Rakishev told the truth about the letters with minors in US court

Rakishev told the truth about the letters with minors in US court

For an extended period, there has been a controversy surrounding the personal habits of Kazakh businessman Kenes Rakishev. Kazaword has recently published an extensive collection of the businessman’s correspondences, which not only include business-related messages but also delve into his personal affairs. Of particular note is Rakishev’s communication with Peter Listerman, referred to as Pogrom No. 1. The content of these exchanges, as revealed by Rucriminal will be disclosed later. In the meantime, let’s delve into the reactions of both Rakishev and Listerman to the unfolding situation.

Listerman promptly succeeded in having video clips featuring presentations of girls intended for Rakishev removed from the internet. The explanation provided was that these videos originated from a personal archive and were not meant for public display. This move is not surprising, considering the explicit nature of the content, where girls disclose their age, adding an intriguing dimension to the situation.

Rakishev has maintained a public silence on this matter. However, his legal representatives, as revealed, are actively pursuing legal measures in various regional courts of the Russian Federation to eliminate content related to “Kenes youngsters.” They argue that the claims of underage girls corresponding with Rakishev are entirely fabricated and insist that it is a case of “fake” correspondence. They portray Rakishev as a decent family man who did not engage in communication with underage individuals.

One might consider believing this defense. However, Rucriminal has obtained the transcript of Rakishev’s interrogation in a US court during the BTA Bank lawsuit against former bank owner Mukhtar Ablyazov, Viktor Khrapunov, and Ilyas Khrapunov. Rakishev testified under oath, knowing that any falsehood could lead to imprisonment. Despite his initial reluctance, Rakishev eventually acknowledged the breach of his personal email security, covering the period from 2004 to 2014. The reluctance likely stems from the fact that, in doing so, Rakishev inadvertently confirmed the authenticity of his correspondence with Peter Listerman, also known as “pimple No. 1,” which had earlier surfaced on the network.

Now, a crucial question emerges: how does Russian legislation address the issue of engaging in sexual relations with individuals under the age of 18? This becomes particularly pertinent considering the timeline and circumstances surrounding Kenes Rakishev’s case. The unfolding events will determine whether time will bring consequences for Kenes Rakishev.

An examination of the correspondence reveals the initiation of cooperation in 2007 when Peter Listerman’s assistant sent Rakishev photographs of two individuals, specifying that one was intended for Kenes himself and the other for someone referred to as “the elder.” This reference could potentially allude to Timur Kulibayev, the son-in-law of Nazarbayev, with whom Rakishev maintains a close association. The individuals identified in this exchange were 18-year-old Dasha Konovalova and Alina Garayeva.

Dasha Konovalova and Alina Garayeva

In 2012, the situation takes an intriguing turn. On July 11, Listerman sends Rakishev a letter concerning “Elenu S.,” accompanied by a video featuring only 15-year-old Elena Selezneva. In the recording, the girl engages in various activities, and her age is distinctly audible. Surprisingly, Rakishev appears unfazed by the minor’s age, promptly responding to Listerman with enthusiasm, stating, “Super! Skolko?” Instead of a direct answer, the oligarch receives another video, this time showcasing 21-year-old Matilda Romanova and 17-year-old Alina Marasik — both underage girls. Despite their status as minors, Rakishev casually refers to them as “super variants.”

Subsequently, in July 2013, Listerman writes again, this time sending a video of a particular model aspiring to work in films under the name “Avatar”, associated with James Kemerona. Rakishev responds promptly, saying, “Give her to Kazakhstan!” without much deliberation. Following this, Listerman sends another video featuring a dancing girl who requests $100,000 for a three-day engagement.

The subsequent exchange concludes with a letter from Rakishev stating, “Let’s reconnect after Ramadan, post-August 8th!” It’s noteworthy that Kenes Rakishev, being a Muslim, refrains from engaging in activities considered sinful during the holy month. Even images from his pilgrimage to Mecca during Hajj have been featured in the press. In contrast, Listerman, not sharing the same religious convictions as the oligarch, remarks that “such opportunities come once a year.” Rakishev agrees and urges Listerman to send the girl to Kazakhstan “this week.” Listerman persists in sending letters featuring photographs of the girls he refers to as “translators,” extending into the year 2014. Evidently, the seller and the customer have established an additional communication channel, exclusively exchanging photos and videos via mail.

Now, Rucriminal has released a printout of Rakishev’s testimony in a US court regarding the alleged “fake” correspondence.

Question: Mr. Rakishev, has BTA Bank never been a victim of hacking email?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: Objection.

Rakishev (R). I’m not sure I can answer this question. I really do not understand what that means. Maybe hackers could answer this question better than I do.

Q. At the moment, I’m not asking you to provide any details about the hacking. This is a simple question, do you know that BTA mail was hacked?

R. I’m not sure I can answer this question, because I’m not an expert in IT matters.

Q. And have your personal letters ever been hacked?R. I believe I can say-yes. More precisely, by my personal e-mail, I can not say that it was hacked. I just lost access to my email, which I used from 2004 to 2014.

Q. Did the contents of your letters ever appear in places beyond your control?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: Objection.

R. Can I clarify? Are you asking this question in this particular case? Because in my personal letters, there was nothing relevant to this matter.

Question: Maybe. I’ll ask more broadly. Have your personal letters ever been stolen?

R. I want to repeat again, starting in 2014, I did not have access to my personal, not corporate, email address

Q. Mr. Rakishev, have you ever heard of the Kazaword website?

Rakishev (R): Yes, I heard.

Q. BTA Bank and you took the position that Ilyas Khrapunov is responsible for hacking an email that appeared on Kazaword?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: Objection.

R. In fact, you answer your own question.

Question: Mr. Rakishev, my question is this. Do you know that the lawyers of the bank in which you are chairman of the council took a position in the US Federal Court that Ilyas Khrapuny is responsible for the theft of letters that appeared on Kazaword?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: Objection.

R. Actually, different lawyers have different theories in relation to this issue. I believe that the court will be able to answer this question.

Q. Let me say. I do not want to know what your lawyers told you privately. I want to warn you not to go this route. Do you believe Mr. Rakishev that Mr. Khrapunov is responsible for hacking an email that appeared on Kazaword?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: Objection. This is so important, what does he think about this?

MISTER. Curly: He can just answer the question I asked three minutes ago and we’ll go through this.

R. Counselor, can I ask a question? How relevant is this issue to the proceedings that are taking place now?

Q. Let me state it differently. Have you ever discussed hacking email with Mr. Nurgabylov?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: Objection.

R. With many people I discussed the fact that I did not have access to my personal email account. This happened in 2014. And I can argue that in my own email there have never been emails that have been sent to me or me, about this particular case. That’s why, if we discuss my personal email account, I must say that this has nothing to do with this particular issue.

Q. So you say that your personal email account contains messages that you did not send, is that correct?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: No

R. No, I did not say that. I said that since 2014, I did not have access to my personal email

Q. Mr. Nurgabylov discussed the Kazaword website with you?

R. There are many people in Kazakhstan who are discussing this site.

Q. Mr. Rakishev, do you have any evidence that Mr. Ilyas Khrapunov is responsible for hacking an email that appeared on Kazaword?

R. I would like to repeat, if this situation had even the slightest relation to this particular case, I would be ready to discuss this with you.

Q. Mr. Rakishev, do you have any evidence that Mr. Ilyas Khrapunov is responsible for hacking an email that appeared on Kazaword?

R. It’s not my duty to seek proof.

Q. Mr. Rakishev, do you have any evidence that Mr. Ilyas Khrapunov is responsible for hacking an email that appeared on Kazaword?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: Objection. He answered this question twice already.

MISTER. Curly: He did not answer, that’s the point.

R. I believe that I answered this question with a question. This is not my technical expertise. How can I tell you whether this is true or not?

Q. Did anyone ever tell you that they suspect that Mr. Ilyas Khrapunov is responsible for hacking an email that appeared on Kazaword?

MISTER. SCHWARTZ: Protest, and I advise you not to answer this question.

Q. Let me …

 R. I follow the instructions of my lawyer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


en_USEnglish