Kyrgyz MP Demands Answers on State Asset Seizures, Transparency

From our vantage point in Bishkek, the parliamentary session highlighted critical questions surrounding the government's management of assets seized from individuals accused of corruption or illicit enrichment. Deputy Ulanbek Jaantbayev voiced significant concerns, reflecting a broader public unease about transparency and accountability in these high-stakes confiscations.

“

On TV you say that you received 1.5 billion soms from one person, and another billion from someone else. But there is no information about the sold assets. People have a question: you took assets worth $2 billion from criminals, and where is the money, what happened to it?

Jaantbayev's critique, particularly directed at the State Agency for Property Management, points to a perceived lack of clear information regarding the fate of billions of soms allegedly recovered. The deputy's pointed questions about where these funds have gone and the justification for returning assets, even after court seizures, underscore a demand for greater clarity and adherence to legal processes. This is not just about recovering assets; it's about ensuring the rule of law is upheld, even when dealing with controversial figures.

“

For example, you legally seized nine properties from Daniyar Adzhiev by court decision. But when his children and family came out crying, you returned them. On what legal basis did you return them? Where is it written?

The issue of protecting legitimate business interests is also paramount. When entrepreneurs who have acquired property through legal means, potentially through multiple subsequent transactions, face scrutiny years later due to original privatization issues, it erodes business confidence. As Jaantbayev argued, there must be guarantees for good-faith buyers. The example of a factory in Jalal-Abad facing GKNB claims decades after its initial privatization illustrates this point starkly. Such uncertainty discourages investment and hinders economic development, a concern that resonates deeply within our business community.

“

There must be a guarantee that a person who buys property from the state is protected. Now, business confidence is falling because it has no certainty about the future. Whoever he is, a bona fide buyer, for example, the fifth or sixth owner, should not suffer.

Furthermore, the deputy's observation that prime state properties are difficult to find and are often sold cheaply, while less desirable assets languish, suggests potential irregularities or at least a significant lack of effective management. The alleged sale of the former GKNB territory in Jalal-Abad for a pittance, as mentioned, raises serious questions about the valuation and sale processes. From our perspective, these issues are not merely administrative; they touch upon the very integrity of state asset management and its impact on the national economy and public trust.

“

the former territory of the GKNB in Jalal-Abad region, which, according to him, 'went for pennies', while illiquid assets have been on sale lists for years.