The name of former President of the Republic Nicos Anastasiades appears in most of the cases examined by the Anti-Corruption Authority in its report on “Mafia State,” the book by Makarios Drousiotis.
From the arrest of Elena Rybolovleva and the Focus case to the granting of Archbishopric land, the Pandora Papers and the citizenship-by-investment scheme, the report records allegations of possible criminal offences relating to abuse of power and influence peddling.
Philenews compiled all the cases bearing the former president’s name in the report, which was published on Tuesday.
The Rybolovleva arrest
According to the report, Anastasiades is named in connection with allegations of a coordinated operation said to have been organised to secure Elena Rybolovleva’s arrest in Cyprus, amid disputes arising from the financial terms of her divorce from Dmitry Rybolovlev.
The former president had a close relationship with the late founder and partner of law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co, who acted as Rybolovlev’s legal adviser in Cyprus. According to the report, Anastasiades is alleged to have acted as a passive trader, or influence peddler, meaning a person who received or accepted an undue advantage in order to exert, or offer to exert, improper influence over public officials’ decision-making.
Archbishopric land grant
Drousiotis alleges that the purchase of a property in Limassol from the Church of Cyprus by Andri Anastasiades, wife of the then president, formed part of a wider pattern of dealings between the then president and the Archbishopric.
According to the allegation, a contract for the property’s purchase was published by Phileleftheros in April 2014. Drousiotis claims the purchase price was low for the area and size of the property, and links the sale to the then president’s relationship with the late Archbishop Chrysostomos II, alleging the Archbishop frequently made financial requests of the president, which were usually granted.
Drousiotis also refers to an earlier Cabinet decision approving the granting of state land of significant value in Ayia Napa to the Archbishopric, as compensation for church land in Engomi expropriated by the state. He claims this land grant was illegal or irregular, since, in his view, the Archbishopric was only entitled to monetary compensation rather than land, and presents the two events as linked.
The Focus case and DISY funding
The report records allegations by Drousiotis concerning funding via Focus Maritime, said to be linked to payments to political figures and parties following the 2013 financial crisis and the collapse of Laiki Bank.
According to Drousiotis, 2014 press reports referred to funding of political parties, including DISY, totalling €500,000, of which he alleges only €50,000 was officially declared, with the remainder said to have been channelled through intermediary companies. He claims an initial instruction for a €500,000 transfer to DISY was later cancelled and replaced by two transactions: €50,000 to the party and €450,000 to a company in Greece, the latter sum allegedly ending up, via other companies, in a Cypriot shell company.
Drousiotis disputes the version that the funds were used for voters’ plane tickets, arguing there is insufficient evidence for this. He further alleges that a further €100,000 was paid beyond the €500,000, which was not documented as reaching DISY but may have been channelled to private individuals.
Inspectors said they found no evidence that the €450,000 reached former President Anastasiades’s personal accounts. However, they concluded that a possible offence of abuse of power may have occurred, citing among other things contacts between the then president and the then Attorney General during the investigation, in which he requested that the inquiries be terminated.
Bank kickbacks
The report contains an allegation of tax evasion by former President Anastasiades and the law firm Nicos Chr. Anastasiades & Partners, through undeclared income from commissions received from Cypriot banks for referring clients. According to the allegation, these sums were channelled abroad without being declared or taxed in Cyprus.
Inspectors concluded, based on the standard of proof applied by the Authority, that there are sufficient indications pointing to possible acts of corruption. The report attributes possible criminal liability to Anastasiades for the offence of influence peddling, stating that while he held the position of MP and concurrently Leader of DISY, he is alleged to have abused influence he may have held over others’ decision-making, acting as an influence peddler, and sought to have a transaction with Laiki Bank misleadingly classified in order to conceal its true nature and beneficiary.
Specifically, the report alleges that, exploiting banks’ practice of paying commission for referred clients, he received sums from Laiki Bank to support his 2013 presidential election campaign under the guise of such commissions, which were misleadingly recorded in the bank’s books as “introducer fees.” By receiving these sums, which constitute an irregular advantage, the report states Anastasiades is implicated in passive influence peddling. Possible criminal offences are also attributed to the law firm Nicos Chr. Anastasiades & Partners and to Stathis Lemis and Fanos Filippou.
Passports and jets
The report records allegations of money laundering by former President Anastasiades and the law firm Nicos Chr. Anastasiades & Partners, through offshore shell companies and the concealment of beneficial owners, along with allegations of misleading statements regarding his inactive participation in the firm after 1997.
Inspectors examined reports by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP, 2019) and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ, Pandora Papers, 2021), which referred to the movement of money through offshore structures and possible involvement by the law firm in high-risk transactions.
According to the findings, the firm is alleged to have acted as an introducer for Cypriot banks, receiving significant commissions, part of which was directed through companies in the British Virgin Islands. The report also notes that Anastasiades retained a supervisory role at the firm until 2013, despite public statements describing his involvement as “silent participation.”
The report further refers to a €250,000 payment from Laiki Bank which, according to testimony, allegedly appeared as a commission through fictitious invoices and an offshore company, and which is being examined as possible political financing. Regarding the Unit for Combating Money Laundering (MOKAS), the report notes that the unit investigated the allegations but concluded no criminal conduct had arisen, a decision adopted by the then Attorney General.
Inspectors note, however, that there were indications which would have justified further investigation, and refer to a public intervention by the former president to MOKAS requesting that complaints be investigated.
The report’s conclusion on this case states that these actions may constitute abuse of power or attempted abuse of power, due to the possible use of institutional influence for personal vindication and protection of public image. Inspectors concluded there are sufficient indications of possible acts of corruption.
The Pandora Papers case
The Anti-Corruption Authority’s report on the Pandora Papers records allegations of money laundering of proceeds from illegal activities through offshore companies, as well as allegations of concealment of beneficial owners and misleading statements regarding former President Anastasiades’s role at the law firm Nicos Chr. Anastasiades & Partners.
Inspectors examined material from the ICIJ’s Pandora Papers investigation, noting that the law firm is alleged to have acted as an intermediary for managing offshore structures and serving high-net-worth clients through shell companies in jurisdictions including the British Virgin Islands. According to the findings, the report examines naturalisation cases involving Russian investors, in which the firm had a role in the application process, raising questions over transparency, verification of the origin of funds and the approval procedure.
The report also notes that Anastasiades, before his election to the presidency, is alleged to have had personal involvement in processes concerning the firm’s clients, as well as contacts with government officials on naturalisation cases. Particular reference is made to the naturalisation case of Leonid Lebedev and his family, examining approval procedures and policy amendments, along with complaints about omissions in documents and possible concealment of information.
The report additionally refers to a case involving payment of a financial benefit through offshore structures, said to relate to income presented as commissions, along with allegations of fictitious invoices and possible political financing.
In its final conclusion, the report states that there are sufficient indications of possible offences including abuse of power, influence peddling, perjury and money laundering, without attributing definitive criminal liability, with the matters instead referred for further examination by the Attorney General.
The Dromolaxia property
The Anti-Corruption Authority’s report examines complaints of improper interventions by former President Anastasiades in a property development case in Dromolaxia, in favour of a private company. According to the allegations, then-MP Giorgos Varnava is said to have played an active role in promoting the company’s interests.
The property in question, covering 3,113 donums, was registered as a waqf and administered by the Guardian of Turkish Cypriot Properties. A private company had concluded a long-term lease agreement for its development, which was not accepted by the competent authorities.
According to the report, a meeting subsequently took place in September 2013 involving state officials and company representatives, aimed at finding a solution. Inspectors record that the initiative for the meeting and the promotion of the company’s interests are attributed to Varnava.
Although no evidence emerges that the former president made any commitment or took improper action during the meeting, the report states that he later intervened with the then Attorney General, requesting that the case be reviewed and the company’s position on ownership of the property be supported.
The report also refers to instructions for the handling of documents related to the case via the Presidential Palace, as well as an incident involving a person’s crossing from the occupied north, which Inspectors link, on a balance of probabilities, to presidential intervention, though without establishing a legal basis for such action.
Inspectors reject Varnava’s position that he had no involvement, recording further contacts he had with the Attorney General to advance the case. The process for registering the lease agreement ultimately did not go ahead.
In its conclusion, the report states that possible liabilities for abuse of power, or attempted abuse of power, arise on the part of the former president, noting that his actions fell outside the institutional powers assigned to him under the Constitution.
Read more: