БАНКТІК ҚАРЫЗДАР МЕН МИКРОКРЕДИТТЕР АЛУДАН ЕРІКТІ БАС ТАРТУДЫҢ ҚҰҚЫҚТЫҚ САЛДАРЫН АНЫҚТАУ

Abstract

The article determines the civil-law nature of voluntary refusal to obtain bank loans and microcredits and the consequences of lending despite an effective restriction. Its purpose is to substantiate refusal not merely as a public service, but as a unilateral electronic declaration of will changing an individual’s legal position in credit relations. The tasks are to explain the institution through transaction, legal fact, secondary right and self-protection; establish its effect on a subsequent obligation; allocate the burden of proof in digital credit disputes; and compare Kazakhstani case law with foreign mechanisms. Formal legal, doctrinal, systemic and comparative methods, case analysis and legal modelling are applied. Two appellate decisions show that biometric identification, electronic signatures and one-time codes are treated as evidence of consent, while proven fraud does not automatically extinguish the obligation. Voluntary refusal is classified as an electronic legal act exercising a secondary right. If the restriction is breached, the priority consequences are special unenforceability of the creditor’s claim, debt write-off and correction of the credit history. The burden of proof should be allocated dynamically according to control over digital evidence. The findings provide criteria for courts, creditors, representatives of individuals and the legislature.