Legislation: Georgia ratified the Council of Europe Civil and Criminal Law Conventions on Corruption in 2003 and 2008, and Georgian legislation complies with the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the government has worked to further harmonise Georgian legislation with the provisions of the UNCAC and to establish procedures that enabled Georgia to access it in November 2008. Georgia's Criminal Code criminalises attempted corruption, active and passive bribery, bribing a foreign official as well as money laundering and strictly punishes convicted offenders (Criminal Code Art.338-339). Georgia is amongst the first countries to introduce criminal liability of legal persons for a number offences, including corruption, even if acting on behalf of a corporate entity, as reported in the US Department of State 2011. Parliament has passed a package of constitutional amendments criminalising the abuse of public office and passive bribery with a maximum sentence of 15 years and confiscation of property. Penalties for active bribery include a fine or/and a minimum sentence of 2 years. In aggravated circumstances, when a bribe is given to commit an illegal act, the penalty can be from 4 to 7 years. One of Georgia's guiding anti-corruption laws has been the Law of Georgia on the Conflict of Interests and Corruption in Public Service, which was incorporated into the 2005 National Anti-Corruption Strategy. The law prohibits corruption among public servants and requires the disclosure of assets by public officials and their families in order to ensure transparency. Asset declarations of law enforcement officials are accessible to the public via Public Service Bureau's website. In order to prevent conflict of interest, the law also prohibits public servants from involvement in private business. Georgia's legal framework includes a Money Laundering Law, and Georgia is committed to international anti-crime cooperation. Georgia is not a signatory to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Georgia.

Government Strategies: The Government of Georgia drafted its first National Anti-Corruption Strategy in 2005-2006, followed by an adoption of an Implementation Action Plan in 2007. These measures were elaborated and updated for 2007-2008 with the goal of improving transparency and effectiveness of the civil service and strengthening the role of inspectors general within public agencies. The strategy and action plan have been criticised for failing to address the root causes of corruption, for failing to provide an adequate definition of corruption and for focusing too much on curative rather than preventive anti-corruption action. In 2008, a decision was made to revise both the strategy and the action plan, and an Anti-Corruption Inter-Agency Council (see below) was established by the President in December 2008. In 2010, the Council adopted a new National Anti-Corruption Strategy, which outlines six priority areas. A new action plan was also approved the same year. According to Transparency International's National Integrity System 2011, some important issues, such as transparency of media ownership, were not included in the new National Anti-Corruption Strategy, and were addressed completely outside its framework later. Several international donor programmes have been launched to assist Georgia in pursuing a strategy that increases the capacity for good governance. Including those by Danida (Denmark), Sida (Sweden), and others.

Anti-Corruption Inter-Agency Council: An Anti-Corruption Inter-Agency Council was set up in 2008 in order to support and update the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan. According to a 2009 news article by Civil Georgia, the Council is chaired by the Justice Minister, and its members include the head of the State Audit Agency, the head of the government’s administration, an aide to the Prime Minister and a number of lawmakers. The main responsibilities, amongst others, include developing and updating the national anti-corruption strategy and the relevant action plan. According to Transparency International's  National Integrity System 2011, the Council is an ad hoc body, rather than a complete anti-corruption body. The same report also states that the Council does not enjoy a full degree of independency.

Anti-Corruption Agencies: According to Global Integrity 2009, there are a few specialised units and divisions that handle corruption offenses in Georgia; the Investigative Divisions of the Prosecution Service of Georgia; the Department for the Procedural supervision of investigations over the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia; the Department of Constitutional Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia and the Investigative Division of the Revenue Service of the Ministry of Finance of Georgia. None of these units can be defined as independent anti-corruption units, as they are all subdivisions of different Ministries, and therefore, subjected to political influence. Furthermore, these units have neither the sufficient powers to carry out their mandates, nor the authority to initiate investigations by themselves. 

Ombudsman: The Ombudsman, also called the Public Defender of Georgia, was established in 1997. The Public Defender's Office supervises the protection of human rights. It also supervises the activities of public authorities, public officials and legal persons and evaluates their activities. According to Transparency International's National Integrity System 2011, in practice, Public Defender is protected from political interference. According to the report, the Office does not receive sufficient funding from the government. However, foreign donors play an important role in compensating the shortcomings. According to the report, the Office relies on foreign donors' support for approximately 30 percent of the total operating expenses. Despite this shortcoming, it publishes reports on its website regularly. One negative aspect mentioned in Transparency International’s report, is that citizens who file complaints do not always feel protected from retaliation. According to Global Integrity 2009, the government rarely acts on the findings of the Public Defender, and it is reported that the Parliament actually ignored the reports issued by the Public Defender in 2008-2009. Nonetheless, Global Integrity 2009 evaluates the Public Defender as ‘strong’.

Auditor-General: The Chamber of Control of Georgia (CCG) is the main audit unit in the country. It has been going through reforms to fulfil its role as an independent external auditing body able to ensure that good governance is upheld. According to Global Integrity 2009 , appointments of the CCG are mostly based on political loyalty, and the head of the CCG is the former Parliament minister from the ruling party, therefore, restricting his independence and makes him heavily subjected to political inference. Nevertheless, the CCG has previously, conducted many investigations, including the investigation of numerous procurement violations. However, according to Global Integrity 2009, there is no evidence indicating any of the governmental agencies or the government acts on the CCG’s findings. CCG's Capacity Development plan for 2010-2011 highlights some challenges that need to be addressed, one of which is to have a sufficient number of professional staff. According to the report, at least 160 experienced auditors are needed to conduct a comprehensive state audit but the CCG only had a staff of 105 in 2010. Nevertheless, Global Integrity 2009 evaluates the CCG as ‘strong’.

E-Governance: Many Georgian ministries now have informative websites to increase transparency, although some ministry websites lack information in English, which makes it difficult for potential international partners to understand procedures. The Ministry of Finance provides online services for company registration, taxes and customs (under development). The State Procurement Agency has developed an online service where tenders are published with relevant contact information. This will gradually promote transparency. The Ministry of Economic Development has produced a privatisation website (in Georgian) detailing ongoing privatisation initiatives and sales in order to increase transparency and equality within the privatisation process.

Public Procurement: There were concerns in the past over conflict of interests in public procurement, as the now replaced Procurement Office functioned under the Ministry of Economic Development, which is one of the major purchasers of public contracts. To mitigate these concerns, Georgia established the State Procurement Agency (SPA), again under the control of the Ministry of Economic Development. It is intended to function with greater power and independence, although it remains subject to the ministry's interference. Law on Public Procurement was passed in 2005 and put into force 1 January 2006. The law stipulates that public tenders should be publicised. Enforcement, however, is still relatively weak in certain areas due to the inadequate training of officials and the low level of awareness of this law. The government has been making efforts to improve the transparency and efficiency of the public procurement system, in part by strengthening information exchanges between the State Procurement Agency and the Ministry of Finance. In addition, a new e-procurement system was introduced by the SPA in 2011, aiming to create an open, transparent and competitive bidding process. Companies found guilty of corruption in procurement processes are blacklisted and prohibited from participating in future bids, and the list can be accessed on the State Procurement Agency's website. Hence, Global Integrity 2009 evaluates public procurement in Georgia as being ‘strong’.

Whistle-Blowing: The Law of Georgia on the Conflict of Interests and Corruption in Public Service (Art. 20) guarantees the whistleblower protection. However, according to Global Integrity 2009, the provision of this Law only applies to public service; therefore, private sector employees who report corruption cases are not protected under this Law. The 2004 Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression (Art. 12) is supposedly to ensure protection of whistleblowers, as long as the disclosure is judged to be in 'the public and lawful societal interest'. However, whistleblowers within state institutions reportedly continue to suffer from disciplinary action and harassment when they report suspicious activities within state institutions. The right to access public information is secured in the General Administrative Code of Georgia (Chapter 3: Freedom of Information), although the Law on State Secrets places restrictions on revealing information believed to be damaging for the sovereignty and security of the country. Hence, Global Integrity 2009 evaluates Georgia's whistle-blowing regulations as 'very weak'.

General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Until spring 2008, anti-corruption reforms had taken priority and Saakashvili's policy has produced results. In the past four years, the level of corruption in Georgia has decreased significantly, and citizen confidence in public institutions and public officials has increased considerably. The international community has praised Georgia for setting an example of how to turn a corrupt state into a 'good governance country'. The establishment of the Anti-Corruption Interagency Council in 2008, and a significant progress in criminalising corruption in line with international standards, have illustrated that the government is committed to fighting corruption. Nevertheless, the Saakashvili government's main challenge is to institutionalise the anti-corruption measures that it has implemented, and to continue to strengthen the Anti-Corruption Interagency Council. Furthermore, whistleblower protection should be strengthened so that whistleblowers can be fully protected from any possible negative consequences. Last but not least, the government needs to reduce excess political interference in some of the aforementioned public agencies, so that they can efficiently carry out their tasks.