During the discussion of amendments to the Criminal Executive, Criminal, and Criminal Procedure Codes, she noted that under the new provisions, a person may be exempt from criminal liability if they voluntarily report their actions and return illegally acquired property.
“Thus, a person who has been using property obtained unlawfully for a long time can simply return it and avoid responsibility,” Kozhokulova stated.
The deputy also added that these amendments lack a mechanism for compensating the damage caused.
Erkebek Ashirkhodzhaev, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, explained that exemption from liability only applies to cases that do not involve other criminal offenses. “The law clearly states: if the property is returned voluntarily, the person is exempt from liability,” he noted.
Kozhokulova expressed doubt that the wording “voluntarily returned property” is clear enough to limit the application of this article. “Legalization is already a fact of illegal acquisition. If a person simply returns the property, they will definitely be exempt from criminal liability,” the deputy emphasized.
Ashirkhodzhaev added that if a public official has other criminal offenses, they will be considered separately. “Legalization demonstrates that the property was obtained through criminal means, for example, through tax evasion or other illegal methods,” he clarified.
Additionally, the deputy mentioned the position of the General Prosecutor's Office. Deputy General Prosecutor Umutkan Konkubaeva confirmed support for Kozhokulova's position, stating that the proposed changes contradict the principle of the inevitability of criminal responsibility.
Kozhokulova also noted that the draft law has many contradictions. “It is hard not to notice that there are many inconsistencies here. Yes, in some places you introduce confiscation of property, and in others, you do not. Essentially, all property that causes harm should either be confiscated or an alternative should be proposed,” she stated.
The Deputy General Prosecutor emphasized that confiscation of property is an additional measure of punishment that the court may apply at its discretion, and it is important to consider each case individually.
