In the Aktobe region, a court fined the head of the land relations department of the Irgiz district, Medet Berdalin, 8.6 million tenge for accepting a bribe.
According to the Telegram channel «HALYQSTAN», in September Berdalin received 300,000 tenge from the head of a peasant farm, Nurdos Yerkingaliuly, for assistance in allocating a land plot from the auxiliary land fund of the Nurinsky rural district for a period of one month for fodder harvesting.
It is reported that the farmer came to the district akimat with an official request, but during the conversation the official formed the intent to obtain a bribe. He demanded money to 'resolve the issue', and the bribe amount was later received by his wife. After the money was handed over, Berdalin was detained.
In court, the official admitted the charges, and the case was heard under a simplified procedure. As a result, the court imposed a fine on Medet Berdalin of 30 times the bribe amount. Taking into account the time spent in custody, 346,000 tenge was deducted from the total amount, reducing the fine to 8.6 million tenge.
Furthermore, the court imposed a lifelong ban on Berdalin holding positions in state bodies and the quasi-public sector. The bribe amount was confiscated to state revenue.
Separately, it is worth recalling that recently court No. 2 of Kostanay passed a sentence in another corruption case concerning the former prosecutor of Arkalyk and Rudny, Murat Uspanov. He was detained while receiving 20.1 million tenge.
However, an expert examination later established that 8.1 million tenge of the seized money turned out to be counterfeit banknotes — because of this, the charge was softened from 'bribe on a large scale' to 'attempted bribe-taking'. The court imposed a more lenient punishment since the amount of real money turned out to be smaller than initially assumed.
These two cases clearly demonstrate inconsistency in the application of anti-corruption legislation. Society rightly asks: if the law stipulates specific penalties for bribery, should they be applied uniformly — without exceptions or special interpretations for individual cases? Such an approach would strengthen trust in the system and reduce doubts about the fairness of decisions.