Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an issue that is potentially of interest to an international legal audience. Nevertheless, as it is currently, it does not seem to meet the standards of originality, analytical depth, and coherence required for publication in an international law journal.  To sum up, I believe that substantial revisions are needed.  

First of all, the article suffers from limited originality. Many parts of the paper, indeed, report quotes and summaries of existing scholarship, often with no clear added value or an original interpretative perspective.It would be better to put a stronger emphasis on the authors’ independent analysis and a more critical use of the literature.

Second, the manuscript contains conceptual inaccuracies concerning the rationale and objectives of certain international and supranational legal instruments. For example, stating that the GDPR’s main purpose is to preserve tax privacy is incorrect and reflects a misunderstanding of the regulation’s rationale.

Greater precision in the use of legal concepts and a more accurate understanding of the relevant regulatory contexts are essential.

Third, the paper is affected by significant structural weaknesses. The paragraphs and sections are not always logically connected, and the progression of the argument is often unclear. Consequently, the reader struggles to understand how the various parts of the article relate to one another and how they contribute to the overall argument. 

The article would benefit significantly from a clearer roadmap in the introduction and a better transition between sections.

Finally, the conclusions appear rushed and insufficiently substantiated by the preceding analysis. The connection between the discussion in the previous sections  and the conclusions is difficult to be fully convincing to the reader.

In sum, before being published, the article needs substantial amendments in terms of originality, conceptual accuracy, structure and analytical coherence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is overall good and acceptable.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a timely and policy relevant issue concerning the interaction between banking secrecy, tax secrecy, and international exchange of information, particularly in the context of Kazakhstan’s increasing participation in OECD led transparency frameworks such as CRS and FATCA. The topic is important, and the paper demonstrates familiarity with statutory materials and international instruments. However, in its current form, the manuscript requires revision to strengthen its analytical clarity, conceptual focus, and international scholarly engagement.

At the outset, the reviewer wishes to clarify that this assessment is undertaken from the perspective of international tax law and comparative fiscal governance. As a reviewer based outside Kazakhstan, I am unable to independently verify the accuracy or current application of Kazakhstan’s domestic banking and tax legislation beyond publicly available sources and the authors’ representations. Accordingly, the review focuses on the internal coherence of the legal reasoning, the treatment of international frameworks, and the consistency of domestic claims with internationally recognised standards.

Abstract

• The abstract clearly identifies the relevance of banking secrecy and international tax information exchange in the Kazakhstani context.
• However, it is overly descriptive and can be shortened by approximately 20 to 25% without loss of substance.
• The central research question is not explicitly stated; the abstract describes themes rather than clearly articulating the analytical problem addressed.
• Claims regarding “lack of legal clarity” and “need for harmonisation” are asserted but not framed as testable or analytically examined propositions.

Introduction

• The policy relevance of CRS, FATCA, and OECD transparency initiatives is well established.
• However, the Introduction introduces too many themes simultaneously (banking secrecy, tax secrecy, official secrecy, confidentiality, international cooperation) without clear prioritisation.
• The research gap is repeated across multiple paragraphs but not sharply defined.
• The Introduction would benefit from a clearer structure:
  context → legal problem → research gap → objectives → contribution.
• The manuscript does not clearly state whether it adopts a diagnostic, normative, or reform oriented approach.

Conceptual and Doctrinal Framework (Secrecy Concepts)

• The discussion of banking secrecy, tax secrecy, professional secrecy, and official secrecy is extensive and well-researched.
• However, the section reads more like a compilation of definitions than an analytical synthesis.
• Multiple scholarly views are presented without clearly explaining:
• which approach is preferred; or
• how these distinctions materially affect tax administration or taxpayer rights.
• Consider streamlining repetitive definitional content and focusing on the legal consequences of overlapping secrecy regimes.

Engagement with International and Comparative Literature

• The manuscript correctly references CRS, FATCA, BEPS, and the OECD Convention.
• However, engagement with recent international tax scholarship (post 2020) is limited.
• The literature base is heavily domestic and regional, constraining international relevance.
• There is little engagement with:
• comparative CRS implementation experiences;
• judicial or constitutional scrutiny of automatic exchange regimes; or
• debates on proportionality, due process, and taxpayer safeguards.
• A stronger comparative dimension would significantly enhance scholarly contribution.

Rights Based and Safeguards Analysis

• The manuscript correctly notes the erosion of absolute banking secrecy.
• However, the rights based implications of expanded information exchange are underdeveloped.
• There is limited discussion of:
• procedural safeguards for taxpayers;
• remedies against misuse or administrative overreach; and
• standards of necessity, proportionality, and purpose limitation.
• Given the intrusive and automatic nature of information exchange, this dimension requires deeper and more explicit treatment.

Confidentiality vs Data Protection

• The manuscript acknowledges that confidentiality and data protection are distinct concepts.
• However, this distinction is introduced late and remains under theorised.
• A clearer analytical separation introduced earlier would improve clarity, especially regarding:
• the legal status of banking data once transferred to tax authorities; and
• whether such data continues as banking secrecy, tax secrecy, or another legal category.

Conclusions and Recommendations

• The conclusion appropriately reiterates the importance of harmonising secrecy and transparency.
• However:
• conclusions occasionally go beyond the analytical support offered in the paper;
• recommendations are broad and normative, rather than prioritised and operational.
• Consider distinguishing clearly between:
• immediate legal clarifications; and
• longer term legislative or institutional reforms.

Overall Assessment

• The manuscript addresses an important and evolving area of international tax law.
• However, it remains largely descriptive, with limited analytical synthesis and comparative depth.
• Substantial revision is required to strengthen research focus, conceptual clarity, rights based analysis, and international scholarly engagement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Structure, Language, and Style

• Several sections are disproportionately long and internally repetitive.
• Transitions between doctrinal discussion and policy implications are often abrupt.
• The English language is generally understandable, but:
• sentences are frequently long and dense;
• repetition affects readability.
• Professional language editing is recommended to improve clarity and flow.

Author Response

see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is overall well-structured from an academic perspective, presenting a clear conceptual framework and a coherent analysis of the relationshipe between banking, tax, and secrecy. The authors demonstrate a solid understanding of both international standards and the national legal framework of Kazakhstan, which is thoroughly examined thorughout the paper. The work would benefit from a more explicit comparative perspective with other jurisdictions, whih could strengthen the analytical depth and highlight similarities or divergences in regulatory approaches. that said, it is evident the the primary aim of the article is to focus on national law, and within this scope, the analysis is consistent and developed. Overall, the contribution is relevant.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your positive assessment of the study’s structure and conceptual integrity. Regarding
your comment, we would like to clarify the following.
As correctly noted, this article focuses on the national legal system of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Consequently, the comparative component serves an auxiliary function, utilized primarily to
contextualize national regulation within broader global trends.
We did not expand the comparative analysis to encompass other jurisdictions, as a more extensive
examination falls beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, the article highlights the
implementation of OECD, FATCA, and CRS standards in EU countries and Kazakhstan, alongside a
review of international information exchange practices (Section 7).
We believe this approach facilitated a comprehensive legal analysis of the national legislation,
properly accounting for international standards and established global practices.
We appreciate your valuable recommendation and will certainly integrate it into our future research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s s opinion: the submission can be accepted with minor improvements.

Submission length is about 10,000 words, which is generally acceptable and enough to discuss the topic comprehensively. The volume of abstract and number of keywords follow the Instructions for Authors.

This article explores the topic of confidentiality in the exchange of information on tax matters and its discrepancies with the related concepts and regulations of data privacy, bank secrecy, tax secrecy, and official secrecy. This topic is in line with the subject area of the journal MDPI Laws journal. It is also highly relevant, given the context of the global reporting initiatives such as CRS, CbC MCAA and FATCA, automatization of the exchange of information in tax matters, anti-money-laundering regulations, and differences in national understanding and treatment of data privacy. Overall, the article is structured logically and include comprehensive literature review. The chosen approach of legal and theoretical analysis suits the topic. Still, the reviewer suggests some minor improvements before the final acceptance of the article.

While the abstract states the aim of the article to examine the impact of international initiatives on Kazakhstani legal framework and legal clarity, this aim should be clearly stated in the introduction and reflected upon in the conclusions and/or findings (clearly state which of reviewed Kazakhstani laws were changed to accommodate international initiatives to revise confidentiality, or retain discrepancies with them, or retain ambiguities related to confidentiality).

Section 2 “Data Privacy and Taxation” discusses the issue of clashing data privacy regulations and the norms on exchange of tax information, but when speaking of Kazakhstani regulations it would be reasonable to refer to the national Law on personal data and its protection (to mirror GDPR).

In Section 4 “The Case of Banking Secrecy…” the authors write on “global data exchange on tax matters”, and it would be reasonable to mention the ground for arising conflict and limitations to the banking secrecy (such as a necessity to combat international tax evasion and money laundering).

In Section 5 “Tax Secrecy and Compliance” after mention of the Art. 45 of the Tax Code the authors provide a short lettered list which is not apparently related to the surrounding text – is it a mistake from the editing process? In the same section the authors list the cases when a disclosure of a tax secret is not a violation, and it would be reasonable to add there a point on international exchange of tax information (subpara 8 para 6 Art. 45 of the Tax Code; also to be referred to in Section 7).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your constructive feedback and the detailed
analysis of our manuscript. Your suggestions have been carefully reviewed and taken into
consideration.
Regarding your comments, we would like to provide the following clarifications:
Comment 1: Although the abstract states that the aim of the article is to examine the impact of
international initiatives on Kazakhstan’s legal system and legal clarity, this objective should be
explicitly articulated in the introduction and reflected in the conclusions and/or results (i.e., clearly
indicating which of the examined Kazakhstani laws were amended in response to international
initiatives regarding the revision of confidentiality provisions, or which retained inconsistencies or
ambiguities related to confidentiality).
Response 1: The reviewer's suggestions for enhancing the manuscript's content are highly
valuable, and we intend to incorporate them into our future research. However, conducting

comprehensive compliance monitoring of national legislative norms against international initiatives
was not the primary objective of this study. Rather, our research aims to assess the current state of
national legislation in the context of these international initiatives. Consequently, we believe that
shifting the focus to trace specific amendments in Kazakhstani legislative acts and benchmarking
them for strict compliance with international standards would significantly alter the fundamental
scope and objective of our research.
Comment 2: In Section 2, "Personal Data Protection and Taxation," the text discusses the
contradictions between personal data protection legislation and the norms governing the exchange
of tax information. However, when addressing Kazakhstani legislation, it would be appropriate to
refer to the national Law on Personal Data and its Protection (in alignment with the GDPR).
Response 2: In our discussion regarding the contradictions between personal data protection
legislation and tax information exchange norms, we deliberately chose not to reference the Law of
the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 94-V "On Personal Data and its Protection" (dated May 21, 2013).
Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of this Law, the specific procedures for the collection,
processing, and protection of personal data may be governed by other legislative acts and decrees
of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In this context, such superseding legislative acts
include the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Law "On Banks and Banking Activity in
the Republic of Kazakhstan."
Comment 3: In Section 4, "The Case of Bank Secrecy…", the authors discuss the "global exchange
of data on tax matters." It would be prudent to mention the underlying reasons for the emergence of
conflicts and the restriction of bank secrecy (such as the imperative to combat international tax
evasion and money laundering).
Response 3: Our article observes that following the signing of the Convention on Mutual
Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and the OECD model agreements (CRS - Common
Reporting Standard), there has been a significant increase in the number of jurisdictions willing to
participate in the automatic exchange of information. This trend creates strong incentives for states
to enhance their taxation systems and actively combat tax evasion and money laundering. Given
that Kazakhstan adheres to these international standards, we deemed it unnecessary to reiterate the
foundational grounds for the ensuing conflicts and the subsequent restrictions placed on bank
secrecy. Furthermore, the article explicitly notes that the OECD has achieved substantial progress in
combating international tax evasion, particularly following the G20's 2009 declaration signaling the
end of strict bank secrecy.
Comment 4: In the section "Tax Secrecy and Tax Compliance" immediately following the reference
to Article 45 of the Tax Code, the authors present a brief lettered list that appears disconnected from
the surrounding text - could this be an editing error? Additionally, within the same section, the
authors enumerate instances where the disclosure of tax secrecy does not constitute a violation; it
would be highly relevant to include the provision regarding the international exchange of tax
information (Subparagraph 8, Paragraph 6 of Article 45 of the Tax Code; this should also be
referenced in Section 7).
Response 4: We generally agree with this observation. However, we considered it sufficient to
address this by introducing an amendment specifically to Section 5 of the article. Namely, we have
expanded the list of circumstances under which the disclosure of tax secrecy does not constitute a
violation by incorporating the provision concerning the international exchange of tax information
(Subparagraph 8, Paragraph 6 of Article 45 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text addresses an important legal issue, i.e. the relationship between bank secrecy and the payment of taxes due. 

 The paper is professionally written. The theses it presents are supported by legal arguments.

The paper presents the results of important scientific research. The conceptual framework of the study allowed for an assessment of Kazakhstan's legislation in terms of its compliance with international standards and identified ways to improve the country's legal regime regarding confidentiality.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We thank you so much for your appreciation and consideration.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent article and clearly lays out the competing issues in cooperating with the CRS and FATCA while maintaining some level of privacy. My one recommendation is to discuss a bit how this topic relates to the overall global compliance with FATCA and CRS, and how much leeway a relatively small player in the global economy like Kazakhstan has in following global initiatives like CRS. 

Author Response

The Republic of Kazakhstan participates in key international initiatives in this field and consistently
fulfills its obligations to implement CRS and FATCA standards, which includes developing legal and
institutional frameworks for the automatic exchange of financial and tax information.
In this article, we endeavor to elucidate the connection between the issues under consideration and
the global practice of applying CRS and FATCA standards. We note that the participation of states -
including Kazakhstan - in these initiatives is largely driven by the imperative to integrate into the
global tax information exchange system and ensure tax transparency.
Furthermore, we demonstrate that non-compliance with international standards may incur
reputational risks and restrict access to international financial markets.
Simultaneously, the article emphasizes that Kazakhstan retains a degree of flexibility to adapt these
international requirements in accordance with its national legal and institutional specificities,
particularly concerning the protection of taxpayer confidentiality.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors replied to all comments and presented their views on the issues raised by the Reviewer. They also incorporated some of the suggestions in the text.

The Reviewers finds that the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Laws.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent article, no further comments