Adil Soz Foundation: “The verdict against Bazhkenova is unfounded and highly biased”

The International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech “Adil Soz” has carefully reviewed the text of the judgment against Gulnar Bazhkenova. It addresses an episode concerning illegal entrepreneurship in the sale of apartments, eight episodes of knowingly disseminating false information, and an episode concerning the misappropriation and embezzlement of funds belonging to OrdaMedia.kz LLP.

In the Foundation’s assessment, the judgment is unfounded and highly biased. Below, we present a detailed analysis of the judgment by Sergei Utkin, a lawyer with the Foundation, and explain why Adil Soz has reached these conclusions.

Episode No. 1: alleged undeclared income from the sale of four apartments in 2025 without registration as an individual entrepreneur.

In 2025, Bazhkenova sold two apartments that she had purchased in 2023. Under Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 331 of the Tax Code in force in 2025, income from an increase in value when an individual sells residential property arises only if the property was owned for less than one year. Bazhkenova sold the two apartments after owning them for more than one year. Accordingly, no taxable income from an increase in value arose, and she had no obligation to declare such income.

Every year in Kazakhstan, hundreds of thousands of apartments and residential houses that citizens have owned for more than one year are sold, and sellers are not required to declare income from an increase in the value of such residential property.

Nevertheless, the court treated 35.5 million tenge in income from the increase in value of the two apartments that Bazhkenova had owned for more than one year as income from illegal entrepreneurship.

Bazhkenova also sold two other apartments in 2025 that she had purchased earlier that same year. Because she had owned these apartments for less than one year, her property income from the increase in their value amounted to 4 million tenge. In addition to the purchase price specified in the sale and purchase agreements, the buyers reimbursed Bazhkenova 81.7 million tenge for major renovation expenses. The court also treated this amount as income from the increase in the value of the apartments.

According to the court, Bazhkenova’s total income from illegal entrepreneurial activity therefore amounted to 121.2 million tenge: 35.5 million tenge from the increase in value of the two apartments she had owned for more than one year, and 85.7 million tenge from the increase in value of the two apartments she had owned for less than one year.

However, under Paragraph 3 of Article 330 of the Tax Code in force in 2025, property income, which includes income from an increase in the value of residential property, is not considered income of an individual entrepreneur. This means that an individual receiving property income is not required to register as an individual entrepreneur.

Every year in Kazakhstan, thousands of taxpayers who fail to declare property income from an increase in the value of residential property they had owned for less than one year receive tax assessment notices from the tax authorities. Yet such taxpayers are not accused of failing to register as individual entrepreneurs and, accordingly, are not subjected to criminal proceedings for illegal entrepreneurship.

Nevertheless, the court held Bazhkenova criminally liable under Article 214 of the Criminal Code (Illegal Entrepreneurship) solely because she allegedly received property income without mandatory registration as an individual entrepreneur, even though such registration was not required under Paragraph 3 of Article 330 of the Tax Code. Accordingly, Bazhkenova’s actions do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 214 of the Criminal Code.

Episode No. 2: alleged dissemination of knowingly false information about the injured party, Almaty Deputy Prosecutor Auganbayev, who was allegedly detained while receiving a bribe.

On 30 May 2024, Orda published an article entitled “Bribes and Denials: Was Almaty Deputy Prosecutor Auganbayev Arrested?” containing the following:

“Something is happening at the Almaty City Prosecutor’s Office. We received information from our own source at the prosecutor’s office that Almaty Deputy Prosecutor Nurlan Auganbayev was detained while receiving a bribe of USD 600,000. This information was not confirmed to us by the prosecutor’s office, the police or the Anti-Corruption Service. Moreover, the Prosecutor General’s Office called it fake. Officially, Nurlan Auganbayev is on leave. However, our source insists that the deputy prosecutor’s problems began several months ago. First, Auganbayev was removed from investigations (he was the Almaty deputy prosecutor responsible for investigations), and since early May all indictments on behalf of the prosecutor have been approved by Sharipov. Since 15 May, he has stopped appearing at work altogether. We called the city prosecutor’s office and were told that he was ‘on unscheduled annual leave’. Yesterday, however, we received information about the bribe and the detention…”

The court stated in the judgment that Bazhkenova received information about the injured party’s alleged detention for accepting a bribe through a chatbot. At the same time, the article expressly stated that none of the state authorities had confirmed the information and that the Prosecutor General’s Office had called it fake. In other words, Bazhkenova openly reported both the information she had received about the detention and the fact that it had not been confirmed. The reader was therefore given information from both an unnamed source — published because of its public significance — and official bodies, without the article drawing any conclusion as to which source should be trusted more.

The court did not establish any motive for Bazhkenova to intentionally disseminate false information about Auganbayev, such as financial gain or revenge, nor did it provide evidence that, at the time of publication, Bazhkenova knew that the information from the unnamed source within the prosecutor’s office was false.

We therefore believe that Bazhkenova’s intent to publish false information was not proven. As Bazhkenova herself explained in court, she is often inclined not to trust official information because state bodies may have a motive to conceal information of public significance. In any event, under Part 3 of Article 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code, any irreducible doubts as to the guilt of a suspect, accused person or defendant must be interpreted in their favour. This means that if intent to disseminate false information is not proven conclusively, the defendant must be presumed to have believed, at the time of publication, that the information was true. At a minimum, the text of the article shows that Bazhkenova presented readers with all the information available to her and did not state which source should be trusted more.

Accordingly, Bazhkenova’s actions in this episode do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 274 of the Criminal Code (Dissemination of KNOWINGLY False Information).

Episode No. 3: alleged dissemination of knowingly false information about the injured party, Avangard LTD LLP, the last owner of the previously privatised Lenin Cinema in Karaganda, which was returned to the state following a lawsuit brought by the prosecutor’s office.

In late 2024 and early 2025, Orda published articles about a civil case brought by the prosecutor’s office concerning the Lenin Cinema in Karaganda. The cinema was returned to the state after all transactions involving the property over the previous 25 years, beginning with its privatisation, were declared invalid. The article discussed the possible involvement of Mazhit Yesenbayev, who was akim of the Karaganda Region at the time the cinema was privatised and later served as a minister and an aide to Nursultan Nazarbayev. It suggested that he may have facilitated the removal of the cinema building’s status as a historical and cultural monument and its privatisation for a nominal amount. The injured party, Avangard LTD LLP, which acquired the cinema in a transaction in 2019, is also linked to Mazhit Yesenbayev because one of its founders, Alan Malikovich Yesenbayev, is his relative.

An expert examination found that the published article contained no negative information about the injured party, Avangard LTD LLP. The court also failed to specify in the judgment what substantial harm or damage the Orda publication had caused the company, even though this is a mandatory element for criminal liability under Article 274 of the Criminal Code. Ultimately, the court ordered Bazhkenova to reimburse Avangard LTD LLP only 3 million tenge in legal expenses.

It is also important to note that the court did not recognise Avangard LTD LLP as a bona fide purchaser of the cinema building and therefore returned the property to the state. This also indicates that no knowingly false information about the company was disseminated.

Accordingly, because the publication contained no negative information about Avangard LTD LLP and no substantial harm or damage was proven, Bazhkenova’s actions in this episode do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 274 of the Criminal Code.

Episode No. 4: alleged dissemination of knowingly false information about the injured party, individual entrepreneur G.A. Tolganbayeva, concerning an arbitration dispute with tenant BInTech LLP after an office in a business centre was flooded.

On 25 November 2024, Orda journalist M.A. Masalskaya published an article entitled “Losses of 27 Million: How a Tenant Is Being Forced to Pay After Its Office Was Flooded”. The article criticised an arbitration decision in a dispute between the landlord and business-centre owner, individual entrepreneur G.A. Tolganbayeva, and the tenant, BInTech LLP. Although the office rented by BInTech LLP was flooded from the floor above, causing the tenant losses of 27 million tenge as assessed by an appraisal company, the arbitration decision ultimately not only released G.A. Tolganbayeva from the obligation to compensate the losses, but also awarded her 7 million tenge from the tenant.

An expert examination found that the published article contained negative information about G.A. Tolganbayeva expressed in the form of assumptions, value judgments and references to third parties. Although this negative information could lead readers to believe that the arbitration decision had been issued in violation of the law and could prompt a negative and critical attitude toward both the arbitration proceedings and the landlord, G.A. Tolganbayeva, Bazhkenova could not be held criminally liable for disseminating knowingly false information expressed as assumptions, value judgments and references to third parties rather than as assertions of fact.

In addition, the court did not establish any motive for Bazhkenova to intentionally disseminate false information about individual entrepreneur G.A. Tolganbayeva, such as financial gain or revenge, and did not provide evidence that, at the time of publication, Bazhkenova knew the published information was false. Accordingly, the element of knowledge required under Article 274 of the Criminal Code was not proven.

Accordingly, Bazhkenova’s actions in this episode do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 274 of the Criminal Code (Dissemination of KNOWINGLY False Information).

Episode No. 5: alleged dissemination of knowingly false information about the injured party, fish inspector A.T. Syzdykov, who held a retirement celebration at a state-run cultural centre attended by the akim and featuring the performance of the National Anthem.

On 8 July 2025, Orda published an article about the event by journalist Sandugash Duisenova entitled “Billboard, Book and Anthem: In Zhetysu Region, a Fish Inspector’s Private Celebration Was Turned into a State Event”.

The court was unable to identify in the judgment which specific knowingly false statements of fact about A.T. Syzdykov had been disseminated by Bazhkenova.

The descriptive part of the judgment contains only the following quotation:

“When vanity knows no bounds, even a fish inspector retires like a national hero? In the village of Mukan Tolebayev in the Sarkan District of Zhetysu Region, they put on a show in the style of North Korea. Only without Kim. But with a billboard, a book and the anthem.”

The quoted passage contains no false information.

Responses from local state authorities concerning the event were received by the editorial team only after the article had been published and therefore do not prove that Bazhkenova intended to disseminate knowingly false information.

It is important to note that the article included a video recording of a private event at which the National Anthem was performed in violation of Article 9 of the Constitutional Law “On the State Symbols of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, since the gathering was not dedicated to an official public holiday. Nevertheless, in violation of Part 1 of Article 405 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court did not issue a separate ruling concerning the violation of the law and the need to take appropriate measures.

Because the court did not identify any false statements of fact about the injured party A.T. Syzdykov disseminated by Bazhkenova and did not prove her intent to disseminate such information, Bazhkenova’s actions in this episode do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 274 of the Criminal Code.

Episode No. 6: alleged dissemination of knowingly false information about the injured party, ECSAD LLP, which had been storing oil waste in violation of legal requirements.

The article was published by Orda on 9 July 2025 under the byline of journalist Sandugash Duisenova with the headline “Hazardous Oil Waste Near Tengiz: What ECSAD Said in Response”.

The court did not establish any motive for Bazhkenova to intentionally disseminate false information about ECSAD LLP, such as financial gain or revenge, and did not provide evidence that, at the time of publication, Bazhkenova knew the information concerning the storage of waste in violation of legal requirements was false.

The injured party, ECSAD LLP, filed a civil claim against Bazhkenova seeking 10 million tenge in compensation for moral harm, even though a legal entity cannot suffer moral harm, which can be caused only to natural persons. The judgment identifies no other substantial harm or damage, even though this is a mandatory element for holding a person criminally liable under Article 274 of the Criminal Code.

Accordingly, because Bazhkenova’s intent to disseminate knowingly false information was not proven and no substantial harm or damage caused to ECSAD LLP by the disputed publication was established, her actions in this episode do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 274 of the Criminal Code.

Episode No. 7: alleged dissemination of knowingly false information about the injured party A.O. Omarkhanov, who was the subject of a criminal investigation into fraud.

On 15 August 2025, Orda published an article by journalist D.M. Bekbolayeva entitled “Why Was the Son of Former Security Council Secretary Oksikbayev Accused of Fraud Involving Hundreds of Millions of Tenge?” The article described an ongoing criminal investigation and several episodes involving a number of injured parties. It did not state that Omarkhanov’s guilt had been established, since the investigation was still ongoing. At the end of the article, the editorial team invited Omarkhanov to present his position regarding the allegations that had been made public. In its judgment, the court confirmed that a criminal case had indeed been opened against Omarkhanov on suspicion of fraud on an especially large scale.

Although the criminal case was subsequently terminated because Omarkhanov’s actions were found not to constitute a criminal offence, that procedural decision was made only after the article had been published. Accordingly, no false information had in fact been published. At the time of publication, Bazhkenova could not objectively have known that the criminal case against Omarkhanov would later be terminated, and the judgment therefore contains no evidence that she disseminated information she knew to be false.

Accordingly, Bazhkenova’s actions in this episode do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 274 of the Criminal Code.

Episode No. 8: alleged dissemination of knowingly false information about the injured party, NC KazMunayGas JSC, concerning top managers’ flights on private business jets.

On 19 September 2025, Orda published an article by Bazhkenova entitled “Do KMG Top Managers Fly on Private Business Jets Costing USD 100,000?” The opening lines stated that materials received by the editorial team gave it grounds to ASSUME that the national company’s top management was living extravagantly.

Despite the article specifying the aircraft model and the flights in question, neither the investigation nor the court requested comprehensive information from the competent authorities about the passengers on those flights or who paid for them. Nor were the officials of the injured party named in the published article questioned as witnesses.

The court relied solely on the testimony of a representative of the injured party, who confirmed only one of the eight flights mentioned in the article.

In light of the above, the court failed to ensure a full, comprehensive and impartial examination of the circumstances relevant to the case.

The court did not establish any motive for Bazhkenova to intentionally disseminate false information about NC KazMunayGas JSC, such as financial gain or revenge, and did not provide evidence that, at the time of publication, Bazhkenova knew the information about the injured party’s officials travelling on business jets was false.

The court also failed to establish in the judgment what substantial harm or damage the publication had caused the injured party. The representative of the injured party testified that the company’s share price had fallen by 296 tenge over the three days following publication, but no evidence supporting this assertion was submitted to the court. Nor did the court examine the circumstances of the decline in the company’s share price compared with other periods, the number and volume of share transactions on the stock exchange during the three days following publication, or what percentage of the price of one share 296 tenge represented (in fact, approximately 1%), among other relevant factors.

Accordingly, because Bazhkenova’s intent to disseminate knowingly false information was not proven and no substantial harm or damage caused to the injured party was established, her actions in this episode do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 274 of the Criminal Code.

Episode No. 9: alleged dissemination of knowingly false information about the injured party, NC Kazakhstan Temir Zholy JSC, concerning unfinished work on the second track of the Dostyk–Moyynty railway section.

The article was published by Orda on 6 October 2025 under the byline of journalist Sandugash Duisenova with the headline “The Dostyk–Moyynty Railway Was Just a Façade. What Was Hidden from President Tokayev?” On the following day, 7 October 2025, Orda published a press release received from the injured party stating that all deficiencies had been remedied.

The court established that Bazhkenova published the article on the basis of video evidence personally recorded and provided by the author, Duisenova. In court, Duisenova testified that she was not certain about the location where the footage had been recorded. As a result, the court declared inadmissible all photographs and video recordings that had served as the basis for the publication.

It appears that the court avoided examining key evidence and establishing a circumstance relevant to the case: the location where the disputed section of railway track was filmed. Rather than excluding the video evidence, the court should have determined precisely which railway tracks were shown in the footage.

In any event, Bazhkenova decided to publish the article on the basis of the video materials provided to her. This confirms the absence of intent on her part to publish knowingly false information, because Bazhkenova believed that the information in the article was accurate.

Accordingly, because Bazhkenova’s intent to disseminate knowingly false information was not proven, her actions in this episode do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Article 274 of the Criminal Code.

Episode No. 10: alleged misappropriation and embezzlement of 88,144,127 tenge belonging to the injured party, OrdaMedia.kz LLP.

In 2025, Bazhkenova transferred 4,644,127 tenge from the account of the injured party, OrdaMedia.kz LLP, to the account of NJSC Haileybury Almaty to pay her son’s tuition fees. According to the testimony given in court by the LLP’s accountant, A.K. Botagarova, the amount was recorded as an accountable advance to Bazhkenova because restrictions had been imposed on her personal bank accounts. In other words, OrdaMedia.kz LLP’s accounting records officially show Bazhkenova as owing this accountable amount, which she acknowledges and undertakes to repay at the first opportunity. Nevertheless, the court treated the 4,644,127 tenge as money stolen by Bazhkenova.

During 2025, on Bazhkenova’s instructions, 83.5 million tenge was transferred from the account of OrdaMedia.kz LLP to the account of individual entrepreneur I.E. Abdukaparov. The funds were withdrawn in cash and returned to Bazhkenova minus the taxes that Abdukaparov paid on the 83.5 million tenge received.

According to the testimony of Bazhkenova, OrdaMedia.kz LLP accountant A.K. Botagarova and individual entrepreneur I.E. Abdukaparov, these cash funds were distributed on Bazhkenova’s instructions as part of journalists’ salaries paid “in envelopes” in order to evade taxes. For each cash payment received, journalists signed receipts that are kept in the unofficial part of OrdaMedia.kz LLP’s accounting records, as the company maintained “double bookkeeping”. Orda journalists questioned as witnesses in court confirmed that they received their salaries in two parts: one part by bank transfer and the other in cash “in an envelope”.

The court refused Bazhkenova’s request to obtain from OrdaMedia.kz LLP documents — the journalists’ receipts — confirming that the cash funds described above had been used to pay part of the journalists’ salaries. As a result, the court did not establish circumstances relevant to the case, including to whom the withdrawn cash had been paid, for what purpose and in what amounts, as well as how much money remained in individual entrepreneur I.E. Abdukaparov’s account to cover his taxes.

Instead of establishing these circumstances, the court treated the entire 83.5 million tenge transferred to the account of individual entrepreneur I.E. Abdukaparov as money stolen by Bazhkenova.

Despite the formal testimony of Bazhkenova and witnesses that OrdaMedia.kz LLP maintained “double bookkeeping” and paid part of journalists’ salaries in cash without paying the taxes and other mandatory payments required by law, the court, in violation of Part 1 of Article 405 of the Criminal Procedure Code, did not issue a separate ruling concerning the identified violations of the law for the purpose of conducting an investigation and holding those responsible to account.

In total, the court attributed to Bazhkenova the theft of 88,144,127 tenge (4,644,127 + 83,500,000) and held her criminally liable under Paragraph 2 of Part 4 of Article 189 of the Criminal Code (Misappropriation or embezzlement of entrusted property on an especially large scale).

Because funds officially issued as an accountable advance, as well as funds paid in cash to employees of the injured party, OrdaMedia.kz LLP, as wages — even if in violation of tax law — cannot be regarded as having been stolen, misappropriated or embezzled by Bazhkenova, her actions do not constitute the criminal offence provided for in Paragraph 2 of Part 4 of Article 189 of the Criminal Code.

Conclusions of the Adil Soz Foundation

1. Bazhkenova did not engage in illegal entrepreneurial activity when selling the apartments and was not required to register as an individual entrepreneur because the property income she received is not income of an individual entrepreneur. She was therefore unlawfully held criminally liable under Paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 214 of the Criminal Code.

2. As editor-in-chief, Bazhkenova did not intentionally disseminate KNOWINGLY false information in any of the eight episodes attributed to her, because at the time of publication she believed the information being disseminated was true. She was therefore unlawfully held criminally liable under Subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Part 2 of Article 274 of the Criminal Code.

3. Bazhkenova did not steal 88,144,127 tenge from OrdaMedia.kz LLP and was therefore unlawfully held criminally liable under Paragraph 2 of Part 4 of Article 189 of the Criminal Code.