Company & Counterparty Due Diligence in Georgia

Within the agreed scope: a dated source list, obtained extracts or references, supported findings, discrepancies, unavailable material, limitations and follow-up questions. It identifies what should be clarified before signing or payment. Checking underlying legal facts and drafting/reviewing contract language are different tasks; their combined scope can be agreed where needed.

The lawyer's fee depends on companies, countries, documents, languages, questions, access and timing; no fixed professional price is advertised here. NAPR's charges checked on 23 October 2026 are 20 GEL for an extract in 1 working day or 75 GEL on the application day; an electronic extract requested online is 13 or 52 GEL for those respective periods. An English-language extract adds 26 GEL. These are separate agency fees. Agree the required extracts, translations and other costs, and recheck the current tariff before ordering.

The report timetable is agreed against scope and files. An extract's official period concerns that document alone; foreign records, corporate documents, translation, clarification of discrepancies and further questions affect the overall process. State the closing deadline at the start. A same-day complete check or unchanged circumstances until closing is not promised.

No. Natural-person data in a company check must have a relevant purpose, necessity and lawful basis. Special categories require additional conditions; consent alone does not create access to a closed registry or bank information. This service does not promise secret banking, criminal-record or private-account data. Any specific additional check must first be assessed.

No. Available information depends on the entity form, register and source. A registered shareholder is not always the ultimate beneficial owner; further documents may be needed to trace a chain. Failure to find debt or litigation in a register does not prove its absence. The report identifies unconfirmed areas; financial, tax or technical audits are not automatically included.

Use this page's consultation link and briefly state the object, company/country, decision and deadline. Start with a document list; agree authority and a channel before supplying non-public files. Conflicts, permitted sources, report, timing and costs must be confirmed before the engagement is accepted. Sending the form alone does not establish representation or start the checks.

Where relevant to the agreed transaction and lawfully available, checks may include the courts’ insolvency information page and relevant published notices. Filing an application, a ruling admitting it and opening rehabilitation or bankruptcy, and later decisions are different events. The report can identify the source, date, entity identifiers, known stage and unresolved questions. A name match does not confirm identity; a record does not prove fraud, and no result does not prove solvency or the absence of debts. Records can be incomplete or change, case-file access may be restricted, and processing personal data requires an appropriate purpose and legal basis. In a hypothetical name match, the lawyer checks the registration number, date, available ruling and subsequent notices. Sources checked 1 November 2026.

Where relevant to the transaction and lawfully accessible, the agreed scope can include identified official lists, such as the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List and the US Treasury's OFAC sanctions lists. These sources cover different measures and people or entities, and the UN list does not encompass every national or regional restriction. Which sources and laws matter depends on the parties, funds, activity and jurisdictions; a listing under one regime does not by itself answer the consequences for every Georgian transaction. Separate foreign legal advice or coordination may be needed. Sources checked 2 November 2026.

The report can record the source and version or date checked, the agreed search criteria, a potential match, what identifiers were compared, and the questions still unresolved. OFAC's search uses approximate name matching. Similar names are not proof of identity; a result on a list is not a finding of fraud. No result on selected lists is not a guarantee that a transaction is unrestricted or that an entity controlled by a listed person is unaffected. Ownership, control and the applicable instrument require separate evidence and analysis. Hypothetical example: a proposed supplier has a name similar to an entry. A scoped review would compare the available legal name, registration details and other appropriate identifiers against the complete official entry, document uncertainty and identify whether further evidence is needed. It would not label the supplier sanctioned merely from the similarity. Before work begins, agree the legitimate purpose, sources, lawful handling of any personal data, deliverables, fee, language and timing. Initial enquiries need only describe the type of transaction and question; share sensitive records later through an agreed appropriate channel. Sources checked 2 November 2026.

Advokato can help a buyer or business considering a transaction identify and assess relevant, lawfully accessible records concerning a proposed movable asset. Depending on the agreed scope, the lawyer can compare an appropriate dated registry extract with the asset description and transaction documents, list recorded issues and discrepancies, and explain which questions remain open. This is a source-limited legal assessment, not a guarantee of clean title or a complete search of every debt or private record. Georgia's National Agency of Public Registry describes an extract for movable and intangible property rights that reflects specified registered data at the time it is prepared. Its guidance states that the search uses one registration subject: the owner for pledge or financial pledge and the lessee for leasing. A negative result for one subject or source does not prove that no rights exist. The agency says it is not responsible for the authenticity of notices and data submitted for the specified registrations. Civil Code Article 258(4) provides separate registered-pledge arrangements for vehicles specified by the Road Traffic Law and auxiliary technical equipment of agricultural machines; the particular asset and applicable registry must be checked. The lawyer must first establish the asset, appropriate source, access and relevant rules. Sources checked 3 November 2026: https://napr.gov.ge/ka/page/frequently-asked-questions/pledge-lease and https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/31702. An extract records information registered in the specified databases at its preparation time. It must be read with the searched subject, property description, source, date and any relevant supporting documents; it does not independently establish the authenticity of a submitted notice. A seller may not be the same person as the registered owner or a lessee. A discrepancy calls for clarification and lawful evidence, not an assumption that either person is dishonest. Determine whether an updated extract or a different source is needed before the decision.

For an initial enquiry describe the type of asset, planned transaction, your role and deadline; agree a suitable channel before sharing identifiers or sensitive records. Later, relevant materials may include an asset description, seller or owner details, dated extracts, proposed agreement, leasing or security documents and authority to share any non-public material. The agreed report can identify sources, dates, findings, discrepancies and limitations, with suggested follow-up. Legal review of the contract, technical inspection and independent verification of a counterparty are separately scoped. Hypothetically, a buyer considering a machine receives an extract naming a different registration subject from the seller named in the draft agreement. A lawyer can flag the discrepancy and request evidence or further checks before the buyer decides; it does not by itself prove wrongdoing. Fees depend on the number and type of assets, sources, jurisdictions, translations and scope. Timing depends on accurate identifiers, source access and responses; official charges are separate. Request a diligence consultation to agree the purpose, lawful scope and quote. The agreed output may be a dated source and limitations list, identified entries, a comparison with supplied documents and a list of unresolved questions. It is not a universal credit check, technical inspection or official certification. When personal information is needed, the applicable legal basis, purpose, proportionality, access and retention must be assessed; public availability alone does not remove those obligations. The work stops at the boundaries of the agreed lawful sources.