In parallel with the claim by the Baraev Centre, the FBK editorial team received another pre-trial complaint - this time from the peasant farm (PF) "Barys". The formal pretext is two pieces about the situation surrounding Kazak Tulpary LLP, based on the words of the chair of the partnership's management board, Sholpan Murzagulova.
WHAT THE COMPLAINT IS ABOUT
The complaint arrived at the editorial office on 22 August 2026. The complainant, the head of PF "Barys", Askhat Tuleuov, demands that we refute the information we wrote about the situation at Kazak Tulpary LLP.
Recall that FBK previously reported on how the programme to preserve Kazakhstan's last riding horse breed at Kazak Tulpary is collapsing - funding cuts, transfer of the herd, staffing reshuffles in the leadership. And then - about how Murzagulova herself told us about threats from the investor, that very PF "Barys", and about the investor's probable links to NANOC structures.
WHY THIS IS NOT OUR PROBLEM
Both pieces are based on an interview with Murzagulova. FBK did not make accusations in its own name. And the law here is fairly unambiguous. Article 68 of the Law "On Mass Media" expressly exempts media outlets and journalists from liability for reproducing speeches and interviews.
We did, however, once again remind the complainant about Article 38 of the same law: PF "Barys" has the right to publish its own comment free of charge in the same pieces, and FBK is ready to do this.
OR MAYBE IT IS NOT ABOUT THE JOURNALISTS?
Recently FBK has found itself under close scrutiny from structures connected in one way or another with NANOC. First a claim from the leadership of the Baraev Centre, which we described in detail the day before, and now a complaint over the pieces about Kazak Tulpary. A counter-question arises: perhaps, instead of suing journalists, it would be worth looking into what is happening inside the structures themselves? Because both in the Baraev Centre and around Kazak Tulpary there are problems - and, judging by everything, they affect somebody's quite specific interests.
And how many such stories about the activities of NANOC structures generally remain in the shadows, because nobody asks about them?
For example, right now we are looking into another story that at first glance seems routine, but in fact is telling - about the Arkalyk Agricultural Experimental Station (AES).
In April 2026, Agrokhimiya LLP, through the courts, recovered debts from Arkalyk AES LLP - around 78 million tenge. And the founders of Agrokhimiya itself are Kaz Taza Onim LLP and an individual, Yesen Baitil.
Since 2018, Kaz Taza Onim has owned 49% of the station itself - the very one from which it is now recovering the debt. This company, incidentally, was reported back in 2023 as "not even resolving the current issues" of the AES. It turns out that the same person, Yesen Baitil, stands on both sides: he co-owns the station and at the same time, through affiliated companies, secures money from it and judicial control over the decisions of the general meeting.
And NANOC itself has had its bank accounts frozen for more than a month now.
NOT THE FIRST YEAR
Pressure on FBK from structures linked to the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is nothing new. In 2025, FBK's founder Kirill Pavlov was fined for a publication about locusts citing UN data that diverged from the official statistics of the MoA. Then a case was brought against him for quoting a state document about drone procurement, and in November he was forcibly taken to a police station in Kostanay right in the middle of a business trip. In December the case was closed, but due to the expiry of the statute of limitations, not because no violations were found.
It seems that it is precisely pieces about signs of corruption in the agricultural sector that naturally attract increased attention to FBK, and the reaction of structures linked to NANOC only strengthens the suspicion that the problems there are systemic, rather than imagined.
We are appealing to law enforcement agencies to pay attention to these problems - there is a feeling that they are precisely what is being hidden from society by pre-trial complaints against journalists.
Separately, we appeal to the Ministry of Culture and Information to explain to NANOC and its structures the content of Article 68 of the Law "On Mass Media", so that in future no misunderstandings arise on their part.