Bidzina Ivanishvili’s lawyer, Temur Tsikvadze, has issued a statement addressing the interest shown by foreign journalists in the case of Giorgi Bachiashvili.
According to Tsikvadze, he was contacted by The Guardian’s Daniel Boffey and freelance journalist Philip Shishkin, who said he was preparing an article for The New York Times. Tsikvadze claimed that both were acting on behalf of Bachiashvili and his family, with “mercantile interests,” aiming to create false perceptions and discredit Ivanishvili.
“I would like to inform the public about the interest shown by certain representatives of the foreign media in the case of Giorgi Bachiashvili’s misappropriation of bitcoins belonging to the victim, Bidzina Ivanishvili, and the subsequent legalization of illegal income.
In this matter, as a representative of Mr. Ivanishvili, I was contacted by Daniel Boffey, a journalist from The Guardian, and by Philip Shishkin, who introduced himself as a freelance journalist preparing material for The New York Times.
Unfortunately, in both cases, it is clear that these individuals are acting in the interest of Mr. Bachiashvili and his family. Their activities appear driven by mercantile motives and aimed at creating misconceptions among readers, ultimately seeking to discredit the victim, Mr. Ivanishvili.
This raises further suspicions that, beyond financial motives, these journalists and their media outlets may be serving broader agendas rooted in issues far deeper than Bachiashvili’s criminal activities.
A direct example of this is Mr. Boffey’s most recent communication. On September 12, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., he sent me an email containing a series of abstract and unfounded accusations—such as that Mr. Ivanishvili “lacks empathy,” “may be evil,” or that Mr. Bachiashvili is his “personal prisoner”—all sourced from Bachiashvili’s mother. He then demanded a response by 6:00 p.m. British time the same day, leaving only three hours to reply. He justified the inclusion of these groundless claims by citing the U.S. State Department’s December decision to impose sanctions on Mr. Ivanishvili, allegedly for undermining democratic institutions and restricting freedoms.
Such questions, presented as “mother’s accusations,” lacked any factual basis and were clearly intended to frame the issue negatively rather than clarify the reality of the case. The short deadline demonstrates that the journalist’s aim was not to receive substantive responses but merely to formalize his ethical obligation before publishing a pre-prepared article.
It should also be noted that in our earlier communication, Mr. Boffey repeatedly set artificial deadlines, delayed publication without explanation, and either generalized my answers or excluded them entirely. After making my position clear—that such dishonest actions were unacceptable—I terminated further communication. It became evident that his true goal was not balanced reporting but tailoring content to satisfy clients, portraying Mr. Ivanishvili in the worst possible light.
Regarding sanctions, Mr. Boffey falsely claimed in his email and subsequent article that Mr. Ivanishvili had been sanctioned for undermining democracy and violating human rights. In reality, the unjustified decision of the outgoing U.S. administration mentioned only “suspicious ties with Russia,” without presenting any factual evidence. Expanding this narrative into a list of fabricated accusations further underscores the journalist’s bias and willingness to serve specific interests.
As for Mr. Shishkin, I provided comprehensive answers to his main questions on August 18 and responded to an additional question on August 21. He had stressed that the article would be published by the end of August at the latest. Yet, as of mid-September, no article has appeared and none of my responses have been reflected. This mirrors the situation with Mr. Boffey: controlled media, acting on behalf of clients, disregards the objective reality in favour of a predetermined narrative,” Bidzina Ivanishvili’s lawyer stated.
