Case Decision: The lawyer's query is no longer part of the judge's consideration
In a court hearing on July 16, 2025, Aidar Ksembayev, the main legal counsel of Kaspi Bank, testified that there was no close or trusting relationship between him and Perizat Kaiarat, a major suspect in a high-profile embezzlement case. The exchange came during a questioning by Aslanbek Dauletiyarov, Kaiarat's defense attorney, who sought to establish any potential personal connections between the bank and Kaiarat.
The court case revolves around Kaiarat, who is accused of embezzling over 1.5 billion tenge, which was intended for flood relief aid in Palestine. The funds were reportedly transferred from an unspecified bank, with Kaspi Bank representing the plaintiff in the trial.
During the hearing, Dauletiyarov questioned Ksembayev about the transfer of funds to Kaiarat's account, given the lack of any close relationship. Ksembayev denied any such relationship, and the judge found the question of close relations inappropriate to ask broadly of the plaintiffs.
The exchange suggests that the transfer of funds from the bank to Kaiarat was not based on a personal or trusted relationship but rather a formal or procedural transaction. Dauletiyarov's subsequent questioning focused on challenging the authority and documentation of the transfers, indicating attempts to scrutinize the legitimacy of the transfers rather than suggesting collusion or preferential treatment facilitated by legal counsel or bank officials.
Aside from the bank's involvement, Kaiarat's case has attracted attention due to the seizure of luxury cars worth 200 million tenge, including Mercedes and Lexus, from his possession. Social media has also played a role in exposing the alleged embezzlement, with discussions among teenagers suggesting a lack of trust in the system and the potential for fraud.
The defense attorney's questions about 'close relationships' with Kaiarat were disallowed by the judge, who suggested 'trust-based relationships' as a more appropriate term. The court has also ruled to make the trial in Kaiarat's case partially closed due to confidential information.
Meanwhile, some individuals have questioned the motives behind charitable donations, with some believing it to be more profitable to be a blogger and collect money from people, rather than pursuing formal education. The charity initiative, if it comes from the bank, may not originate from the legal department, but from a PR-related unit.
As the trial continues, the public waits to see the outcome of this high-profile case and the implications it may have for the banking industry and charitable giving in Kazakhstan.
[1] Sources: Court Transcripts, Social Media Posts, and Interviews with Legal Experts.
In light of the court hearing, it appears that the transfer of funds from Kaspi Bank to the account of Perzait Kaiarat, a major suspect in the embezzlement case, was not based on a personal relationship, but likely a formal or procedural transaction (politics). This is further supported by the defense attorney's questioning focusing on the authority and documentation of the transfers, rather than suggesting collusion or preferential treatment (crime-and-justice). However, Kaiarat's case has also raised questions about the motives behind charitable donations, with some suggesting it could be more profitable to be a blogger and collect funds from people, rather than pursuing formal education (general-news).
