In recent times, the ruling party Georgian Dream has been abusing various legal methods aimed at repressing participants of the protests in the country and creating multiple barriers for them. Ivanishvili’s government is not only attempting to suppress civic protests (something it has not yet succeeded in doing) through the use of brutal police force, but is also effectively criminalizing assistance provided to protesters by those who wish to help the protesters with defending themselves from violence.

A clear example of this is the repressive criminal measures that Ivanishvili’s government has taken in recent months against citizen aid organizations (known in society as “solidarity funds”). These actions have nothing to do with justice or law enforcement. Their goal is to eliminate any form of protest — no matter how peaceful or constitutionally protected — and, by extension, to suppress the desire for solidarity and mutual aid among citizens through the abusive application of criminal procedures.

The following describes clear procedural violations that occurred in relation to these funds, including the freezing of their accounts, searches of the homes and personal searches of their leaders, and other actions.

The Official Justification for Repression against Solidarity Funds

The public first learned about the initial repressive measures against solidarity funds in early December 2024, when the head of one such fund — Nanuka’s Foundation, Nanuka Zhorzholiani — announced on social media that, according to her information, the State Security Service (SSS) had requested financial documentation related to her charity foundation from commercial banks.

Nanuka Zhorzholiani also explained why her solidarity fund may have become a target of the SSS. At the time, as the special task force units and other police divisions under the command of Zviad Kharazishvili (“Khareba”), sanctioned by democratic countries, were brutally beating peaceful demonstrators in the streets — striking them (especially in the head) with fists, boots, special gloves, batons, etc., and using tear gas, pepper spray, and chemically infused water cannons, all in violation of international standards and even domestic laws — Nanuka’s Foundation was distributing respirators, gas masks, protective eye goggles, helmets, and more to the barehanded citizens standing against the brute police force. Apparently, the police, blindly following political orders from the ruling party, are allowed to poison and fracture the skulls and facial bones of peaceful demonstrators with total impunity, while those very demonstrators are not even allowed to protect themselves from poisoning or skull fractures.

This is not speculation by Nanuka Zhorzholiani or other solidarity funds. The government-controlled Prosecutor’s Office later confirmed it themselves. In mid-March 2025, it became public that the Prosecutor’s Office had requested the courts to freeze the bank accounts of six organizations — Nanuka’s Foundation, Prosperity Georgia, Fund For Each Other 24/7, Shame Movement, and Tbilisi Human Rights House — in various commercial banks across Georgia. Unsurprisingly, the court under the influence of the Murusidze-Chinchaladze clan granted the request (see more below).

In an official statement published on its website, the Prosecutor’s Office, among other baseless accusations, stated the following:

“As is known to the public, the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia is conducting an investigation on the grounds of sabotage, attempted sabotage under aggravating circumstances, assisting a foreign organization and an organization under foreign control in hostile activities, and financing activities aimed at undermining Georgia’s constitutional order and national security. The investigation is being conducted under Article 318, Part 1; Article 19-318, Part 2; Article 319; and Article 321¹, Part 2(a) of the Georgian Criminal Code.

Based on the investigation, from November 28, 2024, to the present, various protest actions — so-called 'marches' and other events — that took place in front of Parliament and other locations across the country, have taken on a violent character in a short time frame and exceeded legal boundaries...

During the investigation it has also been established that violent groups were regularly supplied with so-called respirators, 'special gas masks,' helmets, and other equipment to make violent attacks on law enforcement officers during special police operations more effective...

It has also been determined that for organizing unlawful and criminal actions, financial resources were frequently collected and distributed via so-called 'funds'. These organizations directly finance illegal events, call on the public to disobey the law, and encourage other illegal actions. The organizational and financial activities of certain funds are directed toward providing material assistance to offenders and their family members, including paying fines and handling other personal or organizational matters..."

These abstract and factually unsupported claims reveal several important aspects that, if not alarming, should at least be of serious concern to the public:

1.     According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the entire protest movement — not individual incidents (which themselves remain unsubstantiated) — is seen as an “attempt at sabotage” and “assistance to hostile activities carried out by foreign organizations or organizations under foreign control.”

2.     Providing material assistance to participants of protests constitutes "mobilizing funds for activities directed against the constitutional order of Georgia and the foundations of national security."

3.     Actions considered as criminal activity by the funds include supplying protest participants "with respirators, special air helmets, helmets, and other means," "providing material assistance to them and their family members," and "paying fines on their behalf."

By giving such qualification to innocent actions such as aiding civil protest and providing assistance to protest participants, including even providing non-violent defense means to protect against unlawful police violence or paying fines, the Ivanishvili-controlled Prosecutor's Office essentially declares any protest activity and providing aid to protest participants as a crime against the state.

Abuse of Criminal Process against Solidarity Funds

Since December 2024, in addition to freezing bank accounts, other investigative and procedural actions have been taken against solidarity funds. The compliance of these actions with the law is analyzed below.

a) Freezing of bank accounts

On March 13, 2025, the Prosecutor of the General Prosecutor's Office of Georgia, Lasha Kotrikadze, applied to the Tbilisi City Court to freeze the bank accounts of solidarity funds. The next day, March 14, 2025, Judge Mzia Garshaulishvili of the Tbilisi City Court granted the application and froze the bank accounts of solidarity funds in several Georgian commercial banks.

According to Article 151, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (CPC), the court may freeze the property of the accused, the person materially responsible for their actions, or the person connected to them, including bank accounts, if there is evidence that the property will be concealed, spent, or is obtained by criminal means.

The court could not have frozen the accounts of the solidarity funds based on the aforementioned Article 151(1), as this norm applies only when there is an "accused" and the case concerns the property of the accused, the person materially responsible for their actions, or those connected to them. In this case, none of the representatives of the solidarity funds have been charged with any offense.

Therefore, the court referred to paragraph 3¹ of the same Article 151, which does not require the existence of an accused. Specifically, according to paragraph 3¹, the court by its ruling can also freeze property if there is "reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed with respect to this property," or "there is reasonable suspicion that this property was obtained through criminal means," and freezing the property is necessary for one or more of the following objectives: a) to prevent the commission of a new crime; b) to protect it from destruction or damage; c) to prevent its concealment, sale, or expenditure; d) to ensure its potential confiscation based on Article 52 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.

Therefore, according to paragraph 3¹ of Article 151 of the CPC, freezing property is legal only under the following cumulative conditions:

• There is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed with respect to this property, or the property was obtained through criminal means;
• Freezing the property is necessary: a) to prevent the commission of a new crime; b) to protect it from destruction or damage; c) to prevent its concealment, sale, or expenditure; d) to ensure its potential confiscation based on Article 52 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.

Paragraph 11 of Article 3 of the CPC defines "reasonable suspicion" as a set of facts or information that, based on the circumstances of the criminal case, would convince an objective observer that the individual may have committed the crime.

Excluding the descriptive parts and formal requisites of the ruling, the court justified the freezing of the accounts with only the following one paragraph:

"In this case, the materials attached to the motion justify the necessity of freezing the accounts. The court notes that there is sufficient information and a set of facts and circumstances related to the criminal case presented by the prosecutor. According to the presented materials, the standard of reasonable suspicion justifies that the above-mentioned bank accounts could be used for criminal activity. Specifically, according to the presented materials, the reasonable suspicion standard reveals that the mentioned funds have exceeded the scope of activities defined by their charter and are involved in organizing criminal acts. Therefore, there is a necessity to freeze the requested bank accounts. Based on these circumstances, the prosecutor's motion to freeze the accounts is justified and should be granted."

According to Article 151, Paragraph 3¹ of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court should primarily have indicated and described the facts and information that would convince an objective observer that a crime has been committed with regard to this property, or that it has been obtained by criminal means. In the paragraph of the court's ruling cited above, not a single word is mentioned about what crime could have been committed with regard to the frozen bank accounts or through which criminal act the property was obtained. The court only stated, without referencing specific facts or information, that "the above-mentioned bank accounts might be used for criminal activities" and that "the mentioned funds exceeded the basic activities defined by their statutes and are intended to organize criminal actions."

Thus, even if these conclusions made by the court without any justification were correct (which they are not), they could not serve as a basis for freezing the solidarity funds' bank accounts, because, according to Paragraph 3¹ of Article 151, the freezing of property happens not when "criminal activities are conducted" using the property or "criminal acts are organized," but when a crime has been committed with regard to the property or it has been obtained by criminal means (e.g., stolen, embezzled, etc.).

Even the clan-oriented court of Ivanishvili-Murusidze-Chinchaladze did not reach such a conclusion, because it is widely known that the funds in the management of these foundations were accumulated through voluntary donations from citizens and organizations. The only "crime" associated with the mobilization of these funds is the citizens' empathy, solidarity, and sincere desire to help one another against the arbitrariness of an illegal and unjust system.

As for the goals of Paragraph 3¹ of Article 151 — the prevention of new crimes, etc. — it is noteworthy that the court did not even bother to justify the existence of these circumstances.

The first-instance court ruling was appealed by the solidarity funds to the appellate court. However, it is obvious that they could not have had any hope for a better decision, and they did not receive one from Judge Giorgi Mirotadze of the Tbilisi Appellate Court.

b) Rulings on the seizure of financial documentation and electronic records

On April 2, 2025, Judge Nana Shamatava of the Tbilisi City Court granted the motions of Prosecutor Lasha Kotrikadze and issued rulings permitting the seizure of financial documentation from the solidarity funds and the retrieval of electronic documentation from their computer systems.

These rulings are formal and do not contain any convincing justification for granting these motions.

c) Nana Jorjoliani's house and personal search

On April 29, 2025, investigators from the Special Investigative Division of the General Prosecutor's Office visited the residence of Nana Zhorzholiani, head of the “Nanuka Foundation.” The individuals present were Nino Loladze, investigator for especially important cases (EIC); David Baindurashvili, senior EIC investigator; Giorgi Nikabadze, EIC investigator; and Gocha Satashvili, EIC investigator. Also present were Lasha Mosidze, Deputy Head of the State Security Department (SSD) of the State Security Service (SSS), along with SSD employees Archil Madiashvili, Shota Kokorashvili, Irakli Obolashvili, and Akaki Korkashvili.

They presented Nana Zhorzholiani with a court order issued by Tbilisi City Court Judge Nana Shamatava on April 1, 2025, authorizing a personal search. As a result of the search, a mobile phone was seized from her.

In addition, based on a decision by Senior EIC Investigator David Baindurashvili of the General Prosecutor's Office, a search of Nana Zhorzholiani’s residence was carried out under the pretext of “urgent necessity.” As a result, 13 electronic devices — including laptops, mobile phones, cameras, and memory cards — were seized from Zhorzholiani’s bedroom and her children's bedrooms.

Not only were the court order authorizing the personal search and the investigator’s decision to search the home under “urgent necessity” unsubstantiated and in violation of legal requirements, but what also stands out is that four EIC investigators from the General Prosecutor's Office and five employees from the SSS, including the deputy head of the department, participated in conducting the personal search of Nana Zhorzholiani at her residence. It is unclear what necessity justified the involvement of nine officials from the General Prosecutor’s Office and the SSS in conducting Zhorzholiani’s personal search, or indeed, what justified the personal search at all.

The only reasonable assumption that an impartial observer might make is that Ivanishvili and his party are attempting to intimidate Nana Zhorzholiani, other foundations, and society as a whole in order to suppress public solidarity and mutual support among citizens.

d) Alexander (Aleko) Tskitishvili's house and personal search

On April 29, 2025, the residence and personal search of Alexander (Aleko) Tskitishvili were also carried out. Similarly, this search was based on the April 1, 2025, ruling from Judge Nana Shamatava of the Tbilisi City Court.

According to Paragraph 3 of Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a search or seizure ruling must indicate, among other things, the "suspected object, item, substance, or other object to be discovered or seized, and its distinguishing features." However, Judge Shamatava's ruling did not specify any suspected object or distinguishing features, which constitutes a gross violation of the relevant norms of criminal procedural law.

Conclusion

In these cases, the interest of Ivanishvili and the ruling party is clearly evident. The investigation lacks concrete evidence that would prove that these foundations and specific individuals are involved in criminal offenses. All procedural actions taken so far would lead to the dismissal of the case by any independent court.

The initiation of these cases was preceded by anti-Western and pro-government propaganda media campaigns (“Imedi,” “Postv,” Public Broadcaster, “Rustavi 2”), which aimed to discredit the solidarity funds. Thus, the specific investigative actions could be considered part of these discreditation campaigns. It is clear that Ivanishvili and the ruling party, in addition to trying to suppress citizens' protest movements, are de facto criminalizing mutual solidarity among citizens. They seek to implant the idea in society that helping a person who is unjustly persecuted and oppressed by the state is a crime against the state itself.

These cases are yet another clear example of the ruling party and Bidzina Ivanishvili's capture of state institutions. It is significant that no institution has questioned the legal basis or lawfulness of the ongoing “investigation,” including the Special Investigation Service and the Public Defender’s Office. It is evident that all state organs and institutions—courts, prosecutors, the State Security Service, etc.—are in the service of Ivanishvili and the ruling party.

Individuals involved in the criminalization of solidarity:

Judges

• Mzia Garshaulishvili
• Nana Shamatava
• Giorgi Mirotadze

Employees of the General Prosecutor's Office

• Prosecutor Lasha Kotrikadze
• Senior Investigator David Baindurashvili
• Investigator Nino Loladze
• Investigator Giorgi Nikabadze
• Investigator Gocha Satashvili

Employees of the State Security Service

• Lasha Mosidze
• Archil Madiasvili
• Shota Kokorashvili
• Irakli Obolashvili
• Akaki Korkhashvili