As the police investigation into the high-profile ‘Sandy’ case enters its final stage, with only the final touches remaining before the report is submitted to the Law Office, a number of specific but highly significant issues still need to be addressed, either through clear official positions or through forthcoming developments.
The turn the case took following Makarios Drousiotis’ post on the evening of 30 April leaves no room for ambiguity or grey areas. As a result, whatever follows the conclusion of the police investigation must be sufficiently convincing and well documented. More than 40 days have already passed and the prolonged wait for developments has tested public patience.
The motives
If the police investigation confirms ‘Sandy’s’ own claim that she fabricated the messages using a specific application, developments will need to answer critical questions, including:
– What were the motives?
– What drove her to draft hundreds of messages referring to individuals and senior state officials?
– Equally important is whether all files, including messages and audio recordings, were created exclusively by the alleged central figure in the case or whether there was encouragement, assistance or even guidance from other individuals.
– How did she gain access to such information in order to fabricate messages that included real mobile phone numbers?
– It must also be clearly established that ‘Sandy’ was not acting under fear or blackmail in any of the statements she gave to investigators.
The mobile phone
Another critical factor is ‘Sandy’s’ mobile phone, which she told police she used to create all the messages. At present, the device is arguably the most crucial piece of evidence, yet it is not in police possession.
‘Sandy’ claimed in her statement that she handed the phone to lawyer Nikos Clerides, a claim that was not substantiated during the investigation. As a result, the question of the phone’s whereabouts remains unanswered. Police sources believe that even if the device is not located, the case can still be ‘tied up’ through other means, including alternative investigative methods and circumstantial evidence.
Murmurs over Europol
The involvement of Europol has been the subject of discussion in various circles. The decision was taken by the Council of Ministers on 8 April, with the justice minister stating that results from the examination of the evidence sent were expected after Easter. More than a month later, there has been no official update from the police, who have recently said that the results are still pending.
Experienced forensic analysts acknowledge that there has been a significant delay in receiving the findings. However, they note that the time required depends on the scope of the request. Verifying authenticity alone does not take long, but if additional analyses were requested to support the investigative work, the process becomes more time-consuming.
As for the transfer of files, it is standard practice for a police officer to travel to Europol headquarters in The Hague to hand over the evidence, which is then examined by specialists.
At the Law Office
The investigative work will be completed with the inclusion of reports from Europol and FBI experts. The next step will be the submission of the case file to the Law Office, which will decide whether the case should proceed to court and which individuals may face criminal charges. Following instructions from the chief of police for an ex officio criminal investigation into all aspects related to the content of Makarios Drousiotis’ controversial post, investigators at police headquarters have been working in coordination with a state prosecutor.
According to last Thursday’s decision granting leave for the next step in seeking annulment of the investigation involving Nikos Clerides, police are examining the following offences: conspiracy to commit a felony; conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour; conspiracy to defraud; conspiracy to cause harm to another person or their reputation; computer-related forgery, specifically the insertion of computer data; preparation of a forged document; circulation of a forged document; publication of false news; unlawful processing of personal data; interception or inducement of another person to use a device for interception purposes, or intentional disclosure or use of the content of private communications; corruption; and money laundering.
20 May for certiorari
Regarding the process to annul the search warrant executed at the residence, two vehicles and the office of lawyer Nikos Clerides, the hearing on the main application has been scheduled for 20 May. By then, it will become clear whether the Law Office intends to file an objection to the application submitted by Clerides’ legal team.
Legal sources believe that, based on the wording of the decision granting leave to file an application for a prerogative order of certiorari, the search warrant obtained by police is highly likely to be annulled. In practical terms, this would mean that any material obtained through that process would not be admissible as evidence, as it would be considered unlawfully obtained.
