Amsterdam & Partners LLP Challenges Detention of Solfy Uzbekistan CEO Through United Nations Petition
International law firm Amsterdam & Partners LLP has escalated its advocacy efforts on behalf of Uktam Xasanov, the chief executive officer of fintech platform Solfy Uzbekistan, by filing a petition with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The submission argues that Xasanov’s arrest and ongoing detention violate both Uzbekistan’s domestic legal framework and internationally recognized human rights standards.
The legal action represents a significant development in a case that has drawn increasing attention from international legal observers, investors, and members of the business community concerned about the treatment of foreign investment-related disputes in emerging markets. According to the petition, Xasanov’s detention is not supported by credible criminal evidence and instead stems from his role as a local executive overseeing the operations of a foreign-backed enterprise involved in a commercial dispute with a state-owned financial institution.
The filing raises broader questions about the protection of business executives, the treatment of international investors, and the consistency of Uzbekistan’s legal environment with its publicly stated commitment to attracting foreign direct investment.
Background of the Dispute
Uktam Xasanov, an Uzbek national and CEO of Solfy Uzbekistan, was arrested in March 2026 in connection with an ongoing dispute involving the National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity of the Republic of Uzbekistan (NBU), one of the country’s most prominent state-owned banking institutions.
While details of the underlying commercial disagreement remain the subject of legal proceedings, Amsterdam & Partners LLP argues that the conflict is fundamentally commercial in nature and should not have resulted in criminal prosecution or prolonged pre-trial detention.
The firm contends that Xasanov’s arrest represents an inappropriate use of state power in a business dispute and argues that legal protections designed to safeguard entrepreneurial activity have not been properly observed.
According to the petition, the circumstances surrounding the arrest suggest that criminal law has been used as a mechanism to gain leverage in a commercial conflict rather than to address legitimate criminal conduct.
Questions Raised About Legal Procedures
One of the central arguments presented in the submission concerns the legal procedures that preceded Xasanov’s arrest.
According to Amsterdam & Partners LLP, Uzbek law requires an audit to be completed before criminal charges can be brought in cases involving allegations of financial misconduct. The petition claims that this legally required audit was finalized only after Xasanov had already been arrested, formally charged, and held in detention for three days.
The firm argues that this sequence of events raises serious concerns about whether proper legal procedures were followed before authorities took action against the executive.
Furthermore, the petition maintains that the completed audit failed to substantiate the allegations underlying the charges. According to the filing, the audit did not provide evidence sufficient to justify criminal prosecution or continued detention.
By highlighting these procedural concerns, the legal team seeks to demonstrate that the arrest lacked a valid legal foundation and may therefore constitute arbitrary detention under international law.
Concerns Regarding Independence and Potential Conflicts of Interest
The petition also draws attention to what it describes as potential conflicts of interest involving senior officials connected to the case.
Specifically, the filing references the familial relationship between the Chairman of the National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity and the Deputy Prosecutor of Tashkent. According to Amsterdam & Partners LLP, this relationship raises questions about the independence and impartiality of legal proceedings associated with the case.
While the petition does not allege specific misconduct arising from the relationship, it argues that such connections warrant careful scrutiny when evaluating decisions related to arrest, prosecution, and continued detention.
In international legal standards, the appearance of independence and impartiality is often considered as important as actual independence. The filing therefore suggests that these circumstances contribute to broader concerns about the fairness of the process being applied to Xasanov.
Challenge to Continued Pre-Trial Detention
Another major focus of the petition involves the continued use of pre-trial detention.
International human rights frameworks generally recognize detention before trial as an exceptional measure that should only be used when less restrictive alternatives are insufficient to address legitimate concerns such as flight risk, interference with evidence, or threats to public safety.
According to Amsterdam & Partners LLP, the Tashkent court failed to adequately evaluate alternatives to detention despite legal obligations under both Uzbek law and international standards.
The submission argues that courts are required to consider measures such as bail, house arrest, reporting requirements, or other restrictions before resorting to incarceration.
The petition contends that these alternatives were not genuinely considered and that Xasanov’s continued detention therefore lacks sufficient justification.
The firm further maintains that the commercial nature of the underlying dispute makes prolonged detention particularly difficult to justify under accepted legal principles.
Allegations Regarding Detention Conditions
Beyond the legal basis of the arrest itself, the petition raises concerns about the conditions under which Xasanov is being held.
According to Amsterdam & Partners LLP, the conditions of detention do not comply with either domestic legal requirements or internationally recognized standards governing the treatment of prisoners.
The submission specifically references the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, commonly known as the Nelson Mandela Rules. These guidelines establish internationally accepted principles related to humane treatment, communication with family members, access to legal representation, and overall detention conditions.
The petition alleges that nearly three months after his arrest, Xasanov had still been denied family visits despite repeated requests.
According to the filing, he has also been prevented from communicating with family members by telephone and has been limited to censored correspondence.
The legal team argues that these restrictions have negatively affected both his well-being and his ability to maintain normal family relationships while awaiting the outcome of legal proceedings.
The firm contends that such conditions are inconsistent with international standards and further support the argument that his detention is arbitrary and unjustified.
Broader Implications for Foreign Investment
The case has attracted attention not only because of its legal dimensions but also because of its potential implications for Uzbekistan’s investment climate.
Over recent years, Uzbekistan has actively pursued economic reforms aimed at attracting foreign direct investment, encouraging entrepreneurship, and integrating more deeply into global financial markets.
Government officials have frequently highlighted legal modernization efforts, improvements in the business environment, and policies designed to increase investor confidence.
However, Amsterdam & Partners LLP argues that the treatment of Xasanov sends a conflicting message to international investors.
The petition was submitted shortly after the Tashkent International Investment Forum, a major event during which government representatives promoted Uzbekistan as a secure and attractive destination for international capital.
According to the firm, the contrast between these investment promotion efforts and the continued detention of a business executive involved in a dispute with a state-owned institution raises troubling questions.
The legal team suggests that the case may create uncertainty among foreign investors evaluating the legal protections available to businesses operating in the country.
Commercial Disputes and Criminal Enforcement
A central theme of the petition is the distinction between commercial disagreements and criminal conduct.
Amsterdam & Partners LLP emphasizes that Uzbek law includes provisions intended to protect entrepreneurs and business operators from criminal prosecution arising solely from ordinary commercial disputes.
Such protections are designed to encourage economic activity and prevent business disagreements from escalating into criminal proceedings unless clear evidence of criminal behavior exists.
The firm argues that the current case violates these principles.
According to the petition, the dispute involving Solfy Uzbekistan and NBU should be addressed through civil or commercial legal mechanisms rather than criminal enforcement measures.
The filing maintains that utilizing state administrative and criminal powers in this context undermines legal safeguards specifically established to support business activity and economic development.
Statements from International Counsel
Robert Amsterdam, Founder and Managing Partner of Amsterdam & Partners LLP, has been among the most outspoken advocates regarding the case.
In comments accompanying the UN submission, Amsterdam argued that criminal law should never be used as leverage in a commercial dispute.
He emphasized that Xasanov has spent months in detention despite what the firm views as a lack of legal justification for the charges and despite the availability of alternative measures that would satisfy legal requirements without incarceration.
Amsterdam further argued that the case carries implications beyond a single individual, potentially affecting perceptions of Uzbekistan’s commitment to legal reform, investment protection, and human rights.
According to him, many observers believed that practices involving the use of state power to influence commercial disputes had become a thing of the past. Cases such as this, he suggested, risk reviving concerns that investors had hoped were no longer relevant.
The firm has called for Xasanov’s immediate release from pre-trial detention, citing concerns related to both legal compliance and his personal well-being.
The submission to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention marks an important new phase in the dispute.
The Working Group, an independent body established by the UN Human Rights Council, examines cases in which individuals are alleged to have been deprived of their liberty in violation of international law. While its findings are not legally binding in the same manner as court judgments, they often carry significant international weight and can influence diplomatic, legal, and public policy discussions.
As the case proceeds, attention is likely to remain focused on the legal arguments presented by Amsterdam & Partners LLP, the response of Uzbek authorities, and the broader implications for the country’s investment environment.
For international investors, legal professionals, and human rights advocates, the outcome may serve as an important indicator of how commercial disputes involving foreign-linked businesses are handled within Uzbekistan’s evolving legal and economic framework.
Source link: https://www.businesswire.com
