Nicosia, Cyprus. The Supreme Court rejected attorney-general George Savvides’ appeal against the annulment of a search warrant for two safety deposit boxes belonging to social media personality Natalie Tziapoura, ruling that police had not presented sufficient evidence.
The warrant was issued in connection with Tziapoura’s suspected involvement in the case surrounding Georgios Christodoulou Zavrantonas.
Insufficient evidence
The court found that the affidavit submitted by police did not provide adequate proof and that the court of first instance should not have approved the warrant.
Investigators had primarily relied on hearsay rather than factual evidence, referring to information from a person whose credibility had been “positively assessed” as their main source.
Claims concerning businesses
Police said the information indicated that two businesses owned by Tziapoura, a beauty salon and a jewellery store, had been used for money laundering and had recorded “unjustified excess profits”.
The Supreme Court ruled that investigators were not required to disclose an informant’s identity but had to explain how information was obtained and whether it supported further conclusions.
“There should be some kind of documentation from where and how the information led to the final results … Evidence must be given and not just conclusions,” the court said.
Scope of the warrant
The court also found that the warrant went beyond the testimony presented before the court of first instance. Investigators had initially sought cash, while jewellery and other valuables were later seized during the operations.
It ruled there was insufficient evidence linking Tziapoura to the offences under investigation concerning Zavrantonas and therefore no justification for searching her bank safety deposit boxes.
“In the present case, the necessary evidence is lacking to determine, objectively, that there was with necessary sufficiency the involvement of the appellant with the offences under investigation and, through it, with the area requested to be investigated,” the court said.
Previous searches
The Supreme Court rejected Savvides’ argument that earlier searches conducted during the investigation had substantiated police suspicions. It said those searches could not be considered reliable because the affidavit did not explain whether they were based on the same evidence or on other information provided to authorities.