The Supreme Court has rejected a well-known woman’s challenge to a warrant to search her flat, issued in a police investigation into an alleged drugs, protection and illegal gambling network said to be run by a prisoner at the Central Prisons.
Supreme Court judge Ioannides ruled that the evidence put before Nicosia District Court justified the warrant, finding there were sufficient grounds to search her home for evidence. The ruling does not amount to a finding of guilt against anyone involved.
Police are investigating repeated offences of drug trafficking and dealing, providing protection and offering illegal gambling services, which they say generate large sums of money, according to the evidence set out in the ruling. They allege that the mastermind is a prisoner who continued to coordinate activities from the Central Prisons using a smartphone with a UK number.
The evidence describes the woman, who is said to be in a relationship with the prisoner, as the person who received, kept and distributed money on his instructions or in agreement with him. According to the sworn statement of a police officer supporting the warrant application, the money was collected by a third person and then handed to her.
Police allege that about 50,000 euros a week was moved, and estimate that close to 1 million euros was collected over the previous six months. Part of the money was allegedly meant for her personal expenses, the beauty salon she runs, payments to the prisoner’s associates and other people said to be involved.
According to the same evidence, money was kept in several places, including her flat, other suspects’ homes and a jewellery shop. Police also claimed she used mobile phones to stay in constant contact with the prisoner through calls, video calls and messages on encrypted apps such as WhatsApp and Signal.
The sworn statement further alleged that she worked with three prison guards, paying them to secure favourable treatment for the prisoner. According to the allegations recorded in the ruling, this included bringing drugs and other substances into the prison and tipping him off about upcoming searches so he could hide illegal items. On one occasion, the statement claims, she handed 1,000 euros to a guard in the presence of a police informant.
Police described the informant as a highly reliable source with direct knowledge of the events through a relationship with the woman’s family and access to her beauty salon and family circle.
The woman sought to have the warrant quashed through an order of certiorari, arguing among other things that there was not enough evidence linking her flat to the offences or showing that a search was necessary. The Supreme Court had initially granted leave for the application, finding that it raised issues about whether the evidence was sufficient.
Ruling on the substance, however, Ioannides found that the sworn statement contained specific details and incidents, not just general references or conclusions. While an informant’s identity need not be revealed, he said, there must be sufficient indication of where the information came from and how it was obtained.
Her alleged role in handling money and using mobile phones, together with information that some of the money was kept in her flat, could give reasonable cause to believe evidence was there, the court found. On necessity, the judge pointed to the seriousness of the case, the number of people allegedly involved and the risk that money and other evidence could be hidden or destroyed if searches were not carried out immediately.
The court dismissed the application and ordered the woman to pay the costs, to be assessed by the Registrar and approved by the court.
