In a dramatic closing argument, a defence attorney has vehemently challenged the prosecution's case in the high-profile "golden passports" trial. The lawyer representing former MP and businessman Christakis Giovani asserted that the prosecution's narrative significantly deviates from the initial police investigation. He accused the prosecution of engaging in a "manifest deception" by altering the focus of the charges, thereby jeopardising the fairness of the proceedings.
This trial concerns allegations of influence peddling and conspiracy to defraud, originating from the now-defunct citizenship-by-investment programme. This scheme once granted Cypriot passports to affluent foreign investors in exchange for substantial financial commitments. The entire scandal was initially brought to light by an investigative report in 2020, leading to the resignations of several prominent individuals.
A central point of contention involves the naturalisation of Nikolay Gornovskiy, a former executive at the Russian energy giant Gazprom. Gornovskiy reportedly secured a Cypriot passport through real estate investments facilitated by the Giovani Group. However, it is alleged that he did not meet all the necessary criteria at the time of his application. The prosecution contends that both Giovani and former House President Demetris Syllouris exerted undue influence to expedite this process.
The defence attorney, Giorgos Papaioannou, forcefully argued that the case presented in court bore little resemblance to the original police inquiry. He highlighted what he described as an "unacceptable shift of the case." Papaioannou pointed out that the prosecution's focus has shifted to financial matters like payment receipts and eligibility criteria, which were not part of the initial police investigation. The defence maintains that the police interrogation concentrated solely on residency permit requirements. Therefore, introducing conspiracy to defraud charges related to financial aspects without an amended indictment represents a serious procedural irregularity.
Furthermore, the defence emphasised the significant role played by Andreas Pittadjis, a lawyer whose charges were later dropped. Pittadjis, who acted as Gornovskiy's attorney and advised Giovani, is portrayed by the defence as a key figure, the "protagonist" in the entire naturalisation process. The defence suggests that Giovani's actions were largely incidental and based on Pittadjis's legal counsel.
A notable aspect of the defence's strategy involves highlighting the absence of crucial witnesses. The defence noted that Pittadjis was removed from the indictment without explanation. Gornovskiy himself, the foreign national whose naturalisation is central to the case, was neither indicted nor questioned as a suspect. This absence, the defence argued, creates significant gaps in the testimony and distorts the factual narrative presented to the court. The defence contends that Giovani's role was peripheral and that he acted on legal advice, making him a scapegoat rather than a perpetrator of fraud.
The defence's assertions cast a considerable shadow over the prosecution's conduct and the integrity of the trial. As the court deliberates, this challenge to the prosecution's case raises crucial questions about due process and the potential for miscarriages of justice in high-stakes corruption inquiries. The trial's outcome could have significant implications for the fallout from the "golden passports" scandal and the accountability of those involved.