Listen to the article
London-Based Firm Linked to Georgian TV Station Accused of Russian-Style Propaganda
In the heart of Belgravia, central London, an unassuming first-floor office sits above a Jeroboams wine shop in an Edwardian townhouse on Pont Street. With little more than a small note beside the intercom, this discreet location serves as the registered headquarters of Hunnewell Partners, a self-described “entrepreneurial private equity and litigation funding practice.”
The company has drawn international scrutiny as the ultimate owner of Imedi TV, Georgia’s most popular broadcaster. The station has been characterized by the European Union’s foreign affairs disinformation monitoring service as a “propaganda megaphone undermining Georgia’s EU aspirations” and the “ruling party’s most powerful propaganda machine, relentlessly pushing anti-western rhetoric and echoing Kremlin-style disinformation.”
Hunnewell Partners maintains that Imedi TV represents only a small portion of its holdings and operates with editorial independence. For its part, the broadcaster denies being pro-Russian or anti-western, accusing the EU’s disinformation body of factual inaccuracies and misunderstanding its editorial approach.
The controversy unfolds at a critical juncture in Georgia’s history. Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the country has constitutionally committed to seeking EU membership. However, political observers note a significant transformation in recent years under the ruling Georgian Dream party, led by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, the nation’s wealthiest individual.
Western governments, the EU, and numerous civil society organizations have accused the current administration of steering Georgia back into Russia’s sphere of influence while systematically corrupting democratic institutions. In recent months, a series of opposition leaders have been imprisoned, raising further alarm among international observers.
With crucial municipal elections scheduled for October, concerns about democratic backsliding have intensified. Just last week, the UK joined 36 other nations in expressing worry about Georgia’s failure to promptly invite election monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) amid what they described as growing “repression” of civil society and independent journalists.
Imedi TV’s coverage has reportedly targeted critics of the government, including the British Embassy. The broadcaster recently “accidentally” filmed what it described as evidence of a “secret meeting” between “radical opposition representatives” leaving the British diplomatic mission. In August, it reported claims that the embassy had attempted to fund individuals linked to the opposition United National Movement party.
The station has also been criticized for amplifying socially conservative narratives. Following the Georgian parliament’s passage of a “family values and protection of minors” law—which effectively allows authorities to ban Pride events and public LGBTQ+ symbols—Imedi and other government-supporting media outlets reportedly highlighted stories such as UK armed forces minister Luke Pollard’s marriage to his male partner, despite limited relevance to Georgia’s context.
Hunnewell Partners itself has a contentious history documented through the UK’s legal system. In February 2008, Georgian businessman Arkadi Patarkatsishvili (known as Badri) died of a heart attack, leaving behind an estimated £6 billion fortune dispersed globally. The complex recovery of these assets eventually led to litigation involving Hunnewell’s directors, who were successfully sued for breach of fiduciary duty, though no findings of dishonesty were made. The company was ordered to pay $134 million plus interest, with appeals ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court this March.
In her 2018 High Court judgment, Mrs. Justice Cockerill expressed significant concerns about the credibility of testimony from Hunnewell’s key figures, including Irakli Rukhadze, who chairs Imedi TV’s supervisory board and is described by Hunnewell as “actively involved in all strategic decisions.”
The case has prompted calls from a cross-party group of UK parliamentarians for government action, including potential sanctions. James MacCleary, a Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson, stated: “Under Hunnewell’s control, Imedi TV has become a propaganda arm of the Georgian Dream government, parroting pro-Russian lines and attacking the democratic opposition.”
For anti-corruption advocates, the situation represents a test of British resolve regarding Georgia’s democratic future. Sandro Kevkhishvili of Transparency International Georgia questioned: “What is the British government’s position on this? Using a sanctions mechanism of some kind is definitely one way of dealing with it.”
Former Georgian MP Giorgi Kandelaki emphasized the broader implications: “What is unfolding in Georgia is not just another instance of democratic backsliding in a distant country. Georgia’s trajectory carries a profound geopolitical weight: a nation once counted among the west’s most committed allies is now being taken over by the enemies of freedom.”
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools


9 Comments
This is an interesting case study in how foreign ownership and influence can shape media narratives. I’m curious to learn more about the specifics of Imedi TV’s alleged pro-Russian bias and how it connects to its London-based parent company.
You raise a good point. The article suggests there are concerns about Imedi TV’s editorial independence and alignment with Kremlin interests, despite the owner’s claims. It would be helpful to see more transparency around the station’s operations and financing.
This is a complex issue that touches on geopolitics, media ownership, and the integrity of information. I hope further reporting can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation at Imedi TV and its connections to London-based investors.
The allegations against Imedi TV are certainly concerning, but I’d caution against overgeneralizing. Not all foreign-owned media outlets are inherently untrustworthy or biased. The focus should be on transparency and adherence to journalistic standards, regardless of ownership structure.
While the EU’s characterization of Imedi TV as a ‘propaganda megaphone’ is troubling, I think it’s important to approach this issue with nuance. Media ownership and editorial independence are complex topics, and simplistic narratives often miss important details.
Concerns about foreign-owned media outlets acting as ‘propaganda megaphones’ are not unique to Georgia. This case highlights the importance of media pluralism and scrutinizing ownership structures, especially for influential broadcasters.
Agreed. Maintaining independent, fact-based journalism is crucial for a healthy democracy, regardless of a media outlet’s ownership. I hope further investigation can shed light on the editorial practices and potential conflicts of interest at Imedi TV.
While the claims of pro-Russian bias are serious, I’d like to see more concrete evidence before drawing conclusions. Responsible reporting requires looking at the nuances and multiple perspectives, not just repeating accusations.
That’s a fair point. It’s important to avoid jumping to conclusions and to carefully examine the available information. Maintaining objectivity and seeking out diverse viewpoints is key when evaluating potential disinformation or propaganda.