The conflict surrounding the international cruise club InCruises continues to gain momentum in Kazakhstan, VW reports. The company, which positions itself as a platform for collective access to cruise travel, has in recent months found itself at the center of a public and legal scandal whose scale could become catastrophic. Observers say the situation is developing rapidly and is already going far beyond a purely corporate dispute.
Robert Raya, Voice of the World
Zhara Timber, Voice of the World
InCruises operates under a club-based model: members make fixed monthly payments that are converted into internal bonuses used later to purchase cruises. According to the company’s marketing model, additional income is possible through recruiting new members. For a long time, this scheme was promoted as an “affordable way to travel,” but sharp changes in conditions became, according to affected members, a turning point.
This may now turn into a kind of “time bomb” for the company. Today, initiative groups of affected citizens in Kazakhstan are rapidly gaining strength. According to various estimates, their number ranges from 300 to 3,000 people. Analysts believe this factor could play a key role in the further development of the situation both domestically and internationally.
According to representatives of the initiative groups, in 2023–2024 the company repeatedly changed contract terms and bonus accrual rules within short periods and without the consent of club members. The financial burden on participants increased, while opportunities to maintain previously achieved status within the system decreased.
“People entered one model, but a few months later found themselves in a completely different one,” says Saniya Musabayeva, head of one of Kazakhstan’s initiative groups. “For many, the monthly payments became unbearable, and they simply dropped out of the scheme, losing the money they had invested.”
As dissatisfaction grew, participants began to unite — first in small chats and groups, then into structured initiative associations. According to some reports, there are already eight such groups operating in Kazakhstan today, bringing together more than a thousand people. Their goal is to submit collective appeals to government bodies and seek a legal assessment of the company’s activities, which they believe resemble those of a financial pyramid.
International context adds further tension. Previously, according to citizens’ statements, InCruises’ activities were banned in Russia after the company was recognized as a financial pyramid. In Kazakhstan, unlike in the neighboring country, authorities have so far refrained from making key decisions, which activists believe only worsens the situation.
“Kazakhstan, according to international indices, is considered a country with high corruption risks,” notes Ulzhan Kuatova, an independent chair of two other initiative groups in Kazakhstan. “This context inevitably affects public perception of regulatory inaction and raises questions.”
Against the backdrop of the lack of an official response, the number of people identifying themselves as victims continues to grow. Initiative groups again report preparing collective lawsuits against the company and appeals to local authorities, which, according to them, have so far limited themselves to formal replies.
Additional controversy was sparked by InCruises’ decision to file lawsuits against the most active initiators of the movement. The company, however, enlisted official representatives with controversial reputations — some of whom had previously been associated with defending major figures convicted of large-scale embezzlement. This fact did not appear to concern InCruises’ management, although it may provoke a negative public reaction. Why InCruises effectively chose to sacrifice its image and name in this case remains a mystery.
In response, affected Kazakh citizens have also moved to legal action, filing counterclaims through InCruises’ official representatives. Their main demands include the return of previously paid funds and the complete closure of the company’s operations in the country to prevent further victims of the financial scheme. According to claimants, if company executives refuse to refund the money, liability may be placed on its Kazakh leaders and directors, who, participants claim, received substantial payouts and used cruises funded by the system for years.
A separate issue is the social aspect. Critics argue that the advertised “cheap cruises” were in practice accessible primarily to wealthier participants, while the financial burden fell on less affluent citizens drawn into a system of regular payments.
Interestingly, according to initiative groups, their activity has already produced tangible results. It is reported that the company’s founder, American Michael Hutchison, contacted representatives of the movement but withdrew from further negotiations after learning of the victims’ demands for refunds. Meanwhile, the topic has received wide coverage in Kazakh media — some reports, according to journalists, have garnered hundreds of thousands and even up to a million views.
Observers believe this has dealt a serious blow to InCruises’ position in the country: hundreds of people affected in previous years, who had effectively written off their money, have now resurfaced and, encouraged by hope, are demanding refunds.
Notably, some of the company’s directors and partners have begun publicly siding with the initiative groups. One former executive stated that she repeatedly raised victims’ concerns with senior management but was advised to “focus on personal income.”
Additional attention was drawn by a public admission from InCruises representative Kazbek Sisinbayev, who claims to oversee the company’s operations across the entire CIS region. In an interview with a YouTube channel, he confirmed that Kazakhstan’s Agency for Financial Monitoring is currently conducting an inspection of InCruises’ activities and noted that “more statements will be submitted in the future.”
Observers believe this statement effectively contradicts InCruises’ previously disseminated official position that it allegedly has no claims from Kazakhstan’s government authorities. The discrepancy between the company’s public statements and the words of its representative may only intensify distrust among the public and initiative groups.
“In the TV segment, it was stated that based on complaints from 135 citizens, Kazakhstan’s Agency for Financial Monitoring is conducting an inspection of InCruises’ activities. This is indeed the case. We know for certain that a complaint has been filed and that the Agency is reviewing these facts. This is normal. The company has provided all necessary documentation, explanations of its business model, and so on. The Agency is independently conducting its analysis and using all available tools to thoroughly examine the company’s activities,” Sisinbayev confirmed.
At the same time, the speaker responded very evasively to numerous questions about why refunds to club members are being blocked.
“It’s unclear what this is even about. How were refunds blocked? When members join InCruises, they sign an agreement that clearly states that members can return funds within 14 days after making the last payment,” the speaker said.
In effect, the speaker referred only to the possibility of refunding a single payment made within the last 14 days (most often just $100), whereas initiative group members are demanding full refunds of all funds invested in the company — amounts that for individual victims reach $5,000 or more.
Sisinbayev also, for the first time, voiced the company’s official position regarding unilateral changes to terms by the company (an issue previously avoided by InCruises management).
“All changes made to the membership or partner agreement are carried out strictly in accordance with the membership agreement that each club member accepts upon joining,” the speaker said.
It is evident that such vague and formal statements, unsupported by references to laws or legal norms, proved incapable of resolving the situation. Their legal ambiguity became a direct catalyst for a new wave of collective complaints to government bodies and law enforcement agencies.
In a broader sense, Kazakhstan, according to activists, has become a kind of catalyst for an international process. Similar sentiments have begun to emerge in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Germany, Chile, and even the United States. Reports indicate the formation of an international coalition intending to raise the issue of the legality of InCruises’ activities before U.S. authorities.
“For years, many people in other countries didn’t understand how to act or where to turn,” says initiative group leader Saniya Musabayeva. “The Kazakh experience showed that unity is possible.”
Against this backdrop, experts agree on one thing: the situation around InCruises has entered a phase that will be closely watched not only by club members but also by regulators, journalists, and human rights advocates in different countries. How this story ends remains to be seen, but it is already clear that it has gone far beyond the bounds of a private corporate conflict.
It has also become known that at the end of last year, InCruises faced an unpleasant surprise. An international initiative group uniting 99 victims from 14 countries filed a collective complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). According to experts, such an appeal could lead to quite serious legal consequences, given the international nature of the claims.
Apparently, the time has come for company head Hutchison to address the growing problem of victims decisively, as their numbers are reaching alarming proportions. As early as this year, an unprecedented, large-scale international force may form, operating in parallel to InCruises — an opposing power that can no longer be ignored.
The conclusion is clear: the company urgently needs to put out the fire before it leads to fatal consequences. Perhaps the situation is being exploited by those seeking to profit from it by persuading the boss to continue fighting former club members. But, hand on heart, none of these advisers risk anything — while Hutchison may lose everything.