An investigation that had not even managed to begin into the high-profile case of the black spy van was terminated yesterday by the Independent Authority Against Corruption, following the Legal Service's objection.
According to information obtained by Politis, the Authority had already decided to entrust the investigation to two British lawyer-investigators and a Cypriot lawyer, whose appointment it was due to announce shortly, when Attorney General Giorgos Savvidis put a stop to the investigation, invoking Article 10 of the relevant legislation.
The Attorney General's position is that the matters the Authority wished to investigate had already been the subject of a criminal investigation. This refers to the investigation carried out by independent criminal investigator Elias Stefanou, which in 2022 led to the criminal prosecution of the black van's owner, former Mossad agent Tal Dilian, along with two of his associates. However, the case never proceeded to a hearing before the Criminal Court. Criminal proceedings against all three were suspended by Attorney General Giorgos Savvidis and Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides, and the case was closed without ever being tried.
The Anti-Corruption Authority sought to investigate the spy van case from scratch, a case that was closed without prosecutions by decision of the two heads of the Legal Service. They, however, did not allow the Authority to proceed with its investigation.
The question now arising is whether that earlier criminal investigation had, in fact, covered all the aspects the Anti-Corruption Authority wished to examine.
What the law provides
The legislation governing the Anti-Corruption Authority gives the Attorney General the power to block a parallel investigation into a case when a criminal investigation into an act of corruption falling within the Authority's remit is already under way.
Specifically, Article 10 of the Law on the Establishment and Operation of the Independent Authority Against Corruption provides that, where a criminal investigation has already been initiated by the Police or a criminal investigator into an act of corruption within the Authority's remit, the Authority, once informed by the Attorney General, may not begin or must terminate any parallel action. At the same time, the Authority is entitled to request and receive updates from the Attorney General on the progress of such cases.
Differing interpretations
In this case, however, the criminal investigation was concluded four years ago. The criminal investigator's findings led to prosecutions, which were subsequently suspended, meaning the case never went to trial.
The Anti-Corruption Authority therefore sought to examine the case afresh, having before it new information that had since come to light. It nonetheless accepted the termination of its investigation without voicing any disagreement, at least publicly.
There are, however, differing legal interpretations, according to which the existing legislation prohibits the conduct of parallel investigations, not an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Authority four years after the criminal investigation has already concluded.
The criminal investigator
When the Legal Service states that all the aspects of the case the Anti-Corruption Authority wished to examine had already been investigated, it is referring to the criminal investigation carried out by independent criminal investigator and well-known criminal lawyer Elias Stefanou. He was appointed in November 2019 by then Attorney General Costas Clerides as independent criminal investigator to investigate the black spy van case. The purpose of the investigation was, among other things, to establish whether Dilian and his associates had been intercepting telephone communications and, if so, on whose behalf. The spy van had been brought into Cyprus declared as meteorological equipment.
The question that arises is whether, in 2022, criminal investigator Elias Stefanou examined all the aspects of the case that the Anti-Corruption Authority is now seeking to investigate, particularly the alleged conflict of interest involving Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides.
The suspension of prosecutions
Based on Stefanou's findings, which were classified by the Legal Service as confidential and were not disclosed even to Parliament when requested, it was decided to prosecute Tal Dilian and two of his associates. However, before the case could go to trial before the Criminal Court, the two heads of the Legal Service decided to suspend the criminal proceedings against them. In a statement issued by Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides on 10/08/2022, he explained the reasoning behind the decision: weighing, on the one hand, the uncertain outcome of a trial, particularly given the complex legal and especially technical issues involved, and, on the other, taking into account the full acceptance of responsibility by Ws Wispear Systems Ltd before the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection, the size of the administrative fine imposed, which carried a punitive character (€950,000), the company's immediate payment of that fine, the fact that the electronic systems held by the company had not been used to intercept or monitor electronic communications (oral or written), and the fact that the systems had operated within the context of demonstrations without targeting specific individuals or users, the decision was taken to discontinue criminal proceedings against the three individuals prosecuted, on condition that the defendant company, Ws Wispear, would admit to the charges corresponding to the evidence gathered. Such a practice, he added, has long been followed by prosecuting authorities, where and when circumstances warrant it.
Developments in Greece
Beyond the complaint submitted in 2023 by former Auditor-General Odysseas Michaelides, recent judicial developments in Greece appear to have played a decisive role in the Anti-Corruption Authority's decision to re-examine the case. Tal Dilian and his associates were convicted in Greece and sentenced to prison terms in a case involving the wiretapping of political figures, ministers, MPs and other officials.
The convictions in Greece constituted new information relative to the earlier investigation in Cyprus, and heightened interest in re-examining certain aspects of the case.
A conflict of interest?
The complaint submitted to the Anti-Corruption Authority by Odysseas Michaelides included, among other things, an allegation of a possible conflict of interest involving Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides in relation to his handling of the black van case.
Specifically, the complaint referred to the professional relationships between Angelides's brother and close associates of Tal Dilian, as well as to the establishment of a company registered with the Registrar of Companies through the law firm in which Savvas Angelides was a partner, before his appointment as Minister of Defence in 2018.
According to Michaelides, this information takes on particular significance given that Savvas Angelides participated in the decision to suspend the criminal prosecution of Tal Dilian and his co-defendants.
The crucial question
This is precisely where the crucial question left behind by the termination of the new investigation lies: when the Legal Service argues that "everything the Authority wished to investigate has already been investigated," does that include the possible conflict of interest involving Savvas Angelides?
In other words, did Elias Stefanou's 2022 criminal investigation examine whether there was any issue of incompatibility or conflict of interest in relation to the handling of the case?
The answer to this question carries particular weight, since Savvas Angelides took part in the 2022 decision to suspend the criminal prosecutions, while he himself categorically denies all related allegations.
In a written statement dated 10/08/2022, he described the allegations linking him to Tal Dilian as baseless, "amounting to mudslinging aimed ultimately at damaging the Legal Service of the Republic and myself."
The question, therefore, is not only whether the black van case had been investigated in the past, but whether all the aspects the Anti-Corruption Authority sought to examine today have in fact been investigated. And, above all: had the specific issue of the possible conflict of interest involving Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides ever been investigated at all?
