 1989, IIN ..., state registration plate No. 557/AEV/19.
Respectfully,
Representative/Attorney: Galymzhan 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
