According to data published in the State Register of Judicial Acts, Alan [name changed A.E.Z.] was sent to the Issyk-Ata district to conduct an audit of the financial activities of the education department for 2023, in accordance with the order of the Chairman of the Chamber of Accounts.
The investigation established that during the audit, Alan forced employees of the education department to give him a bribe of 200,000 soms for a positive conclusion based on the audit results.
The economist of the Issyk-Ata district education department, G.B., agreed to give the money, fearing for her own safety. However, she also reported to the State National Security Committee about the impending bribe from Alan.
One evening around 6:00 PM, Alan, seeking to receive the bribe, met with G.B. near a restaurant, where he received the money. Shortly after that, he was detained by national security officers at the crime scene as a result of operational activities.
The Issyk-Ata district court found Alan guilty under paragraph 5 of part 2 of article 342 of the Criminal Code ("Receiving a bribe in a large amount") and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, as well as deprived him of the right to hold certain positions.
According to article 80 of the Criminal Code, the time spent in custody before the sentence comes into effect will be counted towards the total sentence duration at the rate of 1 day in custody for 2 days of imprisonment.
The preventive measure of detention remained unchanged until the sentence comes into legal force.
The judicial panel for criminal cases and offenses of the Chui regional court confirmed the decision of the district court.
The convicted person's lawyer filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the sentence of the Issyk-Ata district court and the decision of the Chui regional court, as well as a sentence of half the minimum term provided by law.
The senior prosecutor in the cassation presentation demanded the annulment of the courts' decisions due to incorrect application of legal norms and the referral of the case for a new hearing in the first instance court.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the two previous instances. Both the lawyer's cassation appeal and the prosecutor's presentation were rejected.
The ruling is final and not subject to appeal.
