Former soloist of the Otpetye scammers Sergey Amoralov spoke about the long-standing rift with the group’s ex-member Garik Bogomazov during a recent public appearance on the Malakhov program. The exchange shaded light on a conflict that reportedly dates back more than a decade, with Amoralov describing it as a deeply personal and career-wide strain that painted the dynamics of the band in a new, troubling way.
Amoralov explained that the dispute with Bogomazov carried emotional weight long before their public falling out. He characterized the disagreement as something that simmered for years, culminating in a decisive break that altered the band’s trajectory. The artist emphasized that the tension, while personal, also intersected with the professional pressures of touring, public perception, and the responsibilities of keeping a group cohesive in the spotlight. In sharing these reflections, Amoralov suggested that Bogomazov played a significant role in steering the group toward its eventual dissolution, a claim he framed within the context of the duo’s broader experiences as part of the ensemble known for its provocative style and its share of controversy.
Reflecting on the period around 2010 to 2011, Amoralov described a time when communication between the two men deteriorated, and attendance at concerts became sporadic. He recalled decisions to continue performing without Bogomazov, noting that the split happened after unresolved personal and professional tensions reached a tipping point. Amoralov attributed some of the friction to Bogomazov’s personal struggles with alcohol, explaining that these issues affected the group’s functioning and schedule, ultimately influencing the direction of the project and the path of its members as they pursued separate careers.
On the other side of the conversation, Bogomazov offered his perspective during an online broadcast. He indicated that third-member Tom Chaos once sought a collaboration with him prior to his death, a bid that he believed could have reshaped the group’s creative dynamic. Bogomazov asserted that Amoralov had written multiple threatening letters that prevented the duet from becoming a reality, portraying the events as part of a broader pattern of conflict and miscommunication within the band. This account adds another layer to the narrative, highlighting how internal disagreements and external pressures can reinforce mutually incompatible visions for a group’s future, often pushing members onto divergent paths. The discussion illustrated how reputational pressures, artistic ambitions, and personal grievances can intertwine, complicating the public’s understanding of what really happened behind the scenes.
Both sides presented memories that align yet diverge on critical moments in the band’s history. The dialogue underscores the difficulty of fully reconciling past disputes within a public, media-driven environment where fans and observers seek simple explanations for a fractured lineup. It also demonstrates how individual experiences—ranging from creative disagreements to personal health challenges—can leave lasting imprints on a musical project and its legacy. As the narrative continues to unfold, audiences are reminded that celebrity groups often bear the weight of internal tensions that may never be fully resolved in the public eye, leaving room for ongoing interpretation and reflection across time.