Doubts about the reliability of the evidence were raised by yesterday’s decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the well-known money laundering case, specifically the transfer of a total of 7.5 million euros to Cyprus by a 31-year-old Ukrainian woman (20 trips within an eight-month period).
The appellate judicial body, with a unanimous decision yesterday morning, decided to release under conditions the other person arrested in the aforementioned case.
This concerns a 43-year-old from Ukraine who was arrested and held as a defendant, facing 20 charges of conspiracy for surveillance and 20 for money laundering from illegal activities.
However, what is interesting concerns the reasoning behind the Court of Appeal’s aforementioned verdict.
The latter accepted the second of a total of eight grounds of appeal with which the defence lawyers of the 43-year-old tried to challenge the first-instance decision to keep their client as a defendant.
Specifically, the relevant legal argument was that the Court “did not consider the fact that the testimony before it creates a reasonable, if not strong, expectation of the acquittal of the Appellant and gave particular weight to the testimony of…”.
The Court of Appeal, therefore, examining the raised point, concluded that any connection of the Appellant emerges from the investigative testimony of the 31-year-old, who described him as a “friend of a friend” to whom, as she claimed, she delivered a box of money on the day she reported that she was robbed, losing 420,000 euros.
At the same time, the Court of Appeal, in its 7-page decision, notes that “the educated counsel for the Appellant before us named… as a ‘potential’ witness,” adding that “when asked how her testimony was given to the first-instance Court since she is not a witness, he replied that there is a possibility that she will be included as a witness in the Criminal Court’s indictment, but no decision has been made on the matter yet, as this will be examined when they see her intentions.”
The Court of Appeal found that based on this information, “the seriousness of the case against the Appellant significantly differs.”
At another point, it states that “no element has currently been indicated in the entire evidential material from… that tends to connect the money with illegal activities.” Thus, it decided to release the 43-year-old under conditions.
Based on these terms, the 43-year-old will deposit the amount of 30,000 euros in cash, hand over his travel documents to the Police, his name will be included in the list of persons whose exit from the Republic is prohibited, and he will present himself at a police station three times a week.
As is known, the case arose following a complaint by a 31-year-old Ukrainian woman that she had been robbed, specifically that her bag with 420,000 euros in cash was stolen in Limassol, a few hours after her arrival in Cyprus via Larnaca airport.
The 31-year-old was later arrested as it was found that she had been coming to Cyprus for a long period and declaring excessive amounts of cash. In a testimony she gave to police investigators, she implicated the 43-year-old in the case.
For the 43-year-old, lawyers Antonis Dimitriou, Marinos Kaoulas, and Andreas Dimitriou appeared (Dimitriou & Dimitriou LLC).
