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.
Recovery of the thing from unlawful possession
Under the first part of Article 172, the owner may demand from the possessor the return of the thing, except where the possessor had the right to possess it. Under the second part, where interference with ownership or other interference occurs without the taking or removal of the thing, the owner may demand from the interferer the cessation of that conduct; if the interference continues, cessation is sought in court by filing a claim.
Applied to digital assets, the norm works as its text allows: a coin in a wallet is a thing whose return is demanded from the new possessor, while a restriction on transfers or a block on access to an account is interference, ceased upon application to the court. The exception is precise too: where the current possessor had a right to possess — for instance, acquired through a good-faith transaction — recovery on this route does not work, and the claim shifts to enrichment.
The claim may be addressed both to the person who took the asset into hand and to the one who organised the interference, provided the conduct is unlawful, intentional or negligent and causes damage. The Code frames the norm generally: the peculiarities of the digital environment — the chain of transfers, mixing services, exchange accounts — remain subjects of proof and do not alter the norm's content.
Compensation of damage through delict
Article 992 provides that a person who, by unlawful, intentional or negligent conduct, causes damage to another person is obliged to compensate that damage. In the crypto context this covers both the value of the stolen asset and expenses caused by the lost opportunities where they form part of the damage. The grounds of the claim are the unlawfulness of the conduct and fault — intent or negligence.
Restitution of unjust enrichment
Under Article 991, a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is obliged to return what was received. This route works where the asset is no longer precisely identifiable or the recipient had a right to possess it: coins sent by mistake, or a sum obtained by deception, are returned in the form of enrichment. The three norms thus complement one another: what cannot be returned as a thing is compensated or returned as value.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below we answer questions about the three routes of crypto asset recovery.
Is there a statute specific to crypto?
For recovery — none could be located. The general norms of the Georgian Civil Code decide these disputes.
Which route is fastest?
Recovery of the thing, where the asset is identifiable and the possessor lacks the right to possess; otherwise compensation of damage or restitution of enrichment.
What must be proven in delict?
The unlawfulness of the conduct, fault — intent or negligence — and the damage inflicted.
How is interference ceased?
Where interference continues, the owner seeks its cessation in court by filing a claim.
When must enrichment be returned?
Where a person has been enriched at another's expense without grounds — the received benefit is then returned to the injured party.
How We Help on Legal.ge
The Legal.ge team reconstructs the factual picture — the chain of transfers, the wallets and the connected relationships — and determines on which norm the claim will reach its goal.
If you have lost or been deprived of a crypto asset, write to us on Legal.ge — we will assess the three routes and select the effective one.