Found guilty of attempted fraudulent embezzlement of other people's property

By the verdict of the Zhetysay District Court of Turkestan region dated May 20, 2020: zh. the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan) – In the civil service, judicial activity, local self-government bodies, the National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan and its departments, state organizations and organizations with a state share of more than fifty percent in the authorized capital, including national managing Holdings, National Holdings, national companies, national development institutions, whose shareholder is the state, their subsidiaries, whose voting shares (participation shares) belong to them more than fifty percent, he was also sentenced to 4 years in prison with deprivation of the right to hold positions in legal entities, more than fifty percent of the voting shares (participation shares) of which belong to these subsidiaries, for life. The term of serving the sentence of ZH. is calculated from May 20, 2020, and it is established to serve the sentence in a medium-safe institution of the penitentiary system. From zh. to the "Victim Compensation Fund" a forced payment in the amount of 20 monthly calculation indices, that is, 50,500 tenge.

By the court verdict, zh., being a person authorized to perform state functions, was found guilty of attempted fraudulent embezzlement of other people's property by abusing the trust of the victim, in combination with the use of his official position. In particular, on July 30, 2019, at 15:00, G. As a deputy akim of Zhana rural district of Zhetysay District of Turkestan region, being a person authorized to perform state functions, knowing that it is not included in his official duties to issue an individual positive opinion on the appointment of State targeted social assistance to the family of the daughter of the victim R. U., The victim tried to fraudulently embezzlement of other people's property by abusing the trust of R., in combination with the use of his official position, in the building of the Office of the Akim of the rural district, in his office, R. received 50,000 tenge in cash.

Found guilty of attempted fraudulent embezzlement of other people's property

By the decision of the Judicial Board of the Turkestan regional court for criminal cases dated July 14, 2020, the verdict was left unchanged. In the petition of the convicted zh.did not agree with the sentencing part of the court sentence, considering it harsh and asked to change it. The Victim R. he indicated that he did not participate in the appeal court session, but the opinion of the victim was indicated in the court decision, that he was the breadwinner of the family, that he had four minor children under his guardianship, and asked for an alternative punishment specified in the sanction of the article found guilty – to change the judicial acts and release from custody. The guilt of the convicted zh. on the commission of a criminal offense in the circumstances set out in the sentence is confirmed by objectively evaluated evidence collected during the pre-trial investigation, studied in detail in the main trial, which does not raise any doubts in terms of consistency, and is not challenged by him. The guilt of the convicted J. of the victim R., witnesses U., B., D., S., U., K. and fully substantiated by the answers of zh., protocols on the delivery and receipt of special technical means, examination of money, things and documents, expert opinions, as well as other irrefutable evidence accumulated in the case. Judicial acts relating to convicted zh. are adopted in accordance with the norms of criminal and Criminal Procedure legislation. The court correctly ranked the criminal offense act of zh. by the third part of Article 24 of the criminal code, paragraph 2) of the third part of Article 190 and gave a correct legal assessment by this article. The argument of the convicted zh. in the petition that he was given a severe punishment and that an alternative punishment in the form of a fine should be imposed is not subject to consideration.

Found guilty of attempted fraudulent embezzlement of other people's property

The judicial board considers that the court imposed a fair punishment on ZH. in accordance with the requirement of Article 52 of the criminal code, the act committed by him, the nature of the criminal offense and the degree of danger to society, personality. Taking into account the presence of young children of zh. as a mitigating circumstance of criminal liability and punishment, and the commission of a criminal offense in violation of his professional oath as a aggravating circumstance of responsibility and punishment. In accordance with the above-mentioned circumstances, the court assigned to zh. the term of punishment within the minimum limits of the sentence of imprisonment specified in the third part of Article 24, paragraph 2) of the third part of Article 190 of the criminal code. The judicial board, having satisfied the petition of the convicted person, considers that there are no grounds for changing judicial acts. Because taking into account the nature of the criminal offense and the degree of danger to society, the number of corruption crimes, the violation of the professional oath of zh., being a person authorized to perform state functions, as an aggravating circumstance of responsibility and punishment, he considered the correct assignment of the type and amount of punishment. It recognizes punishment as necessary and sufficient punishment for its correction and Prevention of new criminal offenses in accordance with the general purpose of imposing a penalty. In this regard, there are no legal grounds for imposing a penalty in the form of a fine on the convicted person in the case. At the same time, the argument of the convicted zh. on the absence of the victim R. at the appeal court session is not subject to consideration, since this is not a basis for changing or canceling judicial acts. The judicial board for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan left unchanged the judicial acts of local courts in relation to the convicted zh. The petition of the convicted zh. was dismissed. 

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