Criminal Fraud: Case 19/2011: Date 23-10-2013

ΑΝΩΤΑΤΟ ΔΙΚΑΣΤΗΡΙΟ ΚΥΠΡΟΥ
ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΒΑΘΜΙΑ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΔΟΣΙΑ

(Ποινικές Εφέσεις Αρ. 19/2011 και 20/2011)

23 Οκτωβρίου, 2013
[ΠΑΠΑΔΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ, ΠΑΣΧΑΛΙΔΗΣ, ΜΙΧΑΗΛΙΔΟΥ, Δ/στές]

(Ποινική ΄Εφεση Αρ. 19/2011)

CORNELIUS DESMOND O’DWYER

Εφεσείων,

ν.
1. CRISTOFOROS KARAYIANNAS & SONS LTD,
2. ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΟΡΟΥ ΚΑΡΑΓΙΑΝΝΑ,
3. ΜΑΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΡΑΓΙΑΝΝΑ,
4. MICHELLE McDONALD,

Εφεσιβλήτων.

________________________

(Ποινική ΄Εφεση Αρ. 20/2011)

MICHAELLA MARGARET O’DWYER,

Εφεσείουσα,

ν.
1. CRISTOFOROS KARAYIANNAS & SONS LTD,
2. ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΟΡΟΥ ΚΑΡΑΓΙΑΝΝΑ,
3. ΜΑΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΡΑΓΙΑΝΝΑ,
4. MICHELLE Mc DONALD,

Εφεσιβλήτων

________________________

Γιάννος Γεωργιάδης, με Ντόρια Βαρωσιώτου (κα), για τον Εφεσείοντα στην Ποινική ΄Εφεση Αρ. 19/11 και την Εφεσείουσα στην Ποινική ΄Εφεση Αρ. 20/11.
Αντρέας Κλαΐδης, με Στέλιο Βασιλακκά, για Φλουρέντζου, για τους Εφεσίβλητους.

________________________
Την ομόφωνη απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου θα δώσει
η Δικαστής Ε. Παπαδοπούλου.
_________________________
Α Π Ο Φ Α Σ Η

ΠΑΠΑΔΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ, Δ.: Οι εφεσίβλητοι – κατηγορούμενοι, στα πλαίσια της Ιδιωτικής Ποινικής Υπόθεσης Αρ. 1912/2009, ενώπιον του Επαρχιακού Δικαστηρίου Αμμοχώστου, μετά από ακροαματική διαδικασία, αθωώθηκαν και απηλλάγησαν των κατηγοριών που αντιμετώπιζαν. Οι κατηγορίες αφορούσαν δόλια συναλλαγή σε ακίνητη περιουσία που ανήκε σε άλλο. Συγκεκριμένα, κατηγορούνταν: Οι εφεσίβλητοι 1 ότι, ενώ γνώριζαν ή έπρεπε εύλογα να γνωρίζουν ότι δεν είχαν τη συγκατάθεση των εφεσειόντων, δικαιούχων δυνάμει πωλητηρίου εγγράφου ημερομηνίας 23/8/2005, κατατεθειμένου στο Επαρχιακό Κτηματολόγιο Αμμοχώστου, πώλησαν ή διέθεσαν προς χρήση μία κατοικία στο κτηριακό συγκρότημα «΄Αγιος Σέργιος», στο Φρέναρος, (η «κατοικία»), οι εφεσίβλητοι 2 και 3 ότι συμμετείχαν στην εν λόγω συναλλαγή και η εφεσίβλητη 4 ότι αποδέχτηκε την κατοικία, ενώ γνώριζε, ή, υπό τις περιστάσεις, έπρεπε εύλογα να γνωρίζει ότι δεν υπήρχε η συγκατάθεση των εφεσειόντων. Αποτελούσε κοινό έδαφος πρωτοδίκως ότι:-

«α) η Κατηγορουμένη αρ. 1 είναι εταιρεία, δεόντως συσταθείσα στην Κύπρο συμφώνως του Νόμου και ότι οι Κατηγορούμενοι αρ. 2 και αρ. 3 ήσαν διευθυντές της κατά τον ουσιώδη για την υπόθεση χρόνο και συνεχίζουν να είναι μέχρι και σήμερα.

β) οι Παραπονούμενοι (είναι μεταξύ τους σύζυγοι) συνεβλήθησαν γραπτώς με την Κατηγορουμένη αρ. 1 εταιρεία στις 23.8.2005, για την αγορά μιας υπό ανέγερση οικίας (αποτελούσε μέρος συγκροτήματος κατοικιών που ήταν γνωστό ως ‘Agios Sergios Complex’ και είχε τον αριθμό 30) η οποία θα ανεγείρετο σε ιδιόκτητη γη της τελευταίας (εγγεγραμμένη ιδιοκτήτρια της γης ήταν η κατηγορουμένη αρ. 1 εταιρεία), στο χωριό Φρέναρος της επαρχίας Αμμοχώστου.

γ) οι Παραπονούμενοι κατέθεσαν στις 8.9.2005 στο Επαρχιακό Κτηματολόγιο Αμμοχώστου το προαναφερόμενο Πωλητήριο ΄Εγγραφο.»

Σύμφωνα με τους εφεσείοντες, η κατοικία αγοράστηκε, για να μετακινηθεί η οικογένειά τους και η επιχείρησή τους από την Αγγλία στην Κύπρο. Η συμφωνία έγινε με τον εφεσίβλητο 3, η δε κατοικία, που θα ανεγειρόταν σε γωνιακό οικόπεδο, αγοράστηκε αντί του ποσού των ΛΚ163.000,00. Η υπογραφείσα συμφωνία κατατέθηκε στο Κτηματολόγιο και οι ίδιοι, μέχρι τις 2/2/2006, κατέβαλαν το ποσό των ΛΚ91.056,00. Ο εφεσείων στην Ποινική ΄Εφεση Αρ. 19/11, (ο «εφεσείων»), το Φεβρουάριο του 2006, όταν αυτός βρισκόταν στην Κύπρο, διαπίστωσε και υπέδειξε στον εφεσίβλητο 3 λάθη στην οικοδομή, με σοβαρότερο το ότι, ταυτόχρονα με την κατασκευή της οικίας που αυτοί αγόρασαν, οι εφεσίβλητοι 1 έκτιζαν τρεις διώροφες κατοικίες στο σημείο που θα έπρεπε να είναι ο γειτνιάζων με την οικία τους δρόμος. Επειδή αυτό επηρέαζε την απομόνωση της κατοικίας τους, εξέθεσε στον εφεσίβλητο 3 τα προβλήματα με τηλεομοιότυπο, χωρίς, όμως, να πάρει οποιαδήποτε απάντηση. Ακολούθως, επειδή είχε καταγράψει σε «οπτικοακουστική» κασέτα όλες τις συνομιλίες που ο ίδιος είχε με τους εφεσίβλητους 2 και 3, τις ανήρτησε στο διαδίκτυο, μετά, όμως, από παραστάσεις των τελευταίων τις απέσυρε. Τον Ιούνιο του 2006, οι εφεσίβλητοι 1 – 3 αρνήθηκαν να δεχτούν οποιαδήποτε περαιτέρω πληρωμή και κατέθεσαν αγωγή στο δικαστήριο για τερματισμό του συμβολαίου. Το 2007, όταν πληροφορήθηκε από τηλεφωνήματα και e-mails στην ιστοσελίδα του ότι το σπίτι του πωλήθηκε, πληροφόρησε, με επιστολή του μέσω ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου, την εφεσίβλητη 4 για την ύπαρξη του δικού του συμβολαίου. Αργότερα, την ειδοποίησε, με επιστολή του δικηγόρου του, η οποία της επιδόθηκε διά χειρός, να εγκαταλείψει την οικία του.

Θέση των εφεσειόντων ήταν ότι αυτοί, από τη στιγμή που το συμβόλαιό τους κατατέθηκε στο Κτηματολόγιο, είναι οι νόμιμοι ιδιοκτήτες της κατοικίας, δεν παρέβησαν τους όρους του συμβολαίου τους, ο δε τερματισμός του από τους εφεσίβλητους 1, 2 και 3 είναι παράνομος και έγινε ώστε οι τελευταίοι να πωλήσουν την κατοικία σε ψηλότερη τιμή.

Οι εφεσίβλητοι 2, 3 και 4 επέλεξαν να μην καταθέσουν, ούτε να προβούν σε οποιαδήποτε δήλωση. Κάλεσαν ένα μάρτυρα, τον κ. Γ. Πιττάτζη, ο οποίος προηγουμένως ενεργούσε ως δικηγόρος τους και ο οποίος ανέφερε ότι, στις 9/3/2006, εκ μέρους των εφεσιβλήτων 1, απέστειλε στους εφεσείοντες επιστολή, με την οποία τους πληροφορούσε ότι αυτοί τερμάτιζαν τη μεταξύ τους συμφωνία αγοράς της κατοικίας, για λόγους που αφορούσαν τους εφεσείοντες. Την ίδια επιστολή τους απέστειλε και στις 10/4/2006, με κοινοποίησή της προς τους δικηγόρους τους. Αντεξεταζόμενος, δήλωσε ότι ο ίδιος δε γνώριζε πότε η εφεσίβλητη 4 αγόρασε την κατοικία.

Το πρωτόδικο Δικαστήριο, καθοδηγούμενο από νομολογία[1] σε σχέση με την υποχρέωση της Κατηγορούσας Αρχής, σε ποινικές υποθέσεις, όπως αυτή αποδείξει κάθε συστατικό στοιχείο του αδικήματος και αφού προσδιόρισε τα συστατικά στοιχεία των κατηγοριών που οι εφεσίβλητοι αντιμετώπιζαν, κατέληξε ότι οι εφεσείοντες, και σε περίπτωση ακόμη που γινόταν δεκτή η θέση τους ότι οι ίδιοι είχαν καταστεί «δυνητικά ιδιοκτήτες» της κατοικίας και ήταν τα πρόσωπα που είχαν νόμιμη εξουσία να παρέχουν, στα πλαίσια του ΄Αρθρου 303Α(2) του περί Ποινικού Κώδικα Νόμου, Κεφ. 154, (το «Κεφ. 154»), συγκατάθεση για οποιαδήποτε συναλλαγή σε σχέση με αυτή, δεν απέδειξαν ότι η συναλλαγή των εφεσιβλήτων 1 με την εφεσίβλητη 4 έγινε με σκοπό την καταδολίευσή τους, ελλείψει μαρτυρίας για το χρόνο που αυτή έγινε. Σύμφωνα με τους εφεσίβλητους, η εν λόγω συναλλαγή έγινε μετά τον τερματισμό της συμφωνίας με τους εφεσείοντες.

Καθοδηγούμενο το πρωτόδικο Δικαστήριο από την Ευθυμίου ν. Αστυνομίας (2008) 2 Α.Α.Δ. 861, όπου αναφέρεται ότι πρόθεση εξαπάτησης από μέρους του παρασπονδούντος πρέπει να υπάρχει κατά το χρόνο της παράστασης και όχι εκ των υστέρων, κατέληξε ότι, στην περίπτωση των εφεσιβλήτων, δεν υπήρχε μαρτυρία για τέτοια πρόθεση κατά το χρόνο της κατάθεσης της συμφωνίας στο Κτηματολόγιο.

Οι εφεσείοντες, με τον πρώτο λόγο έφεσης, υποστηρίζουν ότι το πρωτόδικο Δικαστήριο εσφαλμένα κατέληξε ότι δεν αποδείχθηκε ότι αυτοί κατέστησαν ιδιοκτήτες της επίδικης κατοικίας. Με το δεύτερο λόγο έφεσης, ισχυρίζονται ότι λανθασμένα αυτό κατέληξε ότι από τη μαρτυρία που το ίδιο είχε ενώπιόν του δεν αποδείχθηκε το συστατικό στοιχείο της καταδολίευσης. Η ενώπιόν του μαρτυρία, υποστηρίζουν, αποδείκνυε, πέραν πάσης λογικής αμφιβολίας, ότι οι εφεσίβλητοι γνώριζαν, ή έπρεπε εύλογα να γνωρίζουν ότι δεν είχαν τη συγκατάθεσή τους να συναλλάττονται για την κατοικία. Το Τεκμήριο 8, υπό την τίτλο “Legal Undertakings to sell and purchase”, καταδεικνύει το χρόνο της συναλλαγής με την εφεσίβλητη 4. Με τους λόγους έφεσης 3 και 4, διατείνονται ότι το πρωτόδικο Δικαστήριο αξιολόγησε λανθασμένα τη μαρτυρία του εφεσείοντα, όπως και την επιλογή των εφεσιβλήτων να μην καταθέσουν και να δώσουν εξήγηση κατά πόσο αυτοί γνώριζαν ή όχι ότι δεν είχαν τη συγκατάθεσή τους να πωλήσουν την κατοικία.

Θα εξετάσουμε πρώτα την εισήγηση των εφεσειόντων ως προς την ορθότητα της αξιολόγησης της μαρτυρίας τους και της μη απόδειξης του συστατικού στοιχείου των αδικημάτων σε σχέση με την πρόθεση καταδολίευσης, αφού η κατάληξή μας σ’ αυτό καθιστά αχρείαστη την ενασχόλησή μας με τον πρώτο λόγο έφεσης.

Οι αρχές, με βάση τις οποίες το Εφετείο επεμβαίνει για να ανατρέψει ευρήματα του πρωτόδικου δικαστηρίου αναφορικά με την αξιοπιστία των μαρτύρων, είναι καλά γνωστές. Το ζήτημα της αξιοπιστίας των μαρτύρων ανήκει στο πρωτόδικο δικαστήριο, το οποίο, με την ευκαιρία που έχει στη ζωντανή ατμόσφαιρα της δίκης, είναι σε πλεονεκτική θέση να αξιολογήσει την αξιοπιστία τους. Το Εφετείο επεμβαίνει μόνο, εάν τα ευρήματα ή τα συμπεράσματα του πρωτόδικου δικαστηρίου αντιστρατεύονται την κοινή λογική, ή εάν δε δικαιολογούνται από τη μαρτυρία ή από τα ίδια τα ευρήματά του.

Το πρωτόδικο Δικαστήριο, για την απόρριψη της μαρτυρίας του εφεσείοντα, τον οποίο είδε να καταθέτει, έδωσε πειστικούς λόγους. Χαρακτηριστικά ανέφερε ότι, κατά την αντεξέτασή του, αυτός δεν απαντούσε σε οποιαδήποτε ερώτηση σε σχέση με τις δικές του υποχρεώσεις από το συμβόλαιο.

΄Εχουμε και εμείς μελετήσει τη μαρτυρία του εφεσείοντα αλλά και τη μαρτυρία στο σύνολό της και δε διαπιστώνουμε οτιδήποτε που να δικαιολογεί να επέμβουμε στις διαπιστώσεις του πρωτόδικου Δικαστηρίου. Το γεγονός ότι οι εφεσίβλητοι επέλεξαν να μην καταθέσουν δεν μπορεί, καθ’ οιονδήποτε τρόπο, να προσμετρήσει σε βάρος τους, αλλά ούτε και να επιδράσει και να καταστήσει τη μαρτυρία του εφεσείοντα αξιόπιστη ή τον τρόπο αξιολόγησής της εσφαλμένο. Το πρωτόδικο Δικαστήριο δεν παρέβλεψε την επιλογή αυτή των εφεσιβλήτων, ακολουθώντας, όμως, την αρχή της νομολογίας ότι είναι δικαίωμα κατηγορουμένου να μην καταθέσει και ότι το βάρος απόδειξης κάθε συστατικού στοιχείου των κατηγοριών βαρύνει την Κατηγορούσα Αρχή, δεν την προσμέτρησε σε βάρος τους. ΄Οπως ορθά κατέληξε, με τη μαρτυρία που υπήρχε ενώπιόν του, δεν είχε αποδειχθεί το συστατικό στοιχείο της καταδολίευσης, δηλαδή ότι η συναλλαγή πραγματοποιήθηκε με σκοπό την καταδολίευση των εφεσειόντων. Το Κατηγορητήριο είχε ως βάση του το ΄Αρθρο 303Α (2)(α), (β) και (3) του Κεφ. 154, το οποίο προβλέπει τα εξής:-

«(2) Για τους σκοπούς του παρόντος άρθρου πρόσωπο συναλλάττεται σε ακίνητη περιουσία όπου –

(α) Πωλεί σε άλλο, ή ενοικιάζει σε άλλο, ή υποθηκεύει σε άλλο ή επιβαρύνει με οποιοδήποτε τρόπο, ή διαθέτει προς χρήση σε άλλο ακίνητη περιουσία, ή

(β) διαφημίζει ή άλλως πως προωθεί τη σε άλλο πώληση ή ενοικίαση ή υποθήκευση ή επιβάρυνση με οποιοδήποτε τρόπο ή την από άλλο χρήση ακίνητης περιουσίας, ή

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

(3) Για τους σκοπούς του παρόντος άρθρου, πρόσωπο ενεργεί με σκοπό καταδολίευσης εάν προβεί σε οποιαδήποτε από τις πράξεις που καθορίζονται στο εδάφιο (2) ενώ γνωρίζει ή, υπό τις περιστάσεις, έπρεπε εύλογα να γνωρίζει, ότι δεν έχει τη συγκατάθεση του εγγεγραμμένου ιδιοκτήτη της ακίνητης περιουσίας, ή οποιουδήποτε άλλου προσώπου που έχει νόμιμη εξουσία παροχής τέτοιας συγκατάθεσης.»

Η απόρριψη της μαρτυρίας του εφεσείοντα σε σχέση με το εν λόγω συστατικό στοιχείο, για τους καθ’ όλα εύλογους και πειστικούς λόγους που διαπίστωσε το πρωτόδικο Δικαστήριο, δεν άφηνε άλλη επιλογή από την απαλλαγή και αθώωσή των εφεσιβλήτων από τις κατηγορίες. Το Τεκμήριο 8, στο οποίο ο δικηγόρος των εφεσειόντων παρέπεμψε για να υποστηρίξει το λανθασμένο της κρίσης σε σχέση με το χρόνο πώλησης της κατοικίας στην εφεσίβλητη 4, κάθε άλλο παρά μαρτυρία για το χρόνο που αυτή έγινε αποτελεί. Με αυτό, δηλωνόταν ότι η κατοικία είχε πωληθεί σε τρίτο – (στους εφεσείοντες) – η δε εφεσίβλητη 4 αναλάμβανε, υπό όρους, μετά τον τερματισμό της συμφωνίας, να την αγοράσει. Οι εφεσίβλητοι δεν αρνήθηκαν την ύπαρξη της συμφωνίας με τους εφεσείοντες, ήταν, όμως, η θέση τους ότι αυτή τερματίστηκε από τους ίδιους, λόγω παράβασης όρων της από τον εφεσείοντα και καταχώρισαν σχετική αγωγή στο Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο για τερματισμό της. Το ποιος ήταν υπεύθυνος για τον τερματισμό της συμφωνίας δεν μπορούσε να κριθεί από το πρωτόδικο Δικαστήριο. Αυτό θα αποφασιστεί στα πλαίσια της αγωγής.

Η κατάληξή μας ως προς την ορθότητα της πιο πάνω διαπίστωσης καθιστά αχρείαστη την εξέταση του λόγου έφεσης 1.

Η παρούσα έφεση, η οποία, ουσιαστικά, στρέφεται εναντίον της ορθότητας της αξιολόγησης της μαρτυρίας, έχει και μια άλλη διάσταση. Καθώς προκύπτει, καταχωρήθηκε μετά από άδεια του Γενικού Εισαγγελέα, στη βάση των εξουσιών που του παρέχει το ΄Αρθρο 137(1) του περί Ποινικής Δικονομίας Νόμου, Κεφ. 155. ΄Εχοντας υπόψη ότι έφεση, από μέρους του Γενικού Εισαγγελέα, εναντίον αθωωτικής απόφασης χωρεί μόνον επί νομικών θεμάτων, μας απασχόλησε κατά πόσο θα επανανοίγαμε την υπόθεση, για να ακούσουμε τους δικηγόρους, αφού το όλο ζήτημα δεν έχει εγερθεί από τους εφεσίβλητους. Θεωρήσαμε, όμως, ότι, υπό τις περιστάσεις της υπόθεσης, δε θα εξυπηρετείτο οποιοσδήποτε σκοπός pop over to this website.

Η έφεση απορρίπτεται, με έξοδα, πλέον Φ.Π.Α., υπέρ των εφεσιβλήτων, όπως αυτά θα υπολογιστούν από τον Πρωτοκολλητή και θα εγκριθούν από το Δικαστήριο.

Ε. Παπαδοπούλου, Δ.

Α. Πασχαλίδης, Δ.

Δ. Μιχαηλίδου Δ.

[1] Λοΐζου ν. Αστυνομίας (1989) 2 Α.Α.Δ. 363· Φλουρής ν. Αστυνομίας (1989) 2 Α.Α.Δ. 401 και Γεν. Εισαγγελέας ν. Σπύρου (2002) 2 Α.Α.Δ. 71
Source

Our View: The AG and the complete inversion of all logic

ON SUNDAY a Greek newspaper carried a report that Attorney-general Petros Clerides had suspended prosecution for driving offences against his son.

Clerides, declined to comment until Monday night on a television current affairs show where although he was not specific about the reported offences – drink driving and not having an MOT – he did confirm that an offence had taken place and that he had suspended prosecution.

Article 113 of the constitution grants the Attorney-general or members of his office acting on his instructions the right to suspend any prosecution against anyone in Cyprus “exercisable at (the AG’s) discretion in the public interest”.

While no one is saying the AG acted illegally, his reasoning is however flawed.

He suggests the fact that he did not sweep the whole affair under the carpet showed transparency. He suggests the fact that he has suspended such prosecutions for other people’s children means his own son should be treated no differently. He suggests it was no big deal because the particular offence is now regulated by an on-the-spot fine and is not really an offence at all.

This is a complete inversion of all logic and a brazen example of Orwellian doublespeak.

Whether he did it above board or under the carpet, he has sent the message that some people are above the law. His, son, a lawyer was 32 years old at the time, not errant teenager who didn’t know any better and might deserve a second chance. And how was quashing such a prosecution in the public interest anyway?

If a driving offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine is not really an offence at all, why is it written in the law and why is there a fine?

If there were, as the AG said, no serious consequences on his son’s career from the driving offence, why not just pay the fine? It’s not like he could not afford it. Even if there were extenuating circumstances that we are not aware of that caused his son to commit a driving offence, the fine could have and should have been paid since it was all ‘no big deal’ anyway.

The AG says he is not ashamed of his actions and merely wanted to treat his son the same way he has treated other people’s children. Does that mean he suspends more driving prosecutions than not? If the majority are fined, then his son, by his own reasoning, should actually have been fined if he wanted to treat him like most others.

The whole point of punishing those who break the law is that they won’t offend again or worse still, harm someone by their repeated actions.

If the highest lawyer in the land can dismiss the letter of the law with a wave of his pen, there is not much hope for this country. It’s the AG’s job to lead by example but the only example that has been shown here is that the law is not worth the paper it’s written on, if you know the right people that is.

Published on April 11, 2013
Copyright © Cyprus Mail

email re: George Pittadjis perjury

30.06.2011
To Ms Elena Kleopa
Senior Counsel of the Republic
+357 22889110

Dear Ms Keopa,

I just had a call back from your office. The lady identified herself as “Ms Anna” but refused to give me a
surname. She said she has spoken to the investigating law officer but said I cannot have that name either. She said I must continue to wait for a written reply. (I guess she means a reply to my letter of 28th April 2011)

There is no reason why an officer can not phone and give me the answer to these questions, Today.
Has Mr Pittadjis been arrested?
Has Mr Pittadjis been charged?
Has Mr Pittadjis’ office been searched for further evidence?
What is the case number?
I have an appeal pending which this case affects. Is Mr Pittadjis (a lawyer) above the law? or is perjury not a crime in Cyprus? I have supplied you with conclusive evidence and all I have had in return is a letter to say send in 68 euros to the disciplinary board of advocates

You said on Monday to call Tuesday but ‘Ms Anna’ just phoned to say “not to call again” I would like some
clarification today please.

Your Sincerely
Cornelius O’Dwyer

email: Perjury case George Pittadjis

30-06-2011
To Ms Elena Kleopa
Senior Counsel of the Republic
+357 22889110
Dear Ms Kleopa,

In our brief conversation on Monday you told me you were not the Law Officer in charge of the Pittadjis perjury case and that you had assigned this case to another but could not tell me who. You said to phone you the next day and you would inform me who is in charge of this case. I have been calling you since but no answer.

I hope you can let me know today if the Attorney General is taking action in this matter. The Republic is obligated to keep witnesses and victims of a crime updated and informed in criminal proceedings. I reported this serious offence to the police in November 2010. The file was concluded and put before you in December.

I would like to know if Mr Pittadjis was arrested? Was he charged? Was his offices searched for further evidence? What is my case number? When will this matter go before a court?

I have copied the British High Commissioner on this email and I urge Mr Matthew Kidd to intervene in this criminal matter brought before him.

I have enclosed my last correspondence for your convenience.
Yours Sincerely
Cornelius O’Dwyer
CC:
Mr Matthew Kidd – British High Commissioner, Nicosia.
Ms Zoe Woodward – Property Officer
Mr Petros Clerides – Attorney General of the Republic
Yiannos G. Georgiades – My Legal Representation in Cyprus
Ms Eliza Savvidou – The Commissioner of administration (Ombudsman)
Mr Neoklis Sylikiotis – Minister of Interior
Viviane Reding – Vice President, Commissioner for Justice
Denis O’Hare – Cyprus Property Action Group

Letter to the office of the Attorney General

Polina Efthivoulou
Counsel of the Republic
Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus
1403 Nicosia
Cyprus
+357 22889242
pefthivoulou@law.gov.cy

19th May 2011

Dear Ms Efthivoulou,

Double Selling Fraud. Section 303a Criminal Code

Thank you for the meeting on the 21st January 2011 where we discussed, amongst other issues, the double selling fraud by my developer of our property. During our meeting you advised me that you were going to raise the issue again with the Attorney General. I am writing to you today for the results of that meeting and for final clarification on criminal law concerning fraudulent dealings in immovable property belonging to another.

Criminal Code section 303A.

(1) Any person who, with intent to defraud, deals in immovable property belonging to another is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

(2) For the purposes of the present section a person shall be deemed to be dealing in immovable property where

(a) [that person] Sells to another, or rents to another, or mortgages to another or encumbers in any way, or makes available for use by another immovable property, or

(b) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale or renting out or mortgaging or charging in any way to another of immovable property or the use thereof by another, or

(c) concludes an agreement for the sale to another, or the renting out to another, or the mortgaging to another, or the charging in any way to the benefit of another, or the use by another of immovable property, or

(d) accepts the immovable property which is the object of the dealing as this is defined in the present subsection.

Competition and Consumer Protection Service

I am copying this letter to Christos Solomonides Director of the Competition and Consumer Protection Service (“the CCP Service”) so as to encourage inter agency co-operation to protect consumers interest. The CCP Service is the competent government authority responsible for the enforcement of the consumer protection laws aiming at safeguarding consumer interests. It deals with subject matters such as unfair commercial practices, unfair terms in consumer contracts, misleading and comparative advertising, etc.

I understand that when the competent authority becomes aware of any infringement of Directive 2005/29/EC and the Cyprus Law 103 (I) /2007 which transposes it, it must, as soon as possible, take all the necessary enforcement measures to bring about the prohibition or cessation of the infringement committed by any supplier of goods or provider of services. It’s powers are far reaching including to apply to the Court for the issuing of a prohibitory or mandatory order, including an interim order, or to impose an administrative fine with regard to transgressions of consumer protection legislation.

This is to say that they will take court action on our behalf if this is required.

Private Criminal Prosecution

As you know our contract is still at the Land Registry deposited for specific performance and our money is in the developers bank since 2005. Before completion of the property in 2006 the developer sold the same property to another at a higher price who still occupy the house. You may recall that this was first brought to your attention late 2007 and in November 2008 you replied that the file had been studied and that it had been ascertained that no criminal offence has been committed. My family was left with little choice but to pay for a private criminal prosecution.

At the private criminal prosecution we presented evidence satisfying all of the essential facts including our contract in the Land Registry, our house unlawfully occupied and legal precedent that a contract in the Land Registry secures ones right as beneficial owner. The accused gave no evidence choosing to remain silent as is their right, but in a shocking conclusion (see Cyprus Mail attached by email) the judge without hearing a rebuttal seemingly went against her own Prima Facie decision, sided with the developer and occupant and acquitted them of all charges in January 2011. I have attached (By email only) my lawyer’s final submission and the judges ruling.

I believe any fair and reasonable jurisdiction would see the selling of the same property twice as a criminal fraud. It is grossly unfair for the buyer to be put on the very long and protracted journey towards remedy in the civil courts which is both costly and time-consuming while in contrast the developer enjoys your money to further his own business. Despite being filed in 2006 our civil case is not due for hearing till the end of this year. It will be argued that this is in breach of article 30 of the constitution. The Republic cares little that my family lives in rented accommodation with our lives in limbo.

In my complaint to the newly formed CCP Service I am requesting an inquiry and hope that they not only champion our appeal but reimburse our legal costs for the private criminal prosecution. We satisfied the Prima Facie requirements of the case proven by the judges interim decision. Clearly then the state should have proceeded with this prosecution in the public interest.

I don’t believe the above-mentioned Law is legally defective but cannot understand the Republics reluctance to implement it in our case. If our case doesn’t satisfy the elements for prosecution then what possible scenario would? I hope the law was not introduced to protect Greek property from Turkish occupation only.

False Advertising

When buying property in Cyprus I like everyone else believed that our contract in the Land Registry secured our rights and protected our interests and that only by mutual agreement or a court order could our rights be removed. Had we have known differently we would have not bought in Cyprus.

In addressing the title deeds issue in July 2009 Mr Neoclis Sylikiotis, Minister of the Interior stated:-

It must also become clear that the ownership status of a buyer-owner of immovable property in Cyprus is definitely secured and cannot be challenged, as long as the buyer-owner has submitted the buying-contract to the Department of Lands and Surveys.”

This rhetoric is repeated by every estate agent, lawyer and developer in the property industry all of whom believe and promote that once your contract is in the Land Registry your rights are secured. Here are two examples:-

By having the purchase contract deposited at the L.R.O. The buyer not only secures his interest in the property but he also prevents the owner of land/vendor from transferring the property to a third party without his knowledge.”

From the brochure of the Pittadjis Law Firm of Paralimni.
The Lawyers who sold our house to another without our knowledge.

From the minute your contract of sale is registered at the land registry department the property is officially yours and you can sell your property the next minute.”

From our developers promotional material.

Requests for action

I put many questions to you in January which instead of answering you were going to put before the Attorney General. I respectfully seek clarification on the following for my family and for the public interest.

Firstly, our private criminal prosecution is set for judicial review at the Supreme Court. I understand that this may take a while. Can you please confirm what action the Attorney General has taken to expedite this process in light of the serious effect on my family, the property industry and its reputation abroad.

Secondly, as the law stands today, how many times can a property developer sell the same house before it becomes a criminal offence? And how much money can the developer keep from each buyer? In our case the same house was sold twice and the developer kept all our money paid (some 50% of the house price).

Finally, could you please let me know what lessons have been learnt and what provisions have been put in place to see this does not happen again?

I understand that under Article 29 of the Cyprus Constitution I should be due a response from you within 30 days. I thank you for your attention and eagerly await your response.

Yours Sincerely

Cornelius O’Dwyer

3

CC:-

Mr Petros Clerides
Attorney General of the Republic
Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus
1403 Nicosia
Cyprus
Τel.: +35722889115, Fax.: +35722665080
att.gen@law.gov.cy

My Legal Representation in Cyprus
Yiannos G. Georgiades
GEORGIADES & MYLONAS
2, Ayios Pavlos & Kadmos Street
Wisdom Tower, 3rd Floor
1105 Nicosia, P.O.Box 24144, 1701 Nicosia
Tel: +357 22819292 Fax: +357 22778444
yiannos.georgiades@gmadvocates.com

Mr Christos Solomonides
Director of the Competition
and Consumer Protection Service
Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Cyprus
CY-1421 Nicosia, CYPRUS
Tel: +357 22867100 Fax: +357 22375120
conservice@mcit.gov.cy

Mr Neoklis Sylikiotis
Minister of Interior
Dimostheni Severi ave
1453 Nicosia
Tel: +357 22867600 Fax: +357 22676709
dktorides@moi.gov.cy
minister@moi.gov.cy

Mr Christos Christophides
Director of the President’s Office and Deputy Government Spokesman
TEL: +357 22867431, +357 22867408
FAX: +357 22304300, +357 22660173
christophides.chr@presidency.gov.cy

Mr Matthew Kidd – High Commissioner:
Ms Zoe Woodward – Property Officer
British High Commission
Alexander Pallis Street (PO Box 21978)
1587 Nicosia
Cyprus
Matthew.Kidd@fco.gov.uk
Zoe.Woodward@fco.gov.uk

Viviane Reding
Vice President, Commissioner for Justice
DG Justice
European Commission
Brussels B-1049
Belgium
FAX : +32 2 299.92.01
viviane.reding@ec.europa.eu

Denis O’Hare.
Cyprus Property Action Group.
denis.ohare@cyprus-property-action-group.net

4

Letter to Attorney General 28-04-2011

Mr Petros Clerides
Attorney General of the Republic
Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus
1403 Nicosia
Cyprus
Τel.: +35722889115, Fax.: +35722665080
att.gen@law.gov.cy

28th April 2011

Honourable Sir,

Re: Perjury Case against Mr George Pittadjis

I am writing to request an update on a case brought before your office. Senior Counsel for the Republic Elena Kleopa is in charge of the case, however I understand that Polina Efthivoulou brought the matter to your personal attention in January.

On the 13th October 2010 Mr George Pittadjis gave false testimony at Larnaca District court, case number 1912/09 with Judge Mrs Stalo Tsivitanidou-Kizi presiding. Mr George Pittadjis clearly committed perjury in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. His false testimony influenced the outcome of the case. The outcome of this case was very important for not only my family but the property industry and the Republics reputation abroad. It concerns whether or not a contract in the land registry secures the buyers rights as the beneficial owner. The case is now set for appeal at the Supreme Court which is why it is vital that Mr George Pittadjis be brought before the courts as soon as possible.

I made my statement at the Police Headquarters on the 24th November 2010 to officer Mr. Nicos Kalassides. I understand other parties were interviewed and the file was handed over to your office before Christmas 2010.

I look forward to hearing from you soon regarding this matter.

Yours Sincerely

Cornelius O’Dwyer

CC:-

Elena Kleopa
Senior Counsel of the Republic
+357 22889110
ekleopas@law.gov.cy

Polina Efthivoulou
Counsel of the Republic
+357 22889242
pefthivoulou@law.gov.cy

My Legal Representation in Cyprus

Yiannos G. Georgiades
GEORGIADES & MYLONAS
2, Ayios Pavlos & Kadmos Street
Wisdom Tower, 3rd Floor
1105 Nicosia, P.O.Box 24144, 1701 Nicosia
Tel: +357 22819292 Fax: +357 22778444
yiannos.georgiades@gmadvocates.com

Mr Matthew Kidd – High Commissioner:
Ms Zoe Woodward – Property Officer
British High Commission
Alexander Pallis Street (PO Box 21978)
1587 Nicosia
Cyprus
Matthew.Kidd@fco.gov.uk
Zoe.Woodward@fco.gov.uk

Double selling fraud: the O’Dwyer judgement

FOR at least five years, the main complaint by Cyprus property buyers, particularly foreigners, has been non-issuance of Title Deeds. Typically, the developer has taken a prior mortgage on the land, which was either unannounced or deliberately hidden but, in any event, not revealed because of non-existent or negligent searches.

Non-discharged mortgages add to developer foot dragging and bureaucratic delays. Some 130,000 properties are still awaiting their Title Deeds, typically 7-15 years or more.

However, some cases have also involved alleged ‘double selling’ fraud whereby the developer sells a property to Party A, fails to lodge the contract with the Land Registry and then sells it again to Party B (possibly for a higher price) but fails to reimburse Party A. There are also alleged variants of this scam.

The most high profile case involves Mr Conor O’Dwyer who bought a property in Frenaros from Karayiannas developers. O’Dwyer brought a number of legal actions against the developers. One action, a private criminal prosecution for fraud under section 303A of the penal code, received judgement on 20th January 2011.

O’Dwyer had reported his allegations to the Police and the Attorney General who declined to act. He then felt obliged to prosecute both the developers and Michelle McDonald, the second buyer who now occupies the property.

This whole saga has received massive coverage in the English media but scant attention in the Greek language media. However, it would be unwise for anyone to ignore the huge negative implications for property buyers and for Cyprus.

Real protection or a mirage?

For many years, the standard claim by the Cyprus government, developers, lawyers and estate agents has been that a buyer of immovable property is absolutely protected once his sales contract is lodged with the Cyprus Land Registry.

This claim, supported by a precedent Supreme Court ruling, has been their main counter to the avalanche of allegations, criticism, anger and demands for justice from property buyers, largely from foreigners and their MEPs.

Indeed, on 22nd July 2009 the Minister of the Interior Mr Neoclis Sylikiotis issued a lengthy official statement about the Title Deeds scandal, noting that “those allegations are entirely unsustainable”.

He further clarified that “the current system and the existing legislation protects buyers and their ownership status”. He went on: “…..the ownership status of a buyer-owner of immovable property in Cyprus is definitely secured and cannot be challenged, as long as the buyer-owner has submitted the buying-contract to the Department of Lands and Surveys”.

Finally, he emphasized that “….there is something that one must not forget. Nobody and no Authority anywhere can ever challenge the property rights or ownership status of buyers of immovable property within the territory which is under the control of the Republic of Cyprus”.

A few days earlier, in a letter to Graham Watson MEP, Mr Sylikiotis had stated: “……buyers of immovable property are protected, once they deposit the Contract of Sale at the appropriate District Office of the Department of Lands and Surveys according to the Sale of Lands (Specific Performance) Law, Cap 232”.

What possibly could be doubted from such emphatic statements from the Minister himself, backed up a Supreme Court ruling? Well, the judge in the private criminal prosecution brought by O’Dwyer clearly thought otherwise.

The judgement

The defendants were found not guilty of ‘double selling’ fraud. Apparently, the judge decided that the prosecution had failed to prove, as required under criminal law, that the defendants had committed fraud ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’.

In my opinion as a non-lawyer, the prosecution would have had to prove a deliberate intention to permanently deprive the rightful owner of his property.

The judge acknowledged that O’Dwyer was the rightful owner and that he had lodged his sales contract at the Land Registry. She further acknowledged that he had made stage payments as per contract and that the developers had not returned his money, despite having re-sold the property to another person. The fact that the developers apparently have never offered or made any reimbursement of his money appears to demonstrate a deliberate intention to permanently deprive him of the property.

Under civil law, res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) and ‘on the balance of probabilities’ would apply.

However, this was a criminal case and the judge felt that intent was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt. What other logical reason can be put forward for what they did? It cannot have been just an error or forgetfulness, as the matter was brought swiftly to their attention. By eliminating other potential defences such as insanity and intoxication, that just leaves ‘lack of intent’ and the purposefulness with which they went about it strongly suggests intent. After all these years and no hint of a repayment, the intent also looks pretty permanent! However, just as disturbing, and contrary to the precedent Supreme Court ruling, the judge also stated that lodging of a sales contract at the Land Registry does not automatically confer protection against ‘double selling’: “the fact they (plaintiffs) submitted a sales contract to the Land Registry did not mean they automatically and in perpetuity have become the ‘owners’ (as they mean it) of the residence.”

This judgment thus cancels the standard claim by government, developers, lawyers and agents that buyers are absolutely protected.

An appeal is being lodged with the Supreme Court and so the judge’s reasoning would be examined and evaluated formally when the appeal is heard.

The implications

Nevertheless, regardless of the final verdict on appeal, immense and irreversible damage has already been inflicted internationally by this and other cases on the Cyprus property market and the general reputation of Cyprus.

O’Dwyer alone is engaged in several other cases against his developers. They have already been found guilty of assaulting O’Dwyer in two separate cases and a civil claim for damages against them is still pending.

The Cyprus Property Scandal is not just about Title Deeds but the totality of factors that influence potential new buyers. Many existing foreign buyers report that they now feel terrified and their ‘Cyprus dream’ has been shattered. Potential new buyers simply strike Cyprus off their prospect list when they see earlier buyers being treated so badly.

Cyprus courts have no juries but millions of media and Internet users around the world, including potential new buyers of Cyprus properties, have become the proxy jury in the O’Dwyer cases and all the other horror stories they read or hear about. With yet more TV exposés imminent in the UK, there seems no end in sight to Cyprus’s property market woes.

Decent developers, lawyers and estate agents that I know (yes, they do exist) are exasperated and fearful of the obvious negative long-term impact on an already flat market. No sizeable developer can rely solely on domestic sales but what foreigner will buy here now?

The Cyprus economy also cannot afford to delay any recovery of its property sector. Prior to the downgrading of Cyprus’s financial ratings by Moodys, S&P and Fitch in recent weeks, Moody’s had cited Cyprus’s ailing property sector as a factor “as it remains a risk area with weak demand and unclear growth prospects”.

This deep self-inflicted wound requires urgent, radical treatment – not a sticking plaster, an aspirin and a hope that the patient will simply recover naturally. However, on Cyprus’s past record of inaction on these matters, the prognosis looks decidedly bleak.

©2011 Alan Waring
(This article first appeared in the Financial Mirror)
To read comments on this article from expats in Cyprus see the Cyprus Property News

Dr Alan Waring is an international risk management consultant with extensive experience in Europe, Asia and the Middle East with industrial, commercial and governmental clients. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Risk Management and is a founding member of the IRM Cyprus Regional Group. Contact info@dralanwaring-riskconsultants.com.

Corporate Risk and Governance: An End to Mismanagement, Tunnel Vision and Quackery
Corporate Risk and Governance: An End to Mismanagement, Tunnel Vision and Quackery

Appeal filed against Conor O’Dwyer ruling

LAWYER Yiannos Georgiades, acting for Conor O’Dwyer, confirmed to the Cyprus Property News Magazine that an appeal has been filed against the court ruling last month that cleared property developer Karayiannas and Michelle McDonald of any wrongdoing.

The long awaited verdict from the court has caused many people to doubt the protection afforded to those buying property on the Island.

According to the Island’s ‘Specific Performance Law’, the deposit of a contact of sale at a Land Registry prevents a property from being sold for a second time. The contract can only be withdrawn from the Land Registry with the agreement of the vendor (Karayiannas) and the purchaser (Mr O’Dwyer) – or by a court order.

In the O’Dwyer case, the judge accepted that Mr O’Dwyer’s contract had been lodged with the Land Registry and that the developer had resold the property to someone else without O’Dwyer’s consent or a court order instructing the Land Registry to remove his contract.

Successive Governments have promised to revise the Island’s antiquated property laws to provide those buying property with added protection.

In July 2009 the Interior Minister Neoclis Sylikiotis issued a statement that included the following:

“Despite our determination to cut this Gordian knot with the introduction of new legislation for the improvement and reformation of the planning system, as well as the system of issuing property titles, it must be clarified here that even the current system and the existing legislation protects buyers and their ownership status.”

Also in July 2009 the Permanent Secretary of the Interior Ministry wrote to Graham Watson MEP assuring him that:

“It is worth repeating that even under current legislation, buyers of immovable property are protected, once they deposit the Contract for Sale at the appropriate District Office of the Department of Lands and Surveys according to the Sale of Lands (Specific Performance) Law, Cap.232.”

However, the judge’s ruling the O’Dwyer’s case seems to contradict government assurances, as she did not believe that submission of a sales contract to the Land Registry was enough to guarantee a person’s property rights. As well as finding in favour of the defendants, she also ordered Mr O’Dwyer to pay their costs.

No date has been set for the appeal to be heard.

By: Nigel Howarth Published: Wednesday 2nd February 2011
To see comments from British expats read this article in the Cyprus Property News
Copyright © Cyprus Property News

2011 property market predictions

What does the coming year hold in store for the Cyprus property market? Pundits predict that things will be much the same as last year, but 2011 has not got off to an auspicious start.

2009 was a disastrous year for the Island’s property market and 2010 was not much better. After a promising start to last year with sales improving on 2009 figures, sales declined for six consecutive months between July and December.

The market in 2011 has not got off to an auspicious start with property issues once again making headlines in the English language press. This bad publicity will do nothing to encourage overseas buyers, and in particular British buyers, to return to the market.

Title Deed legislation?

Readers may recall that in June 2008, Interior Minister Neoclis Sylikiotis assured property buyers that legislation to resolve problems in the sector could be implemented by the end of the year.

Last week, more than two years after the deadline Mr Sylikiotis set himself, Chairman of the House Legal Affairs Committee proudly announced that the Island’s Deputies (MPs) had agreed a solution to one of the many problems that Mr Sylikiotis was looking to resolve – developers’ mortgages.

This solution graciously allows those buying property to repay part of the developer’s mortgage to get the Title Deeds to their home.

Of course, this solution is merely a way of ensuring the present system continues virtually unhindered and does nothing to protect buyers from the crooks and conmen that plague the Island’s property industry.

Details of the other legislative changes being proposed have yet to emerge. But if they are as ridiculous as last week’s ‘solution’, no-one will be delighted; apart from perhaps the Banks and property developers.

Institutionalised Extortion?

Also last week we received news that District Lands Offices (DLO) are continuing to overvalue property when assessing the Property Transfer Fees. These fees are effectively a sales tax payable at the legal completion of a sale and are equivalent to the Stamp Duty Land Tax or SDLT, charged on property transactions in the UK.

In some reported cases DLO valuations are more than double the property’s purchase price.

Let us take an example of a recent case of overvaluing by the Paphos DLO of a property bought in joint names (husband & wife) to see the impact of this practice:

Property Transfer Fees based on the €130,000 paid to the developer – €3,900

Property Transfer Fees based on the Land Registry’s market valuation of €280,000 – €10,582.80

This overvaluation by the Land Registry cost the buyer an additional €6,682.80 in Property Transfer Fees.

If the property had been purchased in a single name, the additional Property Transfer Fees would have amounted to a cool €10,774.19.

Although the buyer has the right to challenge the Land Registry valuation, it would be Land Registry staff who would undertake the on-site revaluation of the property. How objective and impartial would their valuation be?

Impartial legal system?

The impartiality of the Cypriot legal system was brought into question last week following the unexpected verdict in the celebrated Conor O’Dwyer saga that has been dragging on for the last five years.

Mr O’Dwyer lost his private criminal prosecution against property developer Christoforos Karayiannas & Son Ltd concerning the sale of his house for a second time. The prosecution case against the woman who bought the house, Michelle McDonald, also failed.

Despite damning evidence to the contrary, the judge ruled that Christoforos Karayiannas had not committed fraud by selling Mr O’Dwyer’s home for a second time to someone else, and to add insult to injury, she ordered O’Dwyer to pay the defendants costs.

Speaking to the Cyprus Mail after the judgement Mr O’Dwyer said “My worst fears have come true. What this means is that a developer can keep your money and never deliver your house, then if they want they can re-sell it. Our contract is in the Land Registry and someone else is in our house, it’s that simple.”

There has been much discussion on Internet forums about the judge’s decision. Some believe she was bribed, some say she was leaned on by the local mafia, others say that she deliberately interpreted the law incorrectly to favour the Cypriot defendants.

Mr O’Dwyer’s lawyer, Yiannos Georgiades will file an appeal with the Supreme Court in the next few days, provided that the Attorney General gives his consent. “It’s a mistake on the judge’s part”, he said.

Conclusion

It is difficult to see how the Island’s property market will not be damaged further by these events. It is also difficult to see how Cyprus can recover from the damage without its government taking immediate and effective action to resolve the many problems and restore overseas investor confidence.

By: Editorial Published: Wednesday 26th January 2011
To see comments from British expats read this article in the Cyprus Property News
Copyright © Cyprus Property News