Well, I don't mind saying I thought this case was over and done, but it isn't.  Mr. Seidenfeld, who has been held in jail while undergoing a trial with what looked like exceedingly shaky evidence, was acquitted last month.  However, the original complainant, AOA Arna, has filed an appeal of the judge's sentence.

According to an Arna press release at Nomad.su, a web site of Swiss domain that caters to Kazakhstan's business community, the company has added anger with the judge and trial lawyers to its ire with the EBRD and Mr. Seidenfeld.  The press release describes Arna's available services at the end in great detail (paragraphs 22-24), so I am assuming it is a bona fide effort of the company.  After I translated the press release, (not with skill, mind you, but with a translation program) this is what I think is going on:

In paragraph 5, the press release states that it took Blagovachensk officials 11 months to decide that Mr. Seidenfeld's extradition from Russia was warranted.  This is pretty interesting, and for all I know may be true.  Yet according to news reports, this due diligence did not extend to asking Mr. Seidenfeld to produce any documents, answer any questions by letter, or present himself for questions.  They did not approach him at his place of work: he was arrested by surprise. 

The release goes on, in paragraphs 7 & 8, to question the honesty of the judge, saying:

Possibly some district judges consider as their duty to render assistance [to] dirty-handed citizens such as Menachem Seidenfeld.  Possibly, the reason for the adoption of this type of offensive solutions lies in the notorious corruption, against which President Nazarbaev has pledged to fight without mercy."

Without doubt, there's plenty of anger in that.  It also invokes Mr. Nazarbaev as a kind of legitimizing voice.  It does not look like Mr. Nazarbaev has had anything to say in the case, however.

"But, one thing is obvious. During the carrying out of sentence in this matter, [the judge] allowed himself to ignore the irrefutable material evidence and statements of witnesses presented in court [by Arna]. In this case, the mere assertions M. Seidenfeld . . . found understanding and support by Almalinsky's guardians of law.

Court records would appear to say the opposite: there was, after all, the PwC audit, which found the receipts, equipment, and reconciled the payment discrepancies, which were the amount of sales tax.  And it was Arna's witnesses who went off to fun runs on the date of their testimony. 

By its verdict, the law court not only trampled the constitutional rights of separately undertaken legal person [this means AOA Arna is a legal corporation], but also defied all elements of rule-of-law in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Moreover, the sentence opens great possibilities for the discredit of the good name of our country in the international arena.

Media corporation ambivalent about media:
To me, the most interesting part is that which runs through paragraph 11:  where a media provider rails about media.  It indicates the ambivalent environment in which technology provides a change in transparency with which politics and business cannot always reconcile itself.  This is true all over the world, but such ambivalence on the part of a media company is possibly going to cut into its profits–because it is going to make them wary of innovation.

Taking into account the given circumstances, and also the fact that within the framework its protection of M. Seidenfeld organized a campaign in the international press and Internet networks to discredit law-enforcement and judicial systems, and also the investment climate of Kazakhstan, AO Arna is considered it a matter of its honor to bring the trial to the open and impartial law court [as] pointed out above.

What does it all mean?  Well, Mr. Seidenfeld is not in jail, but remains in Kazakhstan.  Between the indignation, the paragraphs of restated charges, and the “matter of honor,” it looks like AOA Arna is pretty obdurate over their position.  The dispute remains in court–using the judicial process–which is where these disputes should be handled.  After the appeals court, there's the Supreme Court.  Even if Mark Seidenfeld is acquitted two more times, it may be awhile before he gets to return to his home and his job.