Assistant governor embezzled funds meant for the poor  

Assistants to the governor  

In the past, we occasionally heard about governors taking bribes. Now, we don't. Because they have assistants. And now, the assistant governors are the ones taking bribes.  

An assistant governor in the Shaykhantohur district of Tashkent city used electronic keys he obtained to issue loan recommendations for 20 citizens. Through these recommendations, he secured and misappropriated loans totaling 427.7 million sums. The Prosecutor General's Office reported this on February 3.  

According to the prosecutor’s office, members of needy families had approached the assistant governor for help in developing family entrepreneurship, handicrafts, home-based businesses, small-scale production, service provision, and other economic activities.  

Additionally, an assistant to the Tashkent city governor, despite not residing in the mahalla, fraudulently obtained a total of 207.7 million sums in loan funds by using fake recommendations. He secured these loans for his relatives and five other individuals who also did not live in the mahalla and subsequently embezzled the funds.  

"A criminal case has been initiated under Article 168, Part 4, Clause 'a,' along with other provisions of the Criminal Code. Preliminary investigations are currently underway," the Prosecutor General’s Office stated.  

It is concerning that Tashkent city governor Shavkat Umurzakov had such an assistant. But now, the assistant has seemingly vanished. Where is he?  

Shortly after the Prosecutor General’s Office released the information, the Tashkent city government issued an official response, stating, "We don’t have such an assistant. He resigned from his job in November of his own free will."  

“We would like to clarify reports circulating online that an assistant to the mayor of Shaykhantohur district allegedly issued loans in the names of 20 people and misused the funds.  

Regarding these claims, we confirm that no such official currently exists in Tashkent city. The individual referred to as M.F. resigned from his position of his own accord in November of last year,” the mayor’s office press service stated. 

Prosecutor General's Office responds to Tashkent Administration’s statement on assistant mayor’s crime  

"On February 3, 2025, a report was published regarding a crime committed by an assistant to the mayor of the Shaykhantohur district of Tashkent city. However, following this report, various statements and social media posts have emerged, seemingly aimed at misleading the public.  

We would like to inform you that M.F. worked as an assistant to the mayor of the 'Kamolon Darvoza' mahalla citizens' assembly in the Shaykhantohur district, focusing on entrepreneurship development, employment, and poverty reduction. His tenure lasted from October 7, 2022, to November 29, 2024. He was officially dismissed by a decision of the district mayor on December 14, 2024.

The acts described in the previously published report were committed precisely during his tenure as an assistant to the mayor," the statement read.  

Despite this clarification, the Tashkent city administration, which avoided directly naming the Prosecutor General’s Office and instead referred to it as "a place of information," issued a warning:  

"We once again ask the media to adhere to the principles of reliability, objectivity, and responsibility when publishing information."

While the administration calls for journalistic responsibility, does it uphold the same standard for itself?  

If an assistant mayor, who was paid from the state budget, allegedly misappropriated a total of 634 million sums—427 million meant to lift 20 citizens out of poverty and another 207 million obtained under the names of relatives—and was then allowed to simply resign without being held accountable, what does that say about the administration's responsibility? Shouldn’t the mayor have questioned him about the loans and their intended recipients before letting him leave without consequence?  

If this were an isolated case, it would be less alarming. However, assistant mayors seem to have developed a pattern of taking out loans in the names of poor citizens, using them to settle personal debts, and consistently engaging in bribery.  

On January 17, an assistant mayor of a mahalla citizens' assembly in the Uchtepa district of Tashkent was caught red-handed while accepting $30,000 from a citizen.  

This official, responsible for "developing entrepreneurship, ensuring employment, and reducing poverty," allegedly demanded money from a citizen in exchange for securing 210 m² of land through an auction. He claimed he could facilitate this by leveraging his connections with high-ranking officials, allowing the construction of four shops in the district.  

It was later revealed that this assistant mayor had been convicted three times before under Articles 167 (embezzlement or misappropriation), 168 (fraud), 205 (abuse of power or official authority), and other sections of the Criminal Code.  

This raises serious concerns: How could the Tashkent city administration entrust the task of poverty reduction to an official with a criminal record?  

The issue extends beyond Tashkent. In August 2024, an assistant mayor and several others were arrested in Kashkadarya on suspicion of embezzling more than 1 billion sums.  

Similar incidents have been reported across the country:  
- In a neighborhood in Samarkand district, an assistant mayor allegedly demanded $1,300 to process cadastral documents legally.  
- Another assistant mayor in Samarkand reportedly asked for $1,500 in exchange for securing a 150-million-soum loan through his contacts at a bank.  
- In Namangan, 10 assistant mayors were found to have committed over 80 such violations.  
- The assistant mayor of the Jalakuduk district allegedly requested a $600 bribe for coal distribution meant for the autumn-winter season.  
- Recently, the deputy mayor of the Kokdala district reportedly demanded $5,000 to allow the operation of a film production enterprise.  

Even President Shavkat Mirziyoyev has previously expressed concern over the corruption among assistant mayors. In a 2022 video address, he remarked:  

"It is deeply concerning that some assistant mayors are greedy, saying, ‘I will give you loans, subsidies, land.’”  

Despite repeated criticisms, the situation remains unchanged. Throughout 2024, assistant governors were involved in 309 corruption cases. The most common offense remains the same—taking out loans in the names of poor citizens and using the funds for personal gain, leaving the citizens responsible for repaying the debts.  

The saying goes, "Even a dog will bite a poor person on a camel." One such victim, Uktamoy Juraeva, a resident of Buka district in the Tashkent region, came to QALAMPIR.UZ with a complaint.  

Since the problem began, Uktamoy has tirelessly sought justice, knocking on every possible door. There is not a single office where she hasn’t filed a complaint against the assistant governor involved in her case. Meanwhile, bank representatives continue visiting her home, demanding repayment of the 30 million soum loan she never actually received.  

She has taken the matter to court, but hiring a private lawyer is financially impossible. The state-appointed lawyer has not been of much help either. Adding to her hardship, her son—who had 12 sheep registered in his name—was classified as an entrepreneur, causing the family to be removed from the list of low-income households, despite the fact that the sheep existed only on paper. As a result, they lost their eligibility for child benefits.  

Uktamoy’s son’s only mistake was believing in the promises made from official platforms and taking out a loan in the hope of escaping poverty. Now, he has neither the money nor the sheep. Uktamoy herself is afraid to take out a loan, fearing she will fall into the same trap. During our conversation, she expressed frustration, saying, “It seems state funds can be gambled with freely.” No, honest people do not gamble—but government officials entrusted with public funds seem to do so without consequence.  

Today, Uzbekistan has nearly 10,000 assistant governors. This position was introduced on January 1, 2022, by a decree from President Shavkat Mirziyoyev with the goal of developing entrepreneurship, ensuring employment, and—most importantly—reducing poverty.  

But how effective have these officials been in reducing poverty? How much have they assisted the regional governors and the public in achieving this goal? To date, there has been no clear analysis of the impact of this position. However, what we frequently see instead are reports of assistant governors embezzling public funds in various regions.  

This raises an important question: Why does this position exist, and whom does it truly serve—the country and its people, or the officials themselves?

We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments. Have you ever benefited from an assistant governor? Let us know your experience.