Procedural considerations in exit, liquidation and dissolution in Kazakhstan under the Code on Subsoil and Subsoil Use (2017)

A foreign investor dissolving a Kazakhstani entity that holds subsoil use rights faces a more demanding procedure than a standard company liquidation. The Code on Subsoil and Subsoil Use (2017) introduces obligations that sit alongside – and in several respects override – the general corporate dissolution rules under Kazakhstani civil and corporate legislation. Understanding the sequencing of those obligations before initiating exit is essential: errors at the pre-liquidation stage can delay dissolution by months and trigger regulatory sanctions.

A subsoil use right granted under the Subsoil Code is not automatically extinguished when its holder decides to wind up. The right is attached to the legal entity, not its shareholders, and termination of the right must be handled as a discrete regulatory event before – or in strict coordination with – the corporate liquidation process.

The principal obligations triggered on exit include the following.

Subsoil use right termination or transfer. The investor must either formally return the subsoil use right to the competent authority or, where permitted, transfer it to a qualified successor. A return of rights requires a formal application, review of the investor's compliance with the subsoil use contract, and sign-off from the authorising body. The competent authority retains discretion to refuse a clean return where there are outstanding contractual obligations, including rehabilitation and environmental remediation commitments.

Environmental and rehabilitation obligations. The Subsoil Code places explicit obligations on the subsoil user to restore affected land and environment to an agreed standard before the right may be fully relinquished. These obligations are typically secured by a rehabilitation fund or a bank guarantee held throughout the life of the contract. On exit, the competent authority will assess whether the fund is adequately funded and whether actual remediation work meets contractual specifications. Where deficiencies are identified, dissolution of the corporate entity will not proceed cleanly.

Contractual compliance review. Most subsoil use contracts in Kazakhstan include minimum work programme commitments, local content obligations, and reporting requirements. The competent authority conducts a compliance review as part of the exit process. Outstanding obligations may be converted into financial penalties or withheld from any rehabilitation fund balance returned to the investor.

Tax clearance. Exit from a Kazakhstani entity triggers a mandatory tax audit by the relevant state revenue committee. The audit covers the full period of the entity's operational activity, not merely the most recent tax period. Foreign investors should anticipate a minimum audit period of several months. Tax clearance is a statutory precondition to striking the entity from the legal entities register.

Creditor notification and settlement. As under standard Kazakhstani corporate liquidation rules, the liquidating entity must publish a notice of dissolution, establish a formal creditor claim period, and settle or dispute all claims before the liquidation balance sheet is approved. Where the entity holds obligations to state counterparties – including amounts due under the subsoil use contract – those obligations rank ahead of distributions to shareholders.

The interaction between Subsoil Code exit obligations and the corporate liquidation timeline is the area where foreign investors most frequently encounter delay. The two processes do not run in parallel by default: the competent authority's sign-off on the termination or transfer of the subsoil use right is effectively a gateway to completing corporate liquidation. Attempting to accelerate the corporate process before the regulatory track is closed tends to generate formal objections from the registering authority.

A workable sequence for most voluntary exits proceeds as follows. First, the investor notifies the competent authority of its intention to exit and requests a compliance assessment. This assessment identifies any outstanding work programme, environmental, or financial obligations. Second, the investor addresses identified deficiencies – this phase governs the overall timeline and is the least predictable. Third, formal termination or transfer of the subsoil use right is executed and documented. Fourth, the corporate liquidation process is initiated under the general rules, with tax clearance and creditor settlement running concurrently. Fifth, the liquidating entity applies for deregistration once all preconditions are satisfied.

Where the entity is being wound up as part of a wider group restructuring, additional considerations arise under Kazakhstani transfer pricing rules and, for transactions involving Russian group companies, under the cross-border regulatory frameworks applicable to EAEU-domiciled entities. Early coordination between Kazakhstani counsel and any Russian-qualified counsel acting for the wider group is advisable to avoid inconsistent filing positions across jurisdictions.

Note: Where a subsoil use right has not been formally terminated or transferred at the time corporate dissolution documents are submitted to the registering authority, the registration body is entitled to reject the dissolution application. This is not a technical irregularity that can be corrected on resubmission without restarting the regulatory timeline – in practice, it resets the process. Counsel should confirm the status of the subsoil use right before any corporate dissolution filing is made.

Foreign investors structuring their Kazakhstani subsoil participation through a holding chain – whether via a Russian, Dutch, Cypriot, or other intermediate entity – should note that the dissolution of the Kazakhstani operating entity does not automatically resolve the group's exposure in Kazakhstan. Obligations under the subsoil use contract run with the contracting entity, not the group structure, and cannot be novated to a foreign parent without the competent authority's consent.

Where the exit is driven by a broader divestiture or restructuring at the group level, the disposal of the Kazakhstani entity's shares (rather than dissolution of the entity itself) may preserve the subsoil use right and avoid triggering the full exit sequence described above – provided the incoming shareholder satisfies the Subsoil Code's qualification requirements for subsoil use right holders. That route carries its own transaction and regulatory timeline, but it is frequently faster than a clean dissolution, particularly where environmental rehabilitation obligations remain outstanding.

For groups with both Russian and Kazakhstani operating entities, the interaction between Russian corporate and tax law and Kazakhstani exit procedures warrants separate analysis. Both jurisdictions are EAEU members, which simplifies certain customs and trade-related aspects of restructuring but does not harmonise company law or subsoil regulatory requirements.

[CTA: If you are advising on or managing the exit of a Kazakhstani subsoil entity – whether as in-house counsel or as part of a cross-border restructuring – make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]

Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009, recognised by Pravo-300 for eight consecutive years.

The firm advises foreign companies and investors on market entry, corporate structuring, and exit in Russia and across EAEU jurisdictions, including Kazakhstan. For Kazakhstan-specific matters, the firm works in coordination with trusted Kazakhstani counsel. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team ensures direct partner involvement on every engagement.

Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom

• [Market entry and company formation in Kazakhstan](/jurisdictions/kazakhstan/company-formation/)
• [Corporate structuring and joint ventures in Kazakhstan](/jurisdictions/kazakhstan/corporate-jv/)
• [Restructuring and insolvency considerations in Kazakhstan](/jurisdictions/kazakhstan/insolvency/)

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.

— Aigerim Serikbayeva Contributing Regional Analyst – Kazakhstan · EAEU trade, customs and market entry vetrovpartners.com/contributions/

Aigerim Serikbayeva is a contributing regional analyst focusing on EAEU trade, customs, and market entry. She advises on inbound investment structures, regulatory compliance, and exit procedures for foreign investors operating in Kazakhstan and the wider EAEU area.