The Criminal Court in Nicosia acquitted former House president Demetris Syllouris and businessman and former MP Christakis Giovani in the “golden passports” case, with the majority ruling that prosecutors failed to prove the core elements of trading in influence and conspiracy.
Judges pointed to missing “essential” witnesses whom the prosecution did not call and did not explain, as well as evidence the court said was never placed before it, including messages exchanged between Andreas Pittatzis and an investor who testified.
The case stems from scrutiny of the Cyprus Investment Programme, an investor citizenship scheme that came under international criticism after an Al Jazeera investigation in 2020.
The court said the Al Jazeera report triggered the investigation, but stressed the broadcaster’s video was not evidence in the trial and the court could not draw “judicial knowledge” from its contents.
The court heard three charges: two counts of trading in influence and one count of conspiracy to defraud. The verdict was not unanimous.
Tudge M.K. Loizou dissented, saying she would have convicted on the third charge but would acquit on the first two.
On the first trading-in-influence count, the majority said the prosecution did not establish key parts of its narrative, including why an investor turned to a specific firm to promote an application and the circumstances that led to the application being accepted and expedited.
The judges said two witnesses denied any undue pressure from any person.
The court said claims of “pressing phone calls” would only matter if they were accompanied by specific evidence of what constituted improper influence, adding that seeking an update on an application’s progress is not, by itself, improper.
What was required, the judges said, was proof of an intent to corrupt, which they found had not been shown.
The majority also said the relationship between the accused and the fact that a particular firm was involved did not, on their own, prove that either man received an improper advantage.
It warned that concluding an investor approached the firm because Syllouris would “help” would amount to speculation on the evidence before the court.
On the third count, the majority again said the evidence did not support the prosecution’s claim that the accused accepted an improper advantage in return for influence.
The judges said the offence requires a benefit, and that in the circumstances described there was nothing beyond the sale price.
They also noted that witnesses did not say they had been subjected to undue pressure, and questioned gaps in evidence about how decisions were taken on the financial criteria.
For the conspiracy charge, the majority said it was not proven there was an agreement to defraud the Republic or to achieve a lawful aim through unlawful means.
The court also referred to “substantial investigative gaps”, including that the accused were not questioned about the “Reservation Agreement” and related email correspondence.
It said this meant they faced those issues during trial without having been interviewed on them earlier, a factor the majority said it took into account when assessing the evidence as a whole.