Tbilisi Court Orders Saakashvili to Repay 9 Million Lari in Embezzlement Case

In Tbilisi on September 29, the Tbilisi City Court granted the Ministry of Finance’s petition and ordered the former President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili and the former head of the State Security Service Teimuraz Djanashiya to reimburse the state budget up to 9 million lari (about 3.3 million dollars). These decisions marked the final chord in a long-running case of embezzling large sums of money in a prior scheme involving the abuse of official position. Both were convicted under Parts 2 and 3 of Article 182 of the Georgian Criminal Code.

“They say that Saakashvili should reimburse expenses, for example, for hosting Donald Trump in Georgia or laying flowers at Václav Havel’s grave. What does this mean? We have repeatedly seen selective, politically motivated, utterly unfounded decisions in Saakashvili’s cases. Now financial persecution has been added to this – they want to place him in the debtors’ registry.”

In March 2025, Saakashvili was sentenced to 9 years in prison for embezzlement of state funds, and Djanashiya was fined 300 thousand lari; afterwards the state filed a civil suit with the aim of recovering 9 million lari. In the same month, the Tbilisi City Court also issued a decision regarding an additional imprisonment of Saakashvili for more than 4 years for illegally crossing the Georgian border in 2021.

Together these decisions underscore the politically sensitive nature of investigations into former officials and ignite heated debates about the objectivity of the judicial system and political motives in similar cases.

Against the backdrop of such decisions, the ex-president and his supporters claim this is part of systemic pressure, while the government side emphasizes adherence to the law and accountability for the use of official powers.

Context and implications for Georgia’s legal and political landscape

Episodes surrounding the case highlight the difficulty of the interaction between law enforcement and judicial bodies with politically active figures and emphasize the sharp debates over transparency and fairness of processes in the country. Participants from both camps stress different interpretations of the verdict and its impact on future political processes.

Overall, these court decisions shape the discussion about the accountability of officials for the use of power and about whether the judiciary can be detached from politics or, conversely, serve as a compact instrument of influence in a changing political landscape.