One of the most high-profile cases in recent times, involving the criminal prosecution of businessman Giorgi Chikvaidze and his business partner, is potentially a civil dispute in which there is neither evidence of fraud nor elements of embezzlement. Alongside corrupt and nepotistic interests within the law enforcement system, this case also reveals the interest of Ivanishvili’s regime to settle scores with a businessman who was once a supporter, but who dared to first refuse to carry out an anti-state order and later began to speak publicly about it.

Some time ago, we published an in-depth analysis of the case of Giorgi Bachiashvili, in which, among other circumstances, we pointed out how Ivanishvili used the Prosecutor’s Office and the entire justice system to serve his personal financial interests, turning a fundamentally civil dispute with a former subordinate or associate into an instrument to resolve the issue in his own favor.

Giorgi Chikvaidze’s case is another example of arbitrary transformation of a potentially civil dispute into criminal prosecution through abuse of process.

Who is Giorgi Chikvaidze and why might he have become a target of political persecution?

Giorgi Chikvaidze was once closely associated with and an active supporter of the "Georgian Dream" party. He successfully operated a yacht business in Georgia. According to him, his relationship with the "Georgian Dream" soured after he refused to carry out an unlawful order which was at odds with Georgia’s national interests. This order allegedly involved transporting a yacht belonging to Oleg Deripaska—a Russian oligarch sanctioned by the West and an enabler of Putin’s regime—from Turkey to Russia under the Georgian flag and through the Batumi maritime zone.

We are not in a position to verify the truth of Chikvaidze’s claims. However, there is no doubt among any progressive forces today—including our organization—that Ivanishvili’s regime acts as a puppet of Russia and that every step it takes serves the interests of Putin’s government. One thing is clear: if such an order indeed existed, it could not have been issued without Ivanishvili’s personal approval. It is also clear that refusal to carry out this order would not have pleased Ivanishvili, as it could have jeopardized his relationship with Deripaska, other Russian oligarchs, and most importantly, with the leadership of the Putin regime.

Giorgi Chikvaidze also implicates Ivanishvili and his regime in another strange and scandalous episode that suggests personal ties to Russian intelligence services. According to Chikvaidze, a few years ago, he was instructed by the State Security Service (SSS) to purchase a yacht for a Russian intelligence officer and his wife, who reside in Montenegro and with whom, Chikvaidze claims, Ivanishvili has close ties. The illegality in this case lies not in the purchase of the yacht itself, but in the identity of the buyer. Additionally, Chikvaidze claims that he was also tasked—again by the SSS—with delivering certain substances to the couple in Montenegro intended for some bizarre shamanic or mystical rituals. This delivery allegedly involved violations of established border-crossing and customs procedures in Georgia.

The Essence of Giorgi Chikvaidze’s Case

According to the materials of the criminal case against Giorgi Chikvaidze, in the spring of 2022, he and his partner, Irakli Papiashvili—co-director of Chikvaidze’s company Ramses Georgian Yachting Platform LLC—met Elguja Turmanidze, the founder, 100% shareholder, and at the time also the director of the development company ELT Building. They established certain business relations and joint plans.

According to Giorgi Chikvaidze, he facilitated the participation of Elguja Turmanidze and his company’s employees in the Cannes Yachting Festival and the Düsseldorf exhibition.

On September 10, 2022, a sales contract was signed between Ramses Georgian Yachting Platform LLC and ELT Building LLC, represented by their respective directors Giorgi Chikvaidze and Elguja Turmanidze. The subject of the sale was an Italian-manufactured yacht, model Azimut Atlantis 45 2023. Chikvaidze’s company undertook the obligation to deliver the yacht and transfer ownership to Turmanidze’s company. In turn, Turmanidze’s company agreed to pay a purchase price of €424,500.

According to the agreement, the final delivery date for the yacht was set for August 31, 2023, and the buyer was to make the payment in four installments. The final installment was due by April 25, 2023.

On November 7, 2022, the parties amended the agreement. Under this amendment, the purchase price of the yacht was reduced to €416,700.

It is undisputed that ELT Building fulfilled its obligation on time and paid the full amount by the deadline.

As for Chikvaidze’s company, due to certain circumstances cited by Chikvaidze—such as a sea storm, engine failure of the manufactured yacht, and the inability to replace it—Ramses Georgian Yachting Platform LLC failed to fulfill its contractual obligation and could not deliver the yacht to the buyer by the specified deadline.

Due to these circumstances, the parties agreed on another amendment to the September 10, 2022, contract on August 31, 2023. The new agreement replaced the original yacht (Azimut Atlantis 45 2023) with a different model: CRANCHI M44 HT 2023. The new delivery date was set for September 20, 2023, and the place of delivery was specified as Alicante, Spain.

Since Ramses Georgian Yachting Platform LLC failed to fulfill this obligation as well, another amendment was made to the contract on September 20, 2023, setting a new delivery date of December 20, 2023. Additionally, through this amendment, Giorgi Chikvaidze personally assumed liability as a guarantor for the performance of the contract, and was listed as a “guarantor/solidary debtor” alongside his company.

On December 15, 2023, the parties once again amended the contract, setting the new delivery date to January 15, 2024. Furthermore, this amendment included that, in addition to Giorgi Chikvaidze, Irakli Papiashvili and Ramses Yachts LLC—a company fully owned and directed by Irakli Papiashvili—also assumed the role of guarantors and solidary debtors for the fulfillment of the contract.

According to Giorgi Chikvaidze, as early as November 2023, he and Irakli Papiashvili had decided to refund the yacht payment to ELT Building. To this end, in December 2023, an amount of €50,000 was transferred from Irakli Papiashvili’s account to the account of ELT Building. Chikvaidze claims that the entire debt would have been repaid, had it not been for the criminal prosecution initiated against him and Irakli Papiashvili—a process he describes as political retaliation and an attempt to resolve a potentially civil dispute through the illegal application of criminal law mechanisms.

Chikvaidze further stated, including during his interrogation, that Elguja Turmanidze had once threatened him, saying that his relative—Vladimer Turmanidze—held a senior position in the Adjara Prosecutor’s Office and that through him, he (Chikvaidze) would be “destroyed,” since this civil-type case would be “elegantly turned into a criminal one.”

For context, this is the same Vladimer Turmanidze who came into public attention as the prosecutor in the case of Mzia Amaghlobeli, and for which Estonia and Lithuania sanctioned him.

Initiation of the Investigation against Giorgi Chikvaidze and Irakli Papiashvili in Violation of Procedural Jurisdiction Rules

As case materials suggest, the threat made by Elguja Turmanidze—if indeed it was made—was not just empty words.

According to the official case initiation registration form (Form N1) dated January 23, 2024, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara launched a criminal investigation on that date under Article 180 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (“Fraud”), specifically: Part 2(a): “Committed by a group in advance agreement”; Part 3(b): “In large quantities.”

The investigation was based on a complaint dated January 17, 2024, submitted by Giorgi Kasradze, director of ELT Building LLC.

According to a resolution issued on January 23, 2024, by Zaza Metonidze, the Prosecutor of Adjara, the case was handed over for investigation to the Investigative Division of the Adjara Prosecutor’s Office. This resolution acknowledges that, according to Order N3 of the Prosecutor General of Georgia dated August 23, 2019, the crime under Article 180 falls under the investigative jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. Nonetheless, the resolution states that, “for the purpose of conducting a comprehensive, complete, and objective investigation,” it is appropriate to transfer the case to the Investigative Division of the Adjara Prosecutor’s Office.

The aforementioned Order N3 is a secondary regulatory act issued by the Prosecutor General of Georgia in accordance with Article 7, Article 15 (paragraph 2, subparagraphs ‘g’ and ‘m’), and Article 18 of the Organic Law of Georgia on the Prosecutor’s Office, as well as Articles 35 and 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. This act specifically regulates the procedures for determining investigative and territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases.

According to the annex to this order, titled “Investigative and Territorial Investigative Jurisdiction of Criminal Cases”, the first paragraph states: “A criminal case falls under the investigative jurisdiction of the investigative bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs unless otherwise specified in this order.” The annex does not provide any exceptions regarding Article 180 of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, it is a fact that the investigation of a criminal case based on Article 180 should have been initiated not in the Prosecutor’s Office of Adjara, but within the appropriate territorial units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs—such as the Adjara Police Department of the MIA.

According to Subparagraph "a" of Paragraph 6 of Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, the Prosecutor General of Georgia or a person authorized by them has the right, regardless of investigative jurisdiction, to withdraw a case from one investigative body and transfer it for investigation to another investigative body. This cited norm does not grant such authority to the Prosecutor of Adjara.

In the above-mentioned decision by the Prosecutor of Adjara, among other legal acts, the following orders of the Prosecutor General of Georgia are cited as legal grounds: Order No. N34-g dated March 26, 2020; Orders No. N021 and N016 dated May 6, 2020. The first of these cannot be found in either the Legislative Herald of Georgia or on the website of the Prosecutor's Office. As for the other two orders, not only do they fail to grant the Prosecutor of Adjara the authority to withdraw a case from one agency and transfer it to another regardless of jurisdiction, but according to Subparagraph "g" of Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Statute of the Prosecutor's Office of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara, approved by Order No. N021 of May 6, 2020, the Prosecutor of Adjara is authorized to reassign a case between investigative bodies only while observing territorial investigative jurisdiction and only in cases and under procedures determined by the Prosecutor General — specifically, as defined by the investigative jurisdiction rules approved by Order No. N3 of August 23, 2019, and not otherwise.

Furthermore, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the same statute, the tasks of the Investigative Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of Adjara are to conduct investigations and carry out operative-search activities in criminal cases that fall under the investigative jurisdiction of the Prosecutor's Office within its territorial scope. This means the Investigative Department cannot investigate criminal cases that are not under the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor's Office as defined by the rules established by the Prosecutor General.

In addition, as previously noted, in the aforementioned decision, the Prosecutor of Adjara justifies the transfer of the case to the Adjara Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds of ensuring a "comprehensive, full, and objective investigation." However, under the Criminal Procedure Code (see Article 37, Paragraph 2), conducting a comprehensive, full, and objective investigation is a general obligation of every investigator in every law enforcement agency and cannot serve as a valid basis for transferring a case from one agency to another. Moreover, it is unclear how the Prosecutor of Adjara could "transfer" the case to a subordinate agency if the investigation had already been initiated by the Adjara Prosecutor’s Office.

These violations indicate that Giorgi Chikvaidze’s statement — that Elguja Turmanidze was threatening to destroy him and referred to having an influential relative in the Adjara Prosecutor’s Office as proof of the credibility of this threat — may very well be true. Otherwise, it is difficult to find another explanation for the extent to which the Prosecutor of Adjara violated investigative jurisdiction rules simply to ensure that the investigation of what is essentially an ordinary civil case would be handled by the Adjara Prosecutor's Office.

Transfer of the Case to the Ministry of Finance’s Investigative Service — Another Arbitrary Act

The fact that the Adjara Prosecutor's Office unilaterally and in violation of jurisdiction rules assumed control over the investigation was indirectly acknowledged by the Deputy Prosecutor General of Georgia. On March 1, 2024, the Deputy Prosecutor General — Giorgi Badashvili — issued a decision to transfer the case for investigation to the Investigative Department of the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Finance. The decision, among other legal acts, references Orders No. N33-g and N34-g of March 26, 2020, which are not publicly available.

The reason and purpose for removing the case from the Adjara Prosecutor's Office and transferring it to the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Finance’s Investigative Service is not explained in the decision. It is also not explained why the case was transferred to that body, considering that the investigation of Article 180 of the Criminal Code — just like in the case of the Adjara Prosecutor’s Office — does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance’s Investigative Service.

Having the authority does not equate to having absolute discretion in its use. At least, that should be the case in a rule-of-law state — something Georgia, under Ivanishvili’s regime, clearly does not represent.

Initiation of Criminal Prosecution Against Giorgi Chikvaidze and Irakli Papiashvili: Lack of Evidence for Fraud and Absence of Elements of Embezzlement

On July 4, 2024, Senior Prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Georgia, Giorgi Javarashvili, issued resolutions charging Giorgi Chikvaidze and Irakli Papiashvili. Both were not charged under Article 180 of the Criminal Code of Georgia — the article originally used to launch the investigation and which pertains to fraud — but instead under Article 182, which refers to embezzlement. Specifically, they were charged under Subparagraphs "a" ("by a group in prior agreement") and "d" ("using official position") of Paragraph 2, and Subparagraph "b" ("in large amounts") of Paragraph 3 of Article 182. If convicted, they face imprisonment from 7 to 11 years.

As previously noted, the investigation initially proceeded on the basis of alleged fraud. According to Part 1 of Article 180 of the Criminal Code, “fraud” is defined as “the unlawful appropriation of someone else's property or the acquisition of property rights through deception, with the intent of misappropriation.” According to the Supreme Court of Georgia, in cases of fraud, the means of acquiring the property or rights must involve deception, which leads the victim to make a harmful decision. Deception, as the method of committing the act, constitutes an objective element of fraud (Case No. 1288ap-24, February 13, 2025, para. 5.3). Moreover, it is essential that the deception precedes the act of obtaining the property or property rights (Case No. 712ap-17, May 22, 2018). Additionally, for a person to be found guilty of fraud, the subjective element of the crime must be clearly established: that the individual, at the time of assuming a particular obligation, had the prior intent to unlawfully appropriate another’s property and acted using a specific method — deception — to achieve that goal (Case No. 479ap-24, August 8, 2024, para. 8).

The case materials contain no evidence that could convince an objective observer that, prior to the signing of the sales contract — that is, back in August–September 2022 — Chikvaidze and Papiashvili had no intention of delivering the object of sale to the buyer and, instead, aimed to unlawfully acquire the payment through deception. It is unclear which part of the verbal or written communication between the parties prior to the agreement contained any falsehood. After all, Chikvaidze and Papiashvili not only never avoided responsibility, but they also took personal responsibility for their company's failure to fulfill the contract when they agreed to act as guarantors.

Apparently, at some point during the investigation, this fact became evident to both the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Finance. Seemingly for this reason, they changed their approach and instead charged Chikvaidze and Papiashvili with embezzlement — thereby entangling themselves even further.

According to Part 1 of Article 182 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, embezzlement or misappropriation is defined as “the unlawful appropriation or misappropriation of someone else’s property or property right, if that property or right was in the lawful possession or control of the appropriator or embezzler.”

A necessary element of the objective side of the crime is that the item or property right must be "someone else's." A person may dispose of their own property or property right however they wish. Therefore, the use, disposal, or expenditure of one's own property or rights according to one’s own discretion cannot be regarded as embezzlement or misappropriation by anyone.

As mentioned above, in this case, the parties concluded a sales agreement, under which the seller is obliged to transfer to the buyer ownership rights to the property, related documents, and deliver the goods, while the buyer is obliged to pay the agreed price and receive the purchased property (Article 477 of the Civil Code). In the case of movable property, it is necessary (and sufficient) for the owner to transfer the item to the buyer on a legal basis in order to transfer ownership (Article 186, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code). Therefore, the money — as movable property — which the buyer, LLC "ELT Building," paid in advance to the seller, LLC "Ramses Georgian Yachting Platform," based on the legal grounds stemming from the September 10, 2022, sales agreement, became the property of the seller the moment it was transferred.

No other type of contract, such as a contract of mandate (Articles 709–723 of the Civil Code), was concluded between the parties — a contract in which the transferred property is presumed to remain the property of the mandator (Article 716 of the Civil Code).

Consequently, the prosecution is charging the defendants with “embezzlement” of property that had already exited the buyer's — LLC "ELT Building's" — ownership at the moment it was credited to the account of LLC "Ramses Georgian Yachting Platform." This means that the elements of embezzlement are not present. The defendants are being charged with a crime that, even if they had strongly wished to commit it, they could not have committed. Theoretically, they could have embezzled only the funds of LLC "Ramses Georgian Yachting Platform." However, the prosecution is not accusing Chikvaidze and Papiashvili of doing so.

Use of Detention as a Preventive Measure

On July 5, 2024, after charges were filed against Giorgi Chikvaidze and Irakli Papiashvili, the Tbilisi City Court considered the issue of applying preventive measures against the defendants, granted the prosecution's motion, and imposed bail on both.

However, on March 11, 2025, the court once again granted the prosecution's motion — this time replacing Chikvaidze’s bail with pretrial detention, while keeping Papiashvili's bail in force.

The changed stance of the prosecution and the court was likely influenced by a shift in the political stance of the Ivanishvili regime, which appears to have been angered by Giorgi Bachiashvili’s escape from Georgia. This is evidenced by Prosecutor Javakhishvili's statement: “We have received information regarding the illegal crossing of the border. He [Giorgi Chikvaidze] was near Sadakhlo on March 6–7, which triggered an investigation. This ongoing investigation constitutes new circumstances for reviewing the preventive measure.”

Since the prosecutor did not present specific evidence to justify such a statement, it is highly likely that the “information” about Chikvaidze's attempted illegal border crossing is fabricated by the prosecution.

Pacta sunt servanda

It is a fundamental principle of law that contracts must be fulfilled. Pacta sunt servanda. This principle, of course, also applies to Giorgi Chikvaidze and his company. There is no dispute that Chikvaidze’s enterprise failed to fulfill the obligation arising from the contract. Why it failed, what factors prevented it, and whether he should be held responsible for non-fulfillment of the contract—all of this should be clarified by the civil court.

However, the problem is that the opposing party chose another way to satisfy its claim. There are signs that they are trying to combine their corrupt-nepotistic connections with the political interests of the regime in relation to this case and use them to their advantage. The main problem, however, remains in the illegitimate regime, for which the abuse of criminal legal mechanisms for the benefit of its political, strategic, financial, corrupt, or other interests has become a necessary factor for its own existence.

Conclusions

1.              Giorgi Chikvaidze's case is essentially of a civil nature, and the issue of his liability should have been addressed within the framework of a civil dispute, according to civil procedural legislation.

2.              The activation of criminal prosecution mechanisms against Giorgi Chikvaidze and his business partner constitutes an abuse of process and the entire law enforcement/judiciary system.

3.              The motive behind the abuse of criminal process is most likely twofold: On one hand, it highlights the corrupt-nepotistic interests of the opposing side, and on the other hand, it reflects the regime's interest in settling accounts with a former business supporter who dared to refuse to fulfill anti-state tasks and later began speaking publicly about it.