SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION AS AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF COMBATING TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME∗

Abstract

Transnational organized crime and the fight against it are big challenges for the world. That is why international cooperation plays an important role in the fight against transnational organized crime. Two types of international cooperation should be distinguished: the cooperation between courts and judicial institutions and international police cooperation. In Georgian legislation, they are sharply separated from each other. The Law of Georgia “On International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law” regulates international cooperation between courts and judicial cooperation. The mentioned law is one of the important documents from the point of view of international cooperation. It regulates matters related to the revealing of legal aid in criminal cases, extradition, forwarding of criminal case materials or their duly certified copies, execution of judgments, international cooperation related to confiscation of property, and transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment. The article will directly discuss confiscation as a mechanism of fighting against transnational organized crime based on the Palermo Convention and the law of Georgia, “On International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law”. The norms governing confiscation in the Criminal Code will be discussed, as well as the Civil Code of Georgia, the provisions of which provide the opportunity to file a lawsuit for confiscation of property.

Keywords: Palermo Convention, organized crime, confiscation, international cooperation

Introduction
Transnational organized crime and the fight against it is a big problem for the civilized world. Due to the nature of the transnational organized crime, close cooperation between countries is considered a unique way to combat it. A number of areas of cooperation between courts and judicial institutions are described in the Palermo Convention, which is an essential document in organized crime prevention. In Georgia are two important documents in this regard: The Law on “International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law” and the “Law on International Cooperation in the Field of Law Enforcement”. The purpose of both laws is to strengthen international cooperation between courts and judicial institutions, as well as between law enforcement agencies.

The confiscation of illegal and undocumented assets and the seizure/confiscation of assets intended for the commission of such crimes is considered one of the best ways to combat transnational organized crime. When committing/preparing transnational organized crime, property/profits are accumulated in different countries, and the property obtained as a result of such activities is returned and strengthens organized groups. That is why it is relevant and essential to enhance international cooperation and close legal relations between countries to confiscate property/income due to the commission of a transnational organized crime or intended it to be committed.

The purpose of the research topic is to study the norms of the Palermo Convention, which at the international level regulate the rules for the confiscation of property between state parties as a result of or for the purpose of committing transnational organized crimes. Determining its compliance with the Law of “Georgia on International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law” is also important.

The subject of the article is the internal legal acts of the country, including the regulation of confiscation/seizure of the Criminal Code of Georgia and the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, with the attitude of international cooperation - the Law of Georgia on “International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law.

1. The Regulatory Norms of Confiscation and Seizure in the International Law

1.1. Assets/Benefits Subject to Confiscation under the Palermo Convention

We find confiscation and seizure as one of the measures of procedural coercion in the different international legal acts. Among them are the Palermo Convention and the 1998 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.”[1]

According to Article 2 of the Palermo Convention, “freezing” or “seizure” shall mean temporarily prohibiting the transfer, conversion, disposition, or movement of property or temporarily assuming custody or control of the property based on an order issued by a court or other competent authority.[2] Concerning “confiscation”, which includes forfeiture where applicable, shall mean the permanent deprivation of property by order of a court or other competent authority.[3] Before adopting the Palermo Convention, an identical definition existed in the 1998 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.[4]

Article 12 of the Palermo Convention requires the participating states to confiscate the proceeds or property of relevant value obtained by committing crimes under the Convention, as well as confiscation of property, equipment, or other means used or intended to be used to commit these crimes.[5]

This refers explicitly to committing or intending to commit acts criminalized under articles 5 (participation in an organized criminal group), 6 (laundering of proceeds of crime), 8 (corruption), and 23 (obstruction of justice) of the Palermo Convention on Confiscation of Property. For example, money paid in bribes, income received as a result of the activities of organized groups and other criminal benefits.[6] Interestingly, what is meant by “confiscation of equipment or other means”? Devices may include vehicles, computer equipment, and other similar items that criminals have used or will use to commit crimes. Other means may include documentation or intangible goods.

Article 12 of the Convention also obliges the member states to take such measures as may be necessary for the possible identification, search, seizure, or freezing of any item specified in the first paragraph of this article, with the aim of its final confiscation.[7] This article again obliges the member states to adopt the relevant legislation so that the courts and other institutions can carry out the function mentioned above.[8] For example, in England, there is an “Agency for the recovery of assets”, which in 2005 received more than 17 million pounds sterling from the confiscation of property.[9]

According to this article, if the proceeds obtained through crime are partially or wholly converted or transformed into other property, measures aimed at confiscating the property provided for in this article shall be applied to such property.[10] Also, if proceeds of crime have been intermingled with property acquired from legitimate sources, such property shall, without prejudice to any powers relating to freezing or seizure, be liable to confiscation up to the assessed value of the intermingled proceeds.[11] In this case, income means the benefit obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity. Conversion means changing the type of thing, for example, converting one product of gold into another product and mixing the income obtained through criminal means with legal income; this means, for example, buying a house partially with the income received through lawful means, and partially as a result of criminal activity. In this case, the part of the property obtained by illegal means is subject to confiscation/seizure.

In the Palermo Convention, the legislator made confiscation not only of the property or benefits obtained directly as a result of the crime but also of the profit obtained from the criminal activity. According to Article 12, Section 5 of the income or other benefits derived from proceeds of crime, from the property into which proceeds of crime have been transformed or converted or from the property with which proceeds of crime have been intermingled shall also be liable to the measures referred to in this article, in the same manner, and to the same extent as proceeds of crime.[12] The idea behind this provision is, for example, to prevent income from renting a house bought due to a crime from being considered “legitimate” income. This article clarifies that confiscation of this kind of proceeds is possible.

1.2 Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights Case-Law

There is another interesting note in Article 12 of the Palermo Convention. According to this note, States Parties may consider the possibility of requiring that an offender demonstrate the lawful origin of alleged proceeds of crime or other property liable to confiscation to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of their domestic law and with the nature of the judicial and other proceedings.[13]  A similar provision is contained in the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Vienna Convention), under which each Party may consider shifting the burden of proving the legal origin of alleged proceeds or other property. Subject to confiscation to the extent that such action is consistent with the principles of its domestic law and the nature of judicial and other procedures.[14] Both entries are almost identical and place the onus on the alleged perpetrator to prove the legal origin of the proceeds of crime and the property subject to confiscation.

Interestingly, this protocol contradicts Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and how the burden of proof is legally transferred to the accused/convict. In connection with this, it is crucial to consider the judicial practice. For example, consider the case of Telbis and Viziteu against Romania.[15] In the present case, Telbis and Visiteau, as the owners of the seized property, had an opportunity at any time of their initiative to be involved in the forfeiture proceedings. Even though they were not accused in the specific case, they were granted party status upon request and became involved in the judicial process. According to the European Court of Human Rights assessment, the decision to confiscate the property was made in full; the trial was conducted per the principle of competition, where the owners were entitled to present their opinions and evidence.[16] “Based on the basic research, the national court decided to confiscate only that part of the property whose legal origin could not be convincingly demonstrated by the owners. Therefore the European Court considered that the applicants had an adequate opportunity to protect their interests at the national level”.[17]

Regarding confiscation of property, when analyzing judicial practice, the 2015 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, “Gogitidze et al. v. Georgia” is important. The case was about the confiscation of illegal and undocumented property. In particular, during the consideration of the case, it was revealed that the salary of the accused Gogitidze was three times lower than the value of the property purchased by him, in particular, the applicants complained about the non-compliance of the administrative rule, according to which they confiscated their property with the right of ownership protected by the European Convention.[18] The mentioned decision is interesting from several aspects. In particular, the applicant contested two elements of the proceedings: 1. National legislation allowed the confiscation of the applicant's property as illegally obtained and undocumented until his guilt is proven; 2. During the proceedings, the burden of proof lay on the applicant.[19]

In this decision, the European Court noted that states can confiscate property related to serious crimes (such as corruption, money laundering, drug-related crimes, etc.).[20] At the same time, the European Court notes that the burden of proving the legal origin of property declared illegal falls on the defendant. Confiscation measures are applied not only in relation to proceeds from crime but also in relation to such property as other income and indirect benefits that are used for conversion, exchange, or obtained by joining with other possible legal property.[21]

The European Court considers the confiscation decision by the national court based on the assertion that the defendants' legal income was insufficient to purchase the said property, to be legal, even without a guilty verdict. In such cases, the European Court does not require the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard to be met.[22] Regarding the violation of Article 6, the European Court reiterates that according to the case-law established by it, confiscation of property, without establishing guilt, has a preventive and/or compensatory nature, not punitive. Therefore, it does not lead to violating the provisions mentioned above in the Convention.[23]

The above-mentioned reasoning and this approach of the European Court allow us to make important conclusions. In particular, confiscation of property should not be understood as only a form of additional punishment; the purpose of confiscation is to prevent crimes. Secondly, concerning the presumption of innocence and the defendant's burden of proof, it should be noted that in this case, the defendant is obliged to prove the legality of the income, otherwise, it is assumed that the person has obtained this property illegally and unjustifiably. In the case of Gogitidze and al., the person was deprived of his property because, based on the evidence, A. Gogitidze's annual income was much less than the value of his purchased property.

2. Regulatory Norms of Confiscation in Georgian Legislative Acts

2.1. Confiscation and Seizure as a Form of Punishment in the Criminal Code

As for the regulatory norms of confiscation/seizure in Georgia today, confiscation is a form of additional punishment in the Criminal Code, and in the Civil Procedure Code, it is considered the basis for starting civil proceedings. It is necessary to distinguish between them, and it is also important to assess the issue of their compatibility with each other.

According to the Georgian Criminal Code, confiscation of property means free-of-charge confiscation of the object of crime and/or weapon, the object intended for the commission of a crime, and/or property obtained through crime for the benefit of the state.[24] This last definition appeared in the Georgian Criminal Code in 2005. According to the current edition, in each specific case, it is necessary to determine the object of the crime, the weapon, the item intended for the commission of the crime, and the property obtained as a result of the criminal act.[25] As we have already mentioned, the first part of Article 52 of the Criminal Code defines confiscation, and the second one talks about to whom this measure can be used. Confiscation of the object of the crime and/or the weapon or the thing intended for the commission of the crime means the confiscation of the property used for the commission of the intended crime in the possession or legal possession of the accused, the convicted person, for the benefit of the state.[26] The object of the crime and/or the weapon or the thing intended to commit the crime is confiscated by the court, for all the intended crimes stipulated by the Criminal Code, in the event that there is an object of the crime and/or a weapon or an item designed to commit a crime and their confiscation is necessary due to state and public necessity or the interests of protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals or to prevent new crimes.[27] According to this part of the law, the property can be confiscated from both the accused and the convicted. If we take into account that Article 52 of the Criminal Code is a substantive criminal law norm and, at the same time, an additional form of punishment, the question arises as to how much it is possible to punish a person against whom a guilty verdict has not been issued?! Obviously, the current version of the law contradicts itself, allowing additional punishment for the accused person.

2.2. Civil Process for Confiscation of Property

The Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia regulates filing a claim for confiscation and transfer to the State of property derived from racketeering activities, or property of officials, members of the ‘criminal underworld’, human traffickers, persons facilitating the distribution of drugs or property of persons convicted of a crime under Article 194 and/or Article 331¹ of the Criminal Code of Georgia. A claim for confiscation and transfer to the State of property derived from racketeering, or property of officials, members of the ‘criminal underworld’, human traffickers, persons facilitating the distribution of drugs, or property of persons convicted of a crime under Article 194 and/or Article 331¹ of the Criminal Code of Georgia may be filed by a prosecutor within ten years after a court ruling against the racketeer, the official, the member of ‘criminal underworld’, the human trafficker, the person facilitating the distribution of drugs or the person convicted of a crime under Article 194 and/or Article 331¹ of the Criminal Code of Georgia has entered into force.[28] According to the Code of Civil Procedure a claim for confiscation and transfer to the State of property derived from racketeering may be filed against a racketeering group, a racketeer, a racketeer's family member, a close relative or a person connected with the racketeer.[29] The above may be interesting and, at the same time, controversial. Still, this article serves to confiscate undocumented and illegal property from all those who obtained it due to committing a crime.

When we talk about the confiscation of property, it is important to distinguish between the confiscation of property as a form of additional punishment and the initiation of civil proceedings/lawsuits for the confiscation of property. It should also be noted here that since a person is accused, confiscation of property cannot be used as a form of punishment, and at this time, there is no reason to initiate a civil lawsuit. In this case, one more criminal procedure mechanism, seizure, ensures the seizure of the property that may be confiscated from the person in the future. According to Article 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as a coercive measure in criminal procedure, the court may, upon motion of a party, seize the property, including bank accounts, of the accused, of the person materially responsible for the accused person’s actions, and/or of the person related to the accused person, if there is information to suggest that the property will be concealed or destroyed, and/or the property has been obtained criminally.[30] The property seizure provided for by this Code shall also be applied in the case of preparation of one of the crimes provided for by Articles 323-330 and 331¹ of the Criminal Code of Georgia or any other severe crime, as well as for their prevention if there is sufficient information to believe that the property in question could be used for the commission of a crime.[31]

This entry in the Criminal Procedure Code is preventive and prevents serious crimes such as terrorism and other related crimes. In the end, a seizure can be considered to carry such a preventive function of coercion.

2.3 Compliance of the Requirements of the Palermo Convention with the Georgian Legislation

The Palermo Convention requires States Parties to confiscate/seize property intended to commit acts criminalized by the Convention. In the Georgian Criminal Code and the Civil Procedure Code, attention is focused on two categories of actions criminalized by the Palermo Convention: the legalization of illegal income and crimes committed by organized groups (racketeering, membership in criminal underworld, etc.). It may be questioned whether this contradicts the requirements of the Palermo Convention. First of all, it should be noted that according to the Civil Procedure Code, any property may be seized if there is evidence that the property was obtained through criminal means. Second, Article 52 of the Criminal Code defines confiscation of property as a form of additional punishment that may be applied to a person convicted of all categories of crimes, including corruption and obstruction of justice. Thirdly, one limitation that remains is Article 356² of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for filing a lawsuit only against persons convicted of the following crimes: Possession of racketeering property, official, member of the “criminal underworld”, human trafficker, facilitator of the distribution of narcotic drugs or Articles 194 and/or 331¹ of the Criminal Code of Georgia. It turns out that civil proceedings cannot be initiated against persons convicted of obstructing the administration of justice based on confiscation of their property. Their property may be subject to seizure and confiscation of property.

3. International Cooperation for the Purpose of Confiscation/Seizure

3.1. International Cooperation for the Purpose of Confiscation under the Palermo Convention

The rise and nature of transnational organized crime have made close legal cooperation between countries necessary. Many states have chosen confiscation as a form of responsibility to fight crime. Its use is significant both for crime prevention and punishment.

According to the Palermo Convention, a State Party that has received a request from another State Party having jurisdiction over an offense covered by this Convention for confiscation of proceeds of crime, property, equipment, or other instrumentalities of this Convention situated in its territory shall, to the greatest extent possible within its domestic legal system: submit the request to its competent authorities for the purpose of obtaining an order of confiscation and, if such an order is granted, give effect.[32]  Submit to its competent authorities, with a view of giving effect to it to the extent requested, an order of confiscation issued by a court in the territory of the requesting State Party of this Convention insofar as it relates to proceeds of crime, property, equipment or other instrumentalities situated in the territory of the requested State Party.[33] This article aims to strengthen international legal mutual assistance, which includes the obligation of the participating states to confiscate property based on the request received from the state party to the convention.  In case of receiving such a request, the requesting state is obliged to take appropriate measures to identify, find, seize, or remove proceeds, property, devices, or other means obtained through criminal means, with the aim of their final confiscation.

The existence of a request does not deprive the requesting State of the right to refuse the measure or to modify it. The State Party receiving the request has the right to refuse cooperation if the crime to which the request relates is not the subject of the regulation of this Convention. With this record, we can assume that the request for confiscation/seizure within the framework of this Convention can only be submitted for only four categories of crimes criminalized by the Convention in the participating State. This does not exclude the possibility that Georgia may receive a request for confiscation/seizure of property in connection with other crimes within the framework of international cooperation because Georgia is a member state of the 1990 “Convention on Money Laundering, Tracing, Seizure and Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime” of the Council of Europe.[34]

The member states of this Convention of the Council of Europe agree on the need to implement a common criminal justice policy and agree on different methods of combating severe crimes. One of them is the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal activity by criminals.[35]

3.2 Cooperation between Georgian Judicial Institutions and other States for the Purpose of Confiscation/Seizure

The Law of Georgia on “International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law” is one of the most important documents from the point of view of international cooperation. This Law defines the procedures for rendering legal assistance in criminal cases, for carrying out extradition, for transmitting criminal files or their duly certified copies for the further criminal prosecution of a person, as well as the procedures for enforcing court judgments and for transferring to, or receiving from, the state of nationality persons sentenced to imprisonment.[36] In 2018, a new chapter was added to the mentioned law, which regulates the main issues of international cooperation related to the confiscation of property. Interestingly, before that, the law did not say anything about international cooperation regarding confiscation. Concerning the current version of the law, the object of crime and/or weapons, items intended for the commission of a crime, and/or property obtained through criminal means (all items and intangible property, legal document that gives some right to property), as well as any kind of income from this property, are subject to confiscation,[37] as well as property subject to confiscation by the Code of Civil Procedure.[38] The Chief Prosecutor's Office of Georgia is responsible for international cooperation and mutual assistance.

For the confiscation of property to be carried out on the territory of Georgia based on the petition of a foreign state, it is necessary that fundamental human rights and freedoms are not violated in the decision made by the foreign state. What is most important is that the satisfaction of such a petition should not pose a threat to Georgia's sovereignty, security, public order or other essential interest.

Conclusion

The above reasoning allows us to formulate conclusions and recommendations. Greater unity is needed to fight organized crime, which implies implementing a common criminal justice policy.

The confiscation of property is important in two respects. In particular, the confiscation of property intended for the commission of a crime has a kind of prevention function, and confiscation of property already obtained as a result of committing a crime prevents the commission of new crimes at the international level and also prevents the commission of new crimes, the strengthening of transnational organized groups. Moreover, confiscated property may be used to fight transnational organized crime.

As for Article 52 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, confiscation of property is used as an additional punishment. And in the same Article, the word accused is mentioned since the accused has not yet been convicted, it is impossible to talk about the confiscation of his property. Therefore, it is appropriate not to write the term "accused" in Article 52 of the Criminal Code; the norms of the Criminal Procedural Code should be used at the accusation stage, which directly implies the seizure of the item. And if there is already a guilty verdict, Article 52 of the Criminal Code may be used for punishment.

Depending on the goals of the Palermo Convention, a note of such content may be added to the Civil Code of Georgia, allowing the prosecutor to file a lawsuit, against a person convicted of obstructing justice, based on confiscation of property for ten years.

Bibliography

1. Nachkebia,, Gorashvili, G., Mamulashvili, G., Todua, N., Gogshelidze, R., Sulakvelidze, D., Dvalidze, I., Problems of Criminalization of Modern Manifestations of Organized Crime in Georgian Criminal Law, Tbilisi: Shota Rustaveli Foundation, 2012, https://www.tsu.ge;


2. Fafiashvili, L., Tumanishvili, G., Commentaries on the Criminal Justice Process of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2015, https://sdasu.edu.ge;


3. Tkesheliadze, G., Lekveishvili, M., Nachbiya, G., Todua, N., Fourth Edition of the General Part of Criminal Law, Tbilisi, Meridian, 2019;


4. Criminal Code of Georgia, 1999, https://matsne.gov.ge/ (last viewed 02/06/2022);


5. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, 2009, https://matsne.gov.ge/ (last viewed on 07/06/2022);


6. Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, 1997, https://matsne.gov.ge/ (last viewed on 07/06/2022);


7. United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2000, https://matsne.gov.ge, (last viewed 02/06/2022);


8. Council of Europe Convention on Money Laundering, Tracing, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime, 1990, https://matsne.gov.ge/ (last viewed 07/06/2022);


9. Council of Europe Convention on Money Laundering, Tracing, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime and the Financing of Terrorism, 2005, https://matsne.gov.ge/ (last viewed 07/06/2022);


10. United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, https://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/aqtebi65.pdf, (last accessed 29/12/2022);


11. Law of Georgia on “International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law”, https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/112594?publication=10 (last viewed on 29.12.2022);


12. Council of Europe, Crime Analysis: Organised crime - Best practice survey no. Strasbourg, France, 2002;


13. Legislative guides for the implementation og the united nations conventions against transnational organized crime and the protocols thereto. (UNITED NATIONS New York, 2004);


14. McMclean, , Transnational Organaized Crime a Commentary on the UN Conversetion and its Protocols (Oxford Universitu Press, 1 st 2007);


15. Case of the European Court of Human Rights “Gogitidze and others v. Georgia”, Strasbourg, 2015, https://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/saqartvelos-winaagmdeg- gogitidze-da-sxva.pdf (last accessed 14/02/2023).

Footnotes

[1] United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, see the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2540250?publication=0f> [Last accessed: 14 February 2023].

[2] Palermo Convention, see the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1485286?publication=0> [last accessed 14 February 2023].

[3] Ibid.

[4] United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, see the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2540250?publication=0f> [Last accessed: 14 February 2023].

[5] Palermo Convention, see the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1485286?publication=0> [last accessed 14 February 2023].

[6] McMclean, D., (2007). Transnational Organized Crime a Commentary on the UN Convention and its Protocols. Oxford University Press, 1^st, p. 144.

[7] Palermo Convention, see the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1485286?publication=0> [last accessed 14 February 2023].

[8] McMclean, D., (2007). Transnational Organaized Crime a Commentary on the UN Convention and its Protocols. Oxford University Press, 1^st, p.144.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Palermo Convention, see the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1485286?publication=0> [last accessed 14 February 2023].

[11] Ibid.

[12] Palermo Convention, see the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1485286?publication=0> [last accessed 14 February 2023].

[13] Ibid.

[14] United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, see the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2540250?publication=0f> [Last accessed: 14 February 2023].

[15] Tskhvediani, T., Kvatchantiradze, D., Noselidze, A., (2019) Guarantees of Protection of Property Rights in Criminal Proceedings, p. 25. <https://alfg.ge/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/kvleva.pdf> [Last accessed: February 14, 2023].

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Decision of the European Court of Human Rights “Gogitidze and others v. Georgia”, Strasbourg, (2015). https://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/saqartvelos-winaagmdeg-gogitidze-da-sxva.pdf [Last accessed: 14 February 2023].

[19] Ibid.

[20] Decision of the European Court of Human Rights “Gogitidze and others v. Georgia”, Strasbourg, (2015). https://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/saqartvelos-winaagmdeg-gogitidze-da-sxva.pdf [Last accessed: 14 February 2023].

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Criminal Code of Georgia, see on the official website of the Legislative Herald of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16426?publication=246> [last accessed: February 14, 2023].

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, see on the official website of the Legislative Gazette of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/29962?publication=153> [last accessed: February 14, 2023].

[29] Ibid.

[30] Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, see on the official website of the Legislative Gazette of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/90034?publication=151> [last accessed: February 14, 2023].

[31] Ibid.

[32] Palermo Convention, see the official website of the Legislative Gazette of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1485286?publication=0> [last accessed: February 14, 2023].

[33] Ibid.

[34] Council of Europe Convention on Money Laundering, Tracing, Seizure and Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime, see on the official website of the Legislative Gazette of Georgia. <https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/1216554?publication= 0> [Last Accessed: February 14, 2023].

[35] Ibid.

[36] Law of Georgia on “International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law”, see on the official website of the Legislative Gazette of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/112594?publication=10> [Last accessed: February 14, 2023].

[37] Ibid.

[38] Law of Georgia on “International Cooperation in the Field of Criminal Law”, see on the official website of the Legislative Gazette of Georgia. <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/112594?publication=10> [Last accessed: February 14, 2023].