Аңдатпа
Introduction This article examines aggregate sanction patterns in Kazakhstan’s administrative enforcement of religious-activity regulation and assesses structural proportionality risks. Methods The study combines official article-level administrative data for 2011–2023, sectoral and operational indicators for 2024, and comparative sources from England and Wales, Australia, Canada, the United States, FATF Recommendation 8 practice, and selected Indonesian research on prevention and communication. The legal analysis covers registration and legal personality, missionary authorisation, religious literature, and designated venues under Articles 489 and 490. Public events and religious education provide additional cases involving time, place, and manner regulation, licensing, and corrective measures. Quarterly values are excluded from annual comparisons. Results The retained Form 1-AD fields contain 3,906 warning and fine outcomes for 2011–2023. Article 490 accounts for 3,068 outcomes, or 78.5%. Fines account for 3,652 outcomes, or 93.5%, and warnings account for 254, or 6.5%. In 2023, Article 490 recorded 219 outcomes, equal to 5.5 outcomes per 100 registered religious associations. Article 489 figures remain absolute because the provision applies to unregistered, suspended, or banned associations. The 2024 indicators record 3,999 registered religious associations, 3,788 cult buildings, 452 registered missionaries, and 14 religious educational institutions with 5,617 students. Q4 data record 60 administrative-offence facts, including 19 under Articles 453 and 489, 1,474 materials submitted for religious expertise, 561 internet resources analysed, 159 hyperlinks containing unlawful material, and preventive work by 236 regional information-explanatory groups. Discussion The concentration of outcomes and prevalence of fines require case-level reasons concerning legal certainty, evidence of harm or risk, warning and correction, lower-burden measures, and sanction severity. The proposed Graduated Enforcement Protocol assigns each response according to evidence, corrective opportunities, and written reasons.