According to the prosecution, former Deputy Minister of Economy Romeo Mikautadze visited the State Security Service (SSG) and personally handed money to the agency’s former head, Grigol Liluashvili. The handover of the money took place directly in Liluashvili’s office.
Prosecutor Mariam Berdzenishvili made this statement to journalists ahead of a court hearing in the case against Grigol Liluashvili, as reported by Publika.
As the prosecutor explained, Mikautadze, who was questioned as a witness, also told the court that entering the SSG building required him to pass pass-control security checks and other standard procedures.
According to Berdzenishvili, investigators possess additional evidence confirming the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by Mikautadze. In particular, corresponding testimony was provided by a business owner.
“One of the businessmen has been questioned, and he substantively confirmed to the court the exact same information that witness Romeo Mikautadze recounted at the previous hearing. Accordingly, this is one of the circumstances supporting the credibility and reliability of the information provided by Mikautadze,” the prosecutor stated.
According to Mariam Berdzenishvili, regarding the timeframe when Romeo Mikautadze handed money over to Grigol Liluashvili, the investigation requested data from the relevant telecommunications companies. An analysis of mobile phone records and internet traffic established that both individuals were in the same place at the same time.
“Furthermore, regarding the period when the money was handed directly to Grigol Liluashvili by Romeo Mikautadze, information was requested from specialized providers. The examination of their mobile phones and internet traffic showed that they were in the same location during the same period. The prosecution has also subpoenaed documentation directly concerning the act of transferring the bribe.”
According to the prosecutor, the case files contain direct evidence corroborated by other proof, and there are no objective grounds to question its authenticity.
Berdzenishvili also emphasized that the defense’s attempts to argue that the physical handover of money was not recorded by outside eyewitnesses have no material impact on the case. According to her, demanding and transferring a bribe are actions that, as a rule, are not carried out publicly or in the presence of third parties.
When asked by a reporter whether Romeo Mikautadze indeed visited the SSG in person and handed the money to Grigol Liluashvili, Berdzenishvili replied: “Yes. According to the witness, that is precisely what happened.”
According to her, Mikautadze told the court that upon entering the SSG building, he went through pass-control checks and other procedures, after which he went up to the corresponding office.
The prosecutor stated that as part of verifying these claims, investigators also questioned other individuals who had previously visited Grigol Liluashvili in person. According to their testimonies, the access clearance procedure for visitors to Liluashvili was not identical for everyone.
As the prosecutor stated, Mikautadze claimed that he told entrepreneurs the handover of money was motivated by state interests. According to Berdzenishvili, this fact was also corroborated by one of the businessmen during questioning.
“As the witness stated, he explained to entrepreneurs that this was being done in the state’s interest. A businessman confirmed this during questioning as well. The entire scheme was disguised under the guise of ‘state interests,’ yet it was merely a formal pretext, and it was entirely clear to all involved parties that these actions brought no benefit whatsoever to the state,” the prosecutor stated.
Berdzenishvili also confirmed that Romeo Mikautadze brought the money into Liluashvili’s office and, by his own account, carried it in a bag.
Journalists also asked the prosecutor whether Romeo Mikautadze himself could face charges as part of the investigation, given that he was the one who delivered the money to Liluashvili.
According to Berdzenishvili, the case involves multiple individuals, but until criminal proceedings are formally initiated against a specific person, their actions cannot be legally qualified as a crime.
Regarding the information provided by Romeo Mikautadze to investigators, the prosecutor described it as cooperation. According to her, the defense’s claims that Mikautadze is cooperating with the investigation solely for his own benefit, as well as their attempts to portray this as a separate offense, are unfounded. At the same time, Berdzenishvili did not rule out that criminal prosecution could be initiated against Mikautadze in the future if statutory grounds are established.