The Permanent Criminal Court of Nicosia on Tuesday acquitted former House President Dimitris Syllouris and former MP and businessman Christakis Giovani in the criminal case linked to the so-called “golden passports” scandal.
The majority ruling, extending to 170 pages, was delivered shortly after 10am. The court found that none of the three charges had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It identified substantial gaps in the prosecution’s evidence.
Presiding judge Nikolaos Georgiades clarified at the outset that the Al Jazeera documentary “Cyprus Papers” was not evidence in the trial. He said the final charges examined were not based on the content of the broadcast but on testimony formally presented before the court.
The case followed the October 2020 broadcast by Al Jazeera concerning the Cyprus Investment Programme. The programme was later withdrawn by the government. The court stressed that its assessment was confined strictly to admissible evidence.
Syllouris and Giovani faced three charges:
Trading in influence in relation to the naturalisation of Zeynê Armous, daughter of investor Ali Armous.
Conspiracy to defraud the Republic in relation to the naturalisation of investor Nikolai Gornovski.
Trading in influence in the Gornovski case. Both defendants were acquitted on all counts.
A minority opinion of the court addressed only the third charge. It stated that the evidence presented could have been sufficient to support a conviction on that count.
What the prosecution had to prove
The court set out the legal requirements for each offence. It emphasised three principles: the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal.
For the first charge, the prosecution had to prove that the defendants accepted a financial benefit from Ali Armous, personally or through their companies, in order to exert improper influence over a public official.
The court ruled that this had not been established. It said no evidence showed why Armous approached Fidescorp. Witnesses denied undue pressure. The approval and acceleration of the application were found to fall within the discretion of the authorities, including for humanitarian reasons.
Recorded phone calls did not prove corrupt intent. No improper benefit was demonstrated. The relationship between the defendants was not sufficient to establish trading in influence. The existence of presidential authorisation to promote investments created doubt as to corrupt intent.
Findings in the Gornovski case
For the third charge, the prosecution argued that the defendants received an improper advantage from Gornovski to influence the Director General of the Interior Ministry. The alleged aim was to secure an exemption from the residence permit requirement and approval without meeting all criteria.
The prosecution claimed that a property sale would only proceed if the exemption was granted, that payment had been falsely presented as completed and that influence was exerted to prevent the sale from collapsing.
The court rejected this position. It said the Reservation Agreement raised questions but did not prove fraud. The final agreements did not include a clause making completion dependent on an exemption. Funds were placed in a client account under the control of a lawyer. The court noted that no official from the Finance Ministry testified on whether this was acceptable practice under the programme. Payment confirmations were requested by lawyer Andreas Pittadjis.
The court found no proven involvement of Syllouris in these matters. No state witness reported undue pressure. No benefit beyond the property sale price was established. The employment of Dimitra Syllouri by the Giovani Group was not proven to conceal a benefit.
Conspiracy charge dismissed
On the second charge, conspiracy to defraud, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove an agreement between the defendants to deceive the Republic through unlawful means.
An agreement for a lawful purpose using lawful means does not amount to conspiracy, the court said. No fraudulent method was established.
Investigative gaps
The majority ruling highlighted investigative gaps. The defendants were not questioned about the Reservation Agreement or certain electronic correspondence during the investigation. The court found that there were evidential gaps and that these created a disadvantage for the defence.
Although concerns were raised about the right to a fair trial, the judge said the issue became academic following the acquittals.
The court also rejected a defence claim of abuse of process. It held that the decision to prosecute is a constitutional power of the Attorney General and that the non-prosecution of other individuals does not invalidate proceedings against specific persons. No improper motive was proven.
Changes to the indictment
Five charges were initially filed. During the trial, charges four and five, which were linked directly to the Al Jazeera publication, were suspended by the Legal Service.
The court recorded the full acquittal of Andreas Pittadjis and Antonis Antoniou. The remaining three charges proceeded only against Syllouris and Giovani.
The ruling also referred to the constitutional power of the Attorney General to enter a nolle prosequi, which is not subject to judicial review.
Absence of Finance Ministry testimony
The majority considered it significant that no official from the Finance Ministry gave evidence, although the ministry was responsible for assessing financial criteria under the Cyprus Investment Programme.
The court described this as a substantial gap in determining whether placing funds in a client account was acceptable practice and whether payment confirmations amounted to deception. It said this gap affected the assessment of the third charge.
The court confirmed that repeated phone calls were made from the office of the then House President to officials at the Interior Ministry. However, no witness reported undue pressure and no explicit unlawful instruction was proven. Accelerated handling of applications was found to fall within the discretion of the Council of Ministers.
Key emails were rejected as insufficient evidence. The court noted that no sender or recipient testified, authenticity was not fully verified and the material could not be used against co-defendants. The electronic correspondence was not capable of proving an agreement to commit an offence, the judge said.
The case was first filed in July 2022 before the Nicosia District Court for referral to the Criminal Court. The investigation was ordered by Attorney General Giorgos Savvides following the Al Jazeera broadcast. It lasted more than a year and extended abroad, where statements and evidence were collected.
With Tuesday’s ruling, the criminal proceedings conclude with the full acquittal of the two former officials.