P2P transfer controversy: the issue of bank secrecy remains open

The initiative to report large P2P transfers between cards to tax authorities in Uzbekistan has sparked significant debate. The Central Bank states that this proposal could violate citizens' constitutional rights and bank secrecy, while the Tax Committee emphasizes that the goal is not mass surveillance.

What is the Tax Committee proposing?

According to reports, the State Tax Committee has proposed introducing a procedure to obtain information from banks about individuals whose monthly P2P transfer receipts exceed 500 BRV, which is approximately 206 million soums.

In official explanations, the initiative is justified by the need to control shadow entrepreneurship, tax evasion, and turnover via cards.

However, because the issue specifically concerns transfers from personal card to personal card, the topic quickly became a subject of heated public debate.

Why did the Central Bank oppose it?

Abrorkhuja Turdaliyev, Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank, stated that this initiative could affect the confidentiality of banking operations and the constitutional rights of citizens.

According to the regulator's position, such a procedure could weaken trust in the banking system, drive people back to cash, and increase the share of the shadow economy.

In other words, the Central Bank is not saying that “control is unnecessary.” Its main objection is that the control mechanism should not harm citizens' personal data and bank secrecy.

The 500 BRV threshold also raised questions

Another aspect highlighted by the Central Bank is the basis on which the 500 BRV threshold was selected.

This is because large amounts of money entering cards do not always mean business income. For example, selling a house or a car, wedding expenses, money collected for medical treatment, debt repayment, or family support can also involve large sums.

Therefore, public opinion suggests that an automatic approach of “large sum = shadow business” may be unfair.

What did the Tax Committee say?

Responding to the objections from the Central Bank and the public, the Tax Committee emphasized that information exchange with banks must be carried out strictly within the framework of the law.

The Committee stated that P2P transfers themselves are not a subject of taxation and that the issue is not about mass monitoring of personal transactions.

At the same time, the agency noted that such a mechanism must comply with requirements for bank secrecy, protection of personal data, and maintaining citizens' trust in the banking system.

What is the public worried about?

In the discussions, citizens are mainly citing three concerns.

The first is the security of personal data. People fear that if bank information circulates among many agencies, data leaks could occur.

The second is the misinterpretation of ordinary personal transfers. For example, money received from relatives or funds collected for medical treatment could be viewed as business income.

The third is trust in the banking system. If people feel they have to explain every large movement on their cards, there is a possibility that the return to cash will intensify.

The main question: where does control end?

For the state, fighting tax evasion is important. But for citizens, bank secrecy, the sanctity of private life, and the security of financial data are just as important.

The problem lies exactly here: shadow business needs to be identified, but the feeling of mass surveillance of ordinary people's personal transfers must not be created.

In other words, the system should not turn all citizens into suspects in its attempt to “find those who avoid paying taxes.” The balance here is very delicate.

The debate is not over yet

The Tax Committee has stated that it will study the objections of the public and the Central Bank. Therefore, it is not yet clear what the final version of the project will look like.

One thing is certain: the debate surrounding P2P transfers is not just a tax or banking issue. It has become a major topic related to citizens' personal data, financial freedom, and trust in the state.

Now the main question is: how can citizens' bank secrecy be protected while fighting the shadow economy?