The State Security Service reported on the investigation of three criminal cases against bribe takers in the message through local online publications and TV.
In one of the districts of Tashkent region, the deputy of hokim (the head of the investment and foreign trade department of Kibray district) Jamshid Mashrapov was detained while receiving a bribe. The official promised to sell 10 hectares of unused land for $60 000. As it turned out, for this amount, he intended to provide the entrepreneur with quick paperwork. During an operational action, employees of the State Security Service together with representatives of the Prosecutor’s office arrested him on receipt of $25 000.
A criminal case has been instituted on this fact under Articles 168 (Fraud) and 211 through Article 28 (Complicity in giving a bribe). It is explained why the case was instituted specifically under these articles – giving and not receiving a bribe. The hokim’s deputies are not authorized to give land, therefore the case is qualified under article 211 through article 28, that is, complicity in giving a bribe to another authorized person. Prior to this, an accomplice of the deputy head of the district administration was detained in the act. He is accused of assisting a deal to sell one hectare of land for $100 000.
Another case related to corrupt power occurred in Khorezm. An entrepreneur from Urgench district submitted documents to the local administration for the overdoing of his petrol station to an automobile gas-filling compressor station. He waited for permission for reconstruction for several months until an intermediary of the official from the city hall came to him and asked for $45 000 for the service. He was caught red-handed while receiving $44 000 from the entrepreneur.
According to experts, bribery criminal cases show corruption holes in the law “On the privatization of land for non-agricultural purposes”. The new law, which regulates the privatization procedure and the legal status of the plots, entered into force on March 1, 2020 and has an insufficiently transparent enforcement mechanism. The decision on privatization is made by public authorities, which determine the free areas for privatization through an online auction. Fictitious persons may participate in such auctions.
Leave feedback about this