The scammer made a proposal to a woman allegedly due to the absence of children and ended up in prison (details)
- Data on the case is taken from the State Register of Judicial Acts.
According to the findings of the regional court, the accused, having abused the trust of the victim, took possession of two cars under different pretexts. Later, he sold them to third parties and used the money received for personal needs, which caused significant material damage to the victim.
Previously, the court of first instance found M. N. guilty, sentencing him to imprisonment, but released him from serving it under probation supervision and ordered him to pay 900,000 soms to the victim.
The accused M. N. has a secondary education, is divorced, a father of three children, unemployed, and has a prior criminal record.
The victim filed an appeal, pointing out the excessive leniency of the punishment and the lack of compensation for damages. The defense of the accused, in turn, insisted on the cancellation of the verdict and the termination of the case.
The appellate panel concluded that the application of probation was unjustified, as the position of the victim and the degree of public danger of the crime were not taken into account. As a result, the court canceled the probation supervision, imposed three years of imprisonment, and left the measure of restraint in the form of detention unchanged. The amount of material damage remained unchanged.
The ruling came into legal force immediately and can be appealed in cassation.
What happened:
On February 10, 2024, around 10:00, the accused M. N. deceived his acquaintance, a resident of Kochkor-Ata, A. S., born in 1983, under the pretext of renting her "DAEWOO Lanos" car, valued at 170,000 soms, and drove away with it. He sold this car in Bazar-Korgon for 80,000 soms to a local resident, D. A. E., born in 1988, who is engaged in reselling cars, and used the proceeds for personal needs. The victim suffered damage amounting to 170,000 soms, which was later partially compensated.
Not stopping there, on February 20, 2024, around 20:00, M. N. again deceived A. S., taking possession of her "Hyundai Sonata," a 2018 model, valued at 900,000 soms, under the pretext of going to Jalal-Abad. He did not return the car and also used it for his own interests, causing significant damage to the victim amounting to 900,000 soms.
Decision of the court of first instance:
On March 3, 2025, the Nooken District Court released M. N. in the courtroom, imposing probation and ordering him to pay 900,000 soms to A. S. Probation supervision was assigned to the probation authority of the Bazar-Korgon District.
Appeals from both parties:
The victim A. S. filed an appeal, stating that the accused sold the "DAEWOO Lanos" for 80,000 soms and also stole the "Hyundai Sonata," which was valued at 900,000 soms at the time of assessment. She requested to change the verdict, recognizing M. N. guilty and sentencing him to three years of imprisonment to be served in a correctional facility.
The lawyer of the accused M. N. also filed an appeal, noting that the "DAEWOO Lanos" was returned to the victim, and the accused is trying to compensate for the damage. He pointed to the reconciliation of the parties and requested the cancellation of the verdict.
No objections to the appeals were received.
Marriage proposal:
At the hearing, the victim stated that the accused, upon learning about her new car, came to her with his mother and deceived her, saying that he had divorced due to the lack of children. She, unsuspecting of the deception, agreed to marry him. Subsequently, M. N. continued to deceive her and, having changed his name and surname, left for Russia without compensating for the damage.
What happened at the court hearings?
Lawyer B. A. stated that M. N. changed his surname and was hiding from criminal responsibility. He requested the cancellation of probation supervision and satisfaction of the victim's appeal. The accused fully admitted his guilt and expressed a desire to compensate for the damage, but at that moment he did not have such an opportunity. He explained that he sold the "DAEWOO Lanos" to repair the "Hyundai Sonata," after which he left for Russia.
Lawyer A. N. pointed out that the accused regrets his actions, but the victim did not provide evidence of moral harm, and requested that the appeal be left unsatisfied, with the verdict of the first instance remaining in force.
State prosecutor T. K. noted that the court of first instance did not take into account the arguments of the victim and that M. N.'s guilt was fully proven. He requested to change the verdict, recognize the accused as guilty, and impose a sentence of three years of imprisonment.
Conclusion:
Qualifying features of the crime: fraud, that is, the acquisition of someone else's property or the right to property by deception or abuse of trust, committed in a significant amount.
The Judicial Panel, having reviewed the case and the arguments of the appeals, concluded that the court of first instance did not take into account the nature and severity of the crime, imposing an excessively lenient punishment. It was also established that M. N. did not compensate for the damage caused, and the victim opposed probation.
The victim's claim for compensation of 1,160,000 soms was left unsatisfied, as the amount of damage established during the investigation was 900,000 soms.
As a result, the court decided to change the verdict of the Nooken District Court dated March 3, 2025, partially satisfying the victim's appeal, and cancel the probation supervision, imposing three years of imprisonment while leaving the amount of material damage unchanged.
Related materials:
