The Criminal Court in Nicosia is delivering its verdict today in the golden passports case against former House president Dimitris Syllouris and former MP and land developer Christakis Giovanis.
The ruling is by majority and runs to 170 pages, sections of which are being read out by the presiding judge.
The court clarified that although Al Jazeera’s reporting prompted the investigation into the Citizenship by Investment Programme and led to the case being brought to trial, the charges are not linked to the video published by the broadcaster, as it was not submitted as evidence.
Syllouris and Tziovanis face charges including trading in influence, influencing in breach of articles of the Council of Europe convention and conspiracy to defraud under the Criminal Code. Both appeared calm and expressionless at the start of proceedings.
During the reading of the decision, the court made extensive reference to Andreas Pittadjis, against whom charges were withdrawn, and to the background that led to the suspension of proceedings in his case. It was also noted that messages exchanged between Pittadjis and an investor who was a witness were not submitted before the court.
Summaries of the closing submissions by the prosecution and the defence, which lasted three days, were read out.
The courtroom was packed with relatives of the two accused and journalists.
According to the prosecution, the two former officials used their institutional roles and influence to affect or expedite exceptional naturalisation procedures for foreign investors and businessmen.
The case is based, among other things, on the findings of the investigative committee chaired by Myron Nicolatos, which recorded serious weaknesses and omissions in the naturalisation programme and possible interventions in specific cases.
During the trial, the prosecution argued that key information had not been placed before the competent bodies, including the Council of Ministers, at the relevant time, which it said affected decision-making.
The defence rejected the charges, arguing that there had been an abuse of process and a violation of the defendants’ right to a fair trial.
Read more:
