"ახალ წლამდე მომეცით ვადა პრობლემების მოსაგვარებლად, თუ ვერ მოვახერხებ, დამაკავეთ... მაქვს კლაუსტროფობია" - "სფერო ჰოლდინგის" დირექტორი მოსამართლეს. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting assertions as facts without evidence or verification.

The article quotes multiple strong claims by the defendant without indicating that they are unverified allegations or providing any counter-information: 1) "არცერთი თანხა არ გაგვიფლანგავს, არცერთი თეთრი არ მიგვითვისებია" – categorical denial of any misuse of funds. 2) "ამ თანხით კომპანიამ შექმნა 67 მილიონი ლარი" – claim of turning 27 million into 67 million without evidence or explanation. 3) "აქედან უმეტესობის ქირის ფული კომპანიამ გადაიხადა და მშვიდად ცხოვრობენ სახლში" – broad assertion about most investors being fine. 4) "5- კაციანი ჯგუფი აზარალებს 500-ზე მეტ ადამიანს" – blaming a small group for harming hundreds, with no detail. 5) "ეჭვი მაქვს ხუთი ადამიანი მიზანმიმართულად შლის ამ პროცესს" – suggesting deliberate sabotage. 6) "არცერთი თანხა არ გაგვიფლანგავს, არცერთი თეთრი არ მიგვითვისებია" (repeated at the end) – again presented without any balancing comment. The article structure and tone do not clearly mark these as one-sided, unproven claims; they are simply relayed at length.

3 suggestions

Explicitly mark such statements as allegations or claims, e.g. add formulations like "მისი თქმით", "მისი მტკიცებით", "მტკიცებულებები ამ ეტაპზე საჯაროდ არ არის წარმოდგენილი" to each strong assertion.

Add brief counterpoints or context from the investigation or court documents, e.g. what the prosecution alleges happened with the money, whether there are audit findings, or whether the 67 million valuation is disputed.

Clarify what is known and what is not: separate verified facts (e.g. number of identified victims, sums in the indictment) from the defendant’s narrative about successful investments and paid rents.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotional elements to influence the audience instead of focusing on factual argument.

Several parts of the defendant’s speech are clearly aimed at eliciting sympathy and reducing perceived culpability: 1) "მაქვს კლაუსტროფობია, მაქვს დისკომფორტი და უცხოეთშიც ვერ ვმოძრაობ" – invoking claustrophobia and discomfort to argue against detention. 2) "ეს ხალხი გაბრაზებულია მაგრამ არცერთ მათგანს არც ვიცნობ" – framing himself as distant from the victims and implicitly as unfairly targeted by angry people. 3) "მინდა მომეცეს საშუალება რომ ხვალიდანვე დავაკმაყოფილო ეს ხალხი. დაკავებით ასე არ გამოვა" – emotional framing that detention harms victims and only his freedom can help them. 4) "რეალურად კი ჩვენი ბიზნესი იშლება" – focusing on the business’s suffering rather than on alleged victims’ losses. The article reproduces these emotional appeals extensively without balancing them with the emotional and material impact on the alleged victims or with neutral legal reasoning about pre-trial detention.

3 suggestions

Add neutral legal context about why the court still chose pre-trial detention (e.g. risk of flight, risk of influencing witnesses, gravity of charges), so the decision is not framed only against the defendant’s emotional arguments.

Include at least brief mention of victims’ situation or statements (if available), to balance the emotional narrative (e.g. how long they have been waiting, what sums they lost, their living conditions).

When quoting emotional elements like claustrophobia, add clarification that such claims are part of the defendant’s argument for a specific procedural request, not factual findings by the court.

Blame shifting / Omission of key counter-information

Shifting responsibility to others while omitting relevant information that could challenge that narrative.

The defendant repeatedly shifts blame to external actors, and the article does not provide counterbalancing facts: 1) "5- კაციანი ჯგუფი აზარალებს 500-ზე მეტ ადამიანს" – suggests that a small group of people (apparently some investors or critics) is harming hundreds of others by obstructing solutions, but the article does not explain who they are, what they did, or whether this is supported by evidence. 2) "ბანკმა გაგვიუქმა ანგარიში. აქედან დაიწყო ყველაფერი" – implies that the bank’s decision is the root cause of non-payment, without any bank comment or explanation of why the account was closed. 3) "ეჭვი მაქვს ხუთი ადამიანი მიზანმიმართულად შლის ამ პროცესს" – again, suggests sabotage without naming, evidence, or response from those accused. The article omits any reaction from the bank, regulators, or the alleged small group, and does not mention whether the investigation supports or contradicts these claims.

3 suggestions

Seek and include comment from the bank or refer to any public statement about why the account was closed, or clearly state that the bank declined to comment or information is not available.

Clarify that the claim about a "5-კაციანი ჯგუფი" is an allegation by the defendant and that there is no independent confirmation in the case materials (unless such confirmation exists).

If possible, include information from the investigation or court documents about the causes of non-payment and whether any third parties are under investigation, to avoid presenting the defendant’s blame-shifting as the only explanation.

Unbalanced reporting

Giving significantly more space or detail to one side’s narrative than to others, without proportional counterbalance.

The article dedicates the vast majority of its text to the defendant’s detailed monologue: explanations of company structure, investment amounts, construction projects, negotiations with officials, and personal circumstances. In contrast: - The prosecution’s position is summarized only in a short formulaic paragraph: "მოქალაქეთა კუთვნილი დიდი ოდენობით თანხების სამსახურებრივი მდგომარეობის გამოყენებით, წინასწარი შეთანხმებით ჯგუფის მიერ მოტყუებით დაუფლების ფაქტზე..." with no detail on evidence, alleged scheme, or specific harms. - The alleged victims’ perspective is almost absent; they are mentioned only as "დაზარალებულები" and as a number (around 570 people), with no quotes or description of their situation. This imbalance makes the defendant’s narrative more salient and persuasive by sheer volume, even if the journalist does not explicitly endorse it.

3 suggestions

Add more detail about the prosecution’s case: what exactly is alleged (e.g. promised returns, contract terms, how the scheme allegedly worked), what evidence is cited in the indictment, and what sums are claimed as damages.

Include at least one or two short quotes or summarized statements from alleged victims (if available) to show their perspective on non-payment, communication with the company, and their current situation.

Clarify procedural status: that the case is under investigation / in court, that guilt is not yet legally established, and that both the defendant’s and prosecution’s narratives are being evaluated by the court.

Appeal to authority / Name-dropping

Using references to institutions or officials to imply credibility or legitimacy without substantive evidence.

The defendant repeatedly mentions high-level institutions and officials in a way that can implicitly bolster his credibility: 1) "ბიზნესომბუდსმენთან" – he says he was going to meet the business ombudsman when detained. 2) "მივმართე ეროვნულ ბანკს, სახალხო დამცველს" – claims to have appealed to the National Bank and Public Defender. 3) "შეხვედრას ვაპირებდი პრემიერ-მინისტრთან" – mentions a planned meeting with the Prime Minister. 4) "ბიზნესომბუდსმენი, ეკონომიკის სამინისტრო, კონკურენციის სააგენტო გველოდებიან" – suggests that multiple state bodies are waiting to help solve the problem. These references can create an impression that his position is institutionally supported or that he is acting responsibly, but the article does not clarify whether these institutions actually support his plan, have taken any action, or confirm his account.

3 suggestions

Clarify the status of these contacts: did the business ombudsman, National Bank, Public Defender, or ministries confirm that they are involved or "waiting" for him? If not, explicitly state that these are the defendant’s claims.

Seek and include short comments from at least one of the mentioned institutions, or note that they did not respond or declined to comment.

Rephrase to make clear that mentioning these institutions does not in itself validate the defendant’s narrative, e.g. "მისი თქმით, ის გეგმავდა შეხვედრას..." and then add whether this is confirmed.

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex legal and financial situation to a simple narrative that may omit important nuances.

The defendant’s explanation of the situation is presented in a simplified causal chain: - Investors brought 27 million → company created 67 million → bank closed the account → company could not pay some rents → problems started → now a small group is obstructing resolution. This narrative omits key complexities: contract terms, promised returns, risk disclosures, internal financial management, reasons for the bank’s actions, and any potential mismanagement or fraud. The article does not add any nuance or alternative explanations, so the reader is left with a very linear, self-serving story.

3 suggestions

Add context about the type of investment scheme (e.g. rental guarantee, promised yields, duration), and whether regulators had previously raised concerns.

Include information on whether there were complaints before the bank account closure, or whether there are allegations of misrepresentation to investors.

Clarify that the defendant’s causal chain is one version of events and that the investigation is examining multiple factors, not only the bank’s decision or a small group’s actions.