The secret theft of other people's property, committed in a group of persons by prior agreement, the value of the stolen property did not exceed 10 times the MCI, which allowed us to recognize the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the convicts and the presence of an administrative offense.

By the verdict of the Zharkainsky District Court of the Akmola region dated May 28, 2013, the following persons were convicted: Z., under paragraph "a" of the second part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to 2 years of imprisonment without confiscation of property and with serving a sentence in a high-security penal colony. In accordance with the first part of Article 13 of the Criminal Code in the actions of Z. the existence of a recidivism of crimes was recognized; D., according to paragraph "a" of the second part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code, to 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment without confiscation of property and with serving a sentence in a high-security penal colony.  In accordance with paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 13 of the Criminal Code, the presence of a dangerous recidivism of crimes was recognized in D.'s actions. The verdict was left unchanged by the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards. The lower court found Z. and D. guilty of secretly stealing other people's property, committed in a group of persons by prior agreement, in the amount of 18,158 tenge. In the petition, Z., without disputing the guilt of committing the criminal act charged against him, as well as the legal qualification given by the court to his actions, asks to be released from further punishment, limited to the time served.

The secret theft of other people's property, committed in a group of persons by prior agreement, the value of the stolen property did not exceed 10 times the MCI, which allowed us to recognize the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the convicts and the presence of an administrative offense.

In relation to D., judicial acts are reviewed in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 2) of part one of Article 37 and part twelve of Article 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter – CPC). After examining the case materials, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court concluded that the court's verdict against Z. and D. should be overturned with the termination of the case on the following grounds. The materials of the criminal case established the indisputable fact of the secret abduction of Z. and D. by prior agreement of a group of persons of a double-leaf metal door from the building of the dormitory PCH-21 Derzhavinskaya station. At the same time, the criminal prosecution authorities and the lower court, in violation of the requirements of article 24 of the CPC, did not take all the measures provided by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the circumstances necessary for the proper resolution of the case. So, the accusation of Z. and D. the theft of the property of the PCH-21 Derzhavinskaya station in the amount of 18,158.52 tenge and the qualification of their actions as a criminal offense is based on a certificate provided by the injured organization stating that the value of the stolen metal double–leaf door is 18,158.52 tenge, which is formed from the cost of sheet steel 5 mm. - 12 589.95 tenge, corner 63/63 mm. – 2 678.57 tenge and mortise lock – 2,890 tenge. In violation of the requirements of the Criminal procedure Law, the investigation and the court did not properly verify the correctness of the specified certificate of the value of the stolen item.

At the same time, it is not taken into account that the certificate of the presence of a mortise lock on the stolen doors worth 2,890 tenge obviously contradicts the evidence collected in the case. Thus, it can be seen from the materials of the criminal case that the stolen door was immediately discovered by the scrap metal buyer V., to whom the convicts sold it for 3 bottles of vodka. The door was immediately returned to the injured organization. At the same time, the fact of the presence of a mortise lock on the doors was not established by anyone. According to the protocol of inspection of objects and documents, the object of theft is a double-leaf used metal door, measuring 140*180cm. From the photo table for this protocol, it can be seen that there is no mortise lock on the doors, but only metal hinges for a padlock. In addition, it follows from the testimony of the convicts that at the time of the theft, the door leaves were twisted together with a metal bolt. This is evidence that the certificate issued by the injured organization about the presence of a mortise lock on the doors worth 2,890 tenge does not correspond to reality. Under such circumstances, the value of the stolen door, excluding the value of the mortise lock (2,890 tenge), is 15,262.52 tenge (18 152,52 – 2 890 ). In accordance with paragraph five of the note to Article 175 of the Criminal Code, petty theft of other people's property owned by an organization or under its jurisdiction, committed through theft, fraud, embezzlement or embezzlement, does not entail criminal liability.

Theft is considered minor if the value of the stolen property does not exceed ten times the monthly calculation index established by law at the time of the commission of the act. Since at the time of the Z. and D. theft, that is, on April 15, 2013, the monthly calculation index was 1,731 tenge, and the value of the stolen property did not exceed ten times the amount of this indicator, there is no corpus delicti in the actions of the convicts, but only an administrative offense – petty theft. Based on the above, guided by subparagraph 2) According to the first part of Article 37 and articles 459, 467 and 468 of the CPC, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court overturned the judicial acts issued in the case against Z. and D., the criminal case was terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti in their actions. Z. and D. were immediately released 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