Legal routes for asset recovery in Georgia
When property — including cryptocurrency or another digital asset — slips away from its owner through fraud, hacking or unlawful interference, the question is which court-enforceable mechanism can secure its return or the compensation of its value. Georgia has no separate recovery statute for digital assets — asset recovery is built on three classical claims of the Civil Code: vindication of a thing from unlawful possession, restitution of unjust enrichment, and compensation of damage under tort rules. Each of these routes has its own conditions, and choosing the right claim often determines whether the lost value can be recovered at all.
Vindication: reclaiming a thing from unlawful possession
Under part 1 of Article 172 of the Civil Code, the owner may demand from the possessor the return of the thing, except where the possessor had the right to possess it. The norm applies wherever the thing is specifically identified and its possessor is known: if the asset still exists and is held by a particular person, the claim is directed against that person. Where property is interfered with without the thing being removed or taken away — for example, by blocking access to it — the owner may demand that the interferer cease the action, and if the interference continues, cessation is sought in court by filing a claim. For digital assets, the practical precondition of this route is identification of the asset and of the holder — wherever that is possible, the vindication claim is the most direct path.
Restitution of unjust enrichment
Where a transfer of a thing or money lacks a legal ground — for instance, a fraudulent scheme or an erroneous transfer — Article 991 of the Civil Code applies: a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another by any other means is obliged to return to that person what was received. This claim is especially important where the transferred value no longer exists as the original thing or has been transformed — the claim is then aimed not at the thing itself but at the return of what was received. In recovery practice the unjust-enrichment institute is often central, because most fraudulent transfers fit precisely into this claim's civil-law framework.
Compensating damage under tort
Where damage has been caused by unlawful conduct — intentional or negligent — Article 992 of the Civil Code operates: a person who causes damage to another person by an unlawful, intentional or negligent act is obliged to compensate that damage. Losses caused by a cyberattack, an unauthorized withdrawal from an account, or a platform security failure are the subject matter of a tort claim: the claim's foundation is not enrichment but the damage inflicted, and it can also cover costs not directly linked to the transfer. Importantly, the three routes do not exclude one another — in practice, claims are often pleaded on different grounds simultaneously, so that every possible source of liability is covered.
Under Article 1008 of the Civil Code, the limitation period for the right to claim compensation of damage caused by a tort is three years, counted from the moment the injured party learned of the damage or of the person obliged to compensate it. Time management is critical in tracing digital assets: the period runs from discovery of the incident, and its expiry leaves the tort claim defenceless. Other limitation periods and the rules of interruption are determined by other norms of the Code, so the computation of deadlines in a specific case must be individual.
Evidence and procedural stages
A recovery case is as strong as its evidentiary base. To present it in court, the first step is documentation confirming ownership or lawful possession — transaction records, wallet or account details, transfer history; the second stage is describing the chain of the asset's movement and identifying the person with whom it currently sits; the third is the quantification of the damage that forms the subject of the tort claim. In a digital environment these stages often require technical knowledge — analysis of transaction logs, requesting information from platforms and, where necessary, expert examination. It is also worth noting that in cases with a foreign element, additional questions of jurisdiction and international cooperation arise, which are resolved under other norms — which is why an asset-tracing strategy must always be planned separately for each case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which claim should I choose — vindication or unjust enrichment?
Where the thing is identifiable — vindication; where value was received without ground — unjust enrichment; where there is damage — tort.
What is the limitation period for a damages claim?
Three years from the moment the victim learned of the damage or of the liable person.
May several claims be used together?
Yes — vindication, unjust enrichment and tort do not exclude one another and are often used cumulatively or alternatively.
How We Help on Legal.ge
Successful recovery usually begins with three things: documenting the assets and transactions, tracing their movement, and correctly framing the legal grounds to be presented to a court or regulator. Where the thing can be identified, the vindication claim works; where value was received without ground — unjust enrichment; where there is damage — tort. The strength and deadlines of each direction vary from case to case, which is why a recovery process should start with a legal assessment. The Legal.ge team assists in tracing lost assets, framing the claims and conducting court proceedings.