EXPO-2017: Main Defendant's Lawyers Spoke with Media

The lawyers representing the main defendant in the large-scale theft case related to the construction of the EXPO-2017 exhibition spoke with the media last week. 

Orda.kz explores why the foundation of EXPO might need to be re-examined, how the missing ten billion tenge was uncovered, who took a bribe, and why the court failed to identify that person.

A High-Profile Case Quietly Forgotten

At the National Press Club, three lawyers addressed the media, eager, as they put it, to present the facts they believe prove Talgat Yermegiyayev was wrongfully convicted.

Yermegiyayev, the former head of the national company responsible for the high-profile EXPO-2017 project, was sentenced in 2016 to 14 years in a high-security prison. He has already served nearly a decade. The court also ordered him to repay 5.9 billion tenge to Astana EXPO-2017 NC JSC.

Verdicts were handed down to 22 other defendants in the same case.

Ten years is an extended period of time, thinks defense attorney Anara Kusainova. She points out that an entire generation has grown up not only forgetting the case but also never knowing its details. That’s why Yermegiyayev’s defense team felt it was important to revisit what happened back in 2016.

Their decision to go public follows Yermegiyayev’s first parole petition since his sentencing. The lawyers believe only public attention can influence the court to deliver what they see as a fair decision.

Buried Money That Was Abandoned

Taking the floor, lawyer Alla Kotlova — who has represented Yermegiyayev since the beginning — reminded the audience that EXPO-2017’s central theme was “green energy of the future.”

She recalled the construction of one of the EXPO-2017 buildings, which involved ordering expensive, high-tech components. Notably, the central office building, intended for the organizers, was built without state-approved design documentation or an expert assessment. 

These documents appeared only after Yermegiyayev was convicted.

The so-called “damage” included work that had been fully paid for but was either rejected or literally buried underground.

To reduce theft risks, contractors were required to insure their advance payments. If the work was left incomplete or done poorly, insurance companies were obligated to cover the losses. Yet despite having these insurance policies, EXPO-2017 never filed claims to recover damages. Instead, the unaccounted work was written off as a loss.

In some cases, equipment was delivered but not used—EXPO-2017 declined to install or deploy it. The unused equipment, which had remained in storage, was also included in the financial damage.

Special attention was given to the geothermal equipment. What is it exactly? Since the theme of the exhibition was ‘Energy of the Future,’ the plan was for the central building—the organizer’s office—to be heated using energy from the earth. For this purpose, geothermal wells were to be drilled, and specialized equipment was delivered to the site to enable this system. The idea was to harness the Earth’s natural heat instead of relying on traditional energy sources. This is what we refer to as geothermal equipment. Sergey Krol was responsible for this area — he will provide further clarification later,Kotlova explained. 

Sergey Krol confirmed that the geothermal equipment was indeed installed. However, it was later abandoned and paved over. Today, there's a parking lot where the system once stood.

The expensive geothermal pumps, part of the EXPO-2017 infrastructure, were still underground as of 2024. A German company, which had supplied the equipment, reportedly offered to buy it back from EXPO-2017, but no assistance was provided to facilitate the transaction. Krol, speaking briefly as he rushed to the airport, kept his comments short.

This raises a critical question: Is part of the alleged damage that Yermegiyayev was convicted for now buried beneath a parking lot? And more importantly, will there ever be a way to verify it?

Yermegiyayev’s legal team presented a slideshow of documents for journalists, detailing the amounts of financial damage and their supporting evidence. Scrolling to the end, one could find a gallery of photos — likely taken during the installation of the geothermal equipment.

Lawyer Anara Kusainova joined the case during the cassation appeal phase.

Ural Ibadildina was the central witness who claimed that a bribe of 780 million tenge was intended for Talgat Yermegiyayev, in exchange for a contract with her company.

According to Kusainova, Ibadildina was interrogated at length in an apartment used by the anti-corruption service, despite being mentally unstable and, at one point, suicidal. The lawyer also alleged that medical evaluations of Ibadildina’s mental state were inconsistent and appeared to change based on what the investigators needed at the time.

In our view, the Anti-Corruption Service not only used unacceptable investigative methods against Ibadildina — apparently to extract testimony against Yermegiyayev —but also, for several months, effectively obstructed the enforcement of court decisions that had already entered into legal force, said Anara Kusainova, referring to a ruling that ordered Ibadildina’s compulsory placement in a psychiatric clinic. 

We would like to emphasize separately: a second psychological and psychiatric evaluation confirmed that Ibadildina showed clear signs of a mental disorder: an adjustment disorder, prolonged mild depression brought on by the investigation and trial, and a previously recorded diagnosis of psychotic depressive disorder. And, apparently, it is for this reason that the conclusion of this inpatient examination, dated August 24, 2015, is missing from Yermegiyayev’s case file. The court nevertheless referred to it, justifying the refusal to recognize Ibadildina's testimony as inadmissible evidence. This is a serious violation of criminal procedure, as the court has no right to cite materials in its verdict that were never examined in court. For this reason, we believe that both the court, in its June 9, 2016 verdict, and the Prosecutor General’s Office, in its refusal to file a cassation appeal, relied on Ibadildina’s testimony without proper justification, she added.

Another very important detail that the lawyers pointed out was the testimony about who actually received the money. Throughout the entire investigation, Ural Ibadildina never once named Talgat Yermegiyayev as the person to whom she handed over the bribe.

When asked in court, “How did you understand that the money was meant for Yermegiyayev?” she offered only a vague response:

Ibadildina, being a key witness whose testimony shaped Yermegiyayev’s fate, was sentenced to seven years of restricted freedom — a preventive measure not provided for under the article she was convicted. According to human rights defenders, this legal leniency suggests she may have struck a deal with investigators in exchange for cooperation.

According to the court’s verdict dated June 9, 2016, in the Yermegiyayev case, Ibadildina was convicted of multiple offenses: under Part 4 of Article 367 for giving a bribe on an especially large scale, and under Part 5 of Article 28, Paragraph ‘b’ of Part 4 of Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1997 version) for embezzling budget funds on an especially large scale. Despite having a criminal record in the first case (Ibadildina was sentenced to two and a half years of restricted freedom under another article, also for giving a bribe on an especially large scale — Ed.) for a corruption crime, she was given a punishment not related to imprisonment — seven years of restricted freedom. This punishment is not only not permitted under the law for her crimes, but also contradicts the legal principles for sentencing in cases involving multiple offenses.insisted Anara Kusainova. 

Who Took The Money?

All roads in Kazakhstan’s political and economic scandals seem to lead back to familiar names. But what many don’t realize is how extensive and branched the networks of influence are. That’s where the name Aidos Yespolov appears.

The defense lawyers chose not to reveal who Yespolov is directly. Instead, they included a quote from an interview with another convicted individual, Marat Omarov, published by Ulus.media.

Omarov, who served 4.5 years in the same case, maintains that the charges were entirely fabricated. He insists that neither he, Talgat Yermegiyayev, nor the other defendants caused any financial harm or accepted bribes.

Aidos Yespolov was said to have been an advisor to Talgat Yermegiyayev during EXPO-2017.

In 2023, Orda.kz reported that Assel Issabayeva was the daughter of academician Tlektes Yespolov, whose children include Aidos Yespolov, born in 1976.

Public records show that an individual entrepreneur license was registered under Yespolov’s name in Almaty’s Medeu district until 2020. He holds a doctorate in economics and has held high-ranking roles: heading the corporate development department at KazMunayGas, serving as commercial director of the Atyrau Oil Refinery, and working in the Senate apparatus. In 2006, he briefly served as deputy akim of Aqtobe.

He is also believed to still own an LLP.

According to Omarov, Nazarbayev himself warned Yermegiyayev not to interfere with Yespolov’s business.

In court, Aidos Yespolov was never called to testify, even though all agreements with contractors went through him. He wasn’t interrogated, wasn’t present at the trial, and was not in the country at the time. Prosecutors even asked that his name not be mentioned. His involvement was erased from the official narrative, even though the key witness, Ibadildina, pointed to him.

Deputies have also highlighted this omission.

Waiting for His Father

The Yermegiyayev family has been left with almost nothing. According to his son, Madi Yermegiyayev, the family has already paid 935 million tenge in damages. He insists that the money used to pay was not linked to corruption, but came from legally obtained assets — real estate gifted to Yermegiyayev by his own father.

Madi has publicly appealed to the President, calling for the case to be reviewed. His father recently submitted a petition for parole. Notably, he has never sought a pardon — because doing so would require admitting guilt, which he still refuses to do.

I’m asking for a fair trial. My father has served the majority of his sentence — 10 out of 14 years. I ask for justice for a man who chose the law over betrayal, who didn’t bury his head in the sand but tried to defend state interests. In return, he received a fabricated guilty verdict, imposed under pressure from powerful individuals. Today, we have a chance to begin correcting that — by reviewing a fabricated case with no evidence, no logic, and no truth said Madi.  

In a 2021 interview, Yermegiyayev’s second son spoke emotionally about what he felt when their home was raided during the investigation.

The EXPO-2017 case contains over 500 volumes of materials. Despite renewed public and media attention, the Prosecutor General’s Office recently reiterated that it sees no grounds to question the legality of the verdicts.

Nevertheless, some members of parliament have called for the case to be reopened, demanding that those truly responsible be held accountable. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan’s Anti-Corruption Agency says it is still searching for offshore funds allegedly stolen by “unidentified persons.”

The editorial team will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Original Author: Alexandra Mokhireva