Mafia State probe: foreign investigator in the frame as Anastasiades hits back

Politics corruptionCrimeIndependent Authority against CorruptionNicos AnastasiadespoliceTop News Mafia State probe: foreign investigator in the frame as Anastasiades hits back Mafia State Probe Foreign Investigator In The Frame As Anastasiades Hits Back Relevant News Mafia State probe: foreign investigator in the frame as Anastasiades hits back 24 June 2026 Shots fired at Paphos home in early morning attack 24 June 2026 Cyprus tax crackdown nets €44m from 513 high-risk debtors 24 June 2026 Fanis Makrides 24 June 2026 FacebookXWhatsAppEmailPrintViber Discussions about appointing a foreign independent criminal investigator of standing to lead the Mafia State inquiry were running at full tilt on Tuesday, according to information available to Phileleftheros. The possibility is being actively discussed in circles presented as having knowledge of developments. A specific lawyer based abroad — recognised, sources said, to those familiar with the legal field — was being put forward as the most suitable candidate. Government sources, while notably tight-lipped, did not rule out the appointment of an independent criminal investigator from outside Cyprus. The logic, those same sources suggested, is straightforward: what matters now is guaranteeing impartiality. Phileleftheros sought to establish whether the Cabinet Secretariat would table a name at today’s government meeting, and was told that nothing could be taken as given — a response attributed to the secrecy surrounding the matter and to efforts to ensure the preferred candidate leads the process. All available information and indications point to a model in which police investigators conduct the inquiry, supported by an independent criminal investigator as lead. Meanwhile, the Anti-Corruption Authority’s report — identifying potential criminal liability for 15 individuals and legal entities, seven of them former officials — has been referred by the prosecution council, from which Attorney General Giorgos Savvides and Deputy AG Savvas Angelides have both recused themselves. The council, composed of prosecutors, decided to have no involvement in the process. Anastasiades: calculated, but convincing? Former President Nikos Anastasiades arrived at the Estia press centre ten minutes before his scheduled press conference on Tuesday. He waited patiently for photographers to finish, then began speaking at exactly 11:01am to a room full of print and broadcast journalists. What followed was a performance that was clearly prepared in terms of communication strategy — though how convincing it was is a matter of individual judgement. Anastasiades set out to challenge the credibility of the Anti-Corruption Authority inspectors’ findings across all seven cases attributed to him, but he did so carefully. He raised concerns about his right to defend himself and questioned aspects of the criminal law interpretation applied, yet he stopped short of dismissing the Authority or attributing motives to it. He did not stray outside that boundary. At the close of a lengthy address, he accused the Authority of lacking the resolve to resist what he called populism and the atmosphere created by, in his words, “populist judges, character assassins and malicious internet users.” A pointed aside Anastasiades did not entirely avoid the trap of ironic commentary when addressing the OCCRP publication — a 2019 report that cast shadows over the former president regarding large-scale money laundering by Russian oligarchs. At the time, he had publicly called on the then-head of MOKAS to investigate the claims against him. That intervention was precisely what the Authority found potentially unlawful. Anastasiades commented on this outcome with a degree of irony, maintaining he had every right to publicly call for an investigation into claims about himself. When he told the press conference that he was asking to be investigated by independent criminal investigators, he added — with obvious intent — that he hoped his words would not be taken as unlawful interference. Even here, though, he did not cross into directly attacking the Authority or imputing dark motives to it. He also confined himself to analysing the Authority’s published announcement on the findings, rather than entering into the detail of his own testimony — avoiding any grounds for accusations that he was seeking to influence an ongoing process. No such restraint for Drousiotis Towards author Makarios Drousiotis, Anastasiades showed no such restraint. He made repeated references aimed at undermining the credibility of the Mafia State book, calling Drousiotis, among other things, an inventor of fiction on the Sandy affair. He drew on the limited references to the book in the Authority’s announcement to support his characterisation of what he called the author’s defamatory claims. He was also careful to stress that none of Drousiotis’s allegations of illicit enrichment were substantiated by the report’s findings. Anastasiades went further, arguing that Drousiotis should be prosecuted under Article 22 of the law governing the Anti-Corruption Authority — specifically for providing false information, an offence carrying a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to €50,000, or both. His positions on the key findings The “Rybolovlev law” On the legal framework for trusts — referred to in Mafia State as the “Rybolovlev law” — Anastasiades said the allegation had collapsed given that the legislation was passed by parliament with only two votes against. The arrest of Rybolovleva Anastasiades said facts had escaped the Authority’s inspectors. He acknowledged that the book’s claim that he had participated in Rybolovleva’s arrest was not confirmed and that no relevant finding existed. He then quoted directly from what he described as the inspectors’ flawed reasoning, saying they had linked the arrest to an SMS referencing alleged actions by Andreas Hatzikyriakou regarding a one-way trip from Brussels to Athens, reaching what he called the unfounded conclusion that he may have committed the offence of trading in influence by accepting an undue advantage in order to exert improper influence on public officials’ decision-making. Based on dates and events described in the book, he argued, it would not have been possible for him to have assisted in Rybolovleva’s arrest in exchange for a favour from her estranged husband. The Focus Maritime case Anastasiades described as malicious the claims in the book about Focus Maritime funding political parties — claims he said were rejected following an investigation ordered by the then-Attorney General in 2014, which found no offences. He nonetheless faces a potential charge, he said, because the Authority’s inspectors found that while the Focus Maritime investigation was under way, he met and spoke by phone with then-Attorney General Kostas Clerides, expressing strong displeasure at the direction of the inquiry and seeking to have the investigation terminated. Anastasiades said the inspectors never put this evidence to him during his three-day hearing, denying him the chance to respond. He also pointed to what he described as a contradiction: the Authority’s own earlier findings established that he had not personally benefited financially from contributions to DISY. He asked why Kostas Clerides — with whom, he noted, he did not have the best of relations — had not at the time reported the alleged unlawful interventions. The €250,000 transaction Anastasiades quoted the inspectors’ finding directly: that on the balance of probabilities, a transaction of €250,000 from Laiki Bank was made in late 2011 for his benefit, presented misleadingly as a fee or commission, and intended as financial support for his 2013 election campaign. He said this matter was never raised with him during his three-day hearing, depriving him of the opportunity to be heard. He added that the alleged offence identified by the Authority — passive trading in influence — requires the existence of an undue advantage, and questioned what that advantage could be, particularly given that the alleged offence did not relate to the period during which he was exercising presidential duties. The OCCRP report On the Authority’s recommendation that he be investigated over his handling of the August 2019 OCCRP report — headlined “Bank records link Cyprus president to Troika Laundromat” — Anastasiades said any liability identified related to his public call on MOKAS to investigate the claims made against him. He said he considered it, in his words, “entirely unreasonable and contrary to law” to treat a president’s request for an investigation into corruption allegations against himself as an abuse of power. The ICIJ naturalisation report Anastasiades described the Authority’s findings on the October 2021 ICIJ report on the naturalisations of Leonid Lebedev, Abramov and members of Abramov’s family as arbitrary and contrary to all logic. The two Russian businessmen were clients of Anastasiades’s law firm at the time, while he was DISY leader and a member of parliament. He noted that the naturalisation of Abramov’s wife and their minor children became possible in 2011 following a Cabinet decision — taken under then-President Dimitris Christofias — amending the investment programme provisions. He asked whether it could seriously be argued that a Cabinet decision on the exceptional naturalisation of new investors’ family members was the result of trading in influence or institutional pressure from the leader of the opposition. The Dromolaxia property On the Dromolaxia property claimed by Suzan Dikraz, a Turkish national who disputed its status as a Vakf and had signed a development agreement with a private company — a deal that stalled due to legislation — Anastasiades said meetings between officials took place without the situation changing. On August 4, 2014, Dikraz crossed illegally into the free areas in violation of the Green Line Regulation. According to Anastasiades, the inspectors concluded on the balance of probabilities that the illegal crossing was carried out on the basis of intervention or instructions from the former president — who, he noted, had no such authority. He rejected the finding as entirely arbitrary and based, he said, on the narrative of an author who, on the basis of the inspectors’ own findings, should have been deemed unreliable. During the question-and-answer session, Anastasiades at times raised his voice in an effort to press his positions, though he did not lose control. On the question of presidential immunity under Article 45 of the Constitution, he said he was prepared to do whatever was necessary to have it lifted, and repeated that he wanted the process to move forward and a criminal investigation to proceed so the matter could be closed as soon as possible. As he left, he paused briefly to exchange words with one of the journalists present, clarifying an exchange from the press conference. He did not linger, however — bidding a polite farewell before departing with his entourage. Subscribe to our Newsletter Latest News Shots fired at Paphos home in early morning attack Cyprus tax crackdown nets €44m from 513 high-risk debtors Phedon Phedonos enters plea today as rape trial set for September Echoes from the future: The missing pieces in Cyprus’s emerging tech ecosystem Temperatures to hit 38°C inland as Cyprus stays sunny on Wednesday Trump’s Board of Peace to meet in Cyprus next week, Times of Israel reports Christodoulides hints at imminent energy announcements as Cyprus marks 250 years of US independence Follow en.philenews on Google News and be the first to know all the news about Cyprus and the world.