The FBRC editorial team has learned details of the internal investigation in the transport control inspectorate of the Zhambyl region. According to a memo dated 22 July, the internal investigation did not confirm the corruption allegations against the chief specialist Nursultan Bulatbekov, but it did reveal disciplinary violations on his part and recommended that he be held accountable.
Recall that Bulatbekov accused the department's leadership of creating corruption schemes with a turnover of over 50 million tenge a year and published compromising video recordings. In them, drivers talk about resolving issues through bribes, and the head of the inspectorate, Yerlan Yermekbayev, gives instructions to let petrol tankers through without following procedures. On 28 July, Bulatbekov reported on social media that a pre-trial investigation had been launched against the inspectorate's leadership under Article 362 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Abuse of power or official authority").
The internal investigation was conducted by the road transport committee. It involved 18 out of 21 inspectorate employees, including acting head Yermekbayev. According to the memo, "all employees deny the existence of an informal 'kitty', or of collecting money from carriers or employees within the inspectorate". The investigators note the "uniformity of positions taken by employees", which could indicate either coordinated testimony or an absence of violations.
"None of the facts of corruption activity claimed by Bulatbekov have been confirmed by documents or witness testimony," the document states.
At the same time, the investigation identified a whole list of violations regarding Bulatbekov himself: between 2024 and 2025, he received three disciplinary sanctions. Colleagues accuse him of systematic conflicts and destructive behaviour, noting a hot-tempered and provocative communication style. According to them, Bulatbekov regularly showed disrespect towards employees, allowing himself rude remarks and threats.
A number of oddities in the document are striking. For example, regarding a serious procedural violation on 6 July, when Bulatbekov drew up an administrative report against himself, the memo speaks of it as if it were something normal, although this is legally unacceptable. Furthermore, on 15 July he refused to do patrol duties, and the next day he lost his work phone and refused to provide an explanation.
Another surprising fact is that during an inspection of a mobile checkpoint, out of 9 drivers, only 4 were actually working in their speciality, while the others were performing "other functions". At the same time, one of Bulatbekov's colleagues — a certain M. Suinbayev — received an exclusively positive assessment. In 2024, he drew up 55 reports on administrative violations, collecting fines and fees totalling more than 6 million tenge.
Based on the results of the investigation, it is recommended that Bulatbekov be held disciplinarily liable for systematic violation of official ethics. It is also proposed to conduct a comprehensive review of all employees regarding their suitability for service and to organise training seminars on ethics.
The internal investigation, carried out by the higher authority, predictably found no violations on the part of the inspectorate's leadership, but instead identified many problems with the complainant himself. This kind of approach — where internal investigations clear officials of accusations and shift the blame onto the person who complained — is fairly typical of the Kazakhstani bureaucracy.
The final word on the case should come from the pre-trial investigation by law enforcement agencies, which is ongoing.