PART 1. INTRODUCTION

Why are we issuing this Call for Evidence?

1.1.         The Astana Financial Services Authority (AFSA) is issuing this Call for Evidence to gather views from stakeholders on the AIFC Asset Management Framework.

1.2.         Asset and fund management remains a strategic priority for the AIFC and one of its fastest-growing sectors. Over the past years, assets under management have increased more than twenty-five-fold, from USD 115 million in early 2021 to over USD 3 billion by 2025. Similarly, the number of funds registered in the AIFC rose from 6 in 2021 to 159 in 2025, managed by 68 fund and asset managers. Market activity reflects a broad and evolving range of fund types and investment strategies, including private equity and venture capital funds, as well as real estate, fixed income, commodities, digital assets, credit and umbrella structures.

1.3.         This growth has been supported by AFSA’s market-driven approach to regulatory development and close engagement with industry participants. In recent years, AFSA has delivered a number of material enhancements to the asset management regime, including refinements to Specialist Funds regime, the introduction of new Specialist Fund categories, an expanded range of permissible legal vehicles for fund establishment, and clarifying regulatory provisions.

1.4.         As the AIFC continues to develop as an international financial centre, it is important that the asset management framework remains responsive to market needs, supports sustainable growth, addresses emerging risks, and reinforces the AIFC’s competitiveness as a jurisdiction for fund and asset management activities. This Call for Evidence therefore seeks to identify areas where further clarification, adjustment, or guidance may be required to support consistent and efficient application of the framework.

1.5.         Against this background, AFSA has identified several key areas for preliminary discussion. At this stage, the Call for Evidence focuses on potential refinements to the Asset Management Framework, primarily within the AIFC Collective Investment Scheme Rules (CIS). The areas covered include the operation of Specialist Funds (Part 2), emerging fund structures and approaches (Part 3), and other practical issues affecting operational arrangements and investor protection (Part 4). AFSA also welcomes broader feedback on any aspects of the asset management regime not specifically addressed in this Call for Evidence (Part 5).

Who should read this Call for Evidence?

1.6.         This Call for Evidence will be of interest to AIFC asset managers and fund managers; applicants and potential applicants considering establishing asset management activities in the AIFC; fund administrators, custodians, depositaries, and other service providers; legal, compliance, and regulatory advisers; investors and other stakeholders interested in the development of the AIFC asset management sector.

Terminology

1.7.         Defined terms have the initial letter of the word capitalised, or of each word in a phrase. Definitions are set out in AIFC Glossary. Unless the context otherwise requires, where capitalisation of the initial letter is not used, the expression has its natural meaning.

What are the next steps?

Please send any feedback to consultation@afsa.kz by COB 28 February 2026.  
The feedback received through will support AFSA’s assessment of the current asset management regulatory regime and the development of proposals for its further enhancement, which AFSA plans to consult on through a separate public consultation later in the year.

PART 2. SPECIALIST FUNDS

2.1.         Background

2.1.1.    When the Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) Rules were first introduced in 2017, the concept of a Specialist Fund was framed in deliberately broad and flexible terms. CIS Rule 2.4 provided that any Fund, whether Exempt or Non-Exempt, could be designated as a Specialist Fund, with only two categories expressly contemplated at the time: Islamic Investment Funds, and any other fund type complying with specific rules or guidance that AFSA might publish in the future. This approach was intended to allow the CIS framework to accommodate innovation and evolving market practices without frequent structural amendments.

2.1.2.    The Specialist Funds regime began to take more concrete shape in June 2019, when AFSA introduced the first set of explicitly defined Specialist Fund categories: Private Equity Funds, Venture Capital Funds, and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). These additions marked a shift from a purely enabling framework toward a more structured taxonomy, with tailored requirements reflecting the distinct risk profiles and operational characteristics of these fund types.

2.1.3.    A further expansion occurred throughout 2023 and 2024, during which AFSA introduced a number of additional Specialist Fund categories. In 2023, Umbrella Fund, Fund of Funds and Master Feeder structure were added, reflecting more complex multi-layered fund structures increasingly used by asset managers. This was followed by the introduction of ESG Funds, recognising the growing importance of sustainability-focused investment strategies. In 2024, the Specialist Funds framework was further extended to include Single Family Office Funds (SFOFs) and Corporate Treasury Centre Funds. Most recently, AFSA introduced a further group of Specialist Funds aimed at more sophisticated activities, including Credit Funds, Digital Asset Funds, Investment Token Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), and Money Market Funds.

2.1.4.    As a result of these phased reforms, the Specialist Funds regime has evolved from a high-level enabling concept into a detailed and multi-layered regulatory structure covering a wide range of fund strategies, structures, and investor bases.  Informed by the ongoing supervisory engagement, AFSA is seeking market feedback to understand whether the current categorisation, requirements, and supervisory approach remain fit for purpose, proportionate, and sufficiently clear to support effective regulation and market development. Feedback is invited both on the overall effectiveness of the Specialist Funds (section 2.2), and issues specific to particular fund types identified during supervision (sections 2.3-2.7).

2.2.         Overall effectiveness of the Specialist Funds regime

2.2.1.    Across the range of Specialist Fund categories introduced between 2019 and 2024, AFSA has received feedback from market participants regarding various aspects of the framework. Stakeholders have noted that the Specialist Funds regime has facilitated flexibility and innovation, but also raised questions regarding the clarity, proportionality, and operational efficiency of certain rules.

2.2.2.    AFSA is therefore inviting market participants to share their perspectives on the overall effectiveness of the Specialist Funds framework, and on whether any areas could benefit from additional guidance, clarification, or adjustment. In particular, AFSA seeks input on whether regulatory expectations are clear and consistently applied across different Specialist Fund categories.

2.3.         Private Equity Funds

2.3.1.    Private Equity Funds were among the first Specialist Funds introduced into the CIS framework in 2019, reflecting their distinct investment horizon, liquidity profile, and governance structure.

2.3.2.    Under the current CIS Rules, Private Equity Funds are required to operate as closed-ended funds unless otherwise approved by AFSA. In practice, fund managers frequently apply for waivers of this requirement. This has highlighted that the strict closed-ended classification may not fully accommodate certain fund strategies or investor arrangements.

2.3.3.    Some market participants have proposed an alternative approach whereby a lock-up period is applied, during which unitholders cannot redeem their units for the duration of a specific project or investment cycle. This approach would ensure committed capital while providing greater flexibility than a formal closed-ended structure.

2.3.4.    AFSA considers that the continued appropriateness and proportionality of the closed-ended requirement for Private Equity Funds merits further examination in light of evolving market practices.

2.4.         Exchange Traded Funds (ETF)

2.4.1.    ETFs were introduced as a Specialist Fund category with effect from 1 January 2025, reflecting their growing role in modern capital markets and the increasing demand for exchange-traded investment products within the AIFC.

2.4.2.    CIS 2.4-1(j)(iii) requires each ETF to have at least one market maker (Authorised Participant) responsible for the creation and redemption of Units and for supporting secondary market liquidity. AFSA has received market feedback indicating uncertainty regarding the regulatory treatment and practical application of these roles.

2.4.3.    Stakeholders have noted that the CIS Rules do not clearly specify the regulated activity licence required to perform the market maker and Authorised Participant functions, including how the exchange requirements match with AFSA’s requirements. Market participants have further raised questions as to whether the market maker and Authorised Participant functions are intended to be performed by separate entities, or whether a single entity may perform both roles, noting potential ambiguity in the current drafting of the CIS Rules.

2.4.4.    AFSA considers that this feedback raises broader questions as to whether the current CIS Rules provide sufficient clarity, consistency, and alignment with international regulatory standards applicable to ETFs, and whether further guidance or rule-based clarification may be required, particularly for cross-border ETF models, group-based arrangements, or funds seeking to align with established international ETF practices.

2.5.         Umbrella Funds

2.5.1.    Since the introduction of Umbrella Funds in 2023, AFSA has received feedback from market participants highlighting several areas of operational complexity and regulatory uncertainty.

2.5.2.    One area of uncertainty relates to the coherence of investment strategies across sub-funds within an umbrella fund, as the current CIS Rules do not set out specific requirements in this regard. The absence of explicit regulatory expectations may give rise to challenges where sub-funds pursue materially different or unrelated investment strategies, asset classes, liquidity profiles, or risk characteristics.

2.5.3.    In such cases, there may be increased complexity in ensuring clear and effective investor disclosures, distinguishing the applicable risk and regulatory profiles of individual sub-funds, and applying regulatory requirements consistently. These structures may also present additional challenges in areas such as valuation methodologies, liquidity management, governance arrangements, and supervisory oversight, particularly where different strategies would ordinarily be subject to different regulatory expectations or safeguards if offered on a standalone basis.

2.5.4.    Further, feedback has indicated that the CIS Rules do not specify a maximum number of sub-funds that may be established under an Umbrella Fund. In practice, supervisory engagement has applied certain limits, reflecting the view that limitations on the size and complexity of an umbrella structure can help minimise risks relating to governance, operational oversight, and effective control over sub-fund activities.

2.5.5.    AFSA is therefore seeking stakeholder views on whether greater clarity in the CIS Rules regarding strategy coherence, disclosure and governance expectations for sub-funds could enhance compliance, transparency and investor understanding, and whether articulating expectations around regulatory limitation on umbrella fund structures would provide greater regulatory certainty.

2.6.         Fund of Funds

2.6.1.    Fund of Funds structures are designed to provide investors with diversification benefits by allocating capital across multiple underlying funds, asset classes, and investment strategies. They may also serve as an access vehicle for individual investors and smaller institutional investors who wish to gain exposure to certain strategies or fund managers but do not meet the minimum investment thresholds or eligibility criteria for direct investment.

2.6.2.    The current CIS Rules restrict Fund of Funds from investing in other Fund of Funds, Feeder Funds, or Sub-Funds of Umbrella Funds, and limit exposure to any single underlying fund to no more than 25% of the Fund of Funds value. In practice, AFSA has received requests from market participants seeking approval to depart from certain aspects of these restrictions, including a request by a Domestic Fund Manager to invest in a sub-fund of a foreign Umbrella Fund.

2.6.3.    These restrictions are intended to support investor protection, transparency, and effective oversight by limiting structural complexity, concentration risk, and potential layering of fees and risks. However, AFSA is interested in understanding whether the current rules remain proportionate and sufficiently flexible in light of evolving market practices, and whether they may constrain certain Fund of Funds structures without materially enhancing investor outcomes. AFSA therefore seeks stakeholder views on whether, and how, these restrictions could be refined to better accommodate different Fund of Funds models while preserving the underlying regulatory safeguards.

2.7.         Single Family Office Funds (SFOFs)

2.7.1.    The current CIS framework treats SFOFs as Domestic Funds and includes SFOF-specific provisions designed to accommodate highly specific investment arrangements. For example, CIS Rule 7.2-1.4(a) states: “The Director of a Single Family Office Fund who is managing the Single Family Office Fund must not act as the Fund Manager of any other Fund or manage assets for another Person.” This provision has created uncertainty regarding whether a Fund Manager authorised specifically to manage SFOFs may manage multiple SFOFs for different unrelated families, and whether a Fund Manager authorised under standard regime may include a SFOF as one of several fund types under its management.

2.7.2.    AFSA distinguishes between two regulatory scenarios. A Fund Manager authorised solely to manage a SFOF operates under a simplified licence with reduced or waived requirements, such as lower Base Capital, no Eligible Custodian, relaxed governance, and streamlined reporting, reflecting the private nature and limited investor base of SFOFs. In this context, CIS Rule 7.2-1.4(a) limits the manager to a single SFOF. By contrast, a Fund Manager holding a standard Managing a CIS licence may manage multiple funds, including several SFOFs for different families or other CIS types, provided each fund meets the applicable CIS requirements. AFSA therefore seeks stakeholder views on whether further guidance or amendments are needed to clarify the regulatory perimeter for SFOFs and Fund Manager activities.

2.7.3.    AFSA is also interested in feedback on whether the regulatory obligations for SFOFs, particularly regarding governance, reporting, and investor protections, are proportionate. For instance, some market participants have questioned whether the requirement to produce Offering Materials for SFOFs is necessary given their limited investor base.

PART 3. EMERGING FUND STRUCTURES AND APPROACHES

3.1.         Algorithmic funds

3.1.1.    AFSA has observed growing interest from fund managers in launching funds that rely on algorithmic or model-driven investment strategies, including fully automated portfolio construction and order execution. These strategies range from semi-autonomous models, where algorithms generate investment signals or portfolio allocations subject to human oversight, to fully automated strategies, where portfolio construction and order execution are carried out with limited or no human intervention. At present, the CIS Rules do not define “algorithmic funds” nor contain targeted provisions addressing the governance, testing, monitoring, or control of algorithmic models.

3.1.2.    Algorithmic strategies raise operational, market integrity, and investor protection considerations. Key risks include model design or calibration errors, data quality failures, execution errors, feedback loops, excessive leverage or liquidity mismatches, and the potential for disorderly trading or market disruption, particularly when strategies operate at speed or scale with limited human intervention.

3.1.3.    In practice, AFSA applies interim supervisory expectations to funds employing algorithmic or model-driven strategies, focusing on investor protection, operational resilience, and governance. These expectations typically relate to investor disclosures, governance and accountability, pre-launch testing and validation, and IT and cyber resilience.

3.1.4.    Internationally, algorithmic or model-driven strategies are typically regulated through existing market conduct, prudential, and risk management frameworks rather than by being classified as a separate fund category. Regulators in the EU, UK, US, and selected Asia-Pacific jurisdictions focus on the governance, controls, and operational risk management supporting such strategies, including model testing, monitoring, human oversight, escalation procedures, and investor disclosures.

3.1.5.    Drawing on these international practices and AFSA’s interim supervisory approach, AFSA is seeking market views on additional measures needed to support investor protection and operational resilience, and the overall desirability and feasibility of specifying supervisory expectations related to algorithmic strategies into the regulatory framework.

3.2.         Endowment funds

3.2.1.    AFSA has observed growing interest in endowment funds as long-term or perpetual investment vehicles established to support educational, research, charitable, or other institutional purposes. Endowments are widely used internationally as a sustainable financing mechanism for universities and similar institutions. Within the broader Kazakhstani context, a number of higher education institutions have established endowment-type funds to support projects in education, research, and innovation, demonstrating the potential role of such vehicles in promoting sustainable development and societal impact.

3.2.2.    The AIFC regulatory framework does not explicitly recognise endowment funds as a distinct fund category. During the 2022 review of the AIFC Asset Management Framework, AFSA identified endowment funds as a potential area of future development. Certain existing structures, such as Foundations and the asset management regime, may be relevant to endowment-type arrangements, although the extent to which the current framework supports such structures in practice has not been formally assessed.

3.2.3.    AFSA is therefore seeking stakeholder views on whether there is market interest in establishing endowment-type structures within the AIFC, and on the extent to which the current regulatory framework could support such arrangements. Feedback from market participants, universities, professional asset and fund managers, and other stakeholders is invited on potential use cases, demand, and practical considerations, including any challenges, barriers, or opportunities that should be addressed.

3.3.         Investment trusts

3.3.1.    The AIFC Collective Investment Scheme regime is designed to be principles-based and sufficiently flexible to accommodate a wide range of fund structures and investment arrangements. The definition of a Collective Investment Scheme under the AIFC Financial Services Framework Regulations is deliberately broad and captures different legal forms and arrangements, provided they operate as pooled investment vehicles for the benefit of investors.

3.3.2.    However, the CIS Rules do not expressly address investment trusts as a distinct form of Collective Investment Scheme. While the AIFC General Rules include the regulated activity of “Acting as the Trustee of a Fund” meaning “holding the assets of a Fund on trust for the Unitholders where the Fund is in the form of an Investment Trust”, the extent to which trust-based fund structures can be established and operated within the CIS framework is not articulated. This limits the practical ability to structure investment trusts within the AIFC.

3.3.3.    AFSA notes that, in some jurisdictions, investment trusts serve as an alternative legal form for collective investment, often chosen where fiduciary oversight, asset segregation, or specific investor or tax considerations are important. For example, trust-based structures are commonly used for REITs.

3.3.4.    In this context, AFSA is seeking stakeholder views on whether there is market interest in trust-based fund structures within the AIFC, and how the current regulatory framework is understood in relation to their potential use. Feedback is invited on whether the current treatment reflects limited demand, uncertainty regarding regulatory expectations, or other legal, operational, or structural considerations.

PART 4. OTHER PRACTICAL ISSUES

4.1.         Constitution and Offering Materials

41.1.    AFSA has received market feedback indicating that the current requirement for Fund Managers to prepare and submit both a Fund Constitution and Offering Materials can, in practice, result in duplication of content and increased administrative burden. Stakeholders have noted that similar disclosures, particularly in relation to investment objectives, restrictions, governance arrangements, and investor rights, are often repeated across both documents. This duplication may complicate the fund establishment and amendment process, extend review timelines during authorisation and supervisory engagements, and reduce operational efficiency without necessarily enhancing investor understanding.

4.1.2.    In light of this feedback, AFSA is considering whether the current documentation requirements could be streamlined, either by consolidating certain disclosures into a single core document or by more clearly delineating the distinct legal and disclosure functions of the Constitution and Offering Materials. Any such approach would seek to improve efficiency and regulatory clarity while preserving appropriate levels of transparency, legal certainty, and investor protection.

4.2.         Multiple or mixed investment strategies

4.2.1.    The CIS Rules currently do not restrict standalone Funds from pursuing multiple or mixed investment strategies within a single vehicle. Market feedback has indicated that such structures may give rise to challenges in investor understanding, disclosures, and supervisory classification, particularly where materially different strategies, asset classes, liquidity profiles, or risk characteristics are combined within a single Fund, including in cases where the combination of strategies may not clearly fall within the scope of regulatory expectations typically associated with Specialist Fund categories.

4.2.2.    At the same time, flexibility in fund structuring may support innovation and commercially viable investment solutions, and multi-strategy approaches are used in various jurisdictions for different types of collective investment arrangements. In some cases, funds with broad or flexible mandates are subject to tailored disclosure, governance, or risk management expectations reflecting the complexity of their strategies. However, the manner in which such approaches are addressed varies across jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks.

4.2.3.    AFSA is therefore seeking stakeholder views on how regulatory expectations should be framed in relation to Funds pursuing multiple or mixed investment strategies within a single Fund, including where such strategies span materially different asset classes, liquidity profiles or risk characteristics. In particular, feedback is invited on how to distinguish between permissible flexibility within a single Fund and circumstances where the combination of strategies may warrant clearer differentiation in regulatory treatment, disclosure or supervisory expectations.

PART 5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. The issues and proposals presented in this Call for Evidence have been informed by AFSA’s supervisory experience and market feedback. AFSA welcomes any additional views, observations or suggestions that may be relevant to the ongoing review and future enhancement of the AIFC Asset Management Framework.

PART 6. QUESTIONS SUMMARY