The Constitutional Court considered an application seeking a review of the constitutionality of the first part of Article 217 and the first part of Article 217-1 of the Criminal Code (CC), in conjunction with paragraph 18-1 of Regulatory Resolution No. 3 of the Supreme Court dated 24 January 2020. These provisions establish criminal liability for establishing and managing a financial pyramid scheme, as well as for advertising such a scheme by involving individuals in its activities.
The application followed the applicant’s conviction for managing and advertising a financial pyramid scheme. The appellate court upheld the judgment.
The applicant argued that the legislation does not distinguish between liability for managing a financial pyramid scheme and managing one of its structural subdivisions. He also maintained that the criteria for distinguishing between managing a pyramid scheme and involving individuals in its activities were insufficiently clear.
The Constitutional Court noted that establishing criminal liability and determining penalties fall within the competence of the legislature. The Supreme Court’s Regulatory Resolution clarifies the meaning of managing a financial pyramid scheme, including making management decisions, coordinating activities, allocating responsibilities and attracting depositors.
At the same time, Article 217-1 of the Criminal Code establishes a separate offence related to advertising a financial pyramid scheme, including disseminating relevant information and involving individuals in its activities.
The Constitutional Court emphasised that an act may be classified under multiple articles of the Criminal Code only if all the elements of each alleged criminal offence have been established. Criminal law provisions must be formulated clearly and unambiguously, precluding arbitrary or overly broad interpretation.
At the same time, since the arguments set out in the application essentially reflected the applicant’s disagreement with the courts’ legal classification of his actions and the judicial decisions delivered in his case, the Constitutional Court declined to review the provisions challenged by the applicant. The Court reiterated that reviewing the correctness of the legal classification of a specific act and reconsidering judicial decisions fall outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
Follow memleket.kz on social media
Important news from Kazakhstan and useful articles on the platform you prefer.
