Freezing Company Accounts and Assets During a Georgian Criminal Investigation

Freezing Company Accounts and Assets During a Georgian Criminal Investigation
Commercial context

Why this issue changes business decisions

A bank account can contain revenue from many periods, customers and activities. Defence analysis should not rely on a global assertion that all funds are legitimate. It should trace opening balances, incoming payments, transfers, ownership, contractual basis and the transactions said to connect the property with the alleged offence.

Business-continuity evidence can matter to proportionality and the practical relief requested. Management should quantify payroll, taxes, protected third-party funds, secured obligations and essential supplier payments. That analysis must remain accurate and must not be used to create sham priorities or transfer value beyond the order.

Current framework

What the official Georgian sources show

The Criminal Procedure Code contains procedures affecting property and evidence. The legal basis and available challenge depend on the actual measure and decision, so generic labels such as freeze or seizure are insufficient. Official source

The Criminal Code provides confiscation-related consequences and legal-person sanctions in specified circumstances. Potential sentence and investigative restriction are separate questions and should not be conflated. Official source

The Prosecutor's Office conducts prosecution and provides procedural guidance for investigations, while the competent court performs the judicial functions assigned by criminal procedure. Official source

Money-laundering and financial-crime analysis often depends on ownership, source, alleged predicate conduct, transaction route and knowledge. A bank's AML restriction or inquiry is not itself a criminal judgment. Official source

Management agenda

Decisions to record before the company acts

1

Create a property schedule identifying legal owner, controller, source and business purpose.

2

Trace disputed and undisputed funds separately using reproducible bank and ledger evidence.

3

Quantify legitimate third-party and continuity effects with contracts and due dates.

4

Coordinate procedural applications with tax, bank, creditor, employment and governance communications.

Legal work

Issues counsel should connect

Implementation

A practical sequence for this matter

Documents and evidence

Risks to test

Research record

Official public sources used

This publication cites only legislation, registries and regulators. It does not rely on other law firms or competitor commentary as authority.

Frequently asked questions

The answer depends on the alleged intentional conduct, statutory amount and other conditions in the current Criminal Code, not merely the existence of a tax adjustment. Audit and criminal documents should be reviewed together.

An entry may be evidence, but responsibility requires analysis of the alleged offence, authority, knowledge, instructions, benefit and other proof. Job title or signature alone should not replace that analysis.

The alleged property, source, ownership, transaction route, commercial purpose, documents and the knowledge attributed to each person are central. The prosecution and defence may also rely on financial and digital expertise.

Ownership, control, traceability, procedural basis and any legal-person allegation must be examined. A restriction should not be assumed valid or invalid without the order and evidence.

Necessary lawful corrections require coordinated legal and accounting advice, a transparent audit trail and preservation of prior records. Altering or deleting evidence must never be used to change the historical record.

Related legal support