Fraudsters obtained smartphones worth 7.7 million tenge in the name of an Astana-based micro-enterprise using forged documents. The business owner has been trying to prove his innocence for over a year, his accounts have been frozen, and the police are allegedly refusing to open a criminal case despite a forensic examination confirming the forgery of signatures and testimony from a man who received the mobile devices for payment using someone else's documents.
Nurgali Mushkin is the director and sole founder of TehnoProm Trade LLP, which has been wholesaling pumping equipment since 2018. In seven years of operation, the company paid a total of 9.3 million tenge in taxes. In 2024, its tax contributions amounted to just over 500,000 tenge, and in 2025, around 1.5 million tenge.
According to the entrepreneur himself, on 28 October 2024 he received a call from an employee of Kcell JSC asking about payment deadlines for 12 iPhone 15 smartphones totalling 7.7 million tenge. This came as a complete surprise to the businessman — his company had never interacted with the telecom operator.
According to documents provided, in June of the same year, unknown individuals, using a forged power of attorney in the name of TehnoProm Trade LLP, entered into an agreement with Kcell JSC to purchase expensive equipment. The goods were collected in Astana.
Mushkin filed a complaint with the police in the Yesil district. However, he claims the application sat untouched for months. In July 2025, an investigative court deemed the police's inaction unlawful and issued a special ruling to the prosecutor's office demanding an end to such violations.
Nevertheless, the Yesil district prosecutor's office refused to open a criminal case, even though, by that point, a handwriting examination had already determined that Mushkin's signature on the power of attorney was a forgery.
At the same time, the entrepreneur filed a civil lawsuit seeking to have the contract declared invalid. The court ordered two examinations. The handwriting analysis confirmed that the director's signature on all disputed documents was not made by him, but by another person imitating his handwriting.
However, the technical examination found that the seal on the documents was genuine. This contradiction later served as a formal basis for the appeal court to overturn the first-instance court's ruling, which had been made in favour of Mushkin's company.
Carrying out a further examination required the original documents. However, according to the businessman, Kcell JSC refused to provide them, citing the 'risk of loss'. When Mushkin challenged the refusal through the justice system, the administrative offences court ruled the telecom operator's actions to be lawful. Thus, the company was left unable to obtain additional evidence of its innocence.
Of particular importance is the testimony of a witness — the person in whose name the power of attorney was issued. In court, he stated that he was seeing Mushkin for the first time. The witness described how, in spring 2024, a stranger approached him on the street with an offer of casual work — to collect the phones using documents provided. For this service, he received a payment of 20,000 tenge. In effect, the witness confirmed the fraudulent scheme and his role as an intermediary.
On 28 February 2025, the Specialised Inter-District Economic Court of Almaty upheld Mushkin's claim, declaring the supplementary agreement with Kcell JSC invalid. An examination by the Centre for Forensic Examinations of the Ministry of Justice confirmed the forgery of all signatures purporting to be the director's.
The court was critical of the conclusion regarding the authenticity of the seal, taking the witness's testimony into account. Court costs amounting to around 487,000 tenge were awarded against the telecom operator.
However, on 11 June 2025, the appeals panel of the Almaty City Court overturned this decision. The appeal considered that the presence of the company's genuine seal on the documents indicated that the transaction was conducted by the legal entity, which bears responsibility for its seal and the actions of its employees.
The court stated that the entrepreneur had not proven the circumstances of the fraud and viewed the witness's testimony critically, noting that he had nevertheless received the phones under a power of attorney. The appeal emphasised that the conclusions of the first-instance court should not be based on assumptions, particularly as the lower court had allowed that the seal might have been forged.
One thing can be said for certain here: the story raises the question of the distribution of responsibility when fraudulent actions are committed by third parties. We can assume that the telecom operator handed over goods worth several million tenge while accepting a power of attorney without properly verifying the authenticity of the signature, even though such verification mechanisms exist.
It is reported that law enforcement authorities, despite having an expert opinion confirming the forgery of documents and admissions from an intermediary, are refusing to open a criminal case. Meanwhile, the entrepreneur finds himself trapped: caught between criminals, the demands of a corporation, and a law enforcement system that, by all appearances, sees no need to find those truly responsible. In the meantime, it is a small company that bears all the consequences of a crime with which it has no connection.
The editorial board of FBRK urges business owners to be vigilant regarding the people who have access to seals and company foundation documents, and, upon any suspicious contact from counterparties, to immediately verify the information and contact law enforcement authorities.