Courts have issued two nearly simultaneous but opposite rulings concerning Nurbek Nazarbayev: a freeze on his assets and accounts was lifted in a lawsuit seeking 15.1 billion tenge, while he was definitively denied a debt restructuring procedure for debts to the state totaling nearly 56 billion tenge, reports infohub.kz.
On the surface, the decisions appear contradictory, but they involve two separate parallel proceedings.
In January 2026, the Karasai District Court imposed an asset and account freeze on Nurbek Nazarbayev in a lawsuit filed by former co-owner of the Altyn Orda market, Aidarbek Khusainov, who sought to recover about 15.1 billion tenge as unjust enrichment. However, Khusainov asked to leave the claim unexamined, and on June 19, Nazarbayev's representative secured the lifting of the interim measures. The freeze imposed on January 20 has been fully removed. The dispute ended without a ruling on the core question of whether the claims were justified. Notably, there is a discrepancy in dates: earlier reports indicated the motion was granted on April 8, while the new ruling cites May 14.
In another case initiated in September 2025, the Asset Recovery Committee recovered $106.75 million (about 57 billion tenge) from Nazarbayev, plus fines and penalties. The court froze all accounts and banned disposal of assets and company earnings. Nazarbayev then sought to initiate a debt restructuring procedure, listing a state debt of 55 billion 879 million tenge, penalties of 352 million tenge, court fees of 1.686 billion tenge, and a debt to the company Aktobe of 19.4 million tenge — totaling roughly 57.9 billion tenge. He claimed he still held valuable assets and that partners were ready to cover part of the debt. But the Asset Recovery Service argued that Nazarbayev was using bankruptcy to delay payments.
The court noted that the case file contained no information on income, dividends, deposits, insurance payments, or rental income, even though a significant portion of his assets is commercial real estate. The financial manager's report was deemed one-sided. The court ruled that evidence of insolvency was insufficient and denied the restructuring. An appeal was rejected, and the decision has taken effect.