Перераспределение 400 млн тенге в ноябре без решения маслихата

No. The akim may execute the budget; he may not re-draw it.

1. Competence. The local budget is approved by the maslikhat, and changes to its parameters are made by a maslikhat decision on the basis of a proposal from the akim. The akim heads the local executive body and organises execution; he does not have a general power to move appropriations between programmes by his own signature. Redistributing 400 million tenge between a road programme and the akimat's own maintenance is a change of budget parameters, not an execution measure. The Budget Code permits only narrow, listed in-year adjustments by the executive, and they do not cover this.

2. 'Savings' is the wrong label. Money not contracted because the road season ended is not free money. Unspent allocations are either returned or used in accordance with budget legislation; they do not become a discretionary fund of the akim. The principle of targeted use of budget funds means an allocation is spent for the purpose and programme approved by the maslikhat.

3. Substance of the proposed spending. Buying cars and renovating a reception hall with money approved for road repairs would be flagged in any audit as diversion of funds from the approved purpose. The fact that the fleet would also exceed the Government's norms makes it unlawful even if the money were available.

4. What a lawful path looks like. The akim may formally propose an amendment to the maslikhat, with a written justification, a revised programme list and a report on the unspent road allocation. The maslikhat decides. If it refuses, the money follows the statutory route back to the regional budget. That is a policy loss, not a legal problem.

Urgency must be objective, and here it is self-created.

1. The list is closed. Single-source procurement is an exception with exhaustively listed grounds that must be documented in the procurement file. 'End of the budget year' and 'the supplier is already waiting' are not among them. The classic test is whether the circumstances making competition impossible arose despite the customer's proper planning - not because the contract was decided in November.

2. The sequence is already wrong. A supplier has been told to deliver before the procedure exists. That is a commitment made without a legal basis, and it will be read as evidence that the procedure was designed to fit a pre-selected supplier.

3. Supporting documents that do not exist. There is no approved amendment to the procurement plan, no justification for single-source treatment, no commission decision, no draft contract published in the prescribed way. Each is a separate breach.

4. Fragmentation risk. If the 12 cars were split into several small contracts to stay under thresholds, that is deliberate avoidance of competitive procedures - one of the most heavily sanctioned procurement violations.

What the legal adviser should say, in writing:

• The purchase cannot be justified as urgent; the urgency results from the akimat's own delay.
• The instruction to the supplier must be withdrawn or suspended before delivery, and the supplier informed in writing.
• Without a maslikhat decision amending the budget, there is no legal basis for payment at all, so the procurement question is secondary.
• If the cars are genuinely needed, the correct route is a planned competitive purchase in the next budget cycle, within the fleet norms.

Consequences, in ascending order of severity.

• Budget discipline. The audit commission will find an unauthorised reallocation and spending outside the approved purpose. The standard response is a prescription to restore the funds and an order to eliminate the violation.
• Disciplinary liability for the officials who prepared, endorsed and executed the payments - including finance department staff, not only the akim.
• Administrative and, depending on intent and amount, criminal liability for misuse of budget funds or abuse of office. 'The akim told me to' is not a defence for the accountant who made the payment.
• Personal consequences for the legal adviser who saw the problem and stayed silent.

What to do now:

1. Issue a written legal opinion before signature, stating clearly that the reallocation is outside the akim's competence, that the purchase has no legal basis and that the supplier instruction must be withdrawn. Deliver it, register it, keep a copy.
2. Do not endorse the payment documents. If instructed, record the refusal and the reasons.
3. Inform the finance department head in writing that executing the payments creates personal exposure, so that the risk is shared on paper before the fact, not after.
4. Preserve the file: the draft reallocation, the supplier correspondence, the procurement plan, the internal notes. An audit is won or lost on documents created before it started.
5. Cooperate fully with the audit commission, provide the opinion, and do not 'tidy up' the file - alteration of documents after the fact is far worse than the original violation.

The professional point. The legal adviser's product is a dated, reasoned opinion. If the akim signs despite it, that opinion is the difference between a mistake and a conspiracy.