The key facts

  • Screening of buyers of large assets for conflicts of interest is conducted by international consultants (Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG), not by the agency itself
  • Family ties with a civil servant do not by themselves prohibit a purchase — what matters is a conflict of interest and influence on the bidding
  • It remains unclear what data consultants receive and how many bidders were disqualified

Statement by the head of the State Assets Agency

During the privatization of large state-owned enterprises in Uzbekistan, screening of potential buyers for conflicts of interest is carried out by international consultants, not by the Agency for Management of State Assets itself. This was stated by the head of the agency, Sokhibzhon Murodov, at a press conference on October 8, answering a journalist's question about how the state prevents privatized assets from passing to relatives and associates of high-ranking officials. According to him, the agency acts only as the customer, while the consultant, on a contractual basis, conducts the screening and identification of connections with interested parties. Specialists must determine whether the bidding takes place under competitive conditions and whether there are circumstances that could lead to the unlawful sale of property due to a conflict of interest. Companies of the 'Big Four' — Deloitte, PwC, EY and KPMG — are predominantly engaged for such work.

Property rights and family ties

Murodov emphasized that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to property, so having family ties with a civil servant does not in itself mean a ban on acquiring property. What matters is a possible conflict of interest and the influence of interested parties on the outcome of the bidding.

Checks on electronic auctions

The head of the agency also spoke about restrictions on the sale of property through the E-auksion platform. A presidential resolution (PP-3149) of July 27, 2017 prohibits employees of a number of state bodies, as well as appraisers who took part in the valuation of the property being sold, from participating in electronic auctions for the sale of property within enforcement proceedings. The system checks participants automatically by exchanging information with state information databases. When selling certain state assets, it is checked whether the applicant works for the organization on whose balance sheet the property is held, for which data from the information system of labor relations is used. At the same time, the 2017 resolution regulates primarily enforcement proceedings, whereas privatization is also carried out on the basis of separate legislation.

Checks during privatization

The Law 'On Privatization of State Property', adopted in 2024, provides for procedures based on the principles of openness, equal competition and prevention of corruption. When selling certain large assets, the agency requires applicants to disclose information about ultimate beneficial owners. For example, during the privatization of Uzagrosugurta in 2025, buyers were required to provide information on shareholders holding more than 5% and on the ultimate owners of the companies. Investors' financial capacity, pending litigation, compliance with anti-money laundering requirements and international sanctions restrictions were also assessed. Deloitte acted as financial consultant for the deal, and PwC as independent appraiser. When selling the mobile operator MobiUz, the agency engaged Rothschild & Co, KPMG and Deloitte to organize an international competition, value the enterprise and review investors' proposals.

What counts as a conflict of interest and open questions

Since December 2024, Uzbekistan has had a law 'On Conflicts of Interest', which defines a conflict of interest as a situation in which the personal interest of a civil servant affects or may affect the proper performance of his or her duties. The law provides for identifying such cases using information on close relatives, ultimate beneficial owners of companies, employment relations and other data from state registries. At the same time, the internal control mechanism in state bodies is not equivalent to the screening of potential investors by international consultants. As Gazeta notes, it is unclear from the published deal terms how consultants establish buyers' connections with high-ranking officials and their relatives. It also remained unclear from Murodov's answer what specific information consultants receive, whether the screening applies to all participants in large privatization deals, and how many applicants were disqualified as a result.