Article 165³ and its purpose
Article 165³ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences establishes administrative liability for an unjustified delay in transferring, forwarding, allocating or disbursing monetary funds that have been allocated from the central budget or a state budgetary fund, as well as funds owned by such budgets or funds, when those operations are not carried out in accordance with the designated purpose and within a reasonable time. The provision serves one of the foundational principles of public finance: money planned and earmarked by the state must reach its intended recipients on time. A delay harms both the specific social events and targeted programmes concerned and the overall credibility of public financial management, which is why the legislator attaches an administrative penalty to this conduct.
What counts as an administrative offence
Under the wording of the article, the offence consists of a delay, for inexcusable reasons, in the transfer, forwarding, distribution or disbursement of monetary funds allocated from the central, emergency or territorial-unit budget of Georgia, or from a state budgetary fund, for the purpose of financing a significant social event, another targeted programme, or for another special purpose. The norm therefore covers funds earmarked for social-type events, targeted programmes and any other specially designated purpose, and it protects their timely delivery to the intended beneficiaries.
The same article also covers a delay in the transfer, forwarding, distribution or disbursement of monetary funds owned by the central, emergency or territorial-unit budget or by a state budgetary fund, carried out in accordance with the designated purpose of those funds. In other words, the offence may be committed through four distinct types of conduct — delaying a transfer, a forwarding, a distribution or a disbursement — and it applies both to funds allocated for a specific purpose and to funds generally owned by these budgets and funds. Whether the reason for the delay was inexcusable is assessed in each concrete case.
The fine: from GEL 800 to GEL 1,000
For this conduct, Article 165³ prescribes a fine of eight hundred to one thousand lari, which means that the lower limit of the administrative fine is GEL 800 and the upper limit is GEL 1,000. The exact amount within this range is determined according to the circumstances of the case, including the duration of the delay, the consequences of the offence and the conduct of the offender. Detailed criteria for selecting the measure of the fine are not set out in the article itself and derive from the general provisions of the Code.
It is important to note that liability arises from the essence of the conduct: the case concerns the delaying of the movement of monetary funds, and not the non-target spending of the amount or other financial irregularities, which may be punishable under other norms of the Code. Accordingly, when the article is applied, the authorities specifically assess whether an operation involving allocated or owned funds was delayed and whether the reason for that delay was inexcusable.
The significance of a valid excuse
The text of the article makes clear that liability arises only where the delay is caused by an inexcusable reason. If the delay results from a real, causal and substantiated circumstance that the person could not have avoided and which prevented the timely performance of the operation, the case may be assessed differently. However, the article itself does not list which circumstances count as valid excuses — that question is resolved under other provisions of the Code and according to the concrete factual circumstances of each case.
In practical terms, this makes timely and documented fixation of the causes of any delay critically important: official correspondence with the bodies and financial institutions involved, acts recording technical or organisational failures, and other evidence confirming the nature of the cause. Such material plays a decisive role when the case is examined and when the decision is appealed, because it is the factual basis on which the presence or absence of an inexcusable reason is established.
Who bears responsibility
Article 165³ itself does not contain a detailed list of liable persons — it describes the prohibited conduct and prescribes the penalty, while the circle of subjects is determined on the basis of the general norms of the Code. As a general rule, administrative liability falls on persons who acted in a state of sanity at the moment of committing the offence and in respect of whom the body examining the case establishes guilt. In any concrete case, the question of responsibility always depends on the factual circumstances established.
Procedure and appeal
The authority empowered to draw up the protocol, the time limits for examining the case, the procedure for adopting the decision and the appeal procedure are not regulated directly by this article — these matters are determined by other provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences. When a dispute arises about the fact of the offence, strict observance of time limits and timely formulation of a written position are essential, because the possibilities of appeal and review are tied to the periods fixed by the Code. At this stage qualified legal assistance is often decisive for the outcome.
How to reduce the risk
For organisations managing budgetary funds, it is advisable to maintain a well-ordered internal control system for transfers and disbursements: calendar-based monitoring of deadlines, a clear allocation of responsibility among staff, and immediate documentation of the causes whenever a delay occurs. Such a system does not in itself remove liability, but it creates an important evidentiary foundation for substantiating a valid excuse during the examination of the case and on appeal, and it limits the risk that a delay remains unnoticed for an unreasonably long time.