Extortion of a bribe means that a person demands a bribe under threat of committing actions that may harm the legitimate interests of the payer or intentionally creates conditions under which he is forced to pay a bribe in order to prevent harmful consequences for his law enforcement interests.

By the verdict of the Ural City Court of the West Kazakhstan region dated March 30, 2015, L. was sentenced under paragraphs 1), 2) of part 3 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code, with the application of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, to 5 years in prison with confiscation of property, with life imprisonment for holding positions in law enforcement agencies, and with serving his sentence in a correctional colony of general regime. On the basis of part 1 of Article 49 of the Criminal Code, L. was deprived of the special rank of police sergeant. He was sentenced under paragraphs 1), 2) of part 3 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code with the application of Article 55 of the Criminal Code to 4 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, with life imprisonment of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies, with serving his sentence in a correctional colony of general regime. On the basis of part 1 of Article 49 of the Criminal Code, A. was deprived of the special rank of senior police sergeant. By the verdict of the court, L. and A. were found guilty of the fact that they, being officials, in a group of persons by prior agreement, received extortion from I. a bribe in the amount of 50,000 tenge for failure to provide administrative material in relation to her in connection with a violation of traffic rules. By the decision of the appeal and cassation judicial boards of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court, the verdict of the court of first instance remained unchanged.

The Supervisory Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court changed the judicial acts of the local courts in relation to L. and A., excluded from the charges of L. and A. the qualifying feature "by extortion" provided for in paragraph 1) part 3 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code, the criminal case in this part of the proceedings was terminated. She sentenced L., under paragraph 2) of part 3 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code, with the application of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, to three years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, with life imprisonment of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies. Appointed A. according to paragraph 2) of part 3 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code, with the application of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, two years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, with life imprisonment of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies on the following grounds. The supervisory board considered the verdict of the court regarding the recognition of L. and A. guilty of accepting a bribe in a group of persons by prior agreement to be legitimate. At the same time, the court's conclusions regarding the recognition of L. and A. guilty of taking bribes by extortion were considered illegal. It follows from the case file that I. she committed an offense under Part 2 of Article 230 of the Administrative Code (evading the conclusion of a compulsory insurance contract), part 1 of Article 602 of the Administrative Code (violation by drivers of vehicles of the rules for conducting educational driving, using external lighting devices) and part 2 of Article 612 of the Administrative Code (driving a vehicle by a person who does not have the right to drive it). L. and A. performing their official duties to prevent administrative offenses, acting contrary to the interests of the service, with the consent of I. We agreed not to draw up an administrative protocol against her for a bribe in the amount of 50,000 tenge. At the same time And. She realized that if an administrative protocol was drawn up, her car would be put in a parking lot, fined, and her driver's license would be revoked. Under such circumstances, I. was interested in a positive resolution of her situation. In fact, an "agreement" was concluded between police officers L., A. and driver I. to remove the latter from administrative responsibility by accepting a bribe.  In accordance with paragraph 8 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court No. 9 of December 22, 1995 "On the practice of Applying Legislation on liability for bribery by Courts", extortion of a bribe means demanding a bribe by a person under threat of committing actions that may harm the legitimate interests of the payer, or intentionally putting the latter in such conditions that he is forced to pay a bribe. in order to prevent harmful consequences for his law-enforcement interests. When evaluating the actions of L. and A. Neither the investigating body nor the court has established which law enforcement interests of I. were violated, which legitimate interests she wanted to protect by handing over a bribe to officials. Thus, the court's conclusions about receiving a bribe by extortion do not correspond to the materials of the criminal case, and therefore the qualifying feature of the crime provided for in paragraph 1) Part 3 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code was excluded from the charges of the convicts, the criminal case in this part was terminated due to the absence of this corpus delicti in their actions. Based on the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicts, the court reasonably applied Article 55 of the Criminal Code when sentencing them and imposed a punishment below the lowest limit provided for by the sanction of part 3 of Article 366 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