The former deputy chairman of the board of JSC «NC «Expo-2017» Murat Omarov told journalists his version of events related to the investigation into the embezzlement of budget funds during preparations for the international exhibition. At that time, more than 20 people, including Omarov himself, were convicted of large-scale embezzlement.
Omarov was sentenced to 8 years in prison with confiscation of property. He served his sentence in a general-regime colony and was released.
According to Ulysmedia.kz, his account of the project of former president Nursultan Nazarbayev – «Expo-2017» differs significantly from the official version presented by the investigation and the court.
Omarov stated that the investigation began after a trip to Italy in 2014 by the then first deputy prime minister, Bakytzhan Sagintayev.
«He saw that preparations were not up to scratch and asked how much money had already been spent. It turned out to be around €15-20 billion. Sagintayev was outraged that there was nothing to show for this money. He was told that a third team had already been convicted, that court proceedings for embezzlement were ongoing, and that this was standard practice for them. <…> He also informed us that he had told this story to Nazarbayev – I understood then that we would be next,» Omarov said.
According to him, following this, Nazarbayev instructed the former chairman of the Anti-Corruption Agency, Kairat Kozhamzharov, to conduct an inspection.
«Everyone was put under surveillance and wiretapping. First, they started putting pressure on the contractors – they told the investigators everything they needed,» the statement says.
According to Omarov, at the same time, an advisor appeared in the circle of the head of JSC «NC «Expo-2017», Talgat Yermegiyayev – Aidos Yespolov, who is the brother of Assel Yespolova, the alleged wife of Nursultan Nazarbayev.
«Yermegiyayev told me then that this was Nazarbayev's instruction. I was the managing director for new technologies; I became deputy for construction later, practically right before my arrest. The contractors said they sorted out all matters with Aidos Yespolov,» he noted.
As Omarov stated, it was Yespolov who liaised with the contractors, and they settled all financial issues with him. Yespolov himself, however, was not among the defendants in the case.
«Yermegiyayev asked Nazarbayev, who said an advisor was working with the contractors, not to interfere. So we stopped paying attention to him, since he had his own instructions from Nazarbayev. He would appear in the office and then disappear – we didn't really have much contact. The real question is that the decision to turn the construction of EXPO into a criminal case, with wide coverage in all media, even international, was still Nazarbayev's decision,» Omarov reported.
He also believes that the trial of the defendants in the «Expo-2017» case was used by Nazarbayev as a demonstrative step before handing over power.
«This was his obvious decision, and then, as I said, it was preparation for the transfer of power. He needed to show all the elite groups that this could be done to anyone – even his favourites. After that, Nazarbayev said in interviews that he gave the order to arrest Yermegiyayev with a heavy heart, but in reality, it was his initial decision when he saw the opportunity to turn it into a show,» he stated.
It is noted that 23 people were involved in the case. Yermegiyayev was sentenced to 14 years in a strict-regime colony and is still serving his sentence.
«As you can see, no one here is concerned with reviewing this case, because many people were involved who participated indirectly or directly – some gained publicity, some received titles or new positions,» Omarov claims.
He also noted that the media coverage of the proceedings had a prosecutorial bias.
«For example, even before the verdict, Kozhamzharov stated at press conferences that such and such an amount had been stolen, and each time he increased that sum. If any of our lawyers had made such a statement, they would have been immediately held accountable for disclosing investigative data – the prosecution can disclose data, but the defence is prohibited from doing so,» he stated.