Furthermore, it appears that IYB shareholder the ADB accepts the statement from IYB that the connections between Steel Quality Business and its other shareholders were a matter of coincidence, and not indicative of a transaction between affiliated parties. It appears to be IYB’s contention that by coincidence Steel Quality Business leased a property from the Alfa Invest subsidiary, and it was also only by chance that one of Steel Quality Business’ shareholders would go on to be a senior executive at Alfa Invest. However, Abdullatif Husanov, in addition to being an executive at Alfa Invest, previously served on the board of IYB shareholder Zamon Plus Sarmoya, dating back to at least 2017. This suggests that Husanov indeed has a prior executive relationship with an IYB shareholder that precedes the loan. While it is not being asserted that any of the private parties involved in this development were engaged in illegal activity, the evidence does point to concerning weaknesses in the due diligence conducted by IYB. In particular, IYB failed to identify serious legal shortcomings in the state-initiated property confiscation and forced eviction exercise. It is also concerning that IYB denies any affiliation with Steel Quality Business beyond the loan arrangement, despite multiple links between its shareholders and Steel Quality Business. It is also troubling that the ADB appears to have accepted this explanation solicited from IYB. Conclusion The Niyozbek Yuli Street case points to a number of factors that will be evident in other case studies presented in this report. The first factor is the compulsory acquisition of privately owned homes by the state through orders that have no apparent lawful basis, in order to facilitate private real estate developments. Second, there is the violation of resident property and human rights by public authorities. Third, weaknesses in the court system means that, in effect, residents lack access to a meaningful remedy, despite receiving notional support from state agencies with oversight duties for law and justice. Fourth, residents are under significant pressure to accept compensation, with pressure coming from both state authorities and developers. Fifth, compensation fails to fully recognise the losses suffered by residents. Sixth, third parties helping to facilitate private development are not effectively identifying risks of improper process before providing support to projects impacted by forced eviction and compulsory property acquisition. The next section examines a case study from Samarkand that exhibits a number of these concerning factors. Both IYB and Steel Quality Business were given the chance to comment on the claims made by residents and associated report findings, but no response was received. A False Sense of Legality 33