The Elements of the Offence and Intent
Article 344 of the Criminal Code criminalizes the unlawful crossing of the state border of Georgia. The object of the offence is the established procedure for crossing the border, and the objective side is the crossing of the border unlawfully — outside the designated crossing points or without the verification of documents. The offence is intentional: the composition requires proof that the person crossed the border deliberately, not by accident or through imprecision.
In practice, this accusation most often concerns foreigners and stateless persons who cross the border through the green line. The first task of the defence is the precise reconstruction of the factual circumstances: the location of the border line, the markers, the local terrain, and whether the person could realistically distinguish the state border at the moment of crossing.
Particular attention is given to the conditions of the border's visibility: for a person standing next to an inhabited locality or a sharply marked line in clear weather, the conclusion of intent is straightforward. The situation is entirely different in mountainous, marker-less or disputed territory, where perceiving the border becomes objectively difficult. In such cases the defence uses topographic materials, local witnesses and border demarcation documents to show that the person was not consciously crossing the state border.
Penalties by Separate Parts
Under the first part, the unlawful crossing of the border is punished by a fine, or by the expulsion of the foreigner from Georgia with a ban on entry for a term of two to ten years, or alternatively by deprivation of liberty for a term of three to five years. The same act committed by a group, or with violence or the threat of violence, is punished by expulsion and an entry ban for a term of two to ten years or by deprivation of liberty for a term of four to five years.
The difference between these two tiers is procedurally significant: the element of violence or threat must be established and proved separately. Where the prosecution relies on the second part, the defence verifies the reality of the violent episode — often resting only on its own version, on defects of the record, or on contradictory witness statements.