Kazakhstan’s authorities have presented the results of the campaign to recover illegally acquired or transferred assets as a major success. In September 2025, during his address to the nation, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev signaled a transition from asset recovery to broader investor-protection priorities. According to Prosecutor General Berik Asylov, recoveries totaling hundreds of billions of tenge have been returned to the state since the launch of the asset-recovery campaign. This includes not only cash and securities, but also land plots, business assets, and luxury property. Overall, official estimates put the total value of assets clawed back under the campaign at around 1.2–1.3 trillion tenge (roughly $2.3 billion), though only part of this amount has been directly credited to the state budget.

A tax on indulgence

When the law “On the Return of Illegally Acquired Assets to the State” was adopted in 2023, it was presented not merely as a fiscal tool but as a means of restoring historical justice. As part of the concept of building a “Fair Kazakhstan,” the authorities promised that assets once hidden in offshore accounts or invested in luxury real estate abroad would be redirected toward social development.

Two years later, it is clear that the assets have indeed been returned. Yet instead of a transparent process in which citizens could clearly see how recovered funds were being used, the system has created a dense layer of bureaucracy. Money has been accumulated in the Special State Fund (SSF), the operating mechanisms of which continue to raise questions among experts.

Despite official reports highlighting the construction of social facilities financed with seized assets, public debate over the transparency of the fund has not subsided. The authorities have also declined to publish the names of former asset owners or detailed information on specific accounts, enterprises, or land plots transferred to the state.

A defining feature of the campaign was the rejection of a purely punitive approach. Instead, the government introduced a mechanism of “voluntary return,” effectively offering members of the elite a compromise: return swathes of your illegally acquired wealth, and the state will refrain from pursuing past offenses.

The law clearly defined the target group, focusing on individuals owning assets valued at more than 13 million MCI, or roughly $100 million. This ensured pressure on large capital holders while shielding medium-sized businesses. At the same time, the closed nature of the list created a powerful instrument of leverage over the business elite.

Experts have described this approach as a “tax on indulgence.” Rather than engaging in lengthy and uncertain international legal battles over offshore assets, Astana has opted for pretrial settlements. In legal terms, this takes the form of procedural agreements in which suspects acknowledge wrongdoing, return assets, and receive reduced sentences or exemption from liability.

The most prominent and controversial example is the case of Kairat Satybaldy, a nephew of former president Nursultan Nazarbayev. After returning assets reportedly worth approximately $1.4 billion, he received a reduced sentence and was released ahead of schedule. From a fiscal standpoint, this represented a clear gain for the state. For many citizens, however, the outcome symbolized a painful moral compromise, reinforcing the perception that economic expediency had prevailed over full accountability.

The Special State Fund

Recovered assets did not flow directly into the republican budget, however, and were placed in the Special State Fund, a separate financial structure overseen by a commission chaired by the prime minister. The official justification for creating the fund was targeted spending. To prevent recovered money from being absorbed by routine government expenses, the authorities decided to earmark it exclusively for social needs. One of the most visible beneficiaries has been the national ‘Comfortable School’ project.

This approach has drawn criticism, with independent economists repeatedly warning that the fund operates outside standard budgetary procedures. Unlike the republican budget, which is debated and approved by parliament, the SSF’s allocation mechanisms are less transparent. In effect, critics argue, the government has created a “second wallet” managed by a limited circle of officials.

The public typically sees only the final outcome, such as the opening of a new school or cultural center. Detailed information on how much money enters the fund, how much is spent on administration, or how contractors are selected remains largely inaccessible.

Redistribution or nationalization

Even more complex is the question of how non-monetary assets are handled. Office buildings, hotels, industrial facilities, and corporate shareholdings have all been transferred to state ownership.

Recognizing that the state is rarely an efficient manager, the authorities established a dedicated body to administer these assets, preserve their value, and prepare them for sale. This has only served to heighten investor concerns about what some describe as “Privatization 2.0.” If assets are sold through opaque or selective auctions, there is a risk they could simply move from the hands of “Old Kazakhstan” elites to beneficiaries of “New Kazakhstan,” potentially at discounted prices.

Market participants are closely watching how major assets are handled. The key question is whether sales will take place through open, competitive auctions, possibly involving strategic foreign investors, or through closed tenders. The auction framework is still being refined, and this phase will be the real test of the reform’s credibility. Without transparency, the asset recovery campaign risks becoming a tool for redistribution rather than structural economic change.

By the end of 2025, it is reasonable to conclude that the asset recovery law has fulfilled its primary political objective. It has become an effective instrument of de-oligarchization and has helped replenish the state budget during a period of fiscal strain. The authorities have sent a clear signal that there are no longer untouchable figures.

Yet restoring “historical justice” requires more than confiscation alone. Without full transparency in how the Special State Fund operates, without public audits of every tenge spent, and without open auctions for the sale of recovered assets, the process will remain incomplete.

Kazakhstan has succeeded in bringing capital back home. The more difficult challenge now is ensuring that this capital genuinely works for the country’s economy.