What the Article on False Denunciation Covers
Article 373 of the Criminal Code of Georgia covers false denunciation of the commission of a crime — the provision to a competent state authority of information incriminating a person in a crime, at a time when the denouncer knows the information is false. This crime is directed against the administration of justice: it sets the state apparatus moving in a false direction and places an innocent person at risk of persecution.
In practice, false denunciation cases often arise against the backdrop of family or neighborhood conflict, property disputes or personal enmity: one party tries to turn the criminal mechanism against the other and, for this purpose, reports inaccurate or entirely invented facts to the prosecuting authorities.
The Basic Composition and Its Penalty
Under the first part, false denunciation of the commission of a crime is punished by:
- a fine;
- community service for a term of one hundred eighty to two hundred forty hours;
- corrective labor for a term of one to two years;
- or imprisonment for a term of up to four years.
The law provides wide alternatives here — from a fine to imprisonment — which lets the defense hold the case at the mildest measure where the intent to deceive falls into question.
Aggravating Signs: Two to Four Years
Under the second part, the same act is punished more severely where it is joined by an accusation of a grave or especially grave crime, or by the artificial creation of prosecution evidence. Such an act is punished by imprisonment for a term of two to four years. The artificial creation of evidence is considered separately: the case concerns not a mere false statement, but deliberately fabricated materials — false documents, staged traces and the like.
The Most Serious Composition: Four to Six Years
Under the third part, an act under the second part is punished by imprisonment for a term of four to six years where it was committed for remuneration or another personal motive, or where it caused a grave consequence. The concept of a grave consequence is evaluative and is determined separately in each case — including consequences such as the detention of an innocent person or the placing of that person in a grave situation.
How the Defense Approaches a False Denunciation Case
The defense’s first question is the intent to deceive: a denunciation is false where the person knows the information is groundless. If the person conveyed information they believed by their own knowledge or by report, its subsequent imprecision does not amount to false denunciation — this boundary between mistake and deliberate falsehood is the central question of every such case. The second is the content: the prosecution must establish that the denunciation concerned precisely the fact of a crime; a complaint about another kind of violation does not fall under this article. The third is the fact of the artificial creation of evidence: this is a separate aggravating sign, and proving it requires separate materials. The fourth is the motive and the consequence: remuneration, personal motive and the connection of the grave consequence to the denunciation are re-verified separately. Finally, the procedural form: the recording of the denunciation, the manner of clarifications and the collection of materials proceed under the established procedure, and violations are instruments of the defense.
The anatomy of the case here rests on two axes: the content of the denunciation and its subjective side. The content axis answers what exactly was alleged: if the statement described a crime only in general terms, and the details were interpreted later by the prosecution, the case weakens; the subjective axis answers whether the person knew of the falsity. The evidence standing between these two axes — the text of the statement, the circumstances of its composition, the person’s sources of information — create the whole picture of the case.
A practical observation also matters: a charge of false denunciation often arises after the case opened from the initial statement has been closed — and the prosecution now tries to punish the denouncer himself. In such a situation, proving intent is especially important: a different assessment of the same facts or an erroneous expectation is not false denunciation, and this difference is decisive in court.
Especially important is distinguishing false denunciation from a lawful complaint: a citizen has the right to report every doubt they objectively have, and no liability threatens them for it. The law provides a penalty only where the person is certain the information is false. The defense therefore always shows that the denunciation rested on a real event, conclusion or report — and not on an invented fabrication. This approach not only weakens the charge but often destroys it entirely.
How Legal.ge Can Help
On the Legal.ge platform you can select a criminal defense lawyer working on cases against the administration of justice. The lawyer will re-verify every element of the denunciation, assess the boundary between mistake and falsehood, and protect your interests at every stage of the investigation and the trial. Fill in a request on the site — a lawyer will contact you and assess your case.