Organization the “Young Barristers” remarks the fact of sequestration of the property of the former president Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and explain the court decision by assessment of the risks connected to the case.

According to statement of co-founder and chief-executive of the “Young Barristers” – Archil Kaikatsishvili, the court decision is grounded on legal opinions, as the issue of sequestration of the property of the former president and the persons related to him should be discussed with the possibility of selling the property, hereby it is serious damage for the state. Organization explains the court reasoning by compliance with the law, as the appellate court reasoned imposition of sequestration with factual circumstances, when the former president is accused due to embezzlement of state budget funds worth 8 837 461. 34 GEL. The court found a relevant decision considering possible high financial loss due to prevent disposal of property before the end of the trial.

According to the “Young Barristers” it is unclear why Article 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the issue of discussion, based on which the Court made the property seizure decision. If there is information on hide or spent the property and/or property is obtained illegally, the court may seize the defendant's, financially responsible party on his action and/or the related person's property, including bank accounts. In case there is evidence that the property is obtained illegally, however it cannot be contacted, the court may seize the property of an equivalent value.

According to evaluations of the “Young Barristers”, in order the property to be seized, there should be established direct connection between the crime and seized assets, or there should be committed crime towars this property, or the property should be obtained illegally, or there should be established any connection between the property and the offense. Apparently, there was a "reasonable suspicion" that the property would be sold or hidden. Under the current Criminal Procedural Code, there must be "data" for that. Therefore, it is important to clarify weather “reasonable suspiction” means “data” or not. However, the seizure of property provides a measure for compensation of the damage and according to the case, it is known for the society that the former president is accused for the alleged crime during the period September 2009 to February 25, 2013, the State budget funds embezzlement and its unreasonable spending.

The “Young Barristers” will pay attention to the fact, that the former president was accused for embezzlement article and not for appropriation. The organization believes that the prosecution has the legal right to demand the confiscation of property in proprietary cases. In addition, in the Criminal Code, embezzlement and appropriation are in one article and are not separated. Accordingly, if we are talking about the damage caused to the national budget, it was a due to embezzlement or appropriation is losing its significance. The law establishes a common responsibility for the crime.

The organization will pay attention to the further analysis of the issues related to the property rights of the former high-ranking officials, as it is important to exclude political persecution in made decisions and all the branches of the government to obeythe rule of law.