Newsroom
Former President Nicos Anastasiades has launched a fierce attack on Cyprus’ Anti-Corruption Authority, accusing it of yielding to public pressure and reaching findings of possible criminal wrongdoing that do not match the evidence.
In a lengthy article sent to the media “to restore the truth,” Anastasiades argues that the Authority’s 2½-year investigation largely rejected the central corruption allegations contained in journalist Makarios Drousiotis’ book 'Mafia State'.
He described it as “sad, unfortunate, if not unacceptable” that the investigating officers and the Authority’s five members had, in his view, succumbed to the climate created by “people’s courts.”
Yet despite that, the Authority identified sufficient indications of several possible offenses involving the former president, including influence peddling and abuse of power. Its findings were forwarded to the Legal Service for further examination.
Anastasiades denies any wrongdoing and says the remaining findings are based on mistakes, flawed interpretations, or the political atmosphere surrounding the investigation.
He described it as “sad, unfortunate, if not unacceptable” that the investigating officers and the Authority’s five members had, in his view, succumbed to the climate created by “people’s courts.”
‘The main allegations collapsed’
The former president’s central argument is that the Authority rejected allegations that he became unlawfully wealthy, misappropriated money or property, secured personal financial benefits, or deliberately harmed the Republic.
“After two and a half years of investigations, at a cost of €1.5 million,” Anastasiades said, the book’s allegations concerning personal financial gain or self-serving conduct had “collapsed.”
He cited the scale of the investigation, saying it involved 150 witnesses, evidence from 41 legal and government departments, and 793 exhibits.
Anastasiades accused Drousiotis and those he described as “followers of nihilism” of distorting the outcome by focusing on the possible offenses identified by investigators while ignoring the allegations that were not substantiated.
However, the Anti-Corruption Authority’s published findings did not amount to a full exoneration.
The Authority said investigators found sufficient indications, under the standard of proof used in its inquiries, to raise possible criminal responsibility in several cases. These included allegations of influence peddling linked to political contributions, interventions in citizenship applications, and possible abuse of presidential power.
Anastasiades rejects those conclusions.
Battle over the burden of proof
A major part of his challenge concerns the standard used by the Authority.
The investigation applied the “balance of probabilities,” meaning investigators considered whether something was more likely than not to have happened. That is a lower threshold than the one required in a criminal court, where guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Anastasiades argues that findings reached under the lower standard should not be treated as proof that criminal offenses were committed.
The distinction is important: the Authority’s conclusions are not criminal charges or convictions. The watchdog can identify possible corruption and recommend further investigation, but it cannot prosecute anyone itself.
It is now for the competent authorities to determine whether the evidence supports a criminal investigation and whether any case can meet the much stricter standard required in court.
‘Findings do not match the facts’
The former president also argues that some of the possible offenses identified by the Authority were not among Drousiotis’ original allegations or were not properly put to him during the investigation, denying him the opportunity to respond fully.
He challenged findings relating to alleged interference in the FOCUS investigation, bank payments described as “introducer fees,” citizenship applications, and other alleged interventions while he held political office.
Anastasiades said he was not accusing the investigating officers or authority members of acting in bad faith. He nevertheless maintained that they were influenced by the public atmosphere and reached conclusions based on an incorrect assessment of the facts and testimony.
The intervention escalates an already explosive dispute over one of the most extensive corruption investigations ever conducted in Cyprus.
At its heart are now two sharply conflicting versions of the same outcome.
The Anti-Corruption Authority says its investigation uncovered sufficient indications to justify further scrutiny of possible offenses. Anastasiades says the investigation dismantled the most serious accusations against him and then, under public pressure, found other ways to keep him in the frame.
The final word will not come from either side’s interpretation. It will depend on whether the evidence leads to a formal criminal investigation, charges, and, ultimately, a case capable of standing up in court.
