**Nicosia, Cyprus** – A defence attorney has concluded his closing arguments in a high-profile ‘golden passports’ trial, vehemently asserting that the prosecution’s case against former MP and businessman Christakis Giovani is fundamentally flawed and deviates significantly from the initial police investigation. The defence contends that the prosecution has engaged in a "manifest deception" by shifting the focus of the charges, thereby compromising the fairness of the proceedings.
The trial centres on allegations of influence peddling and conspiracy to defraud, stemming from the defunct citizenship-by-investment programme that once offered Cypriot passports to wealthy foreign nationals in exchange for substantial investments. The scandal, brought to light by an Al Jazeera undercover investigation in 2020, led to the resignations of prominent figures, including Giovani, founder and former CEO of Giovani Group, and Demetris Syllouris, the former President of the House of Representatives.
Central to the defence’s argument is the naturalisation of Nikolay Gornovskiy, a former CEO of the Russian multinational energy corporation Gazprom. Gornovskiy reportedly acquired a Cypriot passport through real estate investments facilitated by the Giovani Group, despite allegedly not meeting all the stipulated criteria for naturalisation at the time. The prosecution posits that Giovani and Syllouris exerted undue influence to expedite this process.
However, Giorgos Papaioannou, representing Christakis Giovani, argued forcefully that the prosecution's case presented in court bore little resemblance to the initial police inquiry. Papaioannou highlighted what he termed an "unacceptable shift of the case," asserting that the prosecution concentrated on financial aspects, such as payment receipts and eligibility criteria, which were not part of the original police investigation. According to the defence, the police interrogation focused solely on residency permit requirements, making the subsequent introduction of conspiracy to defraud charges related to financial matters, without an amended indictment, a serious procedural irregularity.
The defence further underscored the pivotal role played by Andreas Pittadjis, a lawyer who initially faced charges alongside Giovani and Syllouris but had them subsequently dropped. Pittadjis, who acted as Gornovskiy’s attorney and provided legal counsel to Giovani, is portrayed by the defence as a central figure, a "protagonist" in the entire naturalisation process. The defence suggested that Giovani's actions were largely incidental and undertaken on Pittadjis's advice.
A notable aspect of the defence's strategy has been to highlight the absence of key individuals from the witness stand. The defence pointed out that Pittadjis was removed from the fourth indictment without any explanation, and Gornovskiy, the foreign national whose naturalisation is at the heart of the matter, was neither indicted nor questioned as a suspect. This absence, the defence argued, creates significant lacunae 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 process. As the court deliberates, the defence's challenge to the very foundation of the prosecution’s case raises crucial questions about due process and the potential for miscarriages of justice in high-stakes corruption inquiries. The outcome of this trial could have significant implications for the broader fallout from the ‘golden passports’ scandal and the accountability of those involved.