When the long-suffering Kenzhekhan market came under the control of a new management structure in 2022, the initial changes appeared bureaucratic: new contracts, security changes, and rent "optimization." A month later, one of the entrepreneurs working at Kenzhekhan, Elena Sadvokasova, publicly recorded a video message in which she spoke of pressure and threats of power outages and the dismantling of her pavilions. The reaction was swift—the very next day, a "leak" appeared, allegedly containing court records about Sadvokasova’s previous conviction. Three days later, a media article with a sensational headline appeared, followed by a series of posts and videos, all matching the wording and chronology.
The pseudo-truth-teller was a little-known Karaganda journalist, Oleg Gusev, who somehow obtained the personal information of a woman named Elena Sadvokasova, which he promptly made public without legal authority or her consent. In his publications, he attributed to her activities that were not supported by any official document or court decision.
The consequences of such actions extend far beyond the media. The incident has seriously damaged Sadvokasova’s reputation and affected her loved ones. Such public defamation, based on unverified or deliberately distorted information, marginalizes individuals, destroys personal and family life, and violates the fundamental principles of respect for privacy.
This case illustrates a growing problem: the use of journalism as a tool of pressure rather than investigation. Instead of objectively reporting facts and serving the public interest, certain media figures are beginning to use their public platform to discredit specific individuals.
Journalist Oleg Gusev has been under investigation in Almaty for a year and a half. He has been charged under Article 147 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which pertains to violation of privacy and personal data protection laws.
Some sources report that law enforcement officials were directly involved, having passed on information to him and leaked Elena Sadvakasova’s personal data.
According to Elena Sadvakasova, the owners, associated with "Old Kazakhstan," staged a real campaign of persecution using journalists and the media.
While the entrepreneurs’ complaints were being passed from office to office, a criminal case was opened against Sadvokasova herself under Article 423 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan – "disclosure of pre-trial investigation data." The reason? Instagram posts in which she allegedly shared information from procedural materials. This despite the fact that the journalists, discussed below, openly published her personal information, including her criminal record. But what about the entrepreneur’s complaints?
"The prosecutor’s office forwarded complaints to the police, and the police forwarded them back. All allegations of pressure, disconnections, threats, and leaks of personal data remained unanswered. The lack of official response from regulatory authorities raises questions about their objectivity and the uniform application of the law," the victim says in one of her videos.
Gusev, Moskovka, Alekhova: full-time commentators on other people’s interests
Publications concerning the market conflict were published on novoetv.kz (Oleg Gusev), the Telegram channel "Zlobnaya Tateshka" (Irina Moskovka), and Alexandra Alekhova’s YouTube channel. The articles portray Sadvokasova’s actions as destructive and mention her biography, but the authors often fail to provide a counter-narrative or official commentary. They lack context, but instead offer a convenient narrative. Irina Moskovka, a Vremya journalist, also appears in a series of publications that portray BSR favorably and offer no analysis of the conflicts’ essence.
Oleg Gusev’s January 11, 2024, article on novoetv.kz, titled "Kenzhekhan: Almaty security forces, with the help of a marginal activist, want to jail three journalists," claims that the criminal case against Sadvokassova was allegedly initiated to pressure journalists. Furthermore, her personal information is disclosed and her criminal record is mentioned without documentary evidence or source.
An analysis of Gusev and Moskovka’s publication activity reveals an interesting picture: since 2020, their texts have been merging into a single stream. It all starts the same way: anonymous Telegram channels appear. Then come articles linking to these same channels. Then videos with tags. The end result: criminal cases. The same algorithm was used against Sadvokasova and the entrepreneurs of the Kezhekhan market, who are resisting the "new trade authorities." An analysis of the algorithm shows that media resources are used selectively, depending on who Kim and her partners are in conflict with. The information buzz is centered around the individual, not the issue. The problem is unfavorable lease agreements, but the activist’s past is being discussed.
Where is the prosecutor’s office looking?
Observations of these processes have left a distinct mark on the public, with people actively noting on social media that government agencies have deliberately withdrawn. "Why isn’t the Ministry of Internal Affairs investigating the leaked data?" "Why isn’t the Prosecutor General’s Office assessing the media’s role in inciting and harassing the public?" "Why has the case against Sadvokasova been under investigation for over six months, with no progress and amidst obvious bias?" The situation surrounding the Kenzhekhan market demonstrates elements of a systemic problem: conflicts between businesses and retail space owners are increasingly accompanied not only by legal disputes but also by information pressure, where the role of the media and administrative resources requires separate examination.
