A formal complaint alleges that a marriage in Georgia was entered into for 300 Georgian Lari with a man who remained officially married to another woman in Türkiye. The alleged purpose was to obtain Georgian residence status and use it to take a vehicle to Türkiye at a lower cost. After more than seven months of institutional silence, the fundamental questions remain unanswered: Were the official records examined, was the evidence preserved, and was an investigation actually commenced?
CASE FILE | PUBLIC-INTEREST REVIEW
A report submitted to the competent Georgian authorities concerning an alleged sham or fictitious marriage involving Teona Arabashvili has returned to public attention following months of institutional silence.
According to information provided by the applicant, a total of 19 separate legal applications, criminal reports and requests for review have been submitted to the Georgian prosecution authorities, police and other public institutions concerning different events connected with Teona Arabashvili.
One of those matters is based on an allegation that Georgia’s official marriage, civil-status and residence systems may have been misled through false, incomplete or misleading information.
The central allegation is clear:
Teona Arabashvili allegedly entered into an official marriage in Georgia, in return for 300 Georgian Lari, with a man who remained officially married to another woman in Türkiye.
The complaint further alleges that the marriage was not intended to establish a genuine family.
Its alleged purpose was to enable the man concerned to obtain residence or immigration status in Georgia and to use that status to take a vehicle to Türkiye at a lower cost.
These allegations have not been established by a final court judgment.
However, the absence of a final judgment does not mean that the allegations should not be investigated.
The central question remains:
DID THE PROSECUTION AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATE THESE ALLEGATIONS?
A MATTER THAT CAN BE VERIFIED THROUGH OFFICIAL RECORDS
One of the most significant aspects of the file is that investigating the allegations does not require unusually complex or inaccessible evidence.
The man’s official civil-status records in Türkiye could establish whether he remained married to another person at the time of the Georgian marriage.
The Georgian marriage application and supporting documents could establish what information was submitted to the competent authorities.
Residence and immigration records could determine whether any legal status or benefit was obtained following the marriage.
Vehicle-related records and procedures for taking a vehicle to Türkiye could clarify whether the alleged economic or administrative purpose existed.
Communications between the parties and financial transactions could confirm or disprove the allegation of an arrangement involving 300 Georgian Lari.
The authorities are therefore not dealing with an abstract or impossible-to-investigate allegation.
They are dealing with specific questions that can be answered through a comparison of official records in two countries.
Georgian civil legislation contains restrictions preventing a new marriage where one party remains married to another person. It also permits the annulment of a fictitious marriage entered into without a genuine intention to establish a family.
The real question is therefore not whether the matter can be investigated.
The question is why no clear information has been provided concerning the status or result of the investigation.
THE SEVEN-DAY PERIOD EXPIRED WITHOUT A RESPONSE
According to the applicant, no clear and reasoned official response was received for months following the initial reports.
Approximately three months ago, an additional written notice was sent to the prosecution authorities requesting a clear, written and reasoned response within seven days.
The notice also stated that, in the absence of a response, the matter would continue before superior national authorities, courts, international mechanisms, oversight bodies and the public.
The seven-day period expired.
No response was provided.
The total period of non-response has now reportedly exceeded seven months and entered the eighth month.
No new period is being granted to the prosecution authorities.
An explanation is requested as to why the previous deadline was disregarded and what the current status of the matter is.
THE REQUIREMENT TO “COME PERSONALLY TO GEORGIA”
Another disputed matter concerns a telephone call conducted through an interpreter.
According to the applicant, the conversation created the impression that the earlier written applications had either not been accepted or were considered insufficient.
The applicant was allegedly told to travel personally to Georgia and submit the complaint again in person.
It was also reported that the tone used during the conversation was harsh, negative and inconsistent with appropriate institutional conduct.
However, the complaint does not concern only a private dispute.
At its centre is the allegation that Georgia’s official marriage, civil-status and residence systems may have been misled.
The following questions therefore remain unanswered:
Why was the written criminal report not considered sufficient?
Under which legal provision was the applicant’s physical presence in Georgia considered mandatory?
If an additional statement was needed, why were video communication, a notarised written declaration, a lawyer or an authorised representative not considered?
Does simply telling a person living abroad to “come personally” make the right to an effective remedy practically inaccessible?
A separate application concerning the conduct of the police personnel and the tone used during the call has reportedly been submitted to the General Inspection of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia.
WAS THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED?
One of the most serious consequences of the prolonged silence is uncertainty concerning the evidence.
Have the originals and electronic records of the marriage documents been preserved?
Were the civil-status records in Türkiye requested in time?
Were residence applications, vehicle-related procedures, financial movements and communications between the parties examined?
Was correspondence between public institutions preserved?
Has any record been lost, altered or rendered inaccessible during the period of delay?
The question, “Were the authorities waiting for the evidence to disappear?” is extremely serious.
However, it arises from prolonged and unexplained institutional silence rather than from a prior declaration that any public official committed an offence.
If the evidence was preserved, the authorities should confirm this.
If preservation measures were not taken, the reasons should be explained.
If evidence was lost because of the delay, that matter should be examined separately.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE APPEARANCE OF PROTECTION
Teona Arabashvili reportedly continues to publish material on social media presenting her daily life as ordinary and uninterrupted.
Social-media material alone does not prove guilt or innocence.
However, when serious and documented applications remain unanswered for months while the public-facing material creates the impression that no official process exists, a natural question arises:
Is there actually an investigation concerning Teona Arabashvili, or was the file quietly closed?
The way to remove the perception that the person concerned is being protected or treated preferentially is not further silence.
Without violating investigative confidentiality, the authorities could explain whether the report was registered, whether the file is open or closed, the date of any decision and the available remedies.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Following the latest formal submissions, a brief email was received from the Records Management Division of the Administration Department of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia.
The message stated that the email received at the Ministry’s electronic address had been forwarded.
This confirms that the application entered the Ministry’s system and was subject to administrative handling.
However, the response did not identify:
a registration number;
the unit to which the application was forwarded;
whether any review was commenced;
or the Ministry’s position on the substance of the matter.
Administrative movement has therefore occurred, but no substantive response has yet been provided.
THE MATTER IS NO LONGER ONLY ABOUT ONE MARRIAGE
If the allegations are correct, the matter extends far beyond a private relationship between two individuals.
If an existing marriage in Türkiye was concealed from the Georgian authorities;
if false civil-status information was submitted;
if a marriage entered into without a genuine intention to establish a family was used to obtain residence status;
and if that status was used to secure an economic advantage;
then the matter directly concerns the reliability of State records.
If the allegations are false, an investigation and a reasoned outcome are equally necessary to establish that fact.
Months of silence do not remove the allegations concerning Teona Arabashvili and do not strengthen confidence in Georgian institutions.
THE OTHER 18 FILES ARE ALSO WAITING
According to the applicant, this matter is only one of 19 legal applications connected with Teona Arabashvili.
The other files reportedly concern the disappearance of and damage to museum assets, financial transactions, allegations of fraud, official records and possible acts or omissions by public officials.
Each matter must be assessed separately.
However, if no response is provided even in a case that can be examined through official records, questions naturally arise regarding the quality of the investigations in more complex matters.
The applicant states that the national, international and institutional course of the other 18 files will be shaped by the official response given in this matter.
THE MATTER IS ALREADY IN THE MEDIA
The alleged sham-marriage matter concerning Teona Arabashvili, the museum file, financial allegations and the prolonged silence of public authorities have previously been reported in the media.
The latest applications, the administrative response from the Ministry of Justice, any response or continued non-response from the prosecution authorities, the General Inspection application and the Public Defender process will continue to be reported.
The purpose of publication is not to declare any person guilty without a court judgment.
The purpose is to make documented applications, official responses, unanswered questions and procedural developments concerning the public interest visible.
It is not desirable for this matter to develop into an institutional issue attracting national or international criticism or condemnation in relation to the Georgian Prosecutor’s Office, other public institutions or the Government of Georgia.
The way to prevent that outcome is clear:
The authorities should provide a clear, written, reasoned and reviewable official response instead of leaving the matter in silence.
QUESTIONS STILL REQUIRING ANSWERS
Was the report concerning the alleged sham marriage involving Teona Arabashvili officially registered?
What is the file or investigation number?
Was the man’s existing marriage in Türkiye verified?
What documents were submitted in Georgia?
Was the authenticity of those documents confirmed?
Was the allegation of a marriage arrangement involving 300 Georgian Lari investigated?
Did the man obtain residence or immigration status?
Was the alleged purpose of taking a vehicle to Türkiye at a lower cost examined?
Were the relevant persons interviewed?
What measures were taken to preserve the evidence?
If the file was closed, what was the legal basis?
If it remains open, why was no basic procedural information provided to the applicant?
And the central question:
If no answer is provided for months even in a matter concerning the possible misleading of official State records, how can the public maintain confidence in the justice system?
RIGHT OF REPLY AND CORRECTION
The allegations contained in this report are based on formal applications reportedly submitted to the competent authorities, correspondence with public institutions and documents made available to the journalist.
The report does not assert that a final criminal conviction exists against Teona Arabashvili.
Its purpose is not to determine criminal guilt.
Its purpose is to examine whether the allegations were investigated and why the public authorities remained silent for such a prolonged period.
Any reply, clarification or correction received from Teona Arabashvili, other relevant persons or the competent Georgian public institutions will be published prominently.
