A draft government resolution that would establish unified rules for information sharing between banks and tax authorities has triggered widespread public debate in Uzbekistan, with supporters describing it as a necessary step to combat the shadow economy while critics warn it could weaken constitutional protections for banking privacy.
The proposal, published for public discussion by Uzbekistan’s State Tax Committee, aims to regulate how banks provide information to tax authorities. According to the committee, the document does not introduce new powers for tax officials or abolish bank secrecy. Instead, it seeks to define the procedures, deadlines, formats, and electronic methods for exchanging information already permitted under existing legislation.
The proposal attracted significant attention after some media reports suggested it would allow tax authorities to gain broad access to citizens’ bank accounts and deposits. Responding to the growing discussion, the State Tax Committee issued a public explanation, arguing that these interpretations do not accurately reflect the draft’s content.
“The draft does not grant tax authorities new powers, does not abolish bank secrecy, and does not provide free access to the bank accounts of citizens or businesses,” the committee said. It stressed that banks would continue to provide information only in cases established by law.
The committee pointed to Article 134 of the Tax Code and the Law on Bank Secrecy, which already allow banks to share information related to taxation with state tax authorities under specific legal procedures. It also emphasized that any information received by tax authorities is itself protected as tax secrecy and cannot legally be disclosed or used for purposes other than tax administration.
Officials further argued that similar information-sharing mechanisms exist in many countries, including members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Uzbekistan has also joined the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, requiring the country to develop clear and transparent rules in this area.
Despite these assurances, the proposal quickly became one of the country’s most discussed regulatory initiatives.
One of the most controversial provisions concerns peer-to-peer (P2P) transfers. Under the draft, banks would report cases where an individual’s bank card or electronic wallet receives transfers totaling at least 500 times the base calculation amount during a calendar month from people other than close relatives. The measure is intended to identify cases where personal bank cards are allegedly being used for unregistered commercial activity.
Economist Otabek Bakirov criticized the proposal, arguing that it contradicts constitutional guarantees protecting banking secrecy. Referring to Article 41 of Uzbekistan’s Constitution, he noted that the confidentiality of bank operations, deposits, and accounts is guaranteed by law.
Bakirov also recalled that previous attempts to introduce similar monitoring of P2P transactions had been abandoned following constitutional reforms. “I hope this attempt will also fail,” he wrote, calling on parliament, the Central Bank, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, journalists, and the public not to remain silent during the discussion.
Public comments submitted during the consultation have echoed many of these concerns. According to a review published by Spot, many respondents argued that a government resolution, as a subordinate legal act, cannot limit rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Several commenters also referred to Article 31 of the Constitution, which protects the privacy of individuals and family correspondence. They argued that mass monitoring of citizens’ financial transactions would amount to a restriction of constitutional rights, which, in their view, could only be introduced through legislation adopted by parliament and, in some situations, based on a court decision rather than by a government resolution.
Other legal concerns focused on Article 134 of the Tax Code. Critics argue that the current law distinguishes between automatic notification of technical information, such as opening or closing bank accounts, and detailed account information, including balances and transactions, which may be provided only upon an individual request concerning a specific taxpayer. Opponents say the draft risks replacing this individual approach with automatic reporting of financial transactions without a specific request or suspicion.
Former member of parliament Rasul Kusherbayev, who now serves as an adviser to the chairman of the parliamentary committee on ecology, warned that the proposal could damage public trust in the banking system.
“The path that destroys trust in banks is the wrong path,” he wrote. Kusherbayev argued that if banks begin regularly transferring information on citizens’ accounts and deposits to tax authorities, many people could lose confidence in the banking sector. “No matter how noble the goals may sound, initiatives that undermine people’s trust cannot be justified,” he said, while urging the Central Bank to maintain its previous position on protecting banking secrecy.
The State Tax Committee has rejected claims that the proposal threatens constitutional guarantees. In a second official statement, it reiterated that bank secrecy remains protected under the Constitution and the Law on Bank Secrecy. According to the committee, Article 11 of that law explicitly allows banks to provide information related to taxation to tax authorities under procedures established by legislation.
The committee also argued that the draft simply implements requirements already envisaged by law. It noted that Article 134 of the Tax Code specifically states that the procedures governing information exchange between banks and tax authorities should be approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Officials further linked the proposal to broader government efforts to reduce Uzbekistan’s shadow economy. The committee cited a presidential decree issued in December 2025 aimed at reducing the informal economy, as well as a May 2026 presidential roadmap that specifically instructed authorities to develop rules requiring banks to report large incoming transfers to individuals’ bank cards or electronic wallets, excluding transfers from close relatives.
According to the committee, the proposal is not intended to monitor ordinary transfers between family members, friends, or acquaintances, nor to target loan repayments or routine personal transactions. Instead, it says the focus is on situations where personal bank cards are systematically used as business accounts, allowing individuals to receive significant commercial income without registering a business or paying taxes.
The committee framed the issue as one of fairness. “The state must protect citizens’ banking secrecy,” it said. “At the same time, the state must also protect honest taxpayers.” Officials argued that businesses operating legally and paying taxes should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to those conducting commercial activities through personal bank cards outside the formal tax system.
The discussion has also moved from legal issues to governance and public confidence. Human rights lawyer Ozod Juraboev argued that international experience shows efforts to reduce the shadow economy usually work best when tax systems are simple and transparent enough for voluntary compliance. Additional layers of control, he said, are less effective than a system businesses can follow without unnecessary difficulty.
He also suggested that improving transparency in public spending is equally important.
“Before filling the budget, it is necessary to make clear how that budget is spent,” he wrote, arguing that citizens are more willing to pay taxes when they can clearly see how public money is being used.
The State Tax Committee has invited citizens, businesses, experts, and media representatives to submit comments on the draft. The committee says all proposals received during the consultation will be reviewed before the document proceeds further.
