The acquittal of Demetris Syllouris and Christakis Giovani marks the conclusion of one of the most high-profile criminal cases in recent years; a case closely linked to the disgraced “Golden Passports” scheme and the investigative revelations of Al Jazeera.
The Permanent Criminal Court of Nicosia delivered its majority decision in a ruling spanning 170 pages, portions of which were read aloud in open court by the presiding judge.
At the outset of proceedings, both defendants remained composed and expressionless. The courtroom was filled to capacity with relatives and members of the press, reflecting the considerable political and institutional impact of a case that has shaped public discourse and investor sentiment alike.
Corruption charges not proven
The Court announced that the charge of corruption had not been proven against either defendant. Minutes earlier, it had ruled that Syllouris had not acted with corrupt intent, meaning the primary count could not be sustained.
The bench further noted that key witnesses had not been called to testify, without sufficient explanation from the prosecution regarding their absence.
It was also found that no evidence substantiated claims that a former minister had been pressured or improperly influenced by the defendants in relation to the advancement of naturalisation applications before the Council of Ministers.
Particular reference was made to testimony from a senior official at the Ministry of the Interior responsible for citizenship applications. The witness stated she was fully familiar with the procedure, although the volume of applications prevented her from recalling specific details.
She confirmed receiving telephone calls from the then Speaker of the House requesting updates on the progress of applications, as well as communicating with Syllouris’ secretary – conduct the Court did not consider improper.
Messages and reference to Pittadjis
The Court observed that messages allegedly exchanged between Andreas Pittadjis and an investor-witness were not submitted into evidence.
Extensive reference was also made to Pittadjis, against whom charges had been withdrawn at an earlier stage, and to the procedural history that led to the suspension of proceedings in his case.
Earlier in the hearing, the bench explained its decision not to call Syllouris’ secretary as a witness, concluding that she would not have constituted a reliable source of testimony.
The two former officials had faced, among other allegations, offences including trading in influence, breaches of relevant provisions of a European convention, and conspiracy to commit fraud under the Criminal Code.
The Court clarified that although the reporting by Al Jazeera served as the catalyst for the investigation into the Cyprus Investment Programme (aka ‘Golden Passports‘ scheme) and the subsequent criminal proceedings, the related video footage was not submitted as evidence and was not relied upon as testimonial material. The charges were not founded on the audio-visual content that had been published.
Summaries of the closing submissions by both the prosecution and defence, which had lasted three days, were also read in court.
Questions remain
The case has ended with the acquittal of the two former officials with the Court reiterating the fundamental principles of criminal procedure, namely that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that any doubt operates in favour of the defendant.
However, the case has had a profound effect on the Government and the legal system. The “golden passports” scandal damaged Cyprus’ image abroad and sparked a broader debate on transparency, accountability and corruption in high office.
Although the accused have been acquitted of all charges, the ruling is likely to spark intense public debate, and prompt strong criticism over its broader implications.
.
