Even if the Videogate criminal inquiry finds evidence of criminal offences, prosecutions are not guaranteed, lawyer Simos Angelides has warned, as the report of the independent criminal investigator is due to be handed to the State Prosecutor on June 16.
Angelides, commenting on the anticipated findings, noted that the contents of the report remain unknown until the process is complete, as the investigation by independent criminal investigator and former Supreme Court judge Andreas Paschalidis is still ongoing.
“Nobody can know what the report will contain, because the investigation is still in progress,” he said, adding that Paschalidis had broad powers to examine all aspects of the case, including the authenticity of the video in question, its origin, and the circumstances of its production and publication.
Angelides said the public should have access to the findings so it can evaluate both the investigator’s conclusions and the subsequent decisions of the Law Office. “It would be good to see the report in full, so that in the interest of transparency the public knows exactly what happened,” he said, adding that its publication would allow citizens to judge whether the Law Office’s subsequent decisions were consistent with its contents.
He described the scope of the investigation as particularly broad, covering matters that could involve the bribery of public officials, influencing a competent authority, possible corruption, abuse of power, and other potential offences related to money laundering.
Angelides also referred to the involvement of Israeli company Black Cube, which has been linked to the creation of the video at the centre of the case, saying questions remained that needed answers. “We need to establish why Black Cube was hired to produce this video, what the consideration was, and who the target was,” he said.
On the question of the legal value of audiovisual material gathered in the course of the case, Angelides said this was a matter for the criminal investigator to assess and was expected to be reflected in the report’s conclusions.
Asked about the possibility of prosecutions following the completion of the inquiry, he was explicit that the process was not automatic. “It is not a given or automatic that if the criminal investigator finds that certain criminal offences are prima facie established, the criminal case will proceed,” he said.
He drew on the case involving 14-year-old Stylianos as a precedent, noting that two independent criminal investigators had made findings in that case but the Law Office had nonetheless concluded that proceedings should not be brought against specific individuals, having determined at the evidence evaluation stage that the matter should not proceed further.
“In the present case too, the Law Office must, after receiving and studying the report, carry out its own evaluation. If it finds that criminal matters arise that warrant further investigation and that specific offences are established at a first stage, it must then consider both whether those offences are made out and, at a second stage, whether there are public interest grounds that would justify not pursuing the process further,” he said, adding that these were two distinct stages of evaluation by the Law Office and not an automatic process following the independent criminal investigator’s report.
(information from CNA)