The FBRC editorial office has received an appeal from Kairat Uralbekov, sentenced to five years for his involvement in a scheme to embezzle budget funds. The former director of the prison enterprise claims the case against him was fabricated and accuses an employee of the very department that investigated his case of a conflict of interest. According to Uralbekov's version, the investigator's wife and relatives were the main organisers of the corruption scheme, while he himself was made the fall guy.
Let us recall the background. In 2022, a criminal case was opened concerning the embezzlement of budget funds during the procurement of medical equipment. The scheme operated through fictitious contracts between government agencies and the prison enterprise RSE «Enbek-Oskemen», which was headed by Uralbekov.
The essence of the scheme was as follows: the head of the state institution Potapkina A. agreed with Uralbekov on the purchase of medical beds at an inflated price. To justify the high cost, they brought in a shell company with even higher rates. The prison enterprise then concluded fictitious contracts with two individual entrepreneurs who formally supplied components. In reality, the goods were bought at a significantly lower cost, and the difference was embezzled.
By the court's verdict, Uralbekov and Potapkina were found guilty. However, according to the convicted man, the main organisers remained unpunished.
A key point in Uralbekov's appeal is the indication that all financial transactions under the scheme were carried out by Akmoral Kondybayeva - the wife of an employee of the economic investigations department, Zukhrab Kondybayev. Furthermore, the shell entrepreneurs were relatives of this same family - Alimov Z. and Jalali A., who, according to Uralbekov, are Kondybayev's cousin and niece.
"These facts clearly indicate that Kondybayev could not have been unaware of what his wife, his brother, and his niece were doing," Uralbekov states in his appeal.
The convicted man is particularly concerned by the fact that Kondybayev was a witness in his criminal case, and at the end of 2024 was included in a task force for a new inspection of the same enterprise, RSE «Enbek-Oskemen». Uralbekov considers this a gross violation of official ethics and a conflict of interest.
In his appeal, he requests an internal investigation be conducted regarding Kondybayev and an assessment of his suitability for his position.
"Can an employee of a department, whose wife, nephew, niece, and cousin were the main figures in a criminal case, serve in a state body whose goal is to combat economic crimes?" Uralbekov asks.
The Department of Economic Investigations for the East Kazakhstan region refused to conduct an investigation, citing the fact that the case had already been considered by the court and the sentence had entered into legal force. The response also states that Kondybayev "was not included in the task force" and "could not have influenced the results of the inspection".
Disagreeing with this response, Uralbekov sent complaints to the Agency for Financial Monitoring (AFM), the Presidential Administration, and the Mazhilis of the Parliament. He insists that the investigation should be carried out not by the local service, but by the Internal Security Service of the AFM.
Uralbekov's appeal raises an important issue regarding conflicts of interest in law enforcement agencies. A situation where the relatives of an investigative body's employee may be involved in the crimes under investigation requires an objective review to maintain trust in the justice system.
The FBRC editorial office, for its part, has sent an official request to the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Combatting Corruption and the AFM, asking them to assess the facts presented and, if necessary, take appropriate action within their competence.