The founder of FBRC Kirill Pavlov is being processed under Part 4 of Article 456-2 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan with the prospect of the court being held directly at the police station.
The district police officer is not explaining why a clause intended for users of online platforms is being applied when the publication holds a media licence, nor what constitutes the falsity of quoting an official order from the Ministry of Agriculture. Pavlov intends to file a motion for the media to be involved in the proceedings.
To remind readers, the administrative case against the founder of FBRC, which the police sent to the Astana prosecutor's office for further investigation, has been returned to the station.
The district police officer classifies the journalist's actions under Part 4 of Article 456-2 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which provides for the repeated commission of an offence within one year of an administrative penalty being imposed. This part carries a fine of up to 40 MCI (157,280 tenge) or detention for a period of up to 10 days.
Initially, Sunkar Eavision International LLP filed a complaint with the police against the editor-in-chief of FBRC, then administrative proceedings under Article 456-2 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Dissemination of false information") were initiated against the founder of the publication Kirill Pavlov.
The company accused the journalists of lying over a publication stating that the firm had offered drones for 7.1 million tenge but signed a contract for 8 million tenge per unit.
However, this information was taken verbatim from a scan of a letter from the acting chairman of the Committee for State Inspection in the Agro-Industrial Complex, S. Kanybekov, no. 18-18/1602-vn dated 10/12/2024, published on the official public procurement portal.
After the case was initiated, the materials were sent to the Astana prosecutor's office. However, for unknown reasons, the case was returned to the police station. The case is being classified under Part 4 of Article 456-2 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Part 4 applies to individuals who have committed a repeated offence within one year of an administrative penalty being imposed. The basis for applying this particular clause is a previous court case in which Kirill Pavlov was fined following a claim from the Ministry of Agriculture.
At that time, the expert was held liable for a publication about a locust invasion based on data from international organisations that differed from the official statistics.
Pavlov reported that the court is planned to be held right there on the spot — at the police station.
"Why exactly Part 4 (users of online platforms) is being applied when we have a media licence (Part 1) and the materials were published in the media — they don't explain. What is false about the information — quoting an official order from the Ministry of Agriculture — they won't say," noted the founder of FBRC.
In the protocol, Pavlov stated that he does not agree with the accusations and has not committed any offences. He also intends to file a motion for the media to be involved in the proceedings.
Earlier, the International Foundation for the Protection of Freedom of Speech "Adil Soz" conducted a legal analysis of the situation and concluded that holding journalists liable for publishing information from official state sources contradicts the law.
Under the law, the media and journalists are not held liable for information from official sources. All data published by state bodies on the public procurement portal constitutes official communications.
The "Adil Soz" foundation recommended that the authorised bodies discontinue the administrative offence proceedings due to the absence of the elements of an offence in the actions of the editor-in-chief and the media outlet.
It should also be recalled that the representative of the complainant — Sunkar Eavision International LLP — is the lawyer who previously represented the Ministry of Agriculture in the court case against Kirill Pavlov.