Electronic data from a hotel Wi-Fi ticketing system has brought down a Famagusta receptionist, with the Court of Appeals upholding her conviction and six-month suspended sentence for stealing €765 in internet access revenue.
The woman was one of four hotel receptionists charged with skimming money from Wi-Fi access ticket sales, covering the period from April 30 to October 31, 2015. An economist and business consultant hired to investigate the losses cross-referenced the ticketing system’s electronic records with figures submitted to the hotel’s bookkeeping department, identifying hundreds of tickets that had been issued and used with no corresponding payment recorded.
The appellant was linked to 71 specific incidents during shifts when she worked alone at the reception desk. Of these, 51 involved €15 tickets — a total of €765. The court stressed that the conviction covered only cases where the tickets were proven to have been used and their fate was not in doubt.
The case was filed in 2016 but the first-instance verdict did not come until 2023. The defence argued the seven-year delay invalidated the proceedings on fair trial grounds, but the court rejected this unanimously, finding the duration justified by the complexity of the case, the volume of documents, extensive cross-examinations, requests for additional material, difficulties locating witnesses, and Covid-19 adjournments.
The court also dismissed defence claims that the electronic system was unreliable or that printer and equipment faults could account for the discrepancies, noting that all ambiguous cases had been excluded from the charges from the outset. A further argument — that the gap between key witness testimony and the verdict had undermined the assessment of witness credibility — was also rejected, the court pointing out that most testimony was already on record in written statements and exhibits.
The court found that the first-instance court had properly weighed the appellant’s clean criminal record, her health problems, and the time elapsed since the offences. It noted that similar cases had attracted significantly harsher sentences.
Finding no grounds to intervene, the court upheld the conviction and sentence in full.
Read more: