Inspector seizes the home of an elderly demented man and gives it to his wife in Nukus 

In Nukus, Republic of Karakalpakstan, a preventive inspector is accused of illegally seizing someone else’s property. The Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Karakalpakstan has responded to the allegations.

Preventive inspector A.M. allegedly exploited the absence of close relatives and the mental incapacity of elderly resident O.Y. in his assigned neighborhood. To gain control of O.Y.'s property, A.M. reportedly filed a notice to the head of Psychiatric Hospital No. 1, claiming that O.Y. was violating public behavior rules. This led to O.Y. being forcibly hospitalized, evicted from his home, and having his freedom restricted.

A.M., with the aid of cadastral office official Ch.S., then falsified documents to transfer the ownership of O.Y.’s residence to himself. 

To cover up his actions, A.M. re-registered the property in his wife O.D.'s name through a gift contract and secretly appropriated a significant amount of O.Y.'s belongings.

Moreover, A.M. exploited O.Y.'s vulnerability by using his bank card funds for personal expenses.

Additionally, A.M. managed to withdraw large sums from O.Y.'s bank savings account by deceiving bank employees into believing the money was for the rightful owner. He then used these illicitly obtained funds to purchase a Lacetti car, registering it under his sister’s name.

Following the investigation, A.M. was charged under Article 206 (abuse of power), part 2, clause "a"; Article 228 (document forgery), part 3; Article 169 (theft), part 4, clause "a"; and Article 243 (money laundering) of the Criminal Code. Cadastral office official Ch.S. faced charges under Article 228, part 2; Article 228, part 3; and Article 28, Article 169, part 4, clause "a" of the Criminal Code. Both were found guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.

However, on June 6, the Nukus city court judge dismissed the charges against A.M. under Articles 169, 228, and 243, leaving only the charge under Article 206, part 2, clause "a". A.M. was consequently sentenced to two years of imprisonment and deprivation of certain rights for the same period.

Similarly, the charges against cadastral office official Ch.S. under Article 228, part 3, and Article 28, 169, part 4, clause "a" were dismissed, leaving only the charge under Article 228, part 2.

Additionally, the court ordered the return of 180 million 50.7 thousand soums to the defendant, meant to compensate for the damage caused by the fraudulent alienation of O.Y.'s residence.

"The prosecutor's office reviewed the case during the appeal period, deemed the court's verdict unfounded, unjust, and illegal, and filed a protest against the decision. A qualified prosecutor will participate when the case is heard in the appeals court," the report stated.