(10 February 2026 | Source: FBKRC)
The history of the Ayana Plaza residential complex in Astana is not just a conflict between equity holders and the developer. Court decisions, inspection materials, and responses from law enforcement agencies point to a more systemic problem: the apartment building was constructed and financed without key permitting documents. As a result, more than 120 families have found themselves in a situation of protracted unfinished construction, with legal proceedings dragging on for several years.
WHAT HAPPENED
Construction of the capital's multi-apartment residential complex Ayana Plaza, with built-in premises and parking, began in 2022, with the completion deadline stated as Q3 2023.
Equity holders entered into reservation agreements and service contracts with Bilding Company LLP, Kaztelematica LLP, and Kaztelematica Group LLP, transferring funds for future apartments. However, by the set date, the project was not completed, and construction effectively came to a halt.
Since March 2024, following appeals from the equity holders, a criminal case has been under investigation by the Police Department of Astana City under Part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Fraud on an Especially Large Scale"). The equity holders have been recognised as victims.
THE PERMITS THAT WERE MISSING
The key issue in this story is the legal basis for construction and the raising of funds.
Resolutions of the Akimat from 2021–2022 granted the developer the right exclusively to carry out survey and design work. These documents did not constitute a permit for full-scale construction of a residential building and contained direct conditions under which the resolutions would lose force if not met.
An economic court case, heard following a lawsuit by the prosecutor's office of the Almaty district, established that:
- construction and the raising of funds from equity holders were carried out without the proper permitting documents;
- the developer did not have permission from the local executive body to raise funds from equity holders;
- as a result, Bilding Company LLP was repeatedly brought to administrative responsibility in 2022–2023.
These conclusions are recorded in the court decision, which became the basis for further procedural actions.
COURT DECISIONS
In November 2024, the Specialised Inter-District Economic Court of Astana city upheld the lawsuit filed by the prosecutor's office in the interests of the equity holders of the housing construction cooperative (HCC) "Ayana-Astana". The court:
- terminated the reservation agreements;
- found that the developer had materially breached its obligations;
- ordered the transfer of the unfinished construction project and the land plot to the benefit of the HCC.
The court specifically noted that assessing the developer's costs is not the subject of this dispute, as the priority is the protection of the rights of the equity holders.
EXPERT APPRAISALS AND THE DISPUTE OVER FIGURES
As part of the criminal case, forensic economic and construction-financial expert appraisals were ordered. Their subject was the movement of funds: how much money was received, where it was directed, and to what extent it was used for construction.
However, the expert appraisals did not assess the legality of raising the funds themselves, which is fundamentally important for qualifying potential offences. Separately, by order of the investigation, a documentary check was carried out by specialists from A&M Audit LLP, which directly stated that permission to raise funds from equity holders was not issued to the developer.
Thus, the dispute over the "damage" largely came down to a bookkeeping analysis of the funds already received, while the question of the legal basis for their acquisition had been established by the courts earlier.
NOT AN ISOLATED CASE
The story of Ayana Plaza fits into a broader context of problematic shared-equity construction. Kazakhstani legislation imposes strict requirements on developers precisely because the risks in such projects are borne by citizens.
Court practice in recent years shows that in the absence of permits, even partially erected buildings can be deemed problematic, and priority in such cases is increasingly given to protecting equity holders, rather than the economic interests of developers.
POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES
For the equity holders, the key question remains a practical one — when and using what resources the construction will be completed. The transfer of the project to the HCC creates a legal basis for finding an investor or independently completing the project, but it does not solve the problem automatically.
For the market as a whole, this situation demonstrates the vulnerability of the control stage: administrative fines and formal checks do not always stop the illegal raising of funds at an early stage.
EDITORIAL OPINION
Cases like this of problematic shared-equity construction have been regularly recorded in different regions of Kazakhstan in recent years and affect a large number of families. A common feature of such stories is the raising of funds from citizens with incomplete or formal compliance with permitting procedures and a belated response from regulatory bodies.
This makes the problem not a private dispute, but a systemic and socially sensitive one. As long as preventive control remains weaker than subsequent investigations and court proceedings, the risks for equity holders persist as one of the most acute and pressing issues in the country's housing construction sector.
CONCLUSION
The case of the Ayana Plaza Residential Complex is an example of how a formally existing construction site can remain outside the legal framework for years. Court decisions have given equity holders legal tools to protect their rights, but the main question remains open: will the project be completed, and will this case serve as a lesson for the entire shared-equity construction system.