Crypto asset recovery in Georgia rests on the general norms of the Civil Code: no statute specific to cryptocurrency could be located, so the dispute relies on the general grounds of obligations and the institutions protecting ownership. Together, Articles 172, 991, 992 and 317 of the Code create three routes: recovery of the thing from unlawful possession, compensation of damage, and restitution of unjust enrichment. This page explains how they apply to digital assets.
Grounds of obligations
Under the first part of Article 317, a contract between the participants is necessary for an obligation to arise, except where the obligation arises from the infliction of damage, unjust enrichment or other grounds provided by law. In the crypto context this means: where coins were sold under a contract, the dispute proceeds from the contract; where they were stolen or obtained by deception and no contract exists, the delict and enrichment routes apply.
The same article's third part adds a further rule: a participant in negotiations may demand from the other participant reimbursement of the expenses incurred for concluding the contract, where the contract was not concluded because of the other participant's fault — significant where the sale of a digital asset collapsed at the negotiation stage.
The rule also reaches what never matured into a contract: under the Code, an obligation may arise on the basis of the preparation of a contract as well, so identifying the grounds connected with the transfer of a digital asset always begins with the facts.