The case involving a Ukrainian woman who, after twenty visits to Cyprus, brought in nearly eight million euros, smells fishy from every direction.
We can only hope to be proven wrong, but it seems we will never find out who these funds were intended for and what they were to be used for.
What the competent authorities know—their lethargy in this matter was monumental—remains a mystery and is unlikely to be revealed.
Perhaps, in time, some foreign country will shed light on the money trail and then we will be shocked, just as we were with the golden passports, the revelations about the van full of cash, and so many other scandals centred around our country.
The authorities claim that her transactions were under scrutiny. If they were, why is she the only one on trial? How is it possible that, over several months, no one followed her or collected evidence on the person or persons receiving the money?
We very much doubt that had this theft not occurred—and there are still investigations to determine whether it was staged—the 31-year-old would have continued her trips unscathed.
A look at the details of the 20 trips this Ukrainian national made, revealed by colleague Ioanna Mantzipa at philenews, raises many questions.
The woman would typically visit our country three times a month since last August, each time carrying substantial sums of money (between €350,000 and €420,000). In December, within eight days, she brought in €1.22 million, and in February, she made five trips, transferring over two million euros.
The question that arises is why, if her transactions were under a microscope, she was not arrested before the theft. As was reported in the court that processed her case for referral to trial, the woman made a cash declaration each of the 20 times she entered Cyprus, claiming the money was hers and intended for property purchases.
However, it was found that neither she nor her husband owns any property or bank accounts in the Republic, nor are they shareholders in any company registered here. Therefore, it appears she made false declarations from the outset and could have been arrested well before the theft if her transactions were indeed being monitored.
Or were they not? Because that would imply an even bigger problem, especially for a country that claims to be taking measures and has a “zero tolerance” policy on money laundering, after the international scandals.
The only certainty is that some people owe us clear answers because it’s obvious that something is very wrong with this case and others involving money laundering.
Read more:
