In Tashkent’s Yangihayot district, on 3 October 2026, three state executors from the Uchtepa district department of the Compulsory Enforcement Bureau (MIB) went to the home of a citizen identified as M.A. to collect a debt of 7,407,000 soum. The debtor and family members locked the door and called prevention inspector Ya.R. for help; after Internal Affairs Department (IIB) officers arrived, a dispute broke out between officers of the two agencies. According to preliminary investigation documents from the Yangihayot district prosecutor’s office, Ya.R. is suspected of a crime, and the Yangihayot district criminal court ordered him detained as a preventive measure. Kun.uz reviewed the court decision.
Key Takeaways: MIB officers went to collect a debt of about 7.4 million soum but the sum was not recovered. According to the investigation, IIB officers used physical force against two MIB employees and held them in an official vehicle from 11:00 to 11:17; an expert examination found minor bodily injuries on the MIB employees. Ya.R. is suspected under Articles 138, 206 and 219 of the Criminal Code, and the prosecutor’s detention request was granted by the court.
The incident occurred during compulsory debt enforcement, where the practical powers of two law-enforcement structures — MIB and IIB — intersected. State executors normally act on the basis of a court document, while a prevention inspector is usually brought in to help resolve a dispute at the household level. The investigation documents indicate that disagreement arose at this stage over the scope of authority and the order of actions. Such cases raise questions about enforcement discipline and inter-agency coordination.
According to the preliminary investigation, debtor M.A. and family members locked the door, did not let the MIB officers inside and called prevention inspector Ya.R. for assistance. Ya.R., Q.X. and O.A. arrived at the scene. According to the complaint filed by MIB employees, IIB officers used physical force against two MIB employees, caused bodily injuries, obstructed their lawful activities, forced them to refuse to perform their official duties and, using violence, put them into an official vehicle. They were also reportedly taken to the administrative building of the Yangihayot district IIO FMB to obtain explanatory statements, as a result of which the 7.4 million soum debt that should have been collected for the state remained uncollected. The documents state that the MIB employees were held in a special service vehicle from 11:00 to 11:17, and the expert examination found minor bodily injuries.
Prosecutors suspect Ya.R. of offences under Article 138, Part 2, Clause “a” (unlawful deprivation of liberty with violence), Article 206, Part 2, Clause “v” (abuse of office or authority) and Article 219, Part 2 (resistance to a representative of authority or a person performing a civic duty) of the Criminal Code. In the prosecutor’s request, it was argued that although Ya.R. is accused of a less serious crime, he could repeat the offence or hide from the investigation if left at liberty. The Yangihayot district criminal court granted the request and imposed detention as the preventive measure.
No final verdict has been issued; the investigation is continuing and a legal assessment is expected to cover all circumstances, including the actions of MIB officers and compliance with inter-agency procedures. The results of the investigation, court hearings and possible internal service checks are expected to be made public. Observers note that the case may highlight the need for clearer mechanisms of cooperation between agencies in conflict situations during compulsory enforcement.
Source: kun.uz