Transparency International Report on the Bachiashvili Case

Transparency International Georgia has published an in-depth independent investigation of the Georgian government’s handling of the case against George Bachiashvili, finding numerous violations of due process, lacking evidence, and personal and political motivations driving prosecutors to act outside the bounds of the law upon the instructions of one individual, Bidzina Ivanishvili.

In the interest of the preservation of records, we are publishing the full English translation of the report below. The original version can be viewed on the Transparency International Georgia website.

The Bachiashvili Case: Prosecution and Judiciary in the Service of Ivanishvili’s Private Interests

Giorgi Bachiashvili, a 39-year-old businessman, is charged under Article 182, Section 3, Subparagraph “b” of the Criminal Code—unlawful appropriation of another’s property or property rights in large amounts, if the property was lawfully in the possession and management of the accused. Additionally, he is charged under Article 194, Section 3, Subparagraph “g”—legalization of illicit income (money laundering) involving the acquisition of particularly large revenues.

If convicted, he faces imprisonment of 7 to 12 years for the first charge and 9 to 12 years for the second. The case is being presided over by Judge Giorgi Gelashvili, while the prosecution is represented by the General Prosecutor’s Office prosecutor Mikheil Sadradze.

Among the numerous criminal cases pursued under Ivanishvili’s regime—where law enforcement and judicial systems loyal to the regime have been used to bring baseless and unlawful charges—perhaps none so clearly and explicitly reflect Ivanishvili’s private financial interests as the Bachiashvili case.

The weakness of the prosecution’s position and the lack of evidence in this case are so evident that, in any legal system based on the rule of law, such charges would not only be inconceivable but would never even reach court proceedings. Even if the prosecution’s claims regarding the factual components of the accusation were accurate and proven—which they are not—at best, this dispute would fall under civil litigation rather than criminal prosecution.

1. Who is Giorgi Bachiashvili?

Giorgi Bachiashvili is a successful businessman with a strong Western education. In 2005, he earned a Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) from Caucasus University while working at the Bank of Georgia. In 2010, he successfully completed a Master of Business Administration (MBA) at the prestigious Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD) in Fontainebleau, France.

After completing his studies in France, Bachiashvili first worked at the Moscow office of the international consulting firm Booz & Company. He later joined Bidzina Ivanishvili’s asset and capital management company, Unicor Management Company, in its real estate division.

Giorgi Bachiashvili first met Ivanishvili in November 2012 when Ivanishvili became the Prime Minister of Georgia. Soon after, he was appointed Deputy Executive Director of the “Partnership Fund.” According to reports, he also served as a liaison between Ivanishvili and his personal bankers. Bachiashvili accompanied Ivanishvili to economic meetings and advised him during negotiations with foreign investors.

In 2013, at Ivanishvili’s initiative, the “Co-Investment Fund of Georgia” was established, with Giorgi Bachiashvili appointed as its director. The fund was registered in the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg. Bachiashvili served as the fund’s executive director until 2019 and remained a

Chairman of its advisory board until 2023.

According to Bachiashvili, he played a crucial role in Ivanishvili’s legal dispute with the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, contributing to its successful resolution. From 2015 to 2023, for a full eight years, he worked intensively with Ivanishvili’s lawyers across five different jurisdictions, including Switzerland, Singapore, and Bermuda. He provided them with documentary evidence and also testified in favor of Ivanishvili in two of the most significant court cases.

Throughout his tenure working with Ivanishvili, Bachiashvili was a trusted confidant. He often attended closed-door meetings where critical issues for both Ivanishvili and the government were discussed. For example, in his recent interviews, he spoke about Ivanishvili’s meetings with the then-General Prosecutor of Georgia, even when Ivanishvili held no official political position. Bachiashvili also discussed the direct relationships and connections between Ivanishvili and Mikheil Chinchaladze, the chairman of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals and leader of the so-called “clan of judges,” who allegedly received direct instructions from Ivanishvili.

Bachiashvili’s latest interviews suggest that he was also offered involvement in sensitive cases, such as the acquisition of shares in the TV company Rustavi 2, among others, which offer was declined by Bachiashvili.

In recent months, Bachiashvili has been actively participating in public protests. He has openly expressed support for those detained during demonstrations and has also assisted protest participants by helping to cover administrative fines. As his activism has increased, the pace of his court proceedings has also accelerated.

1. Ivanishvili’s Allegations against Bachiashvili

On March 23, 2023, following Ivanishvili’s instructions, his lawyer Teimuraz Tsikvadze filed a complaint against Giorgi Bachiashvili with the General Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia.

According to the complaint, in the summer of 2015, Bachiashvili approached Ivanishvili with an interesting business proposal. Specifically, the complaint states that Bachiashvili suggested that Ivanishvili invest funds in Bitcoin mining.

According to Tsikvadze, Ivanishvili found the proposal interesting, agreed to Bachiashvili’s offer, and decided to invest US $5 million in Bitcoin mining. Ivanishvili’s representative claims that Ivanishvili intended to transfer the investment funds directly from his personal bank account to Bachiashvili. However, when Bachiashvili advised that, “for greater flexibility,” it would be preferable for the funds to be allocated by Cartu Bank to Bachiashvili’s company, Ivanishvili agreed. He then instructed Nato Khaindrava, who was the General Director of Cartu Bank (and of which Ivanishvili was the beneficial owner) at the time, to allocate the US $5 million.

As Tsikvadze states, following these instructions, in August 2015, Nato Khaindrava transferred US $5 million to Giorgi Bachiashvili in the form of a loan. The loan issued by the bank was a “blank loan”, meaning it had no collateral at first. Later, it was fully secured using Ivanishvili’s personal funds. After this, Bachiashvili invested the received amount in Bitcoin mining based on a contract signed with a mining company. Both Bachiashvili and Nato Khaindrava informed Ivanishvili about this, according to Tsikvadze.

Tsikvadze claims that after some time, further communication took place between Ivanishvili and Bachiashvili, during which Bachiashvili expressed concern over the state of the cryptocurrency market. Tsikvadze states that Bachiashvili explained: “There was a risk that Bitcoin’s value could completely collapse, and my client (Ivanishvili) would lose the invested funds.”

As a result, Bachiashvili allegedly convinced Ivanishvili that they should liquidate the mined Bitcoins in order to recover the investment. In line with this agreement, in August-September 2016, Bachiashvili repaid the US $5 million loan he had received from the bank. Then, approximately a year later, he handed over $536,900 in cash to Nato Khaindrava, which he explained was the remaining profit from the Bitcoin liquidation.

At the time, no one questioned Bachiashvili’s integrity, according to Tsikvadze. However, Ivanishvili later became interested in reviewing the Bitcoin mining operation and verifying the accuracy of the information Bachiashvili had provided. As a result, Tsikvadze claims that it was discovered that Bachiashvili had misled Ivanishvili and embezzled cryptocurrency worth millions of dollars. Ultimately, Tsikvadze demanded that an investigation be launched against Bachiashvili under Articles 182 and 194 of the Criminal Code.

Tskikvadze’s statement also includes Ivanishvili’s claims against Bachiashvili regarding the construction of the “Mtkvari HPP.” However, since the prosecutor’s office has not filed charges against Bachiashvili on this matter, we will not address this issue either.

Following this, Tsikvadze, Khaindrava, and Ivanishvili himself were all questioned as part of the case. As expected, all of them confirmed the details outlined in Tsikvadze’s complaint.

In this case, Ivanishvili was questioned twice: first on April 13, 2023, and then for the second time on October 3 of the same year. The second questioning was largely Ivanishvili’s response to the telephone recording presented by Bachiashvili, which indicates that Ivanishvili was discussing the issue of a loan granted to be extended to Bachiashvili by Cartu Bank, rather than any personal investment project of his own (for more details, see Part 5 below).

1. Charges Brought against Bachiashvili by the Prosecutor’s Office

On July 5, 2023, Mikheil Sadradze, a prosecutor from the Prosecutorial Supervision Division of the Investigative Unit of the General Prosecutor’s Office, issued a resolution formally charging Giorgi Bachiashvili with committing offenses under: Article 182, Section 3, Subparagraph “b” – Unlawful appropriation of another person’s property or property rights in a large amount, if the property was lawfully in the possession and management of the accused; Article 194, Section 3, Subparagraph “g” – Money laundering involving the receipt of particularly large revenues.

According to the charges, between 2015 and 2017, Giorgi Bachiashvili unlawfully appropriated 8,253.13 Bitcoins belonging to Bidzina Ivanishvili from the cryptocurrency generated through Ivanishvili’s investment in Bitcoin mining. As of October 11, 2017, the value of these Bitcoins was US $39,215,820. This act constitutes the unlawful appropriation of another person’s property or property rights in a particularly large amount, provided that the item or property right was in the legal possession and management of the appropriator.

The prosecution also asserts that Bachiashvili engaged in money laundering by giving illegal assets a lawful appearance (e.g., using, acquiring, owning, converting, transferring, or performing other actions with the assets) to conceal their illicit origin. Furthermore, he allegedly concealed and disguised the true nature, source, location, placement, movement, ownership, and related rights of these assets, which resulted in the acquisition of an especially large income.

1. Bachiashvili’s Position

Giorgi Bachiashvili presents a completely different version of the events that took place between 2015 and 2017.

His first interrogation took place on June 13, 2023. Regarding the 2015 investment in Bitcoin, Bachiashvili stated that during the summer of that year, Cartu Bank JSC issued a loan of US $5 million to his company, Mission Gate Inc., which, based on an agreement with Bitfury, was supposed to invest this amount in Bitcoin mining. According to Bachiashvili, the investment of Mission Gate Inc.’s funds in Bitcoin mining was his own initiative. It was neither an order nor a proposal from Bidzina Ivanishvili. He simply asked Ivanishvili to allow him to take out a US $5 million loan from Cartu Bank for investment in Bitcoin mining, to which Ivanishvili agreed.

Bachiashvili’s second interrogation took place on June 19, 2023. He stated that in July 2015, he met with Ivanishvili to seek assistance in obtaining a loan from Cartu Bank. Bachiashvili briefly explained to Ivanishvili why he needed the money. According to Bachiashvili, he had previously discussed the profitability of investing in Bitcoin with Ivanishvili multiple times, but Ivanishvili had shown no interest in investing in this sector. Bachiashvili told Ivanishvili that he personally had US $1.5 million and needed an additional US $5 million because Bitfury required US $6.5 million in exchange for mining services (this amount was later reduced to US $6.3 million).

Ivanishvili promised to help but told Bachiashvili to discuss the risks and details of the loan with Cartu Bank’s general director, Nato Khaindrava. A few days later, Bachiashvili met with Nato Khaindrava, who appeared to have already been informed about his request by Ivanishvili. According to Bachiashvili, discussions with both Ivanishvili and Khaindrava revolved solely around the loan. He explained the purpose of the loan to Khaindrava. A bank employee was also present at the meeting, asking Bachiashvili questions regarding the risks of the loan. Nato Khaindrava told Bachiashvili that they would review the matter and get back to him.

According to Bachiashvili, after this, he had a phone conversation with Ivanishvili, during which Ivanishvili stated that Nato Khaindrava saw certain risks in issuing the loan and felt uncomfortable about it. Ivanishvili advised Bachiashvili to speak with Nato again and explore whether the bank could gain any additional benefits—either by increasing the loan interest rate or offering some other form of incentive.

Following this, Bachiashvili met with Nato Khaindrava once more, who told him that she had spoken with Ivanishvili and that, in exchange for the loan, they required 30% of the value of the mining service agreement. Bachiashvili expressed surprise at such a high interest demand but agreed. He then proposed the following payment structure to Khaindrava: from the contract between Mission Gate Inc. and Bitfury, a 30% share of the revenue generated from mining—proportional to the US $5 million loan issued by Cartu Bank—would be deducted from the interest due to the bank. The mined Bitcoins and their values would be recorded in Mission Gate Inc.’s cryptocurrency wallet/address, which would also track transactions and prices. Based on this, the amount requested in cash by Khaindrava and Ivanishvili would be calculated. Khaindrava accepted this offer, and in August 2015, a total of US $5 million was issued as two separate loans to Mission Gate Inc.’s account at Cartu Bank, which was subsequently transferred to Bitfury’s account.

One year later, Bachiashvili repaid the loan in full, including interest. As for the additional payment demanded beyond the loan interest, Bachiashvili stated that it remained an oral agreement  and  was  not documented in any official records. In total, this amount came to

$536,900, for which Bachiashvili presented Khaindrava with a corresponding calculation and then delivered the payment in cash.

1. Existing and Missing Documentary Evidence in the Case

The case contains documentary evidence showing how Cartu Bank’s credit committee decided to issue two loans—each worth US $2.5 million—to Bachiashvili’s company. The case file also includes the corresponding credit agreements and proof of loan repayment.

The defense also possesses a phone recording between Bachiashvili and Ivanishvili, the contents of which, according to Bachiashvili, reinforce the defense’s position. Bachiashvili stated that a German expert analysis confirming the authenticity of the recording will soon be submitted to the court.

Indeed, the telephone recording is entirely about Cartu Bank issuing a loan to Bachiashvili’s company, how skeptical the bank’s director, Nato Khaindrava, was regarding the feasibility of this loan, and what additional proposals Bachiashvili needed to present to Khaindrava in order to generate some interest from the bank and overcome her skepticism. It was during this phone conversation that Ivanishvili suggested to Bachiashvili that, in order to alleviate Khaindrava’s skepticism and mitigate the bank’s risks, in addition to the interest charged on the loan, Bachiashvili should also transfer a portion of the “profit” generated from his mining investments to the bank—an arrangement that would be acceptable to Khaindrava.

However, there is no documentary evidence in the case confirming the existence of any actual investment by Ivanishvili in Bitcoin mining. Furthermore, according to Bachiashvili, during a closed court hearing, Ivanishvili himself admitted that there was no investment agreement or any other documentary proof substantiating such an investment.

1. Weaknesses in the Prosecution’s Case

The key unresolved question in this case is whether the US $5 million loan issued by Cartu Bank to Bachiashvili’s company constituted an “investment” by Ivanishvili in Bitcoin mining, for which Bachiashvili was allegedly obligated to transfer Bitcoins proportional to this amount. Several factors suggest that this was not the case, or at the very least, there is no sufficient body of evidence in the case that would convince an “objective observer”—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Ivanishvili had indeed made such an investment.

1. Lack of Documentary Evidence Confirming the Investment

As noted above, there is no written investment agreement, nor is there any documentary evidence confirming the existence of such an oral agreement.

1. Ivanishvili’s “Investment” is Supported Only by Himself and His “Subordinates”

As previously mentioned, the prosecution’s claim that the US $5 million loan issued by Cartu Bank to Bachiashvili’s company was actually an investment by Ivanishvili is supported only by Ivanishvili himself and his subordinates—namely: Nato Khaindrava, former General Director of Cartu Bank and currently Chairwoman of its Supervisory Board; Davit Galuashvili, her then-deputy; Teimuraz Tsiqvadze, Ivanishvili’s lawyer.

Among them, only Ivanishvili has provided direct testimony. The others’ testimonies are indirect—they were not direct witnesses to any interactions between Ivanishvili and Bachiashvili regarding the US $5 million loan. Instead, their source of information is Ivanishvili himself. Therefore, from the perspective of an objective observer, their testimonies cannot be considered highly reliable—especially given that each of them, in some form, is subordinate to Ivanishvili. Indeed, two of them are officials of Ivanishvili’s bank, to whom Ivanishvili, by his own admission, regularly gives orders. The third is a lawyer hired by Ivanishvili on a contractual basis. The latter, according to his own statement, became Ivanishvili’s representative in 2023. Before that, he had no contact with Ivanishvili and was obviously not a witness to the events of 2015. Therefore, his involvement in the case as a witness raises questions.

1. The $5 Million Loan Issued to Bachiashvili’s Company Did Not and Could Not Belong to Ivanishvili

Regardless of the de facto relationship between Ivanishvili and “his” bank, including the fact that, as stated in court by his representative Tsiqvadze, Ivanishvili was the beneficial owner of Cartu Bank in 2015, this does not mean that the bank’s assets were Ivanishvili’s personal property.

Cartu Bank, like any other bank in Georgia, is legally established as a joint-stock company. Under existing and past laws, shareholders in such companies have limited liability—meaning they are not personally liable for the company’s debts or obligations.

Therefore, the US $5 million was legally the property of Cartu Bank, not Ivanishvili. As a result, Ivanishvili has no right to claim any profit from funds that were never his personal property. At best, if an appropriate investment agreement existed, the right to claim such returns would belong to Cartu Bank, not its beneficial owner.

The fact that Ivanishvili, by his own admission, “gave instructions” to the general director of “Cartu Bank” is a separate matter for discussion, considering corporate governance standards, which any bank should meet in accordance with the Georgian law on “Commercial Banks’ Activities” and other normative acts.

1. There is no corpus delicti of either “embezzlement” or “money laundering”

The first part of Article 182 of the Criminal Code defines the crime of “embezzlement” as “the unlawful appropriation of someone else’s property or property rights, if that property or right was in the lawful possession and management of the embezzler.”

An essential element of this crime is that the property or property right must be “someone else’s.” It is impossible to embezzle one’s own property or rights. Giorgi Bachiaashvili is accused of embezzling Ivanishvili’s property rights regarding Bitcoin, whereas:

1. As previously mentioned, US $5 million belonged to “Cartu Bank,” not Ivanishvili;
2. The borrower of the US $5 million was Bachiaashvili’s company, Mission Gate Inc., not Bachiaashvili personally;
3. The money that “Cartu Bank” provided as a loan to Mission Gate Inc. became the property of Mission Gate Inc. from the moment it was deposited into the company’s account, because the nature of the loan is such that the borrowed money becomes the borrower’s property upon receipt, with the borrower being obliged to return an equivalent item in the same kind, quality, and quantity (see Civil Code, Article 623). Therefore, if “embezzlement” were to occur, Bachiaashvili could only embezzle his company’s funds, which he is not accused of.

Accordingly, in this case, there is no corpus delicti of “embezzlement” and even if there were an investment agreement between Bachiaashvili and Ivanishvili, there is no evidence to support this except for the testimonies of Ivanishvili and his “subordinates.”

Since there is no corpus delicti of embezzlement, there cannot be that of money laundering either, as this latter crime depends on the existence of a predicate crime (embezzlement, in this case).

1. At best, the circumstances indicated by the prosecution could have been a matter of a civil dispute

The circumstances pointed out by the prosecution, at best, could have been a matter for a civil dispute, but not between Ivanishvili and Bachiaashvili, but rather between “Cartu Bank” and Mission Gate Inc.

1. Ivanishvili’s Proposal to “Settle” the Case

According to Bachiashvili, in the spring of 2024, shortly before a preliminary court hearing would be held regarding the charges against him, Ivanishvili’s lawyer, Tsikvadze, sent a proposal via WhatsApp to Bachiashvili’s attorney. In this message, Tsikvadze, on behalf of Ivanishvili, offered Bachiashvili the opportunity to transfer 60% of the allegedly misappropriated Bitcoins to his client. Furthermore, Tsikvadze warned Bachiashvili that if he refused the offer or delayed his response, the amount of Bitcoins to be transferred to the victim would increase by 5% for each month after April 1, 2024. He also stated that by the end of the year, when the court was expected to issue a verdict, “the accused party would have exhausted any opportunity to receive a discount.”

At the end of the message, Tsikvadze further warned Bachiashvili that any attempt to dispose of the misappropriated cryptocurrency or derive any benefit from it would be futile, as “the victim’s side [would use] all existing mechanisms to prevent this.”

Bachiashvili called this proposal “extortion.” Meanwhile, Tsikvadze does not deny that he indeed sent such an offer to Bachiashvili’s lawyer in an attempt to reach a “settlement,” which, in his view, was nothing out of the ordinary.

Tsikvadze’s “proposal,” which he claims was aimed at facilitating a “settlement” between Ivanishvili and Bachiashvili, seemingly implied that if such an agreement were reached, the criminal prosecution against Bachiashvili would be dropped. Otherwise, it is unclear what interest Bachiashvili would have in accepting such an offer.

Georgian criminal law and criminal procedure law do not allow for the termination of criminal prosecution based on a “settlement” between the accused and the victim. Therefore, even if Bachiashvili had accepted this offer, legally, the prosecution against him could not have been halted. However, considering Ivanishvili’s influence, anything could be possible in Georgia. For instance, a prosecutor could refuse to pursue the case based on Ivanishvili’s instructions. Consequently, this proposal once again highlights the extent of Ivanishvili’s influence, including over the administration of justice.

1. Procedural Issues

During the court hearings, two circumstances attracted attention that may indicate the court’s bias in favor of the prosecution.

One of these is that the court accepted the prosecution’s motion and closed the session for the purpose of questioning Bidzina Ivanishvili and two other prosecution witnesses—Nato Khaindrava and Davit Galuashvili, representatives of “Cartu Bank.” The second issue is that the court also granted the prosecution’s request and questioned the “victim” Ivanishvili remotely, even though he is the only direct witness for the prosecution, instead of having him appear in court and testify, like all other witnesses.

The first motion was justified by the need to protect Cartu Bank’s and Ivanishvili’s “commercial secrets.” The second was justified by Ivanishvili’s age and the claim that his safety could not be ensured if he appeared in court.

The Criminal Procedure Code provides grounds for the acceptance of both motions. Specifically, Article 182, paragraph 3, subparagraph “a” of this Code states that “the court may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, decide to partially or fully close a session to protect personal data, professional or commercial secrets.” According to paragraph 3 of Article 243 of the same Code, “at the request of a party, the court may decide to conduct a witness’s remote questioning using technical means, either from the same or another court, or from another location, with prior notice to the parties.”

Both provisions violate the fair balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of protecting the witness’s secrecy and safety, granting the court virtually complete discretion to decide on session closures and remote questioning of witnesses, according to its own judgment. This could lead to arbitrary violations of one of the most fundamental human rights—the right to a fair trial—such as the right to public hearings and the right of the accused to effectively participate in the trial.

1. Was it strictly necessary and justified to close the session?

According to the first paragraph of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial includes the right to a public hearing of the case, with the exception that “the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”

According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, “the public character of proceedings protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny; it is also one of the means whereby confidence in the courts can be maintained. Administration of justice, including trials, derives legitimacy from being conducted in public. By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to fulfilling the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention.” (Belashev v. Russia, Application no. 28617/03, 4 December 2008, §79).

Based on the above, a trial may be partially or fully closed when it is “strictly required by the circumstances of the case” (Welke and Białek v. Poland, Application no. 15924/05, 1 March 2011, §74). The task of the European Court is to establish whether the exclusion of the public from the hearing was “justified”. (ibid, §75). Furthermore, the court must assess whether the closure of the session was “strictly necessary” (ibid, §76).

The European Court adheres to these principles even when state secrets are involved. The mere presence of classified information in a case file is not necessary to close a trial to the public, “without balancing openness with national security concerns.” (Belashev v. Russia, §83).

In this case, the prosecution requested the closure of the session due to the necessity of protecting “commercial secrets.” However, it did not specify what the commercial secret was in this case. The court accepted the motion without the prosecution demonstrating the existence of such an interest.

The definition of commercial secrets is provided in Article 27², part 1 of the General Administrative Code, which states that commercial secrets are “information regarding a plan, formula, process, or method that has commercial value, or any other information used in the production,  preparation,  processing,  or  provision  of  services,  and/or  which  represents  a significant result of technical creativity, as well as other information, the disclosure of which may harm a person’s competitiveness.”

It is unclear how the public questioning of Ivanishvili, Khaindrava, and Galuashvili, which should have concerned circumstances related to the issuance of a loan by “Cartu Bank” to Bachashvili’s company almost ten years ago, would violate “Cartu Bank’s” commercial secrets. It is even more unclear how making these testimonies public would harm “Cartu Bank’s” competitiveness in comparison to other banks.

In practice, the only issue that the court needed to clarify during the questioning of these individuals was whether, in addition to the loan agreement, there was another investment agreement between Ivanishvili and Bachashvili. While both Ivanishvili and others assert that such an agreement existed, the credibility, reliability, and consistency of their testimony should have been revealed through the process of questioning, particularly during cross-examination. By closing the session, the public and the media were denied the opportunity to observe this process.

Therefore, it is clear that by deciding to partially close the trial, the court did not meet the “justifiability” and “strict necessity” criteria established by the Strasbourg Court regarding the closure of a court session. Ultimately, a reasonable suspicion arises that the partial closure of the session served another purpose—that the public was prevented from fully observing the process and forming a complete picture of how substantiated and justified Ivanishvili’s theory was regarding his alleged investment in Bitcoin mining.

1. Was there a legitimate aim for Ivanishvili’s remote questioning?

According to the European Court of Human Rights, it is indisputable that “Article 6, read as a whole, guarantees the right of an accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial. In general this includes, inter alia, not only his right to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings. Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 (art. 6-3-c, art. 6-3-d, art. 6-3-e), – “to defend himself in person”, “to examine or have examined witnesses”, and “to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.” (Stanford v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 16757/90, 23 February 1994, §26).

In a case where the defendant participated in the trial via video link, the European Court of Human Rights explained that, while the defendant’s participation in the proceedings by videoconference is not as such contrary to the Convention, it is incumbent on the Court to ensure that recourse to this measure in any given case serves a legitimate aim and that the arrangements for the giving of evidence are compatible with the requirements of respect for due process, as laid down in Article 6 of the Convention. (Marcello Viola v. Italy, Application no. 45106/04, 5 October 2006, §67).

In this case, the issue concerns not the defendant Giorgi Bachashvili’s remote participation in the trial, but the remote questioning of the key witness, Ivanishvili. Nevertheless, the above principle that the use of video means must serve a legitimate aim and that the procedures for presenting evidence must align with the principles of a fair trial remains relevant here as well. Otherwise, it would be left to the witness’s preference whether they would physically appear in court or prefer to participate remotely. While this may be permissible in certain cases, based on the circumstances of the case, remote questioning of the witness cannot be equated in terms of effectiveness and efficiency with their physical appearance and questioning during the trial.

Accordingly, it is extremely important to examine how justified the prosecution’s appeal and the court’s approval were regarding Ivanishvili’s inability to appear in court due to age and security concerns.

Regarding age, Ivanishvili will turn 69 on February 18, 2025. While his age is indeed advanced, it is not so elderly as to justify his absence from court. Moreover, Ivanishvili appears to be quite energetic; he has no difficulty moving, and he responds adequately and quickly to external factors. The prosecution’s reference to security concerns also raises confusion, as this is a person under the full control of the state machinery, including law enforcement agencies. Throughout the period before the 2024 parliamentary elections, he was publicly speaking at mass election rallies held in open spaces, where his security could have been under the greatest potential threat. In a closed court environment, where every individual’s entry, including through metal detectors and scanners, is routinely controlled by security services, it is inconceivable what threat could arise from Ivanishvili attending a closed trial.

Given the above, the court’s decision to approve the prosecution’s motion for Ivanishvili’s remote questioning did not align with the actual legitimate aim or the principles of a fair trial.

8.  Ivanishvili – The Sole Ultimate Ruler of the Captured State

It is a widely known and accepted fact that Ivanishvili is the de facto ruler of Georgia, having  captured all state institutions and exerting unilateral control over them. On December 27, 2024, the United States imposed sanctions on Bidzina Ivanishvili for undermining Georgia’s democracy and Euro-Atlantic future in favor of the Russian Federation. The corresponding statement by the U.S. State Department reads: “Ivanishvili and Georgian Dream’s actions have eroded democratic institutions, enabled human rights abuses, and curbed the exercise of fundamental freedoms in Georgia. Furthermore, they have derailed Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic future, a future the Georgian people overwhelmingly desire and the Georgian constitution mandates. The result has left Georgia vulnerable to Russia, which continues to occupy more than 20 percent of Georgia’s territory.”

Conclusion

Overall, as the substantive circumstances of the case outlined above show, the charges against Giorgi Bachashvili are devoid of both legal and factual grounds. At any rate, there is no totality of clear, convincing, mutually consistent and sufficient evidence in the case file which would allow any independent and impartial tribunal to convict Bachiashvili.