An internal document from Freedom Holding has come into the possession of the FBRK editorial team, containing the results of an analysis of publications by MIA KazTAG concerning the company's activities. We previously wrote about this conflict. The document prepared by the holding's lawyers provides a detailed breakdown of 25 statements from the agency's materials which the company considers false and plans to contest in court. The analysis includes a systematic assessment of the materials, citing specific quotes and providing comments on each statement. It is likely to form the basis of the company's position in the legal proceedings.
The conflict between Freedom and KazTAG led to the initiation of a criminal case on 18 July following a complaint from Freedom Finance. The management of KazTAG only learned of the case's initiation on 20 November. The heads of the news agency were named as suspects in connection with publications about an investigation concerning company employees Timur Bekov and Vitaliy Svetovoy. According to KazTAG materials, dozens of Freedom clients were harmed by the actions of these employees, with the victims believing that the holding's management should pay compensation. For its part, Freedom explained that Bekov and Svetovoy acted outside the company, and that the victims dealt with them directly as individuals.
It is reported that the original sources for the KazTAG materials were the victims' lawyer and the victims themselves, who initiated contact with the agency's editorial office in the spring of this year. According to the financial holding's lawyers, as of 11 December, KazTAG platforms have published 96 items about Freedom on the publication's website, 27 publications on its Telegram channel and 13 videos on its YouTube channel since the end of March — a total of 136 publications in less than 9.5 months.
FIRST COMPLAINT: CLIENT AWARENESS OF CONTRACTS
The lawyers' first complaint concerns the assertion that clients supposedly did not know about concluding contracts with FFIN Brokerage Services in Belize.
Freedom Finance points out that many clients had two separate contracts with separate accounts: one with Freedom Finance JSC for dealing with Kazakhstani securities, and another with FFIN Brokerage Services for trading American shares. The company emphasises that the very structure of these relationships precluded the possibility of being unaware.
Freedom Finance's key argument is the account top-up procedure. To transfer funds in foreign currency to the foreign company, clients needed to go to a second-tier bank in Kazakhstan and present the foreign currency contract with the foreign company. This is a standard currency control procedure in the republic and precludes the possibility of unknowing transactions. Without presenting such a contract, the bank was not authorised to carry out the foreign currency transaction.
According to Freedom Finance, the victims themselves confirmed in their statements that they topped up their accounts in Belize through one of the major Kazakhstani banks. The company notes that this procedure required clients to take deliberate actions and understand which specific company they were dealing with.
SECOND COMPLAINT: RIGHT TO CONDUCT TRANSACTIONS WITH AMERICAN SHARES
The second point relates to claims that the companies did not have the right to carry out transactions with American shares for clients. Freedom Finance calls this manipulation, based on a misunderstanding of how international financial markets work.
The company explains: foreign brokers are not required to be registered with the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – ed. note FBRK) or hold a US licence. They obtain licences from national regulators and operate through upstream brokers or sub-brokers who have direct access to US exchanges. This practice is standard for the international brokerage business.
FFIN Brokerage Services held a licence from the Belize International Financial Services Commission (IFSC), which granted the right to conduct brokerage operations, including dealing with foreign securities through partnerships with brokers having access to trading on US exchanges.
The Agency for Regulation and Development of the Financial Market (ARDFM) confirmed that Freedom Finance JSC does not have access to the US stock exchange, a point the company has never disputed. The regulator did not comment regarding FFIN Brokerage Services, which could indicate an absence of complaints from the supervisory body.
Freedom Finance notes that the mentioned responses from the SEC and FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority – ed. note FBRK) may only contain information that FFIN Brokerage Services is not registered in the US. However, this does not prove a lack of right to deal in American shares, as that right was granted by the Belizean licence in accordance with international practice.
The company was later renamed Freedom Securities Trading Inc., and subsequently transformed into Freedom Finance Europe with a licence from the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), which further confirms the legitimacy of its activities and compliance with international regulatory standards.
THIRD COMPLAINT: NATURE OF CRIMINAL CASES
The third point concerns the nature of the criminal cases under investigation. Freedom Finance asserts that the investigation is related to personal relationships between individuals, not to the activities of the brokerage companies.
The company makes a clear distinction between the two types of transactions. Clients transferred funds to brokerage accounts in the companies through official channels, presenting contracts at banks and complying with established procedures. However, in the cases that became the subject of the investigation, the victims transferred money not to brokerage accounts, but directly to specific employees into their personal bank accounts based on a private arrangement.
Freedom Finance points out that this is confirmed by the victims' own statements in video appearances and appeals. The company notes that the existence of contracts with brokerage companies held by the victims does not negate the fact of personal transfers to specific employees and cannot serve as a basis for claims about the brokers' involvement in these transactions.
Among other complaints, the holding's lawyers point to inaccuracies in the description of Vitaliy Svetovoy's position. KazTAG publications referred to him as executive director of the holding, whereas his actual title was executive director of the third directorate of the regional network development department of the sales division. The company notes that these formulations differ significantly in terms of position level within the corporate hierarchy: an executive director of the holding belongs to top management, while Svetovoy's position corresponds to middle management.
The document also contests claims that Freedom did not have licences to operate on international markets — the lawyers cite licence number 000265/491, issued by the Financial Services Commission of the State of Belize. In total, the document contains over two dozen rebuttals of various statements made by the agency.
Thus, Freedom Finance insists that the KazTAG publications contain inaccurate information and mislead the public regarding the company's activities, mixing corporate processes with personal relationships between individuals.
KAZTAG'S POSITION
For its part, KazTAG's management categorically rejects all accusations. The agency characterises the initiated case as an attempt at intimidation and claims that high-ranking officials from the Presidential Administration are behind the police complaint.
KazTAG links the criminal prosecution to the upcoming elections in Kazakhstan and calls the case political. This interpretation adds an extra dimension to the conflict, taking it beyond a dispute between a commercial company and the media into the realm of political confrontation.
The agency emphasises that the initiators of the publications were the victims themselves and their lawyer, who approached the editorial office with a request to present their side of the story, stating they had been unable to get their issue addressed through other channels.
PROSPECTS FOR THE CONFLICT'S DEVELOPMENT
The standoff between the financial company and the news agency continues to develop. Freedom Finance insists on compliance with all legal norms and transparency in its activities, presenting documentary evidence of the legitimacy of its business model. KazTAG, for its part, defends the media's right to publish critical materials.
The further development of the situation will depend on the results of the proceedings and the position of regulatory bodies. The conflict raises important questions about the boundaries of freedom of speech, the responsibility of the media for the accuracy of published information, and the reputational risks for financial market participants in the context of media coverage of legal disputes.