Legislation: Kazakhstan accessed the United Nations Convention against Corruption in June 2008. Kazakhstan's anti-corruption legislative framework is relatively strong and amendments and additions to several laws related to anti-corruption were passed in the summer of 2007, although these were primarily curative rather than preventative. The Criminal Code criminalises active and passive bribery, attempted corruption, extortion, money laundering, abuse of office, as well as bribe facilitation by third parties. Bribing a foreign official has recently become a criminal offence too. The Law on the Fight Against Corruption defines what actions are corrupt and the conditions under which persons are responsible and punishable for corruption. Article 9 of the Law on the Fight Against Corruption requires that asset declarations made by state officials stay secret. Reviews of these declarations do not normally take place and the fact that they are kept secret means that they are not subject to the scrutiny of the media or society. Amendments to the Law on the Fight Against Corruption were passed in December 2009. These amendments increase punishments for corruption crimes, institute mandatory asset forfeitures, broaden the definition of corruption crimes to include fraud committed by government officials, and criminalise the acceptance of a bribe on behalf of a third party and acceptance of intangible assets. Further details of the amendments to the anti-corruption law are yet unknown. The law also extended the definition of government official to managers of companies in which the government holds more than a 35% stake. The Law on Civil Service and the Law on the Fight Against Corruption require state officials to report conflicts of interest, but there is no mechanism in place to deal with these conflicts when they arise. The Parliament of Kazakhstan has approved amendments to the Law on Law-Enforcement Bodies of Kazakhstan. The long-term purpose of the bill is to combat criminality, including corruption offences, and to protect public order. The new bill on Law-Enforcement Bodies of Kazakhstan is expected to reduce corruption in the sphere of law enforcement through improvement of working conditions of law enforcement bodies. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Kazakhstan.

Government Strategies: The government has conducted civic awareness campaigns about corruption and continues to revise and raise the salaries of public officials to match those in the private sector in an effort to reduce the incentive for officials to take bribes. A new post of 'responsible secretary' with equal rank to deputy minister was introduced in 2007 as part of the government's administrative reform and anti-corruption programme. The objective of the new post was a planned streamlining of bureaucracy and the introduction of corporate management principles into government ministries and departments. However, the efforts to streamline and reduce government bureaucracy in order to reduce corruption and increase efficiency have stalled. Moreover, some critics point to the fact that the 'responsible secretary' position has not replaced that of deputy minister, indicating that bureaucracy has in fact swelled rather than shrunk. The President has started a number of anti-corruption campaigns, the latest of which was launched in January 2009, according to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010. Nonetheless, the source reports that there is little public trust in these campaigns or that corrupt public officials will be adequately punished under the law. In the early 2009, the government adopted an anti-corruption policy, which includes promised pay rises of 15% for public servants, a 60% rise for local court judges and an almost 300% boost in salaries for traffic police, as reported by Bertelsmann Foundation 2010. However, in overall terms, corruption remains rampant. The country's anti-corruption agency, the Financial Police (see below) has developed a State Programme for Fighting Corruption for 2006-2010 intended to reduce the level of corruption in all spheres of life by increasing efficiency and coordination of the activities within and between state bodies and civil society. Access the Strategic Anti-Corruption Plan 2010-2014 (in Russian).

Anti-Corruption Agencies: The Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Fighting with Economic and Corruption Crimes (Financial Police) is responsible for investigatin different types of economic crime, such as active and passive bribery, abuse of office, and smuggling. The agency is weak and falls under the authority of the president's office, which has caused some criticism as to its accountability towards the legislature. Analysts have criticised the agency's lack of trustworthy personnel and even the President himself has admitted to having received complaints about corrupt Financial Police officers employed at the agency. According to Global Integrity 2010, the Financial Police is not effectively protected from political interference. Similarly, according to the report, the appointments to the body are sometimes made based on political considerations, and individuals appointed may have clear party loyalties. Also, the head of the Financial Police is in practice not protected from removal without relevant justification. According to Freedom House 2011, in general the anti-corruption bodies in Kazakhstan are used by the state to 'settle scores with inconvenient highly placed officials' and businessmen. During the first eight months of 2010, more than 470 people were convicted of corruption, including one minister and five vice ministers and mayors, according to the head of the Financial Police, as cited in the US Department of State 2010.

Auditor-General: State financial control is opaque, but exercised by the Accounts Committee for Control of the Execution of the Republican Budget. This body is subordinate and refers directly to the president. However, it is legally protected from interference by all other branches of government and can effectively initiate its own investigations. Formally, the Parliament has to approve the state budget and auditing reports. According to the OECD Anti-Corruption Network 2006, there is no need to subordinate the auditing institution to the Parliament. There is reportedly a lack of coordination and cooperation between the Accounts Committee and the Ministry of Finance Financial Control Committee, which shares a very similar mandate. According to Global Integrity 2010, the appointments to the Accounts Committee do not sufficiently support its independence from the executive; thus, appointments may be politically influenced, and individuals appointed may have clear party loyalties. According to the report, the government does not always react on the findings of the audit institution and may sometimes ignore or give only superficial attention to the audit reports. 

Ombudsman: In law, the Ombudsman Office is well-protected from political interference. However, according to Global Integrity 2010, the Ombudsman is not sufficiently protected from political interference in practice and it may sometimes be influenced by political or personal incentives, including conflicting family relationships, professional relationships, as well as threats and abuses of power. This perception is supported by Freedom House 2011, according to which, the Ombudsman has limited rights to monitor human rights and is officially barred from any 'interference with the work of either the police or the judicial system'. The Office was established by decree in 2002. It can initiate formal complaints, but it remains unclear whether the Ombudsman has the power to initiate criminal investigations, and there have been far too few investigations initiated in relation to the size of the office's mandate which covers the entire public sector. The Ombudsman's public complaint mechanism is reportedly ineffective. The office publishes readily available online reports (in Russian) quarterly and annually. According to Global Integrity 2010, the government sometimes ignores the findings of the Ombudsman or only gives them superficial attention, particularly if they concern politically sensitive issues.

General Prosecutor's Office: The General Prosecutor's Office is responsible for supervising the observance of law by government ministries and institutions, but is under executive influence and the opposition is highly critical of its lack of impartiality. It has been criticised for involving itself in cases where the state does not have a direct interest, but where it might be able to extort bribes, while simultaneously failing to protect citizens whose cases are deemed less important by the authorities.

E-Governance: The Electronic Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan web portal is a useful entrance point for companies, providing information on business planning, starting and liquidating a company, investments and trade, taxes and licensing, crediting and public procurement. The site also has information of special relevance to SMEs. Moreover, the site provides individual citizens with useful information and forms concerning taxes, migration, legal services, social protection and employment.

Public Procurement: Kazakhstan's Public Procurement Law 2002 stressed the development of a transparent, competitive and objective public procurement regime. The law requires competitive bidding for major procurements and provides strict formal requirements to limit the extent of single sourcing. A tender failure is declared if only one responsive bid was received, according to ADB & OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific Curbing Corruption in Public Procurement in Asia and the Pacific 2006. Access to the procurement process is well advertised and open for both companies and citizens. Information regarding procurement legislation and bidding documentation on government procurement can be found at the Ministry of Finance Financial Control State Procurement Committee website (only through the Kazakh and Russian version). The committee's website has published a list of unreliable suppliers and companies, legally barred from participating in future bids. However, according to Global Integrity 2010, companies guilty of major violations of procurement regulations, such as bribery, are in practice not effectively prohibited from participating in future procurement bids, which is an obstacle for transparency and anti-corruption efforts in procurement. Amendments were made to public procurement law in late 2008 that limit the powers of government agencies to influence the public procurement process. The Law on Amendments to Public Procurement Law primarily intended to increase transparency and openness and to eliminate major possibilities for corruption in public procurement and to introduce an electronic system for Kazakhstan's procurement system. E-procurement became operational in 2009. Up-to-date procurement information can be found on the public procurement web portal. While in law there are mechanisms that monitor the assets, incomes, and spending habits of procurement officials, enforcement of conflict of interest regulations for public procurement officials is weak. Investors have also raised concerns over the transparency and efficiency of the government procurement process and the framing of laws that strongly favour domestic suppliers in all sectors. Companies can challenge procurement decisions in court and contact the Ministry of Finance in order to appeal the legitimacy of tendering procedures. 

Whistle-Blowing: The Law on Fight Against Corruption guarantees the inviolability of the people who contribute to the fight against corruption. Private sector employees and civil servants who report cases of corruption and abuses of power or resources are legally protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. Whistleblowers can access the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Fighting with Economic and Corruption Crimes trustline to anonymously report acts of corruption. However, the agency is itself considered to be systemically corrupt and, in practice, whistle-blowing is considered taboo and a breakage of corporate loyalty. According to Global Integrity 2010, civil servants and private sector employees are not always protected from recrimination or other negative consequences in practice when they report corruption, despite legal protections.

General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Kazakhstan has a relatively broad anti-corruption legal and institutional framework. However, the lack of systematic enforcement and implementation of the framework and the executive's penetration of all facets of political office mean the framework remains to a great extent an empty shell. There is a lack of coordination and coherence between government institutions involved in anti-corruption. Civil society could also be much more actively and positively involved in the government's anti-corruption programmes as opposed to the identified incrimination of civil and political rights NGOs (see Civil Society section under 'Private Anti-corruption Initiatives'). On a more positive note, it should be mentioned that Nazarbayev's administration seems to have made some progress in terms of anti-corruption efforts, intensifying its awareness campaign to address corruption, and convicting several high-ranking government officials for embezzlement and abuse of office.