City of Almaty, Kazahkstan v. Mukhtar Ablyazov
- John Koeltl
- 1:15-cv-05345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In City of Almaty v. Mukhtar Ablyazov, Judge Koeltl held Ilyas Khrapunov in contempt for missing financial reports and ordered fees plus a conditional fine.
Ilyas Khrapunov and the plaintiffs, including the City of Almaty, Kazakhstan. Khrapunov must file quarterly financial declarations, may owe the plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and faces a $1,000 fine if he misses the September 30, 2025 report.
What happened
In City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Mukhtar Ablyazov, the plaintiffs asked the court to hold Ilyas Khrapunov in civil contempt. Khrapunov could not currently pay an existing $221,285.31 judgment, but he had also failed to provide required quarterly financial reports and updates about a pending Swiss action.
The court found that Khrapunov had the ability to submit the reports and had not diligently followed the clear court order. It granted the plaintiffs’ contempt motion, required Khrapunov to keep filing quarterly declarations, and required him to reimburse reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the plaintiffs apply for them. It also ordered a $1,000 fine if he misses the report due September 30, 2025.
Judge John G. Koeltl independently reviewed and adopted the magistrate judge’s findings. The court did not base contempt on Khrapunov’s inability to pay the judgment; it based contempt on his failure to provide the required financial information.
The detailed version
- City of Almaty, Kazahkstan v. Mukhtar Ablyazov · No. 1:15-cv-05345
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
The court reviewed Magistrate Judge Parker’s June 25, 2025, Report and Recommendation. The report certified facts supporting a preliminary showing of civil contempt against Ilyas Khrapunov. Khrapunov had not paid an existing $221,285.31 judgment, plus post-judgment interest, but the court recognized that he currently lacked the ability to pay it.
The court explained that failure to pay a judgment cannot support contempt when the person lacks the ability to comply. However, an earlier court order separately required Khrapunov to submit quarterly declarations about his financial status, his ability to pay or payment of the judgment, and the outcome of a pending Swiss action that could produce a monetary award. The required reporting dates included September 30, December 31, March 31, and June 30. The court found that Khrapunov could comply with that reporting order and had failed to do so diligently.
Court’s Analysis
The court independently reviewed the facts certified by the magistrate judge, as required when a magistrate judge certifies facts constituting contempt. No party objected to the report except regarding the proposed $1,000 fine, and neither party submitted additional evidence after being given the opportunity to do so. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and concluded that Khrapunov was in civil contempt because he failed to comply with a clear and unambiguous order requiring quarterly declarations.
The court approved requiring Khrapunov to reimburse the plaintiffs for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs connected to the contempt motion. The plaintiffs could submit a fee application by August 20, 2025; Khrapunov could respond by September 3, 2025; and the plaintiffs could reply by September 10, 2025.
The court also required Khrapunov to continue submitting quarterly declarations about his ability to pay the outstanding judgment and the outcome of the Swiss action. Each declaration must describe his efforts to obtain funds to pay the judgment.
Disposition
The plaintiffs’ motion for an order holding Khrapunov in contempt was granted. Khrapunov must reimburse the plaintiffs for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs connected to the motion if the plaintiffs seek that relief under the stated schedule. He must submit the required quarterly declarations. If he fails to submit the quarterly update due September 30, 2025, he shall be fined $1,000.00. The fine is a coercive sanction that can be avoided through compliance, rather than an immediate unconditional fine.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.