Listen to the article
A Tashkent city court has converted the suspended prison sentence of the former director of Urgench’s state road maintenance enterprise into a fine, after finding that he had repaid the full amount stolen through a scheme that routed public funds to three private companies registered in the names of his father, wife and niece.
The revision panel’s ruling, dated 15 October and reviewed by Anhor.uz, sets a combined fine of 500 base calculation units — 187.5 million soums — calculated at the base rate of 375,000 soums per unit that was in force at the time of the final offences. After crediting the time the man spent in pre-trial detention between February and October 2025, the outstanding sum owed is 140,437,500 soums.
How the Scheme Worked
The defendant led the state road enterprise from April 2020 to January 2025. During that period, he simultaneously controlled three private firms whose legal owners were close relatives. He told the court he personally managed the finances of all three companies and signed contracts using his relatives’ electronic keys; the relatives, he said, were unaware of the transactions.
The enterprise then awarded contracts to those same firms, transferring money for work that was never performed or services that were never rendered. In one episode involving the repair of Urgench’s internal streets, the company registered to his father received 2.343 billion soums. Documents recorded work worth roughly 1.897 billion soums, part of which was itself fictitious; the court put the theft from this episode at approximately 852.6 million soums. In a second episode, the company registered to his wife received 850 million soums for freight transport but actually provided services worth only 11.1 million soums — leaving roughly 838.9 million soums that the court deemed stolen. A third episode involved bitumen supplies routed through the niece’s company: the enterprise paid for deliveries in full, but actual suppliers received only a fraction of that sum, with the remainder diverted for the director’s personal use.
From Eight Years to a Fine
In December 2025 the Mirobod district criminal court sentenced him to eight years and six months in prison, suspended with a three-year probationary period, and barred him from holding official or financially responsible positions for one year. A cassation court in July 2026 left the suspended character of the sentence intact.
The defence sought acquittal, arguing that the theft charges arose from ordinary contractual relations, that no actual damage existed, and that any harm from the fraud episode had been compensated. The revision panel rejected those arguments and upheld the three-count conviction — covering embezzlement, fraud and official forgery — but changed the penalty.
The court cited part five of Article 168 of the Criminal Code, which provides that where material damage under that article has been fully compensated, custodial and restrictive sentences may not be applied. The panel also took into account the defendant’s remorse and family circumstances. The victim confirmed in the revision proceedings that he had received 3,109,980,000 soums in full and had no further claims, which led the court to remove the civil damages order from the judgment as moot.
Alongside the fine, the defendant is barred for one year from holding official or financially responsible positions at enterprises and organisations with state participation — a restriction that now applies specifically to state-linked entities rather than the broader prohibition imposed at first instance.