Former Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades’ persistent efforts to defend his legacy have been buried beneath the 3,000-page report produced by the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority, which investigated allegations made in journalist Makarios Drousiotis’ book Mafia State. The report lays bare the operation of a system that functioned during the Anastasiades administration and traps state institutions in a vicious cycle of recusals from the further criminal investigations that are now expected to follow.

After two years of investigations, witness testimony and document reviews by the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority, it became clear that reality in Cyprus does not merely surpass fiction — it leaves it miles behind. The Authority’s official statement on the findings amounts to an X-ray of a power structure that operated like a private limited company with unlimited greed, with former president Nicos Anastasiades at the center of a world revolving around him.

The picture that emerges is one of widespread, deep-rooted and almost institutionalised corruption. These are not isolated incidents or the actions of a handful of rogue officials who simply strayed and dipped a finger into the honey jar. Rather, the report describes a coordinated operation of the state apparatus, which often appeared to be guided not by the public interest but by the needs, wishes and financial convenience of friends, clients and political associates of the leadership of the time.

Nicos Anastasiades, who governed the country for a decade, appears in the report either as the architect of this system or, at best, as a tolerant observer of a situation in which the boundaries between public office and private gain had become alarmingly blurred.

The report reads more like an X-ray of an era in which power, personal relationships, law firms, banks, Russian oligarchs, golden passports and the machinery of the state converged on a one-way road to corruption.

The image that emerges is of a system in which institutions did not always act as a barrier against abuse, but in some cases as instruments of service. For the ordinary citizen, the state often resembled a labyrinth. For others — particularly Russian oligarchs — it appeared, according to the report, more like the concierge desk of a luxury hotel, with staff ready to satisfy their every wish.

One Oligarch, One Divorce and a State at His Feet

The case that dominates the report, both for its sensational nature and its sheer audacity, is that of Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev.

At one point, Rybolovlev became embroiled in a fierce legal, political and financial battle with his estranged wife over the division of a vast fortune worth billions of euros. In any other modern European state, resolving such a dispute would have been solely a matter for the courts and the lawyers representing the two sides.

In Cyprus at that time, however, it became a matter of state — and one treated as an immediate priority.

The entire state apparatus, from the highest levels of government to law enforcement authorities, reportedly showed unprecedented willingness to place itself at the service of the Russian tycoon, with the sole aim of finding legal and practical means to reduce the financial cost of his divorce.

To achieve this, the authority of senior office holders was allegedly deployed. The President of the Republic, a judge, the then Deputy Attorney General and even a senior police officer all appear to have acted with a common objective: satisfying the foreign “investor” and ensuring that “the client” was not lost.

The peak of what the report describes as this tragic farce was tailor-made legislation — the so-called “Rybolovlev Law” — which was rushed through Parliament in order to meet the oligarch’s specific legal requirements regarding trusts.

An entire state apparatus, according to the report, bowed to the wishes of a Russian billionaire, effectively turning the Republic of Cyprus into a vast offshore service provider for VIP clients.

The Ring That Started It All

The affair began with a complaint filed with the police by lawyer Panayiotis Neocleous, then a partner at law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC, acting on behalf of a particular trust concerning a highly valuable piece of jewellery.

The item in question was a ring worth approximately €25 million.

Elena Rybolovleva maintained that the ring had been a gift from her husband before the major legal battle over the divorce and division of assets began. The trust’s side — effectively Dmitry Rybolovlev’s side — argued that the ring belonged to the trust rather than to her personally.

After examining the case, the Anti-Corruption Authority concluded that the complaint lodged with the police formed part of a plan to secure Elena Rybolovleva’s arrest in order to pressure her into settling the financial terms of her divorce with Dmitry Rybolovlev.

This finding lies at the heart of the report and raises serious questions about extensive corruption.

Mrs Rybolovleva arrived in Cyprus on 24 February 2014 and was arrested under a warrant issued on the basis of the complaint submitted by Panayiotis Neocleous.

The case immediately attracted international attention because of Rybolovlev’s prominence, the scale of his fortune and the intensity of the couple’s legal battle.

The Authority notes that evidence and claims later emerged which cast doubt on the validity of the accusations against Rybolovleva.

The original plan, which appears to have envisaged her prolonged detention, did not succeed and she was ultimately released. According to the report, however, attempts to exert pressure on her did not end there.

The “Rybolovlev Law”

The arrest was accompanied by an amendment to the Criminal Code that became publicly known as the “Rybolovlev Law”.

Under the amendment, Cypriot courts could acquire jurisdiction over offences allegedly committed abroad if they related to assets located outside Cyprus but linked either to a company registered in the Republic of Cyprus or to a Cypriot trust.

According to the Authority, the significance of this tailor-made amendment was that it made the criminal prosecution of Elena Rybolovleva in Cyprus possible — something that had not previously been feasible.

This finding is considered crucial because it suggests that the legal framework was used in a private international property dispute, with Parliament becoming involved through legislation proposed by the Anastasiades government.

The Convenient Judge

A separate chapter of the report concerns Haris Solomoniades, former President of the Nicosia District Court.

His role is not regarded as secondary, as it relates to the manner in which Rybolovlev’s side allegedly used Cypriot court procedures to restrict Elena Rybolovleva’s options in the international divorce dispute.

According to the Authority, in October 2013 applications were filed before the Nicosia District Court by trust companies through which Dmitry Rybolovlev held part of his wealth.

Among other things, the applications sought orders preventing Elena Rybolovleva and her lawyers from initiating legal proceedings in courts outside Cyprus concerning matters linked to the trusts and her financial claims arising from the marriage.

The applications were filed by Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC and came before Judge Haris Solomoniades.

The judge issued interim orders ex parte — without Rybolovleva’s side being heard — in favour of Rybolovlev’s companies.

In essence, the orders sought to keep the dispute within the Cypriot legal system and make it more difficult for Elena Rybolovleva to pursue legal action elsewhere, particularly in Geneva, where the divorce proceedings were under way.

The Authority identifies the timing of subsequent events as especially significant.

Just days after the interim orders were issued, the judge’s wife was allegedly hired by Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC on a high salary.

According to the Authority, she was unemployed at the time the applications were filed, and the appointment constituted a substantial financial benefit for the judge’s family.

The issue was raised by Rybolovleva’s lawyers, who sought the judge’s recusal on grounds of bias.

The Authority states that Mr Solomoniades concealed, or contributed to concealing, the identity of his wife’s true employer by presenting a different company as her employer rather than the law firm handling the disputed applications.

According to the Authority, the evidence shows that her actual employer was Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC itself.

The same judge subsequently issued rulings in favour of the applicant companies associated with Rybolovlev, finding that Rybolovleva’s side had been properly notified.

Later, following an application by Elena Rybolovleva’s lawyers, another judge set aside one of those rulings, determining that the process leading to its issuance had been irregular due to a lack of proper legal basis.

The Authority concludes that there is sufficient evidence to give rise to reasonable suspicion that Judge Solomoniades abused or exploited his judicial office by reaching an arrangement with Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC regarding the employment of his wife in exchange for issuing decisions favourable to the firm’s clients in cases benefiting Rybolovlev.

For the former judge, the Authority records possible commission of three criminal offences: bribery of a public official, transactions indicating corruption, and unlawful acquisition of financial benefit.

For Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC, the report records possible offences including bribery of a public official, transactions indicating corruption and active bribery of public officials, with potential corporate liability.

For lawyer Panayiotis Neocleous, the report records a possible offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The section concerning Haris Solomoniades fundamentally alters the weight of the Rybolovleva case.

The report describes not only an alleged attempt to secure her arrest through the police and the Attorney General’s Office, but also a parallel judicial route through which, according to the Authority, efforts were made to restrict her legal defence and increase pressure on her in the context of the divorce-related property dispute.

The Case File and the Evidence

Particular attention is also paid to Rikkos Erotokritou, who at the time served as Deputy Attorney General.

According to the Authority, the complaint filed with the police was forwarded to the Law Office of the Republic for instructions and, at Erotokritou’s request, the file was assigned directly to him.

The Authority states that Erotokritou handled the file personally, did not forward it to then Attorney General Costas Clerides, and ensured its prompt return to the police, departing from established procedures within the Law Office.

Even more significant is the finding that, based on the evidence reviewed, Erotokritou directly intervened in the content of the sworn statement submitted to the court for the issuance of Elena Rybolovleva’s arrest warrant.

The Authority records potential criminal liability on his part for abuse of power at misdemeanour level, although it found no evidence of any direct or indirect personal financial or material gain.

Police “in the Service of Rybolovlev”

The same section of the report also names senior police officer Ioannis Sotiriadis, who at the time served as head of the Limassol Criminal Investigation Department.

The Authority states that certain police officers, including Sotiriadis, visited Erotokritou’s office during the relevant period.

It also identified an incident in which a vehicle carrying Elena Rybolovleva and her lawyer on their way to the Russian Embassy in Nicosia was allegedly followed by another vehicle driven by a police officer.

According to the Authority, Sotiriadis deliberately concealed the original complaint from his immediate superior, the Limassol Police Director, despite the seriousness of the case.

The report also records real-time leaks of police information to Rybolovlev’s side, as well as efforts to monitor Rybolovleva after her release from police custody.

Of particular significance is the finding that there was a deliberate delay in returning her passport, allegedly coordinated with Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC and Panayiotis Neocleous, despite instructions from Attorney General Costas Clerides and the Limassol Police Director.

According to the Anti-Corruption Authority, the police officer, acting in cooperation with then Deputy Attorney General Erotokritou and individuals connected to the law firm, sought to keep the criminal investigation against Rybolovleva open so that pressure regarding the financial settlement of the divorce could continue.

For Sotiriadis too, the Authority records possible criminal liability for abuse of power at misdemeanour level.

Mediation Over a Private Jet

The Authority assigns a special role to journalist Andreas Hadjikyriakos, whom it portrays as a link between Nicos Anastasiades and Dmitry Rybolovlev.

According to the findings, Hadjikyriakos was involved in coordinating support — or the appearance of support — from state authorities and officials for the plan to arrest Elena Rybolovleva.

This context also includes the issue of a private flight taken by then President Nicos Anastasiades from Brussels to Athens on 21 March 2014.

The Authority records an arrangement under which Dmitry Rybolovlev would cover the cost of the flight, facilitated by Hadjikyriakos.

According to the report, the flight was originally scheduled to land in Athens but was redirected directly to Larnaca after a government minister suffered a stroke.

Investigators from the Anti-Corruption Authority took into account the absence of any booking record by the then President, the absence of payment through the Treasury, and the lack of any relevant record within either the Presidency or the Civil Aviation Department.

According to the Authority, Nicos Anastasiades failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his claim that the flight costs had been covered by the family of a businessman friend, nor was there evidence that the family in question responded to requests to provide proof.

Influence Peddling

The main potential offense identified by the Authority in this case is influence peddling. This refers to the giving, promising, or accepting of an undue advantage so that a person may exercise, or appear capable of exercising, influence over public officials or over the making of state decisions.

Regarding Andreas Hadjikyriacos, the Authority states that he is alleged to have acted as a person who provided or facilitated the provision of an undue advantage to a person with actual or purported influence over decisions made by public officials.

Regarding Dmitry Rybolovlev, it records that he is alleged to have provided or offered an undue advantage to a person who had, or appeared to have, influence over the decision-making of state officials.

Regarding Nicos Anastasiades, it states that he is alleged to have acted as a person who received or accepted an undue advantage in order to exercise, or suggest that he would exercise, improper influence over the decision-making process of public officials.

The Authority clarifies that the state officials themselves who were involved in the arrest process are considered, for the purposes of assessing the offense of influence peddling, to be the decision-makers, and they were not found liable for this specific offense in that capacity.

The Money Trail and the Law Firm

Behind political backing and state facilitation, there is always money and its trail. The findings of the Cypriot Anti-Corruption Authority once again open the major chapter of possible tax evasion and potential money laundering, centering on an amount of €220,000. Here, attention inevitably turns to the law firm Nicos Anastasiades & Partners LLC.

The former President of Cyprus may have stated that he had withdrawn from the firm’s active operations when he assumed leadership of the state, but his name remained on the firm’s sign, and his two daughters, together with his close partners, continued to steer it. The investigation sheds light on the role of the firm’s partners and on the procedures that were followed—or, more precisely, not followed—with regard to verifying the origin of the funds. The coincidences are too numerous to be considered accidental, and the explanations offered over time seem more likely to deepen doubts than dispel them. The intertwining of political power and the professional activities of those in former President Anastasiades’ circle constitutes the main vehicle for the discrediting of institutions.

From Golden Passports to the Embrace of Oligarchs

The Rybolovlev case was not the only one. It was merely the tip of the iceberg during a period when Cyprus had become a haven for Russian oligarchs, who found in Nicosia not only warm weather but also an exceptionally welcoming political embrace. Nicos Anastasiades never concealed his close personal and client-based relationships with powerful economic figures from the former Soviet Union.

These relationships found their perfect institutional expression in the troubled “golden passports” program. It was a naturalization industry justified by the difficult economic conditions following the haircut on bank deposits in 2013 and carried out with the blessing of the Council of Ministers, generating millions of euros for a handful of law firms, auditing firms, and property developers. The law firm bearing the name of the then-president played a leading role in this process, submitting dozens of applications on behalf of wealthy foreign magnates, which were subsequently approved by the Council of Ministers chaired by Nicos Anastasiades himself. The fact that many of these new Cypriot citizens were individuals with questionable criminal records or were internationally wanted appeared to be a minor detail compared with the abundant flow of money.

The Shadow of Focus and the Ghost of Vgenopoulos

To understand how Cyprus reached this point, one must go back somewhat further, to the period when the groundwork was being laid for the rise of Nicos Anastasiades to power. The report brings back into focus the high-profile case of the company Focus, owned by Greek shipowner Michalis Zolotas, and the financing of Cyprus’s two major political parties, DISY and AKEL, by Andreas Vgenopoulos.

Focus, a company based in the Marshall Islands, served as the conduit through which hundreds of thousands of euros were channeled to support DISY and AKEL. Andreas Vgenopoulos, the man whose name became associated with the collapse of the Cypriot banking system, was not distributing money out of charity; rather, he was buying political influence, immunity, and access to decision-making centers. This financing was the prelude to the complete capture of political institutions by major economic interests, creating obligations that were later repaid in the most painful way for the Cypriot people.

The Anti-Corruption Authority finds possible abuse of power by Nicos Anastasiades because, according to the announcement, while serving as President he allegedly intervened forcefully with then Attorney General Costas Clerides, expressing dissatisfaction with the course of the investigation and essentially requesting that inquiries into the Focus company be terminated.

The same case also mentions then Deputy Attorney General Rikkos Erotokritou, who is alleged to have requested original evidence relating to political financing through Focus and instructed investigators not to retain copies.

Legal Confusion and a Forty-Year Friendship

The most shocking part of this story is not what happened in the past, but how the present is unable to deal with its consequences. The Anti-Corruption Authority’s report is not a court judgment, and for criminal responsibility to be assigned, it must be examined by the Legal Service (Attorney General’s Office), which must decide whether the case should be brought before the courts. However, what emerges is an institutional mess that, while one might expect the setting of an ancient tragedy, instead resembles a farcical revue.

Attorney General George Savvides is in an obvious position where he cannot handle the case file. His appointment as Minister of Justice in the Anastasiades administration and his subsequent appointment as Attorney General were both made by Nicos Anastasiades himself. The two men did not merely have a formal political relationship. They have repeatedly been photographed socializing together at bouzoukia venues, celebrating arm in arm, while both have publicly stated that they share a close friendship spanning forty years. Recognizing the conflict of interest, Mr. Savvides declared that he would recuse himself from the process.

The problem, however, is not solved so easily. The second-highest-ranking official in the Legal Service, Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides, is in exactly the same position. He served as Minister of Defence in the Anastasiades government and was appointed to his current position by former President Anastasiades. He too declared his recusal. The responsibility should then have passed to the third-ranking official, Senior Prosecutor Elena Kleopa, head of the Criminal Division. However, Ms. Kleopa was a witness in the Anti-Corruption Authority’s investigation, making recusal the only option for her as well.

The proposed solution is to assign responsibility to a prosecutorial council that will study the report and decide on the next steps. But who makes up this council? Its members are public prosecutors and state attorneys—that is, direct subordinates of the three officials who recused themselves. In other words, employees are being asked to decide whether to prosecute the man who appointed their superiors, with whom they work every day.

These subordinates will have to choose whether to appoint independent criminal investigators or assign the investigation to the Police—a Police force which, as we saw in the Rybolovlev case, is not renowned for its independence when major political and business figures are involved.

There is, of course, an alternative route. Criminal investigators may also be appointed by the Council of Ministers. Here, however, we enter a new cycle of political coincidences. At the helm of the Council of Ministers is the current President of the Republic, Nikos Christodoulides, who served as Nicos Anastasiades’ closest associate, government spokesman, and Minister of Foreign Affairs for a decade. Beside him sit Defence Minister Vasilis Palmas, who served as Deputy Minister to the President in the Anastasiades administration, and Interior Minister Constantinos Ioannou, who was Minister of Health in the same government.

Cyprus’s political and legal system resembles a closed club, where everyone knows one another, everyone has served in the same governments and parties, and everyone owes, to some degree, their advancement to the same individual. The report on the “Mafia State” is not merely a record of scandals from the past. The Anti-Corruption Authority’s report is, in reality, a mirror reflecting the current institutional deadlock of a country searching for an independent judge and finding only old acquaintances.