The Anti-Corruption Authority has adopted findings pointing to possible criminal liability of former President Nicos Anastasiades in a series of cases spanning from Focus and bank commissions to passports, private jets and property in Dromolaxia.
In total, the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority’s announcement links the former President to seven instances of potential criminal offences following its investigation into Makarios Drousiotis’ book Mafia State. According to the Authority’s detailed account, Mr Anastasiades is attributed – always in terms of possible criminal liability and on the balance of probabilities – with three cases of trading in influence, one case of abuse of power amounting to a felony, and three cases of abuse of power at misdemeanour level or attempted commission of an offence.
The Authority stresses that its procedure does not equate to a criminal conviction. The standard of proof applied was the “balance of probabilities”, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in court, and it underlines that the courts are the final arbiter of guilt. The report and evidentiary material will be forwarded to the Attorney General, while tax-related matters will be sent to the Tax Commissioner.
Focus: €550,000 not substantiated, but abuse of power issue emerges
Regarding the Focus case, Inspectors found no evidence substantiating the claim that €450,000 ended up in Mr Anastasiades’ personal accounts. Instead, they concluded that the amount was used to cover airfare expenses for DISY voters in the 2008 presidential election. Nor did they find sufficient evidence that another €100,000 was deposited into the former President’s personal account or that his law firm issued a retrospective invoice to justify the payment.
Despite this, the Authority adopts a finding that a potential offence of abuse of power arises. This is based on testimony that, while the Focus investigation was ongoing, the former President met and spoke by telephone with then Attorney General Costas Clerides, expressing strong dissatisfaction with the course of the investigation and requesting that inquiries be halted. According to the Authority, testimony suggesting possible personal or political benefit from terminating an investigation that could have exposed his involvement in securing funding for DISY may amount to abuse of power at felony level.
Bank ‘commissions’ and the €250,000
The chapter concerning bank commissions is described as particularly serious. The Authority records that the law firm Nicos Chr. Anastasiades & Partners was among the largest intermediaries for the Bank of Cyprus and received significant sums as commissions. Despite claims that Mr Anastasiades was a “silent partner”, Inspectors state that documents from the partnership and the Registrar of Companies indicate that, until his resignation in February 2013, he retained overall responsibility for overseeing operations.
The key finding concerns a €250,000 transaction from Laiki Bank, which Inspectors say appeared to be intended as financial support for the 2013 election campaign and was misleadingly presented as a fee or commission through two fictitious invoices. In this respect, the Authority attributes to the law firm a potential case of trading in influence, in its capacity as a “passive” seller of influence, as it is alleged to have received an improper advantage.
OCCRP, MOKAS and public intervention
In the section on passports and jets, the first part relates to a 2019 OCCRP report on the so-called “Troika Laundromat” and links between the law firm Nicos Anastasiades & Partners and suspicious transactions. The Authority notes that the then President publicly called on MOKAS, the Unit for Combating Money Laundering, to investigate the allegations.
Inspectors consider that the use of the presidential office in a matter concerning his personal interests, as well as those of a private company bearing his name – whose shareholders were his two daughters – raises serious concerns of arbitrary institutional intervention and abuse of power. According to the Authority, the public intervention could establish potential criminal liability for misdemeanour abuse of power or attempted commission of the offence.
Naturalisations, law firm clients and private jets
The second part concerns the Pandora Papers and the naturalisation of Russian clients of the Anastasiades law firm. The Authority refers specifically to the cases of Alexander Abramov and Leonid Lebedev, noting that before his election as President, Mr Anastasiades was an MP and leader of DISY and had a personal meeting with the then Minister of the Interior regarding the progress of a naturalisation application for a private client of the firm.
The Authority concludes that this intervention may constitute abuse or attempted abuse of power, as well as trading in influence. The same section also refers to irregularities in the Lebedev file, financial benefit for the law firm, and the free use in 2013 by Mr Anastasiades of a private luxury jet belonging to Mr Lebedev.
The Dromolaxia property
A separate section addresses the Dromolaxia property case. The allegations concerned alleged improper interventions by Mr Anastasiades, as President of the Republic, to promote the interests of a private company seeking to develop land registered as vakif (endowed property), and therefore classified as Turkish Cypriot property under the management of the Interior Minister as Guardian.
The Authority records that after the Land Registry and then Interior Minister Socratis Hasikos refused to register a lease agreement, the private company approached Mr Anastasiades for assistance. A meeting followed on 3 September 2013 involving, among others, the former President, ministers, then Assistant Attorney General Rikkos Erotokritou, company representatives and then MP Giorgos Varnava.
Inspectors note that no evidence was presented showing that the former President promised or did anything improper during that meeting. However, they conclude that Mr Anastasiades intervened in the duties of then Attorney General Costas Clerides to promote the company’s request, and also attribute to him intervention or instructions regarding the unlawful passage of Suzanne Dikratz from the occupied areas to the government-controlled areas. The Authority concludes that the interventions appear to have been made in good faith and without personal gain, but did not fall within the duties of the President of the Republic.
Next step: the Attorney General
The case now moves to the Legal Service level. The Anti-Corruption Authority does not issue criminal verdicts but forwards its material to the Attorney General for evaluation. Politically, however, the weight of the announcement is already significant: for the first time, a single official document systematically records potential criminal liabilities of a former President across a network of cases touching on the relationship between political power, private interests, banks, naturalisations, investigations and institutional interventions.
Read the full announcement of the Anti-Corruption Authority here (in Greek).
