Criminal liability, in the absence of significant harm and a complaint from the victim, the proceedings in the case of private and public prosecution are subject to termination.

By the verdict of the District Court No. 2 of the Esil district of Astana dated July 16, 2018: M., who had no previous criminal record, was sentenced under part 1 of Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to a fine of 4,000 monthly calculation indices (hereinafter referred to as MCI), which, taking into account the rules of Part 6 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code It amounts to 9,225,000 tenge, with the deprivation of the right to hold managerial positions in commercial organizations for a period of 2 years and 6 months.; U., who had no previous criminal record, was sentenced under part 5 of Article 28, part 1 of Article 250 of the Criminal Code to a fine of 2,000 MCI, which, subject to the rules of part 6 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code, amounts to 4,415,580 tenge, with disqualification from holding managerial positions in commercial organizations for a period of 2 years and 6 months; B., previously without a criminal record, he was sentenced under part 5 of Article 28, part 1 of Article 250 of the Criminal Code to a fine of 500 MCI in the amount of 1,202,500 tenge, with deprivation of the right to hold managerial positions in commercial organizations for a period of 1 year. By the verdict of the court M. He was found guilty of abuse of authority, that is, the use by a person performing managerial functions in a commercial organization of his powers contrary to the legitimate interests of that organization, in order to extract benefits and advantages for himself or other persons and organizations, resulting in significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of the organization. U. and B. were found guilty of complicity in abuse of authority. The case was not considered on appeal. In the submission, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan raises the issue of reviewing the verdict due to significant violations of the criminal procedure law committed during the proceedings in this case. The submission also raises the issue of evaluating the judge's actions for a gross violation of the law. In the petition, A.'s lawyer believes that M. and U. were convicted unlawfully, and significant violations of the current legislation were committed in the case.

Criminal liability, in the absence of significant harm and a complaint from the victim, the proceedings in the case of private and public prosecution are subject to termination.

He believes that the court has taken a one-sided approach to studying and evaluating the available evidence. He requests that the verdict be overturned, M. and U. be acquitted, their labor rights restored, and a private ruling be issued against the actions of the chairman of the District Court No. 2 of the Esil district of Astana for gross violations of the law. In accordance with part 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the case of a criminal offense under Article 250 of the Criminal Code is a matter of private and public prosecution. The proceedings in such a case begin only upon the complaint of the victim and are subject to termination after reconciliation with the suspect, accused, defendant according to the rules of Article 68 of the Criminal Code. There are no exceptions to this rule in the case provided for in part 4 of Article 32 of the CPC. Significant harm in this case was caused exclusively by JSC "K", which is a commercial organization. By virtue of paragraph 5) of part 1 of Article 35 of the CPC, in the absence of a complaint from the victim, the proceedings in the case of public-private prosecution are subject to termination. When studying the materials of this criminal case, it was established that in this case there is no statement from the head or authorized body of the commercial organization JSC "K" on bringing the perpetrators to criminal responsibility in the case file. This issue was also not investigated during the trial. The court did not explain the right of the victim's representative to make such a statement to the court. On the contrary, the representative of JSC "K" has repeatedly indicated that they have no complaints against M., U., B. Moreover, both the pre-trial investigation body and the court ignored the fact that the lack of attitude of the management of JSC "K" in the case file was explicitly stated in the decision of the procedural prosecutor dated June 25, 2018, when returning the case for a preliminary investigation. Paragraph 28 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2018 No. 4 "On the court verdict" states that in the absence of a victim's statement (complaint) on bringing the defendant to criminal responsibility, or when he refused the charge at a court hearing, or declared his reconciliation with the defendant, the court justifies The court concludes that it is necessary to qualify the defendant's actions under the above-mentioned articles of the criminal law and terminates the proceedings by a decision based on paragraph 5) of the first part of Article 35 and Article 343 of the CPC. These requirements were not fulfilled by the court, significant violations of the law were committed in the case, which led to the unlawful conviction of M., U., B.

In such circumstances, the court's verdict is subject to cancellation, and the criminal case is terminated on the basis of paragraph 5) of part 1 of Article 35 of the CPC. In accordance with the requirements of part 1 of Article 37 of the CPC, M., U., and B. should be recognized as having the right to rehabilitation. At the same time, it should be noted that the powers of the judicial board do not include resolving issues of restoring persons to their labor rights, except for recognizing the right to rehabilitation for illegally convicted persons. The law also does not provide for the possibility of making private judgments against judges, in connection with which the petition of lawyer A. subject to partial satisfaction. Based on the above, the judicial board for criminal Cases of the Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the court of first instance against M., U., B., on the basis of paragraph 5) of part 2 of Article 35 of the CPC, the proceedings were terminated in the absence of a complaint from the victim. In accordance with Chapter 4 of the CPC, M., U., and B. are recognized as having the right to rehabilitation. The representation of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan was satisfied, the petition of lawyer A. was partially satisfied. 

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