Over 800 thousand dollars were transferred for currency exchange — in court, the men recounted how they were given receipts and held in one of the houses in Akse.
According to data published in the State Register of Judicial Acts, one of the convicted individuals was also charged with distributing materials related to the banned extremist organization "Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami" in Kyrgyzstan.
The materials of the criminal case indicate that in 2021, M.M.A., M.M.S., and their accomplice M.U. (currently wanted) conspired to embezzle funds through deception. They convinced the victim, I.R., to transfer significant amounts in dollars to M.U.'s electronic wallet, promising to exchange them for Chinese yuan and generate profit. As a result, I.R. suffered losses amounting to $437,200 (approximately 36.9 million soms), while another victim, M.S., lost $364,000 (about 30.7 million soms). In total, $801,200 was transferred, which has not been returned to date.
Furthermore, the investigation found that electronic books and materials deemed extremist were found on M.M.A.'s mobile phone. A forensic religious study confirmed that these files have extremist content.
According to the decision of the First Mai District Court, M.M.A. was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment with confiscation of property, while M.M.S. received a 5-year prison sentence with similar consequences. Both convicts were deprived of the right to engage in economic activities for a specified period.
Victims I.R. and M.S. filed appeals in the Bishkek City Court, demanding a harsher punishment and full compensation for damages, citing the large scale of the embezzlement and the insufficient severity of the punishment.
The convicted individuals and their defenders claim complete innocence in the fraud episode, stating that they were only trying to help the victim contact M.U., without participating in the transfer of funds, and became victims of extortion by I.R.
According to them, the receipts for the return of funds were signed under duress during illegal detention in one of the houses in the Aksy district of the Jalal-Abad region.
Position of the First Defendant
At the appellate hearing, M.M.A. confirmed his testimony given in the first instance court and added that the victim I.R. had previously traveled to Russia, where he became acquainted with M.U., but the defendants were not familiar with him. They collaborated with M.U. in construction. I.R. and M.U. were engaged in currency operations, but a conflict arose between them, resulting in both accusing each other of fraud.
Unable to recover his money, I.R. began demanding it from the defendants, claiming that "M.U. is your partner," after which he held them hostage and used physical force, forcing them to write a receipt.
According to the defendant, he was held along with another person for 28 days in one of the houses in the Aksy district, while the second person was held for 15 days. During this time, they called M.U. in St. Petersburg, informing him: "Return the money, because of you we are hostages." These words were recorded on the phone and now serve as evidence.
They were subjected to violence and forced to sign a receipt for the return of funds, with the date on the receipt incorrectly stated — an earlier date was indicated, although the document was drawn up while they were held hostage.
The defendant also stated that I.R. hired a group that brought him to Bishkek, where he was forced to write a receipt in one of the teahouses, and then taken back to Aksy.
Criminal proceedings were initiated based on these facts, and I.R. and his accomplices were held accountable for illegal deprivation of liberty. Currently, I.R. has been convicted and is under probation.
The defendant claims that I.R. was not any guarantor and did not participate in negotiations between him and M.U., and that the money was sent directly to M.U. in St. Petersburg.
The defendant states that he has been in custody for 1 year and 7 months on false charges. After an appeal from T.A., M.U. got in touch and confirmed that he received the money. The victims were released only after the son offered to transfer to them the house in which they lived, asking: "Let my father go."
M.U. remains wanted, and the defendant requests to be acquitted in this episode. Regarding the second episode related to the discovery of extremist materials, he admits his guilt, explaining that he was unaware of the prohibition on their viewing and distribution.
Position of the Second Defendant
At the appellate court session, M.M.S. also confirmed his previous testimony and added that I.R. had previously traveled to Russia and met M.U. there, but the defendant did not introduce them. M.M.S. collaborated with M.U. in construction, while I.R. and M.U. worked independently.
After I.R. was unable to recover the money that was transferred to M.U., he began demanding it from the defendants, claiming that M.U. was their partner. At the same time, I.R. was not a guarantor and did not participate in negotiations, and the money was sent directly to M.U. in St. Petersburg. The defendant also stated that he was unaware of the transfer of funds from I.R.
He spent 1 year and 7 months in custody on false charges. M.U. got in touch after relatives' appeals, confirming the receipt of money.
The receipt referred to by the victims was drawn up under duress when the defendants were held hostage. I.R. also hired unknown individuals who held both of them hostage: one was held for 15 days, and the other for 28, in a house in the Aksy district. During this period, they called M.U., who was in St. Petersburg, and informed him: "Return the money, because of you we are hostages." These words were secretly recorded and serve as evidence.
Additionally, the date on the receipt was incorrectly stated, with an earlier date.
The defendant claims that after promising to transfer a house in Uzbekistan, which the individuals holding them did not transfer, one of the hostages was released after 15 days. A statement regarding the return of funds was submitted to the GKNB.
As a result of the investigation into the hostage-taking, I.R. and several other individuals were convicted. I.R. is currently under probation, while M.U. remains wanted.
In light of the above, the defendant requests to be acquitted.
The appellate panel, having reviewed the case and heard the parties and witnesses, concluded that the guilt of the convicted individuals was proven and left the verdict unchanged. The recovery of damages from the convicted individuals in favor of the victims also remained unchanged.
M.U. remains wanted, and the investigation against him continues.
Related materials:
