As reported by the press service of the State Committee for National Security (GKNB) on December 16, 2025, Colonel of Police A.T.A. had been collecting money from employees of the security department of Balykchy since 2024 through the head of that department, D.T.I., and an affiliated person.
“The systematic collection of funds was carried out as payments for ensuring the employment activities of police officers guarding various facilities outside of working hours,” the GKNB explained.
According to the state committee, he was arrested on December 10. The investigation is establishing other individuals involved in the crime among officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
According to the case materials published in the State Register of Judicial Acts, Ruslan [name changed I.R.T.] is accused of, being appointed as the commander of the platoon of the security department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs' security service for the city of Balykchy, using the official powers granted to him contrary to the interests of the service, developing and implementing a criminal scheme in his unit in March 2025 aimed at extracting material benefits through organized collection of funds from personnel for the right to engage in part-time work during their free time from main service.
The investigation established that in early March 2024, acting out of selfish motives to implement his criminal intent, T.D. [head of the Balykchy City Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs] gave illegal oral instructions to his subordinate, the commander of the security platoon Ruslan, to organize the collection of part of the payments for the opportunity to work in additional shifts during free time from the main service, specifically on the days when funds were credited to employees' bank accounts, in accordance with the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order No. 666 “On Providing Security Services on a Voluntary Basis by Police Officers During Their Free Time.” In turn, Ruslan, aware of the illegal nature of T.D.'s instructions and being subordinate to him, reluctantly agreed to his demands, thereby deciding to act as an intermediary between the personnel and T.D. in carrying out the illegal collection of funds for the latter.
According to the aforementioned order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 55% of the amounts received under contracts for the security of facilities are to be paid directly to the employees of the security department who actually provide security services, while T.D., acting through Ruslan, contrary to the provisions of service regulations and norms of service ethics, abusing the powers granted to him, and using his authority derived from his position, implemented the practice of systematic receipt of rewards in the form of bribes from subordinates for providing the legally stipulated right to participate in additional daily shifts.
Thus, as established by the investigation, Ruslan, acting under the instructions of his superior T.D., systematically collected bribes from employees of the security department for the opportunity to participate in part-time work from March 2024 to May 2025, after which he transferred the received amounts in full to T.D., thereby facilitating the implementation of T.D.'s criminal intent aimed at illegal material gain.
At the same time, the employees of the security department, having received information about the aforementioned illegal demands from management, realizing their dependence on management and fearing exclusion from the list for part-time work during their free time from main service, as well as possible disciplinary measures or dismissal in case of refusal to provide monetary rewards, were forced to comply with the illegal demands aimed at collecting and transferring part of their salary to T.D.
According to the investigation, Ruslan, while in his office located in the administrative building of the Balykchy security department at 172 Okeev Street, acting in accordance with the criminal intent of the head of the security department T.D., in order to implement the organized scheme of systematic collection of funds from subordinate employees, made a phone call to S.K., an employee of the Balykchy security department.
During the phone conversation, Ruslan conveyed T.D.'s illegal demands regarding the necessity of collecting 600 soms from each employee involved in additional daily shifts. In turn, S.K., realizing his service dependence on Ruslan and T.D., and fearing possible negative consequences for his service in case of refusal, reluctantly agreed to the illegal demand and on the same day handed over the specified amount of money to Ruslan in his office.
After that, Ruslan, acting in accordance with the criminal intent and illegal instructions of T.D., continued to systematically maintain the mechanism of illegal collection of funds from subordinate employees, which was expressed in that on the days of payments, Ruslan personally initiated contact with employees through phone calls, indicated the “necessity” of transferring the amount agreed with T.D. and the deadline, after which he personally accepted the funds in his office, subsequently transferring them the same day to the head of the security department, T.D.
Thus, as the investigation believes, it has been reliably established that Ruslan systematically collected funds in a similar manner from subordinate employees of the security department under the pretext of providing the right to participate in additional daily shifts and ensuring so-called “service stability,” which was expressed in the absence of disciplinary measures from T.D.
Ruslan, acting in a similar manner, at T.D.'s instruction, collected funds from subordinate employees in his office from several employees, including:
- A.O. in the amount of 10,000 soms;
- K.E. in the amount of 2,000 soms;
- U.U. in the amount of 10,000 soms;
- N.K. in the amount of 900 soms;
- S.T. in the amount of 2,000 soms;
- A.Ü. in the amount of 3,600 soms.
At the same time, the employees of the security department, as established by the investigation, realizing their dependence on management and fearing disciplinary measures or dismissal, were forced to hand over to Ruslan a total of 28,500 soms, which were fully transferred by him the same day to T.D. in his office.
Ruslan, continuing to act under T.D.'s instructions, collected funds from subordinate employees, receiving 10,000 soms from A.T. and 800 soms from S.K., after which he transferred a total of 10,800 soms to T.D. in his office.
Continuing to act in the aforementioned manner, in execution of T.D.'s instructions, Ruslan collected funds from several employees in his office, including: A.O. 3,000 soms; U.U. 3,000 soms; A.Zh. 10,400 soms. At the same time, employees of the security department, realizing their dependence on management and fearing disciplinary measures or dismissal, were forced to hand over to Ruslan a total of 16,400 soms, which were fully transferred by him the same day to T.D. in his office.
Subsequently, as stated in the case materials, these facts were repeated multiple times. Thus, Ruslan, acting under the instructions of the head of the security department T.D. and being in his official subordination, systematically played the role of an intermediary in bribery, expressed in the illegal collection and transfer of funds from subordinate employees for providing the opportunity to engage in part-time work.
In total, during the specified period, Ruslan transferred 1,822,384 soms to T.D., thereby facilitating the implementation of his criminal intent aimed at systematically receiving bribes, grossly violating the constitutional rights of employees to remuneration for labor, as well as the requirements of the law “On Counteracting Corruption.”
Thus, the investigation believes that Ruslan, through his intentional actions, committed a crime under Article 344, Part 3 (“Mediating in Bribery, Committed in Especially Large Amounts”) of the Criminal Code, the qualifying features of which are – committing actions to transfer a bribe at the request of the briber or the bribe-taker, or otherwise assisting the briber and/or the bribe-taker in achieving or implementing an agreement between them on receiving and giving a bribe, committed in especially large amounts.
At the court session, the state prosecutor explained that during the pre-trial proceedings, the accused Ruslan entered into plea agreements. The issues regarding the conclusion of plea agreements were considered with the participation of the accused himself and his lawyer, with whom the prosecution reached an agreement on all terms of the agreements, as evidenced by the signatures of the parties in the specified agreements.
The plea agreements were also supported, and a request was made to consider the case without conducting a trial, with subsequent sentencing of the accused to imprisonment for three months, in accordance with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 67, Article 79 of the Criminal Code.
At the court session, the accused Ruslan explained to the court that he fully admits his guilt in the charges brought against him, understands the nature and consequences of the plea agreements, and that the agreement was signed voluntarily after consultations with his lawyer. He does not dispute the charges and the evidence in the case regarding the commission of the crime.
At the court session, the lawyer of the accused, supporting her client and confirming the above circumstances, requested to consider the case without conducting a trial, indicating that the agreements were concluded with the participation of the accused.
Having examined the case materials, the Karakol City Court found Ruslan guilty of committing a crime under Article 344, Part 3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to three months of imprisonment, to be served in a general regime correctional facility in accordance with Part 1, Clause 1 of Article 67 of the Criminal Code.
The court ruled that the term of punishment be calculated as one day in custody counting as two days of imprisonment. The term of punishment was deemed served. The measure of restraint against the accused was left unchanged – in the form of house arrest, until the verdict comes into legal force. After the verdict comes into legal force, the measure of restraint will be revoked.
The verdict regarding the unexplored materials of the case in court cannot be appealed in the appellate procedure. The remaining part of the verdict can be appealed, and a representation can be made in the appellate procedure to the Issyk-Kul Regional Court within thirty days from the date of its issuance.
In early September 2025, the GKNB reported that the leadership and employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs' security department for the Pervomaisky district in Bishkek were detained for extorting money from subordinates. In the office of the head of this department, 46,000 dollars and 5.8 million soms were found.
