Anastasiades criticises anti-corruption authority after corruption claims rejected

Nicosia, Cyprus. Former president Nicos Anastasiades has criticised Cyprus’s Independent Anti-Corruption Authority, accusing it of aligning parts of its findings with public sentiment despite rejecting all corruption allegations against him.

He made the comments in an article sent to media outlets after the Authority concluded that allegations of illicit enrichment, misappropriation of money or property, and actions damaging to the Republic of Cyprus were unfounded and legally unsupported.

Investigation findings

Anastasiades said the investigation lasted two and a half years, cost €1.5 million, heard 150 witnesses and considered 793 documents submitted by 41 legal and government departments.

He said the Authority had rejected claims in journalist Makarios Droushiotis’s book “Mafia State” concerning alleged financial benefit or self-serving actions by Anastasiades, either for his own benefit or to the detriment of public funds.

The former president also accused Droushiotis and what he described as “nihilist supporters” of distorting the truth.

Claims cited by former president

Anastasiades listed a series of issues he said had been refuted by the investigation. These included chapters of the book concerning the “Rybolovlev law”, alleged manipulation of justice, Rybolovleva’s arrest and a section titled “the oligarch demands explanations”.

He also referred to claims concerning a plan involving former attorney-general Costas Clerides, his wife’s purchase of land from the Archbishopric, an alleged misappropriation of a Focus contribution, and naturalisations and travel.

Other claims he said were rejected concerned the appointment of Vladimir Stralkovski to Bank of Cyprus, the alleged seizure of Turkish Cypriot property, alleged Russian influence over Bank of Cyprus, the rejection of the first Eurogroup agreement, and claims involving Russian clients of the bank.

Criticism of authority

Anastasiades said it was “regrettable, unfortunate, if not unacceptable” that the Authority’s inspection officers and its five members had, in his view, succumbed to an atmosphere created by “popular courts and the nihilists”.

He criticised findings that attributed to him the possible commission of offences on the balance of probabilities, saying they did not meet his expectations.

He said the Authority’s announcement relied on the inspection officers’ findings rather than presenting conclusions reached after a thorough review by the Authority itself. He described the officers’ work as containing “unforgivable negligence” and what he called serious errors that led to conclusions about possible criminal offences.

Anastasiades also said the Authority should have addressed each chapter of the book separately, specifying which claims had not been proven to the required standard and were therefore, in his view, fictional or defamatory. He further said the Authority should have commented on the author’s credibility.