The witness directly indicated the factual circumstances reflected in the indictment, the story he told is based on and consistent with other information in the criminal case - the witness explained that he personally had a connection and relationship with Grigol Liluashvili, including the funds that are included in the indictment, he personally transferred them and personally received them with instructions to demand specific funds from entrepreneurs, - this was stated by Mariam Berdzenishvili, the prosecutor in the case of Grigol Liluashvili, the former head of the State Security Service, who was arrested on charges of taking a particularly large bribe.

According to the prosecutor, the witness stated that Romeo Mikautadze himself transferred Grigol Liluashvili’s money.

“There is one person questioned who spoke about the details: how Romeo Mikautadze took the money, how he “wrapped” it in the interest of the state. A similar phrase was repeated by the witness questioned today. That is, there is absolute compliance between their testimonies. Of course, Romeo Mikautadze did not provide an explanation about to whom specifically he was taking the money, although he “wrapped” it as in the interest of the state. The witness confirmed the fact of transferring the money and also spoke about how he accumulated and transferred this rather solid amount.

As for [the Turkish businessman], this person was not in Georgia during the investigation, although he is on the list of persons to be questioned,” the prosecutor said.

As for the remote interrogation of Romeo Mikautadze, the prosecutor said that it is the witness’s choice how to give testimony in court.

“In this case, a statement was submitted by the witness, where he indicated that he wanted to be questioned remotely. The reason was not specified in the statement, although the prosecution agreed with the witness’s position. Why? There is a very important issue. In general, the process between the parties is based on the principle of adversarial proceedings. This means that both I, the lawyers and the accused should have the opportunity to ask questions to the witnesses and receive answers from them. In the case of remote interrogation, this right is realized for both parties. It is important for me that the witness is in conditions where he will provide information to the court within the framework of his free will. The main thing for me is that the witness tells the truth, and to deliver this truth within the framework of remote access, from a penitentiary institution, where absolutely all appropriate measures are observed, or from the courtroom, this has no essential meaning. Especially in this category of case, when we are not talking about any violent crime, where the behavior of the witness matters.

The prosecution has completely completed the questioning of the witness today. The defense requested that Romeo Mikautadze be called and they could ask him questions in person. They also did not have time, and therefore, they requested an adjournment, since they did not want to interrupt the questioning. The process was adjourned to Monday, at 12:00. The court will call the witness again, although it is up to it to demand remote questioning or if he will appear. If the witness refuses to testify, in this case he may be brought forcibly. But the witness does not refuse to testify, he simply chooses a form where he can speak freely.

Therefore, the motivation of the prosecution, since we want to see the truth from this person without pressure, is naturally that giving testimony in this format is acceptable. It is also acceptable if he appears and is able to provide information to the court. We do not have any principled attitude in this regard. As for the obligation, the court, as it explained, will summon him. If he comes, we will continue the interrogation,” the prosecutor said.

For information, Grigol Liluashvili, the former head of the State Security Service, was arrested on December 23, 2025. He is charged under Article 338, Part 2, Subparagraph "c" and Part 3, Subparagraph "e" of the Criminal Code of Georgia, which involves taking a bribe in a particularly large amount by a group by prior agreement and provides for a sentence of 11 to 15 years of imprisonment.