A Fraudster Proposed Marriage to the Owner of 2 Cars and Ended Up in Prison (Details)

Марина Онегина • 08.01.2026, 13:18 • Incidents

According to the decision made on December 1, 2025, the judicial panel of the Jalal-Abad Regional Court amended the verdict of the Nookensky District Court in the fraud case, revoking probation supervision and imposing a real sentence of three years of imprisonment for the accused.

The data for this case is taken from the State Register of Judicial Acts.

The regional court found that the accused, having gained the trust of the victim, took possession of two cars under different pretexts, after which he sold them to third parties and used the proceeds for personal needs. This led to significant financial losses for the victim.

At the previous stage, the court of first instance found the accused guilty, sentencing him to imprisonment but releasing him from serving it under probation supervision and ordering 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 appealed the court's decision, pointing out the excessively lenient sentence and the lack of compensation for damages. The defense of the accused, in turn, insisted on overturning the verdict and terminating the case.

The appellate panel concluded that the application of probation was unjustified, as the interests of the victim and the degree of public danger of the crime were not taken into account. As a result, the court revoked the probation supervision, imposed a three-year prison sentence, and maintained the measure of restraint in the form of detention. The amount of material damage remained unchanged.

The ruling came into legal force immediately and can be appealed in cassation.

Events of the case:

On February 10, 2024, around 10:00, the accused M. N., deceiving his acquaintance, a resident of the city of Kochkor-Ata, A. S., born in 1983, under the pretext of renting her car, a "DAEWOO Lanos" worth 170,000 soms, drove away in it. He sold this car for 80,000 soms to a resident of the village of 1-May, D. A. E., born in 1988, who was engaged in reselling cars, and used the money received at his discretion. Thus, the victim A. S. suffered material damage in the amount of 170,000 soms, which was partially compensated during the investigation.

Not stopping there, M. N. continued his criminal actions. On February 20, 2024, around 20:00, again deceiving A. S., he took possession of her car, a 2018 white "Hyundai Sonata," valued at 900,000 soms, promising to return it. However, he did not return the car and used it for his needs, causing the victim damage in the amount of 900,000 soms.

Verdict of the court of first instance:

On March 3, 2025, the Nookensky District Court released M. N. in the courtroom, imposing probation and ordering the payment of 900,000 soms to the victim A. S. The execution of probation supervision was assigned to the probation authority of the Bazar-Korgon district.

Appeals:

The victim A. S. disagreed with the verdict and filed an appeal, pointing out the actions of the accused that led to the sale of the "DAEWOO Lanos" for 80,000 soms and the theft of the "Hyundai Sonata," valued at 900,000 soms. She noted that the current market value of the "Hyundai Sonata" is 1,160,000 soms, and therefore requested to change the verdict and impose a three-year prison sentence on M. N. to be served in a general regime correctional facility, as well as to recover 1,160,000 soms from him.

The lawyer for the accused, I. A., also filed an appeal, stating that the "DAEWOO Lanos" had been returned to the victim, and the accused was trying to compensate for the remaining part of the damage. Due to the reconciliation of the parties, he requested to overturn the verdict and terminate the criminal case.

No objections were received regarding the appeals.

Marriage proposal:

At the court hearing, the victim A. S. stated that the accused saw that she had purchased a new car, after which he, along with his mother, came to her home and, lying about his divorce, asked for her hand in marriage. Unaware of his deception, she agreed to marry him. After the marriage, M. N. continued to deceive her and took possession of the documents for the house, changed his surname, and left for Russia without compensating for the material damage. A. S. requested to punish him according to the law and fully recover the damages.

Course of the judicial proceedings:

At the hearing, lawyer B. A. noted that M. N. had changed his surname and was hiding to avoid criminal responsibility. He requested to revoke the probation supervision and satisfy the victim's appeal for damages, as well as to change the verdict.

During the hearing, the accused M. N. admitted his guilt and expressed remorse, adding that he would compensate for the damage after his release, but at the moment he was unable to do so. He explained that he had been in a car accident in the "Hyundai Sonata," sold the "DAEWOO Lanos" for repairs, and then, due to debts, sold the "Hyundai Sonata" and left for Russia.

The lawyer for M. N. stated that his client regretted his actions and was willing to compensate for the damage, but the victim had not provided evidence of moral harm. He requested to leave the appeal without satisfaction and uphold the verdict of the first instance.

The state prosecutor T. K. indicated that the court of first instance incorrectly applied probation, not taking into account the victim's arguments, and requested to change the verdict, recognize M. N. guilty under the relevant articles of the Criminal Code, and impose a three-year prison sentence.

Conclusion:

The composition of the crime includes fraud, that is, the acquisition of someone else's property by deception or abuse of trust.

Having studied the case materials, the appellate panel concluded that the court of first instance incorrectly assessed the circumstances of the case and improperly applied probation, imposing an excessively lenient sentence. The regional court decided to change the verdict of the Nookensky District Court, partially satisfying the victim's appeal, and to revoke the probation supervision, imposing a three-year prison sentence, while the amount of material damage remained unchanged.

Read also:

Write a comment: