Representatives of Freedom Finance, during the court debates in the KazTAG case, stated that an organized information campaign was waged against the company, and the agency's publications led to a panic withdrawal of funds by clients and multi-billion dollar damages. Yegor Trofimov, Managing Director for Legal and Compliance Strategy at Freedom Finance, and the company's lawyer Alexander Kamendrovsky asked the court to provide a legal assessment of the defendants' actions. This was reported by Qazaqyia.kz citing Kursiv Media.
According to Kamendrovsky, the court examined a sufficient amount of evidence confirming the charges. He stated that the agency's general director, Asset Matayev, as the head and owner of the media outlet, had the authority to control the editorial board's work but did not prevent the publication of a large number of negative materials about Freedom Finance.
The lawyer noted that over a year and a half, the agency published about 250 publications about the company and its founder Timur Turlov – excluding weekends and holidays, this essentially means one publication every two days. In his opinion, this was a consistent and long-term campaign.
Kamendrovsky also criticized the defense's arguments that some publications were released during Matayev's vacation. According to the lawyer, a work leave does not terminate the authority of a company head and does not relieve him of responsibility for the legal entity's activities.
Kamendrovsky also drew the court's attention to the use of Matayev's electronic digital signature by the editor-in-chief of KazTAG, Amir Kasenov. According to him, this issue was repeatedly discussed during the trial.
In addition, the Freedom Finance representative reminded of the damages claimed by the company. According to him, the dissemination of the disputed publications caused a reaction from the market and clients, which, according to the victim's version, led to losses of 233 billion tenge.
In his speech, Trofimov stated that the conflict was based on two separate cases of investors losing money, who, in his words, voluntarily went beyond the security procedures established by the company.
According to his version, in one case, a client transferred money directly to a third party (the case of Vitaly Svetovoy), and in another, provided access to a brokerage account via login and password (the case of Temirlan Bekov and Zhanna Kaparova).
"These people voluntarily stepped outside the protection perimeter that the company specially created for its clients," Trofimov said.
He emphasized that after the claims arose, Freedom Finance conducted internal audits, met with clients, publicly stated its position, and began cooperating with regulators and law enforcement agencies.
According to Trofimov, a comprehensive check did not find grounds to hold the company responsible for the investors' losses. However, instead of using legal mechanisms, public pressure on Freedom Finance began from the clients' side.
"In fact, the meaning of these warnings was simple: either the company voluntarily buys silence... or loses an incomparably larger amount in the form of damages from panicked withdrawals of client funds," he said, paraphrasing the demands that, according to the company, accompanied the conflict.
Trofimov also linked the scaling of the negative agenda to Kaparova's professional activity in information promotion – she is a professional targetologist.
"That is, the ability to identify the most suitable and vulnerable audience and present it with the necessary tools, timing, frequency of publications content, that is, material, some content. It is these professional skills, in my opinion, that were used," Trofimov noted.
He also stated that the same accusations were repeatedly reproduced through various platforms and then received additional distribution through KazTAG publications.
Separately, he criticized the agency's position that the editorial board only provided a platform for the conflict participants to express themselves. According to him, the editorial board independently made decisions on the number of publications, headlines, and ways of presenting information.
Trofimov also stated that as of the day of the debates, the court decision in the civil dispute on the removal of publications and placement of a refutation had not been executed.
Summing up, Freedom Finance representatives stated that the case is not about a confrontation between a large financial organization and private investors, but about permissible ways to protect violated rights.
"We are not asking to be shielded from criticism or uncomfortable questions. We certainly respect freedom of speech, respect the honesty of journalists, their investigations and their rights. But freedom of speech should not become a tool of pressure and manipulation of public opinion," Trofimov said.
The state prosecution, represented by the Almaty prosecutor's office, recognized the defendants' guilt as fully proven and requested terms of restriction of liberty for the KazTAG case defendants. The most severe punishment, four years of restriction of liberty, was requested by the prosecution for the agency's general director Asset Matayev on charges of hooliganism and negligence. For the editor-in-chief Amir Kasenov, the state prosecution requested two years and six months of restriction of liberty (reduced to one year and three months under the amnesty law) with a ban on engaging in certain journalistic activities. For defendant Zhanna Kaparova, due to amnesty, it was proposed to reduce the sentence to zero and not impose punishment.
The criminal trial was a consequence of an information attack against the brokerage company JSC Freedom Finance and its founder Timur Turlov, launched in the spring of 2025. In total, the KazTAG news agency published more than 250 negative articles accusing the financial organization of fraud, creating a financial pyramid, and funneling client funds to offshore accounts.