Who was hiding behind the image of a cosmetologist?
In Tashkent, law enforcement uncovered the activities of a woman who had been presenting herself as a qualified cosmetologist. Court proceedings revealed that she had neither medical education nor an official license to perform cosmetic or surgical procedures. Moreover, it was established that she had previously been convicted and was classified as a dangerous repeat offender.
How was the client misled?
Through social media platforms, M.G. spread false claims about having professional training, legal authorization, and extensive experience in cosmetology and aesthetic procedures. Using these claims, she persuaded a 25-year-old woman, identified as M.B., to undergo breast and buttock enlargement procedures.
What violations occurred during the procedure?
Under the guise of providing cosmetic services, M.G. injected a biogel that was not certified or approved for such use. In exchange for the procedure, she received 1,200 US dollars from the client. Due to incorrect technique, lack of anatomical knowledge, and absence of professional skills, the procedure resulted in serious negative consequences.
What did the forensic medical examination confirm?
According to the forensic report, the victim developed post-injection formations in both breast areas, as well as scars in the buttock region following the procedure. These findings confirmed that the client suffered bodily injuries classified as moderate in severity.
Who is legally allowed to perform such procedures?
Experts noted that injection-based procedures involving the breast and buttock areas must only be carried out by certified professionals, such as plastic surgeons, dermatologists, or dermato-cosmetologists.
What verdict did the court deliver?
The court found M.G. guilty under Article 168, Part 3, Clause “b” of the Criminal Code (fraud), and Article 186, Part 2, Clause “g” (providing services that do not meet safety requirements). She was sentenced to a fine of 150 million soums, to be collected in favor of the state.
Was this her first offense?
Investigations showed that M.G. had previously been convicted for similar fraudulent activities. In particular, a verdict issued by the Mirabad District Court on June 7, 2024, had already found her guilty. Taking into account the repeated nature of the crimes, the court recognized her as a dangerous recidivist.
How is the fine being enforced?
According to the Press Service of the Compulsory Enforcement Bureau, during the process of recovering the fine, a Tracker 2 vehicle belonging to M.G. was identified. Following search measures, the vehicle was seized and placed in a penalty parking area.