The defence lawyer for former Member of Parliament and businessman Christakis Giovanis, George Papaioannou, completed his final address before the Nicosia Criminal Court on Tuesday, attacking the prosecution for “manifest deception” of the defence.
The case stems from the golden passports scandal, exposed by a 2020 Al Jazeera undercover investigation that led to the resignations of both Giovanis and the then-Speaker of the House, Demetris Syllouris. Papaioannou argued that a blatant discrepancy existed between the case police investigated and the one tried in court, labelling it an “unacceptable shift of the case.”
Focus shifts from residency permit to financial criteria
Papaioannou charged that the prosecution concentrated its courtroom evidence on issues never investigated by the police, a move he stressed directly violated the right to a fair trial.
He stated that during the interrogation, the accused—Syllouris, Giovanis, and lawyer Andreas Pittadjis—were questioned exclusively on the investor’s failure to meet residency permit criteria, the explicit foundation of charges 2 and 3. Papaioannou noted that the police never posed questions about financial criteria, the Reservation Agreement, or payment receipts.
According to the defence, the prosecution built its court case specifically on these uninvestigated financial matters. Papaioannou stressed that when the indictments were filed, they contained no allegation of conspiracy to defraud related to the financial criteria of the fictitious investor, Nikolai Gornovski.
“This was decided along the way, without amending the indictment and with manifest deception of the defence,” Papaioannou argued.
Defence challenges absence of key figures
Papaioannou also raised serious concerns about “selective prosecution” and the absence of two key figures from the trial, contending their omission created evident gaps in testimony and distorted the facts.
The central point of his address was the absence of service provider Andreas Pittadjis, whom he described as holding a “protagonist role” in the case, serving as both Gornovski’s lawyer and Giovanis’s legal advisor. Pittadjis was a co-defendant in the first three indictments but was removed from the fourth indictment “without any explanation,” Papaioannou stated.
Papaioannou maintained that the evidence presented showed Pittadjis had a far more active and decisive role than the accused Giovanis, whose involvement was limited to signing the Reservation Agreement under the instruction of his legal advisor.
Furthermore, the naturalised investor, Nikolai Gornovski, was also absent from the indictment and, according to Papaioannou, “was not even questioned as a suspect.”
“The absence of both the service provider and the investor creates a one-sided and distorted picture of the case,” he argued.
Lawyer demands acquittal due to ‘lurking doubt’
Papaioannou concluded by arguing that the entire legal process violated the principles of a fair trial, forcing the defence to contend with charges that differed significantly from those initially investigated.
He introduced the concept of “lurking doubt,” arguing that the case was riddled with insurmountable flaws that would make any conviction “extremely erroneous” and “insecure.”
He requested the court to acquit Giovanis on all charges.
Prosecution seeks time to respond
The prosecution representative, Charis Karaolidou, requested time from the court to formulate a response to the fair trial and abuse claims raised by the two defence lawyers.
The court set a new hearing for tomorrow, Wednesday, at 09:30 for the prosecution’s response and will announce the date of its decision afterward.
Read more: