Cyprus' Anti-Corruption Authority is preparing to proceed with an investigation into the black surveillance van case following recent developments that have reopened questions surrounding the original inquiry.
The move follows Attorney General George Savvides' acknowledgement that allegations concerning the involvement of Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides, specifically claims of a conflict of interest, were not examined by criminal investigator Elias Stefanou during the original investigation.
Scope of inquiry to be expanded
According to information obtained by Politis, the authority does not intend to limit its review to the allegations involving Angelides.
Instead, it is expected to examine all aspects of the black van case that were not investigated during the 2021 criminal inquiry.
Among the issues likely to be considered is new information that emerged in Greece, where individuals linked to the case were convicted in relation to the interception of communications involving politicians, ministers, MPs and other state officials.
Those convicted reportedly include Tal Dilian, the owner of the surveillance van and a former Mossad operative.
The Greek convictions are viewed as a significant development that did not exist during the original Cypriot investigation and have strengthened calls for a review of the case.
Legal opinion to be sought
Before formally launching an investigation, the Anti-Corruption Authority has decided to seek a legal opinion from an external law firm concerning Article 10 of the legislation governing its operation.
The request follows differing legal interpretations regarding when the authority may suspend or terminate an investigation because of a parallel criminal inquiry.
Debate over Article 10
Article 10 of the law establishing the Anti-Corruption Authority provides that where a criminal investigation into alleged corruption is being conducted by police or a criminal investigator, the authority must refrain from initiating or continuing a parallel investigation once notified by the Attorney General.
The authority is also entitled to receive updates from the Attorney General on the progress of such cases.
However, in the black van case, the criminal investigation concluded approximately four years ago.
For that reason, legal observers have questioned whether Article 10 could properly be relied upon to prevent the authority from conducting its own investigation after the criminal process had already ended.
Clarifying powers for future cases
Legal circles argue that the legislation prohibits concurrent investigations rather than investigations launched after the completion of criminal proceedings.
The authority is therefore seeking clarification on this point before proceeding.
The legal opinion is expected to serve as an important precedent for future cases involving potential overlaps between criminal investigations and the authority's own corruption inquiries.
Previous precedent cited
Supporters of a renewed investigation point to the case involving Marinos Sizopoulos, in which the Anti-Corruption Authority conducted its own inquiry after the conclusion of a criminal investigation.
That review reportedly uncovered information not previously identified by police or the Legal Service, leading to new developments in a case that had earlier been considered closed.
The authority's final decision on the black van investigation is expected after it receives the legal opinion on the interpretation of Article 10.
