Publication of a video address by the editor-in-chief of the KazTAG International News Agency, Amir Kassenov, to the President of Kazakhstan has raised questions that go beyond the content of the address itself: namely, whether its appearance in the public domain complies with the terms of the preventive measure under which the journalist has been held for nearly six months.
Particular attention is drawn to the method of distributing the video, which became accessible to a wide audience through relatives and third parties, despite existing restrictions on the use of communication devices and contact with outsiders.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
To recall, on 18 August 2025, a criminal case was initiated under Article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (“dissemination of knowingly false information”) following a series of publications by KazTAG about former employees of Freedom Finance, Temirlan Bekov and Vitaliy Svetovoy.
The company claimed that the published information contained inaccurate data. The defendants in the case became the agency’s general director, Asset Matayev, and editor-in-chief, Amir Kassenov.
WHAT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN PLACE FOR KASSENOV
After his detention in December 2025, Kassenov was placed under house arrest. The court imposed a number of restrictions on him, including a ban on using computers, communication devices and the internet, as well as on communicating with anyone except family members and lawyers.
The court also banned the journalist from working at his place of employment. The house arrest has since been extended several times and remains in effect.
HOW THE ADDRESS ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
On 18 May 2026, Kassenov recorded a video address to President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, in which he outlined his position on the criminal case.
According to available information, the recording was handed over to his wife, who sent it to the Presidential Administration and the Prosecutor General’s Office. Later, the address ended up with a family friend, Yeldar Zhurgenov, who published it on social media after the prosecution approved the indictment.
Zhurgenov himself stated that the publication was agreed upon in advance with the family and was intended to take place upon the occurrence of certain circumstances.
WHERE THE LEGAL QUESTION ARISES
Formally, the published materials contain no indication that Kassenov himself used the internet or personally posted the address in the public domain. However, the public dissemination of his statement was made possible through a chain of transmission via other individuals.
It is this circumstance that raises questions about how the restrictions imposed by the court should be interpreted.
On the one hand, the ban concerns the defendant’s own use of communication devices and communication with a certain circle of people. On the other hand, his address ultimately reached a wide audience through intermediaries, despite the existing restrictions.
Against this backdrop, the position of the prosecutor’s office is noteworthy. Commenting on the case, senior prosecutor of the Almaty prosecutor’s office, Moldir Kanissova, reminded that Amir Kassenov is under house arrest and must comply with the restrictions set by the court.
According to her, the defendant is prohibited from leaving his place of residence without notifying the investigative authorities, publishing materials on the internet, and violating other restrictions imposed by the court. The prosecutor’s office representative stressed that any instances of violating these conditions could serve as grounds for changing the preventive measure to a stricter one.
In addition, Kanissova urged the parties to comply with legal requirements, exercise restraint, and avoid actions that could be construed as pressure on the court.
Notably, Aigul Kassenova herself has publicly expressed concerns that publishing the video without consulting lawyers could lead to a tougher preventive measure. This indicates that the potential legal consequences of such dissemination were discussed even within the family.
However, the situation itself raises the question of where the boundary lies between complying with restrictions on communications and effectively circumventing them through intermediaries. Only the relevant authorities and the court can give a final assessment of these circumstances.