‘Black van’: Anti-Corruption Authority’s account leaves AG’s version exposed

Local corruptionIndependent Authority against Corruptionlaw officesurveillanceTop News ‘Black van’: Anti-Corruption Authority’s account leaves AG’s version exposed 'black Van' Anti Corruption Authority's Account Leaves Ag's Version Exposed Relevant News “Sandy case”: Drousiotis, Kyriakou referred to December criminal trial 16 September 2026 ‘Black van’: Anti-Corruption Authority’s account leaves AG’s version exposed 16 September 2026 BirdLife, CABS shut out as parliament debates poaching, targeting activists 16 September 2026 Fanis Makrides 16 September 2026 FacebookXWhatsAppEmailPrintViber The Independent Authority against Corruption has directly disputed Attorney General George Savvides’s account of the closure of its “black van” surveillance investigation, saying it explicitly told him at a July 29 meeting that it would examine a potential conflict of interest involving Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides, his close associate. In a statement issued yesterday shortly before 09:00, the Authority denied claims Savvides made in a written statement last Monday, in which he indicated, without stating it outright, that the Authority had not informed him it would investigate possible incompatibility matters concerning Angelides — matters he said “did not concern the Law Office’s handling of the case.” In a second, consecutive statement issued yesterday, the Authority pushed back further, saying a meeting was arranged at Law Office premises on July 29 to clarify the scope of the investigation, and that it was made clear at that meeting the inquiry would cover Angelides’s possible incompatibility. The July 29 meeting To support its account, the Authority listed those present at the meeting, including Savvides himself, and said that once it became clear the investigation would extend to Angelides, he left the room to avoid a conflict of interest given his position as Deputy Attorney General. The Authority’s statement said the meeting was attended, on the Law Office’s side, by Savvides, Angelides, a prosecutor and a senior counsel of the Republic, and on its own side by the Transparency Commissioner, an Authority member and a legal associate. It said its intention to include Angelides in the investigation was known “from that moment at least, if not earlier.” Five hours later Savvides responded roughly five hours later, seeking to present a different picture and maintain his original position — that the Authority had informed him only of the issues it would investigate in relation to the black van and wiretapping case, and that this did not include matters concerning Angelides. He referred to classified letters exchanged with the Authority but offered nothing substantial to rebut its account of what was discussed at the meeting, which formed the Authority’s central argument. His only related comment was that the Authority’s new statement used “fragmented and selective” portions of the July 29 discussion. Savvides said the Authority’s July 16 letter did not set out its intentions in general terms, as it claimed in yesterday’s statement, but instead included the exact, detailed terms of reference for the investigators it intended to appoint — investigators the Authority had said would begin work on August 3, 2026. He added that those terms of reference made no mention of how the Law Office had handled the case, and said that if the Authority still maintained its position, it could declassify its own letter, remove the names it contained, and publish it. Savvides said his letter of July 30, 2026, had answered each of the Authority’s terms of reference in turn, explaining that all had been investigated and setting out the outcome for each one. The July 30 letter Savvides also addressed directly what the Authority had said about his July 30 letter, saying it contained “no reference to a possible investigation against the Deputy Attorney General,” and questioning how the Authority had concluded the letter implied Angelides had been investigated. He said that in previous cases where the Authority intended to investigate complaints against the Deputy Attorney General, this had been explicitly stated in its letters, and questioned how the Authority had concluded — as stated in paragraph seven of its own statement — that the 2023 complaints against Angelides had already been covered by the police and independent criminal investigator’s inquiry, given that the black van case investigation had concluded back in 2021. Yesterday’s developments prompted fresh criticism of Savvides. MP Irene Charalambidou, speaking on the “Aichmes” programme hosted by journalist Sotiris Paroutis, said Savvides gave the impression of shielding his close associate. Public debate also focused yesterday on Article 10 of the law governing the Anti-Corruption Authority. Under an interpretation recently given by both Savvides and the Authority, a case that has already been investigated in the past cannot be reinvestigated; Savvides said in his written statement earlier this week that this reflected the framework for applying Article 10 of Law 19(I)/2022, which prevents corruption cases being investigated multiple times. However, other legal experts reject this interpretation. Lawyer Simos Angelides — a different figure from Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides — set out his position for a second consecutive day, telling journalists Christos Michalaros (Sigma) and Tasos Christodoulou (CyBC) that Article 10’s only real restriction is that two investigations cannot run in parallel, pointing to the article’s reference to “parallel action.” He cited the case of Taxan and Marinos Sizopoulos, in which a criminal investigation was carried out without going to court, only for the case to be reopened years later once the Anti-Corruption Authority investigated it. Separately, lawyer Achilles Emilianides proposed setting up an investigative committee. Speaking on the programme hosted by Katia Savva (Alpha Enimerosi), Emilianides said the Council of Ministers could appoint such a committee with a mandate “to investigate the political questions arising” from the wider issue of surveillance, espionage and wiretapping. He added that, unlike the findings of a criminal investigation, the findings of investigative committees are published, because the political damage caused is serious enough that “only through transparency can true catharsis come to society.” Background The “black van” case takes its name from a vehicle whose existence came to light through a Forbes advertorial; it was fitted with systems capable of intercepting data from mobile phone users. It has been linked to two Israeli businessmen active in the surveillance industry, Avraham Shahak Avni and Tal Dilian, both of whom had extensive activity in Cyprus. The original criminal investigation resulted in a fine for a company linked to Dilian’s interests. Avni and Dilian later both featured in the Predator spyware case in Greece, whose first victims were journalist Thanasis Koukakis and PASOK leader Nikos Androulakis; Dilian was convicted at first instance in Greece, with an appeal still pending. Philenews has previously documented, through a series of reports, a wider pattern of links between Avni, Dilian and Cypriot officials, of which today’s conflict-of-interest allegations involving Angelides form part. Subscribe to our Newsletter Latest News “Sandy case”: Drousiotis, Kyriakou referred to December criminal trial BirdLife, CABS shut out as parliament debates poaching, targeting activists Larnaca hospital nurses walk out, cite burnout and overcrowding Sandy case: Drousiotis, Kyriakou in court over 101 charges today Cypriot woman honoured for decades of tackling child exploitation: ‘Believe your children’ Things to do on Wednesday, September 16 Unsettled weather expected on Wednesday as temperatures set to drop Follow en.philenews on Google News and be the first to know all the news about Cyprus and the world.