Newsroom
Four men have been remanded in custody for eight days in connection with an alleged assassination plot targeting a former convict in Limassol, with police continuing their search for two additional suspects believed to have been involved.
The alleged plan involved planting an explosive device weighing approximately 820 grams in the victim's vehicle and detonating it by remote control while he was inside. Investigators believe a total payment of €800,000 had been offered for carrying out the killing.
The four suspects, aged 48, 36, 32 and 70, appeared before Nicosia District Court on Wednesday. Police requested their detention for eight days to allow further investigations, with the Court granting the application after finding reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in the offences under investigation.
The case includes allegations of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit a felony, illegal possession and transportation of explosives, participation in a criminal organisation and money laundering. One suspect is also being investigated over alleged entry into the Republic through a prohibited port.
Financial dispute believed to be behind alleged plot
According to information presented during the proceedings, the person suspected of ordering the assassination is believed to be abroad and is being sought by police. He reportedly had a close friendship with the intended victim before a financial disagreement caused their relationship to break down.
Investigators believe the third suspect had a significant role in the alleged operation. He had previously worked for the complainant at a nightclub in Limassol and was allegedly approached by individuals based overseas, who provided instructions concerning the placement and remote activation of the explosive device.
A key development in the case reportedly occurred on 14 September, when the complainant received a telephone call from the fourth suspect, a person with whom he had friendly relations.
During the conversation, the fourth suspect allegedly disclosed that he had received approximately 820 grams of explosive material intended to kill the complainant. After discovering the identity of the intended target, he reportedly destroyed the detonator, rendering the device unusable.
Police received initial warning in September
Police Inspector P.C., who testified during Wednesday's proceedings, told the Court that authorities had received information about a possible criminal attack against the complainant on 13 September 2026.
The initial warning followed a telephone call from an individual to a police officer. The Limassol Criminal Investigation Department was subsequently informed, and officers were assigned to guard the complainant's home and vehicles.
Bomb disposal specialists also searched for explosives but did not discover anything suspicious.
The complainant's formal written statement was obtained on 6 November. During cross-examination, the inspector said the complainant had initially not considered himself to be in serious danger. He added that much of the information available to investigators had originated from conversations between the complainant and the Intelligence Service.
Defence lawyers question evidence and investigation
The remand application was challenged by lawyers representing three of the four suspects, who questioned the strength of the evidence and the necessity of keeping their clients in custody for the full eight days.
Viktoras Akamas, representing the first suspect, argued that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish his client's involvement in the alleged murder conspiracy. He pointed out that information about the plot had reportedly come from the fourth suspect.
He also referred to a conversation between the complainant and the first suspect concerning two explosive devices, each weighing 409 grams, which were allegedly intended for other individuals rather than the complainant.
The police witness confirmed that this account appeared in the complainant's statement but rejected the defence's argument that there was no evidence implicating the first suspect.
Mr Akamas further questioned why investigators had not recovered explosives, detonators or money linked to the alleged operation. The inspector replied that searches were continuing and that the failure to locate the device did not establish that it had never existed. The lawyer described the request for an eight-day remand as excessive and asked for the period to be reduced to four days, or for the application to be rejected.
Stelios Christodoulou, representing the second suspect, questioned the time taken by police between receiving the initial information and seeking the remand orders. He asked why investigative steps, including securing CCTV footage, had not been taken earlier.
The inspector responded that police had prioritised measures considered essential to protecting the complainant, particularly as he had initially not believed himself to be facing a serious threat.
Mr Christodoulou also disputed the identification of his client as an individual referred to in the investigation by a particular nickname. The witness said the information had originally been supplied verbally by a person who did not wish to become involved in the case. Police subsequently checked their electronic databases and identified the second suspect, although investigators had initially possessed only the nickname.
Dimitris Tsolakidis, representing the fourth suspect, asked whether his client had been summoned to police as a suspect or in another capacity. The witness confirmed that he had been questioned as a suspect, informed of his legal rights in writing and given the opportunity to have legal representation.
The third suspect did not have legal representation and did not oppose the police application.
Court approves full eight-day detention
Prosecution representative Artemis Hadjigeorgiou argued that the evidence provided sufficient grounds to suspect the four men of involvement in the offences under investigation. She told the Court that substantial investigative work remained outstanding and that their continued detention was necessary to prevent possible interference with the investigation.
The defence maintained that the evidence against their respective clients was insufficient, with lawyers for the first and second suspects requesting that the application be dismissed. The fourth suspect's lawyer also disputed the existence of reasonable suspicion linking his client to a murder conspiracy.
In its ruling, the Court clarified that remand proceedings were not intended to establish guilt or conduct a full assessment of the evidence. Its task was to determine whether the police suspicions were genuine and reasonable.
Having considered the testimony, including the complainant's account, the Court found that the required threshold had been met and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the offences had been committed.
It further accepted that the investigation remained incomplete and that releasing the suspects could compromise ongoing inquiries.
All four men were therefore ordered to remain in custody for eight days. The Court stressed, however, that they must be released if police complete their investigations before the end of that period.
