Khorezm court’s odd ruling: Defendant convicted of unrelated crime in courtroom blunder

In Urgench district, an unusual case emerged in Uzbekistan’s judicial system: a judge openly accused a defendant of an unrelated crime. A person who was on trial for cutting down a tree was instead convicted of stealing a neighbor’s phone. Or vice versa — someone actually charged with theft was sentenced for illegal logging and deprived of freedom. The verdict was written with such "confidence" that the mix-up does not appear to be a mere "technical error." Additionally, the defendant convicted of phone theft was ordered to pay 112 million UZS to the Ministry of Ecology (!).

Theft or illegal logging?

On January 29, 2025, the Urgench District Criminal Court reviewed a criminal case against Valijon Bekchonov and announced its verdict. According to the ruling, Bekchonov, born in 1989 and with no prior criminal record, was charged under Article 198, Part 2 of the Criminal Code, which pertains to the destruction or damage of crops, forests, trees, or other plants.

The punishment for this offense ranges from a fine of 100 to 150 times the base calculation unit (BCU), 240 to 300 hours of community service, one to two years of corrective labor, one to three years of restricted freedom, or up to three years of imprisonment.

However, the oddity in the verdict lies in the fact that the case details describe Bekchonov stealing a neighbor’s phone — not cutting down trees.

According to the case file, on September 2, 2022, at around 11:45 AM, Bekchonov illegally entered his neighbor Ozoda Jumaniyazova’s house through a window and stole a phone worth 1.2 million UZS from the kitchen table.

"I plead guilty"

This mix-up in the court document could be dismissed as a "technical error" if not for the fact that Bekchonov himself pleaded guilty to theft. The verdict states that during the trial, the defendant fully admitted to the charge brought by the investigation.

According to the prosecution’s version of events, after stealing the phone, Bekchonov took it to G. Koroev, a phone repairman, in his neighborhood. He claimed the phone was his and that he needed to sell it due to financial difficulties.

Koroev refused to buy the phone. At that moment, D. Sharipov, an acquaintance who happened to be nearby, approached them and asked Bekchonov to repay a 150,000 UZS debt. Since Bekchonov had no money, Sharipov took the stolen phone as collateral, promising to return it once the debt was repaid.

"Later that day, law enforcement officers uncovered my theft. I have fully compensated for the material damage. I completely plead guilty and deeply regret my actions. Considering that I have no prior convictions and my difficult financial and family situation, I request leniency in sentencing," Bekchonov testified in court.

"Caught on camera"

The plaintiff, B. Khujanov, confirmed in court that on September 2, 2022, an unknown person entered his house and stole his phone.

"When I reviewed footage from the surveillance camera outside my house, I saw that my neighbor, V. Bekchonov, was walking around my yard at the time of the theft. This made me suspicious of him. I went to his house and informed his mother. Later, along with his mother, we searched for Bekchonov. Meanwhile, I reported the theft to law enforcement," Khujanov said.

He added that the stolen phone had been returned and requested the court to consider leniency in sentencing.

"His guilt is proven"

After hearing statements from the prosecutor, the plaintiff, and the defendant, and reviewing the case materials, the court concluded that Valijon Bekchonov’s guilt was fully proven by the evidence collected.

The court agreed with the investigative body’s classification of Bekchonov’s actions — illegal entry into a residence and theft — under Article 169, Part 2, Paragraph "g" of the Criminal Code.

The verdict

Although the case documents only describe Bekchonov’s theft, the final verdict sentenced him under Article 198, Part 2 of the Criminal Code — which pertains to environmental crimes like illegal logging.

"Valijon Bekchonov is sentenced to two years of imprisonment under Article 198, Part 2 of the Criminal Code.

The precautionary measure of 'written undertaking of good behavior' is revoked, and he is to be taken into custody immediately from the courtroom.

The sentence is to be served in a penal colony.

The sentence period begins on January 29, 2025."

Additionally, in order to compensate for the material damage caused by the crime, the 10 million UZS deposited by the defendant, V. Bekchonov, into the account of the Khorezm Regional Department of Internal Affairs Finance Division will be transferred to the account of the Ministry of Ecology. Furthermore, the defendant will be required to pay an additional 112.74 million UZS to the ministry.

A technical error?

This inconsistency in the verdict, which directly affects a person’s fate, does not appear to be a simple technical mistake.

If Bekchonov was convicted for breaking into his neighbor’s house and stealing a phone, why was he sentenced for illegal logging and ordered to compensate environmental damage? If he was convicted for illegal logging, why do all witness testimonies focus on theft?

If this was a clerical error, where details from another verdict were mistakenly copied into this one, why is Bekchonov's name consistently mentioned throughout the theft-related sections?

Moreover, even in the court’s official online schedule, this case was listed under Article 198 of the Criminal Code (illegal logging).

The case was presided over by Judge Bunyod Adilbekovich Yakubov, chairman of the Urgench District Criminal Court. The verdict was electronically signed by him.

Valijon Bekchonov has clearly committed one of the crimes. The question is: which one?