Former President Nicos Anastasiades has become the first prominent figure to be questioned by investigators in the Sandy affair, as the probe expands to include former ministers, former judges and former officials named in messages that have either been made public or handed to police.
Investigators met Anastasiades at his Limassol office two days ago, according to information received, questioning him on specific messages and references that implicate him in the context of the case. He is reported to have said he does not know why his name was used in the relevant communications that came to light. Asked about the Rosicrucian Brotherhood — a central element of the investigation — he said the only brotherhood he knows is “that of the inappropriate.”
In statements on CyBC’s “Enimerosi Tora” programme, Anastasiades addressed claims by Drousiotis directly. “Drousiotis says that at the moment I commented that we are being monitored, Dan Dilian called. It is both to laugh at and cry about,” he said. Asked whether he handed anything to police, Anastasiades said he never used his mobile phone while serving as President, and that he made calls on his personal device only with caller ID hidden.
State of the investigation
Investigators are examining all major aspects of the case. According to information received, no allegation has so far been substantiated. Investigators are finding indications that most of the claims appear to have been fabricated by Sandy, who is believed to have taken a kernel of truth and wrapped it in stories sourced from the internet. One area investigators are seeking to clarify is how names that would not be expected to be known to an ordinary member of the public — such as Giorgos Mylonakis, Dan Dilian and Morfakis Solomonidis — appeared in Sandy’s communications.
Investigators also want to examine claims relating to the Rosicrucian Brotherhood, through which large sums of money are alleged to have been channelled. So far, no one questioned has said they know of or have heard of such a brotherhood.
Bank data is being expected on accounts held by individuals named as having moved money abroad through Sandy, which investigators expect will clarify that aspect of the case. Meanwhile, SMS messages sent for analysis to Europol remain outstanding, and FBI agents are expected to arrive to analyse depositions and build a profile of Sandy.
Supreme Court reserves judgment on Clerides warrant challenge
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on Wednesday on an application by lawyer Nicos Clerides for leave to file a request to annul the search warrant issued for his premises in the context of the Sandy affair. The application also seeks to bar police from processing data retrieved in the search until the substance of the case is heard.
Christos Clerides, one of the lawyers representing the applicant, described the case as particularly serious, arguing it concerns a search of a law office and therefore directly engages lawyer-client privilege. He argued that among the safeguards a court must impose when issuing such a warrant is the appointment of a third party, a member of the Cyprus Bar Association, to supervise its execution — a safeguard he said was not put in place. He further argued that the conditions set in the warrant amounted to a repetition of existing legislation rather than substantive protections.
Christos Clerides also raised the cloning of Nicos Clerides’s personal phone, arguing it amounts to access to his entire correspondence — both with clients and personally — and is a particularly serious matter given that Clerides handles cases in which police are the opposing party, citing the Andriana Nicolaou case as an example.
Alexandros Clerides focused on whether the police sworn statement provided sufficient connection between the premises searched and the offences under investigation.
He argued that facilitating police inquiries is not in itself sufficient to justify such a warrant, particularly given that Nicos Clerides had already been in contact with authorities. He also challenged whether the District Court had been satisfied in the manner required by law as to the conditions for issuing the warrant.
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment at the conclusion of the hearing.
Read more: