Six months after Cyprus discovered the name ‘Emily Thompson’ and an eight-minute video alleging a network of corruption and ‘pay-to-access’ practices between business interests and political figures, criminal investigator Andreas Paschalides says he found no criminal wrongdoing among Cypriots involved.
The apparent target was not private interests, as the makers of the video had previously suggested, but the Republic of Cyprus itself, argues Paschalides in an announcement released on Monday.
The criminal investigator points the finger at a particular country without naming it, saying the controversial video bore all the hallmarks of a specific campaign launched in 2021, which, among other things, targets EU member states.
His attention now turns to identifying the client of the company Black Cube, which undertook production of the infamous video, along with their aims and motives.
The full report, along with the independent criminal investigator’s recommendations and reservations, is now in the hands of the Legal Service for assessment.
The Attorney General’s office on Monday also announced approval of the request to extend Paschalides’ mandate to 31 December 2026 with a focus on identifying the client, their aims and motives.
The history – A rocky start to EU Presidency
The eight-minute video was uploaded on the X account of ‘Emily Thompson’ on 8 January 2026 – the day after Cyprus officially launched its EU Presidency.
The video combines AI-voiced narration with covertly recorded conversations between individuals presenting themselves as investors and three prominent figures from Cypriot public and business life – former Energy Minister Giorgos Lakkotrypis, Cyfield CEO Giorgos Chrysochou and Charalambos Charalambous, then Director of the President’s Office.
The narrator alleges favouritism remains entrenched in Cyprus, raising claims of corruption, illegal campaign financing linked to the presidential election of Nikos Christodoulides and mechanisms of privileged access.
The Presidential Palace rejected the allegations, claiming “hybrid interference” while Lakkotrypis and Chrysochou argued the video was manipulated to present dialogue out of context.
Maintaining his innocence, Charalambous resigned four days later while the First Lady’s Social Support Fund – given significant mention in the video – was wound down, its responsibilities transferred to another body.
Video maker
On 10 April 2026, Politis revealed the company behind the ‘Emma Thompson’ video as being Black Cube – a private intelligence company founded in 2011 by veterans of elite Israeli intelligence units.
On the same day, Black Clube responded to Politis, confirming its role in the operation.
In its email, the company said it provides services “exclusively to clients engaged in business activities worldwide, supporting litigations, arbitrations, and white-collar crime cases” such as fraud, corruption and asset dissipation.
Black Cube suggested Cyfield was the target of its elaborate operation, which involved Cypriot protagonists meeting with so-called investors in Amsterdam and London.
“Corruption is a phenomenon that harms economies and impedes legitimate business activity. Black Cube is proud to have uncovered corruption carried out by Cyfield in Cyprus and to help facilitate a cleaner business environment,” it said.
“Black Cube has engaged with Cypriot authorities and is confident they will reach the truth and bring those responsible to justice,” it added.
Black Cube
The company website boasts a portfolio of more than 540 cases across 75 countries, utilising agents that speak 30 languages.
Its team reportedly includes former intelligence officers, lawyers and operatives with experience in Israeli intelligence agencies. Agents are said to operate as “social engineers”, constructing complex scenarios designed to gather evidence in international litigation and financial crime investigations.
Black Cube states that it uses undercover identities and realistic scenarios to expose unlawful practices and collect evidence. The company claims its operations comply with the laws of the jurisdictions in which they take place while the findings are intended only for lawful use.
Controversial operations
The company has faced criticism in several cases internationally.
According to the Associated Press, in March 2026, Slovenia’s intelligence service confirmed what it described as “indisputable foreign interference” in the country’s parliamentary elections. A government statement referred to evidence allegedly linking Black Cube activities to counter-intelligence operations and foreign interference.
Politico reported that agents of the company were accused of leaking recordings aimed at undermining the government of then Prime Minister Robert Golob by linking it to corruption allegations.
The company has also been associated with other high-profile cases internationally, including the Harvey Weinstein investigation.
The Paschalides report
The independent criminal investigator, working with a police investigative team, delivered his findings to the Attorney General last Friday.
In brief, Paschalides finds that the eight-minute video released on 8 January 2026 is not authentic but the product of editing and manipulation. “Apart from constituting the product of unconstitutional acts and therefore inadmissible evidence, it is of negligible, if any, evidential value,” he says in his announcement.
He notes that the video’s creator is a foreign private company operating worldwide – in exchange for substantial fees – in the field of intelligence gathering and information services. The investigation team is aware of the identities of the company agents used for the creation of the Cyprus video, says Paschalides.
Immunity
The investigator further notes that he studied the 26-hour long “authentic video”, which, beyond the three Cypriot figures seen in the short video, also features “other personalities from the country’s political and business life, both present and past”.
The lengthy footage was obtained through the intervention of the Attorney General and his Deputy, after immunity was granted for reasons of public interest to those involved in the video’s production, “including any associates, employees or officers of the clients ... exclusively in relation to offences arising from the above actions, including offences that may arise under the Personal Data Protection Law”.
'Hybrid attack' on Cyprus Republic
In terms of the video’s purpose, Paschalides states: “The apparent aim of the production/creation of the video was to harm the Republic of Cyprus rather than private interests.”
He notes the timing of its release, the manner of its posting – which “bore all the characteristics of a specific campaign originating from a particular country, which began in 2021 with the aim, among other things, of targeting Member States of the European Union, without excluding another country hostile to Cyprus” – and the fact individuals were given different scenarios relating to investments in Cyprus “which, when assessed, do not appear, at least at this stage, to be consistent with the company’s position regarding the motives of its client”.
As things currently stand, the criminal investigator concludes that “the video constitutes a form of hybrid attack aimed at harming the Cypriot State”.
No violations of criminal code found
In terms of the five main allegations arising from the longer “authentic video”, Paschalides addresses each one, noting that a thorough investigation into each did not reveal anything improper or violations of the Criminal Code by the Cypriot ‘protagonists’ involved.
However, he leaves the door slightly ajar, with reservations, for potential violations of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Ratification) Law 23(III)/2000
Paschalides also notes that various agreements (confidentiality and service agreements) were signed between three of the Cypriot protagonists and the purported investors, pursuant to which two of those Cypriot protagonists derived financial benefits.
Interestingly, the investigator concludes that what some of the Cypriot protagonists are heard saying in the video “amounts to nothing more than empty talk and ‘boastful exaggerations’ intended to create an impression about themselves for the purpose of obtaining personal financial gain, which some of them had already begun to receive”.
Finding the source
The former supreme court judge notes he could not identify the client behind the video.
“It is evident that revealing the identity of the company’s client would shed light on the mystery surrounding this aspect of the case and, in particular, would lead to the full disclosure of the client’s objectives and motives,” he says.
Paschalides now has until the end of the year to shed light on this aspect.
