Entrepreneurial activity without a license is punishable under Article 192 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The norm covers the situation where an activity requiring registration, a permit or a license is conducted without these foundations or in violation of permit or license conditions — accompanied by the outcome provided for in the article: significant damage or income in a large amount.
The charge may concern both the owner of the business and its employees and partners. This page examines Article 192 in detail: what conditions construct the crime, what the sanctions are, and where the defense works. Every figure is taken solely from the text of this article.
Operating without a license: where the criminal boundary lies
Under the first part of the article, entrepreneurial activity conducted without registration, a permit or a license, or in violation of permit or license conditions, is punishable if it caused significant damage or was accompanied by the receipt of income in a large amount. This construction has two sides: the absence of a license or permit alone is not sufficient — the outcome named in the article is also required. The criminal boundary passes precisely along this second condition.
The article distinguishes three foundations: registration, a permit and a license. Their existence or absence is a separate factual question — and often the case begins to waver exactly here, because part of the activity may require no license at all and part may require one. Drawing this boundary is the prosecution’s duty, and the defense always checks it.
Sanctions for a natural person
The article is divided into two parts:
- Part 1 — a fine, or house arrest for a term from six months to two years, or imprisonment for a term from one to three years;
- Part 2 — the same act committed by a group, repeatedly, or by a person convicted of such a crime: a fine, or imprisonment for a term from three to five years.
Each of the three features of Part 2 must be proven separately: group commission implies several persons, repetitiveness the repetition of the act, and a previous conviction a past sentence for the same crime. Even within the frame of Part 1 the case differs significantly according to how the court assesses the matter: the sanction begins with a fine and ends with three years of imprisonment — a frame that depends directly on how far damage or income was proven, and which part’s features stand.
The liability of a legal person
Under the note to the article, a legal person is punished for these acts by a fine, deprivation of the right to carry out an activity, or liquidation and a fine. For a company this means the outcome may go as far as the cessation of the business — which is why in cases of this category the interests of the legal entity and of natural persons must be planned together. The interests of a company and its representatives do not always coincide: what is acceptable for the business may be risky for a particular employee, and vice versa — so the defense plan here must be built on several persons’ positions at once.
Directions of the defense
On this article the defense first examines: whether the activity was conducted without a license or permit at all, or whether the case is a violation of conditions — these are two different factual situations; and whether significant damage or income in a large amount existed — this condition must be proven with documents, and its criteria are not elaborated in the text of this article. Added to this is the verification of the features of Part 2 and the analysis of the evidence — financial documents, contracts, correspondence. Proving damage or income is always numerical on this article: the prosecution relies on a calculation that must correspond to the real documentary flow. The defense checks the methodology of this calculation — what is included in the count, what is not, and whether every sum is documented. This work is effective because the failure of the damage-or-income condition destroys the entire charge.
An additional direction is the procedural history of the case: when and how the documents were obtained, who participated in their collection, and whether this corresponds to procedural foundations. In this category this question is often as decisive as the question of negligence itself, and its examination is part of a separate plan.
Consultation at Legal.ge
A licensing problem does not disappear with time — it is either resolved at the level of documents or grows into a criminal case. A consultation exists precisely so that this choice is made with your knowledge. As a result of the assessment you will also learn which step is painless and which requires additional preparation — and this knowledge often gives more than work on the case alone. Contact Legal.ge: we will assess your situation against every condition of Article 192 — both personal risks and the company’s.