"Morality is the absence of hypocrisy."

A thief complains when the goods he stole are taken from him, before he can sell them. Saba, who locks owners out of their own elevators, would call the police if an owner locked him out of his office, which stands on the owners' common property.

This page analyzes the behavior of Next under this theory of morality. The test for every item is the same: what Next did to me or does to owners, would Next accept in turn? Whether Next would say so does not matter; their actions answer.

Whether any of this conduct is a crime is examined elsewhere; here the measure is not the law but Next's own conduct, read against itself.

1. Obstruction of residential access

Since July 1, 2026, the elevators of a nineteen-storey building stop at residential floors only for holders of a chip that Next issues and revokes on its own terms, in order to collect a self-declared debt.

It has obstructed access to my home since then, and, by her report, has done so to a person with a child. The elevators are the owners' common property; Next does not own them and was never chosen to run them.

Reversed: Would Levan Otarishvili not complain, if I were not being sarcastic and enforced this "debt" by installing an access-control system in his residence and withholding access from him?

2. Selling the elevator for a waiver of all claims

The chip comes against a signature on an act whose last clause has the owner declare he has "no claims" against Next Hospitality. Mine begin with grievances, reported February 2026, unanswered to this day. I asked for the clause to be removed; declined.

Reversed: Would Next accept signing a document stating it does not hold any claims (including debts) against an owner in order to receive one arrear of payment?

3. Collecting a debt it set itself, by its own hand

Next fixed the fee, the start date and the balance alone, with no contract, no account of the expenses and no decision of the owners (details), and enforces the result with the elevator (Clause 5.2, applied to a man who never signed it). The law gives a creditor the courts and the registry; Next gave itself the lift.

Reversed: If I, whose front wall Next ordered destroyed, or the owner who reported his car damaged, enforced a payment of an arbitrary figure as restitution by changing the lock of Next's main office until payment, we would be in jail the same week.

4. Trying to extract contracts by willfully misinterpreting the law

Five times, in writing, a manager and a lawyer told a foreigner that signing two contracts was compliance with the existing regulations. The contracts would have given Next 40% of the rental income of my apartments and the exclusive right to use them, forever. The regulation was never named, because it binds Next, not me. Next's own specialist had said what the signature was for: "there has to be a basis" for the bill.

Reversed: Next does not release its unlawful claim to our common property despite me naming a valid regulation for them.

5. Backdating the contracts

Both drafts were dated to days on which they could not have existed: one to the day my titles were registered, fourteen months before it was written, citing a passport issued the following month; the other to the first month Next wished to bill. Their signatures were demanded under coercion.

Reversed: Next demands written notices from owners a week or a month in advance. An owner who handed in a notice dated a month before he wrote it would be told the date is false and the notice void.

6. Holding the meters and the renovation for payment and a signature

In February 2025, meters already installed in my apartment were unusable "until you settle the outstanding amount" (message), and the freight elevator for my materials came with a choice: pay now, or wait eight months. The inclusion in writing of the concessions offered in chat was refused: "if it suits you, sign it" (message). It cost GEL 8,105.98 and a signature.

Reversed: Next would not accept an owner withholding access to the freight elevator or the utility meters of an apartment Next is renovating itself. They would call the police.

7. Writing consent that was never given

Next's documents certify, in advance, what would otherwise have to be proved: that the text is clear, that the signature is free, that the owner consents to whatever assignment Next chooses, and that "all the owners" have agreed (the clauses). The last is false of at least one owner, and Next knows which one.

Reversed: Would Next accept a clause in a document I wrote stating that its consent "is deemed as issued" by my signature? Would it accept that a paper I signed alone speaks for "all the companies of the Next Group"?

8. Altering property it does not own, for profit

The access-control system is a physical alteration of the owners' elevators, decided by Next alone and announced as a collection device. The drafts sent to me would give Next the right to rent out, advertise on and otherwise use the common property "for gaining additional incomes" without any owner's consent (the clauses), and to set the building's rules "unilaterally" (Clause 1.6). None of that income is credited to the owners whose property it is.

Reversed: Would Next accept an owner letting the lobby to a shop for his own account, or fitting a lock of his choosing to the front door, on the ground that the building's rules, which he wrote himself, allow it?

9. Proposing a fictitious contract

Next's specialist advised my wife that I could "sign the management contract fictitiously" and then sign a suspension of it, so that the paper would exist for the Revenue Service and not for us (details).

Reversed: Next holds owners to the letter of what they sign. Would it accept "it was fictitious" from an owner who refused to pay a debt from a contract he had signed?

10. Lying about what it was doing

According to Levan Otarishvili, the director, the lockout was "implemented for security purposes". The chips were "free of charge" while conditioned on the waiver and the payments. "We are not forcing you" preceded "must be [...] signed by you" in a message from Saba, the manager. A contract with the previous owner is claimed to exist and bind me, but to be confidential.

Reversed: Would Next accept it, if owners changed the lock of its office, stating it was "implemented for security purposes", written in a contract that Next "must sign", based on a contract someone else may have signed, and whose production is declined?

11. Demanding compensation while owing it

Next has demanded payment for its services since January 2026, retroactively to August 2025. In February 2026 I set out, in writing, what those services had cost me, offered to compensate Next once the account was settled both ways, and received a written undertaking to respond. No response came. The lawyer's undertaking to review my request and the manager's arrangement went the same way. I had told them this was hypocrisy on January 27, 2026; the contracts arrived the next day.

Reversed: Next treats an owner's unpaid arrear as a debt from almost six months before the debt was proposed in contract, and reserves itself the right to charge a penalty of 0.1% a day. Would it accept from me the treatment it gives its own undertakings, which is none?

12. Invoking rules against owners while ignoring the main one that governs the building

Next asks owners to obey "regulations", "the rules applicable within the building" and the "common decision of the apartment owners", none of which it has produced to me. The main law that does govern the building, the Law on Homeowners' Associations, it has never mentioned to me, because under it the owners manage, account, decide and hire, and Next does none of those things.

Reversed: If the owners hired a technician to remove the contraption from their elevators, citing the main statute that governs the building and ignoring "the rules applicable within the building" cited by the director, whose authority no one has identified, Next would not answer with its rules. It would answer with the police.

13. One rule for owners, another for Next

The owner pays 0.1% a day for a late fee and loses the elevator; Next owes GEL 10 a day for its breaches, and the owner cannot withhold payments and cannot terminate (the clauses). An owner's notice of termination costs US$3,000, and may be refused; Next terminates on thirty days, free of charge, without consulting the owner. The owner must notify Next in writing a week or a month ahead; Next notified the owners of a new fee by a chat post and of a power cut ten minutes after it began (reports). Next refuses documents on grounds of confidentiality and demands the owner's passport, email and telephone by WhatsApp.

An owner that signed such a contract out of his free will is one thing. Next, however, coerces owners to sign, and applies some of the provisions to owners that have not signed.

Reversed: Would Next sign a contract in which it pays US$3,000 for giving notice, the owner terminates on thirty days, and the owner fixes the fee within ±50% at will? What would it do if an owner coerced it to sign, or applied it without Next's signature?

What this adds up to

Thirteen kinds of conduct, one pattern: each is something Next would refuse, if it were done to Next. That is what hypocrisy means, and by the definition above it is what immorality means.

The crimes page asks which of these a forum of the state punishes. This page is about what the conscience, the inner forum, punishes. Unfortunately, though, it seems that, for Next, the trials in that forum are indefinitely adjourned.