The fillet and the collusion in the shadows of omertà

Opinion corruptionIndependent Authority against CorruptionNicos Anastasiades The fillet and the collusion in the shadows of omertà The Fillet And The Collusion In The Shadows Of Omertà Relevant News Artificial intelligence committee and the parliament 18 June 2026 The fillet and the collusion in the shadows of omertà 18 June 2026 Unimaginably exposed before the world and before ourselves 18 June 2026 Aristos Michaelides 18 June 2026 FacebookXWhatsAppEmailPrintViber The case concerning the Archbishopric’s plot of land purchased by Andri Anastasiades — which caused widespread astonishment when it appeared in the findings of the Independent Authority Against Corruption — was first revealed by Phileleftheros on its front page on 9 April 2014. Twelve years ago, under the headline: A fillet for the President. Had the investigation been conducted then, as it has been now, many of the subsequent alleged frauds might perhaps have been prevented. But when a newspaper exposes a scandal and half the system falls silent while the other half rushes to deny it, impunity and corruption become institutionalised. We published all the details at the time, supported by evidence and documents. Back in 2014, I repeat: a 1,739 sq m property belonging to the Archbishopric, in one of the most expensive areas of Limassol, was transferred to Andri Anastasiades for €500,000, when reputable property valuers told us at the time that, despite the economic crisis, the value of the plot stood at around €870,000 (approximately €500 per sq m). Upon signing the sale agreement on 3 February 2014, Ms Anastasiades paid €40,000 in cash (80 notes of €500) as a deposit. By 30 April she was to pay a further €160,000, with the remaining amount to be settled in 75 interest-free (interest-free!) monthly instalments of €4,000 each. Six years interest-free. When we published these details and raised questions about possible collusion, Nikos Anastasiades stated that it was “a disgrace that such matters are being exploited for petty political purposes and used for the settlement of political and business disputes.” What disputes he was referring to was never clarified. Andri Anastasiades expressed her surprise and regret at “a publication by a reputable newspaper such as Phileleftheros, which attempts to turn a purely lawful private transaction into a political issue.” The late Archbishop Chrysostomos II said the sale had been carried out under free-market conditions and that “there is nothing blameworthy,” adding that “the Holy Archbishopric of Cyprus wishes to express its regret over the publication, which leads public opinion to erroneous conclusions.” The Democratic Rally (DISY) stated that “this is not a matter of political interest. It is a private transaction governed by terms agreed between the two contracting parties. We therefore cannot follow attempts to ‘politicise’ the issue.” The opposition AKEL, for its part, issued the following remarkable statement: “As a party we have chosen not to take a position on the substance of the issue because our seriousness and responsibility do not allow us to make statements without the necessary information. We await clarification from all involved and will return accordingly.” We repeat these today because they matter. They belong in the historical record, because this is what is meant when we say: history will judge us. It already has judged everyone — those who saw only a “private transaction” and those who said they would “return accordingly”. As for us, we were speaking at the time — and in this column in particular — of political decay, and of how “it is unpleasant, disappointing, lamentable to realise that the country’s leaders do not understand (or do not care about) their obligation to be irreproachable in order to make unimpeachable decisions” (10/4/2014). They let us shout for a few days until it was forgotten. But the responsibility of the state and the political system was heavy, given that not even a formal investigation was carried out. Twelve years later, when other pressures finally forced an inquiry, we learned the full extent of the entanglement. The state expropriated Archbishopric properties in Engomi and requested, as compensation, state land in Ayia Napa. The eight properties received by the Archbishopric were recorded at a value of €5,712,000. However, according to the report, their actual value was €10,638,300 — almost €5 million more. The proposal was made by the competent inter-ministerial committee and approved by the Council of Ministers on 10 October 2013. And five months later, Ms Anastasiades purchased the plot. All neat and tidy. The report does not explicitly link the events, but as it notes, there is also the “balance of probabilities”. In other words, what is more likely to have happened than not. Subscribe to our Newsletter Latest News Artificial intelligence committee and the parliament Unimaginably exposed before the world and before ourselves Supporting victims and perpetrators alike Overnight pharmacies on Wednesday, June 18 Second Israeli tourist held over Ayia Napa bar stabbing case US and Iran presidents sign ceasefire agreement, but Trump says he could still resume attacks Cyprus and France firms sign MoU on dual-use drone interceptor (video) Follow en.philenews on Google News and be the first to know all the news about Cyprus and the world.