Audit Service for Savvas Angelidis: Conflict of interest is confirmed - Need to remove the unaudited General Prosecutor

Audit Service for Savvas Angelidis: Conflict of interest is confirmed – Need to remove the unaudited General Prosecutor

by

However, even if one adopts the position that there is no sufficient evidence to initiate a criminal investigation, this does not exclude the possibility of an abuse of power that simply could not be substantiated.

The conflict of interest and the immediate need to remove the General Prosecutor's audit from the conclusion of the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority, in relation to the complaints against Savvas Angelidis, is confirmed, the Audit Service says in a statement. Characteristically, however, he emphasizes that "even if one adopts the position that there is no sufficient evidence to initiate an investigation of criminal offences, this (with all due respect to the presumption of innocence) does not exclude the possibility of abuse of power that simply could not be substantiated".

The announcement of the Audit Service:

First of all, we congratulate the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority ("the Authority") for its report today and the professionalism with which both the Authority itself and the Inspection Officers it appointed acted.

2. As for the essence of the Conclusion, the existence of a conflict of interest and the immediate need to remove the unaudited Attorney General are confirmed. The present case is the second, after the case of the retired former Attorney General, that prove that the uncontrolled is not consistent with the practices of a state that claims to want to fight corruption.

3. As has now been confirmed by the Authority, the Assistant Attorney General has in the recent past personally represented a person charged with a very serious felony. It is of particular importance that the name of this person is rare and not at all common. The Assistant Attorney General stayed the prosecution of this person because, he claimed, he did not realize it was his former client.

The Authority adopts the Conclusion of the Inspection Officers that there was indeed a conflict of interest but that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of corruption offences. We have no reason to question this conclusion. However, even if one adopts the position that there is no sufficient evidence to initiate a criminal investigation, this (with all due respect to the presumption of innocence) does not exclude the possibility of an abuse of power that simply could not be documented. In any event, the facts clearly demonstrate the frivolous and unsubstantiated manner in which suspensions of criminal prosecutions are decided.

4. We remind you that three other complaints submitted by our Service regarding suspensions of criminal prosecutions are pending before the Authority:

  • The first concerns allegations in relation to the conduct of the Assistant Attorney General in the case of the black van illegal surveillance and again relate to issues of conflict of interest.
  • The second concerns the investigation of serious corporate tax matters of persons of interest who exercise public influence. This case is an audit finding of our Service and was incidentally identified in the context of audits for the Cyprus Investment Program (CIP). We consider the matter as very serious because the result of the manipulations was to prevent the tax authorities from auditing the company. The same company was the subject of our very serious findings in relation to the KEP, which the Legal Service did not consider necessary to investigate.
  • The third case concerns the suspension of criminal prosecutions of five individuals who were accused of the offense of conspiracy to commit a felony, keeping false accounts, theft from a director and money laundering, all in the context of a public contract and at the expense of the public. The defendants, initially eight, requested the court to stop the proceedings and discharge them. In March 2021, the Court accepted the request of the two (they had previously been convicted in another, similar case) but rejected the request of the other six, stressing that, "the interest of justice requires the continuation and not the interruption of this case." . Soon after, one of the six pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Three months later, in June 2021, that is, before the ink of the judge's pen could dry, the Assistant Attorney General suspended the criminal prosecution of the other five, acting against the will of the Court to hear the case. The brother of one of the five is a well-known lawyer.

5. We mention the above by recalling that on 22.5.2023, after the fact that our Service had forwarded a complaint to the Authority was made public, the Assistant Attorney General issued a statement in which, in the form of a threat, he referred to a "deliberate attempt to target" , "dangerous conduct" and "arbitrariness and bad faith", which must be "put an end to".

The following day, similar unacceptable characterizations and accusations were made by the Attorney General himself, who in fact, speaking on 7.9.2023 on a RIK broadcast, had directly threatened the Auditor General, stating that he would consider an appeal to the Supreme Court for the suspension of the General Auditor, if the Authority rejects the charges against his Assistant.

We believe that now citizens can understand what are the reasons that often lead to our direct conflict with the Legal Service.

6. As a Service, which is internationally considered to be the flagship in the effort to seek accountability of those exercising public authority, we call on the President of the Republic to speed up the implementation of what is included in his pre-election program and what the GRECO Group and the European Commission have repeatedly recommended through her Report on the Rule of Law: Immediate separation of the powers of the public prosecutor and legal counsel and immediate abolition of the unchecked non-initiation and suspension of criminal prosecutions.

Unfortunately, to date, the Government, instead of moving in this direction, is attempting to further expand the powers of the Attorney General by subordinating the Audit Service to its own opinions and decisions.

7. We welcome the Authority's conclusion on the definition of what constitutes "abuse of power". It is extremely important that abuse of power exists even without self-interest, which is usually difficult to establish. This paves the way for the examination of a very large number of cases which we have referred to the Authority.