“In recent days, the foreign spy network operating in Georgia, which we call the radical opposition, has created a commotion based on lies around the so-called Offshore Law,” Georgia’s Deputy Finance Minister Mikheil Dundua posted on social media.

According to Dundua, “Following external orders, almost all local puppets spread various lies, claiming that Bidzina Ivanishvili used this law to deprive Georgia’s budget of funds, that this law is being used to evade sanctions, there was talk about hiding capital from offshore zones, and so on.”

“In the whirlwind of various lies, it might be difficult for someone less familiar with the issue to discern the truth, so a simple analysis will make it clear what the Offshore Law serves, what real benefits the country will receive as a result of this law’s operation, what an offshore zone represents, and finally, whether Bidzina Ivanishvili or any other Georgian citizen has the right to benefit from their own state’s protection guarantee and the legislation in force in the country.

First, let’s analyze the Offshore Law. The law passed by the Georgian Parliament states something simple: if any Georgian citizen decides to bring their capital from offshore zones into their own country, they will be given certain one-time benefits. The main point in this matter is that the state has given businesspeople an incentive, and encouraged them to bring their capital to Georgia, to carry out business activities here, which is unequivocally a crucial factor for the country’s economic growth. If we calculate mathematically, the one-time benefit that the law establishes for citizens in case of transferring capital from offshore zones to Georgia, which should be considered not so much as a benefit but as an incentive, encouragement – is nothing compared to the benefits that the country’s economy will receive over the coming years.

Beyond this simple analysis, there is a conclusion about the law from the authoritative international organization MONEYVAL. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism thoroughly studied the Offshore Law and sent a letter to Georgia, which states in black and white that the law is fully compliant with international law and they have no remarks or different opinions. It turns out that the law passed by the Georgian Parliament aligns with both international standards and provides incentives for businesses to bring additional capital into the country and help develop the economy. To put it even more simply – if the law hadn’t been enacted and specific X capital had remained outside the country, would the country have gained anything from this? Clearly, nothing. Therefore, only an ignorant person or a deliberate saboteur would talk about the law’s drawbacks.

Now let’s move on to discussing the essence of offshore zones. In its time, the offshore zone was created to simplify business operations for businesspeople, and all the world’s leading businesspeople used and continue to use this comfort. An offshore zone is flexible, any transaction or action is simple, all procedures are simplified and freed from bureaucracy and excessive operations. This was precisely the idea of the offshore zone – that due to its simplicity and comfortable environment, capital from individuals and companies from various countries globally would accumulate in this zone.

However, over the last few years, the situation has changed radically. Since the world openly began talking about the Deep State, oligarchic families and the huge capital under their control – since society became aware of the true nature of such giant companies as BlackRock, Vanguard and so on, which control the largest part of world capital, while the companies, in turn, are owned by oligarchic families, the myth about the safety and reliability of offshore zones was finally shattered. It became clear that complete control over offshores was held by a specific group of people, which we today call the Deep State or the Global War Party. Against this background, it was even more logical and patriotic for the Georgian Parliament to pass the Offshore Law, so that any interested businessman would have the opportunity to take advantage of the stable and reliable situation in Georgia, transfer capital to Georgia, and insure against all the risks explained above.

In the whirlwind of lies, another, to put it mildly, ridiculous claim from the ‘spy network’ operating in Georgia was as follows – how dare Bidzina Ivanishvili use the current law and that he is trying to evade sanctions this way. Let’s follow logically – if the law is proper, if it is approved and recognized by the international community, why doesn’t Bidzina Ivanishvili have the right to use this law? What’s wrong if Bidzina Ivanishvili transfers capital to Georgia, of which not a single cent was earned in Georgia, and uses it to strengthen our country’s economy? We must ask a simple question once again – if Bidzina Ivanishvili’s capital, or any other businessman’s capital, doesn’t come to Georgia and remains in an offshore zone, will the country receive any benefit from this? Will this add anything to the Georgian economy? Nothing. It’s a simple truth – if the current law is positively and legally properly assessed, including by authoritative international organizations, any citizen of Georgia can use this law. We’re talking about something simple – transferring capital from outside the country to Georgia and thereby stimulating the Georgian economy. There’s also a simple answer to the demagogy that supposedly Bidzina Ivanishvili tailored the law to himself and this law was inspired by him…

First of all, Bidzina Ivanishvili has changed many things for the better in this country, snatched the stolen Georgia from the hands of agents and put the country on an irreversible path of democracy. And what do you see wrong if this law was his idea? And what do you see wrong in him using or potentially using this proper law in the future? Where is the basis for the commotion here? A law that is proper and legally correct will equally serve each citizen of Georgia. What shouldn’t be debated is who initiated or thought up the law, what should be debated is whether the law serves the interests of the country and citizens. Here, there are definitely no question marks about this.

Finally, regarding sanctions and evading them – today even a small child knows that Bidzina Ivanishvili was sanctioned completely unjustly, by order of specific forces, only because he refused to open a second front in Georgia and ignite war, refused to take anti-Georgian steps, protects the country’s sovereignty and peace in Georgia. That’s exactly why Bidzina Ivanishvili has every right to use all legal methods to protect himself, his family, and his capital from these illegal sanctions.

This is the very essence of the state – to protect its citizens through any legal means from any external influence exerted on them, especially when this influence is unjust and illegal.

In this regard, Bidzina Ivanishvili, like any law-abiding citizen of Georgia, has the full right to utilize the existing legal framework established by the state to safeguard its citizens, particularly when such measures are solely conducive to the country’s benefit and do not yield any adverse consequences.

The core principle of a just state dictates that any law, including the Offshore Law, should be enacted to promote the well-being of Georgian citizens and the country. To suggest that utilizing a legally sound law is somehow illegitimate is a hallmark tactic of a ‘spy network,’ seeking to distort the law’s true purpose. By the way, the raised commotion fully fits into the main plot of the pseudo-liberal ideology imposed on the world in recent times, where truth is a lie, legality is illegality, the building is destruction, and good is evil. In this regard, it’s crystal clear that the creators of false commotion are fulfilling specific tasks of the Deep State.

P.S. Regarding the question of when Bidzina Ivanishvili brought art pieces to Georgia, or whether he brought them at all. Whether this happened before the war in Ukraine started, after it started, last January, or didn’t happen at all – I consider myself a cultured person and couldn’t bring myself to investigate this issue in the first place. Of course, I could have inquired about and investigated this matter, including through mutual acquaintances, but I consider it highly ignorant to interfere in another person’s private life and activities. This is neither my business nor anyone else’s,” Mikheil Dundua wrote.