Pafos Live 5 September 2025
A new case of online fraud is being investigated by the Police, following a relevant complaint by a 48-year-old resident of Limassol.
According to the complaint, between June 7 and 27, 2025, the 48-year-old proceeded to invest money, through an investment website she found on the internet. The total amount of money he invested reportedly exceeds €65,200.
When the 48-year-old tried to liquidate the alleged profits from her investments, she realized she had fallen victim to fraud after being asked to pay money again to be allowed to withdraw.
The Financial Crime Investigation Office of the Limassol TAE is investigating the case.
On the occasion of this new fraud case, the Police recall the need for increased attention to online investment proposals. It even urges the public, as before making any transaction, to verify the reliability of any platform.
* * * * * *
Filenews
Permission to cancel the search warrant in the place where a minor resides, was given today by the Supreme Court, in a case with sensitive data.
The search warrant was issued by a District Court at the request of the Police and after a report from a school, that a student had on his mobile phone some videos with a classmate, with sexual content.
In the Principal's office where the student was summoned, he reported that his classmate had sent him six videos showing him performing sexual acts. He also pointed to some videos that he had in his possession.
In videotaped testimonies taken by two of the underage applicant's classmates, it was reported that another classmate had sent them videos of sexual content to groups of conversations they had on the Instagram application.
After these testimonies, the Police secured an investigation warrant against the grandfather and the minor after they were looking for electronic devices, tablets, mobile phones and computers in relation to the crimes under investigation. As it was emphasized in court, the Police were in possession of specific videos and the mobile phone of another person while they had also taken the minor's mobile phone. No evidence, it is added, was presented to connect other evidence or electronic devices that the Police were looking for with the crimes under investigation.
The Supreme Court accepted the position of the lawyer of the minor, who was represented by the law firm Yiannis Polychronis, that as far as electronic devices, tablets, mobile phones and computers and their connection with the crimes under investigation are concerned, nothing is mentioned in the Oath (of the Police) in relation to them.
It is also emphasized that the search warrant did not authorize the Police to proceed with the arrest of the minor. With this in mind, the Court granted permission to challenge the search warrant on the above two grounds, rejecting six others.
* * * * * *
Lawyer Murat Metin Haki, one of the lawyers of the five Greek Cypriots arrested and illegally detained by the occupation regime in the Turkish-occupied areas of Cyprus, said during his departure from the "Famagusta District Court", following the decision to release him on bail, that he rejects all charges against him.
Haki said he sees many legal quirks in the case, and rejected all accusations of personal data breach.
He said that the concept of personal data is quite vague in the "law", and that there are many contradictions and ambiguities.
He said he did not believe it was contrary to any legislation for a person who is the rightful owner of real estate to conduct an investigation into the property over which he has rights, either under international law or under the "law" of the pseudo-state
He said that there is no explicit provision in the "law on land registers" and similarly there is no explicit prohibition on access to such information in the "law on real estate".
"I believe that sanctions cannot be imposed on issues that are not clearly regulated," he noted.
He added that he could see from the evidence that there was a list of about 14 items and said that a significant part of these properties belonged to his client, who is in prison. Saying that five of these properties are registered with the property regime, he said that his client submitted an application (to the "real estate commission") for the return of the property.
"In any case, the five properties that are the subject of this complaint are probably subject to restitution (return) and the funny thing is that we learned that the TRNC state is among the complainants. In other words, the state has filed a complaint about the property it is obliged to return, which is a separate factual and legal peculiarity, in my opinion," Haki said.
He also said that what is included in the "company registry records" is public information. Therefore, it is absolutely not a crime to conduct a search in the company register, to conduct a search according to the client's instructions, to obtain information, to obtain documents," he added.
He said that at the time of the arrest of the five Greek Cypriots on July 19, it was said that there was a list of documents containing a directive to file a lawsuit against Turkish Cypriots before a court of the Republic of Cyprus.
"Now, no lawsuit has been filed in southern Cyprus. This information dates back to 2021," he said, expressing the view that the claim that a lawsuit will be filed against Turkish Cypriots "is meaningless".
Regarding the case of the five Greek Cypriots, he said that if they go to the European Court of Human Rights one day, it is clear what the approach of any international court will be regarding the right of any person, which does not pose a natural danger to anyone to enter the property to which they claim rights or to conduct an investigation into the property they claim.
"This could again create a backlog before the European Court of Human Rights in favour of the 1974 owners or their legal heirs," Haki added. "In other words, if this issue reaches the European Court of Human Rights, there may be a possibility that it will lag behind the decision on the Dimopoulos case again," he continued.
Reactions to Khaki's treatment
Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar said in a written statement that the fact that lawyer Murat Metin Haki was handcuffed during his court appearance justifiably caused concern among the public.
Saying that similar incidents to Sibel Sieber, who served as "president" of the "parliament" and "prime minister" in the past, call into question the reasons that led to this. He added that, based on the presumption of innocence, the principle that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, it is the public's expectation that handcuffs should not be used except in mandatory cases prescribed by law.
"These images, which damage the reputation of our police department and our state, who work diligently to ensure security and peace in our country, are also not compatible with our understanding of the rule of law," he said, adding that the necessary legislative amendments should be made to ensure that the legal framework for the use of handcuffs is in persons appearing in court is based on a legal basis that ensures both public order and individual rights and freedoms.
He also said that an environment should be created immediately where this practice is based on clear, transparent and consistent rules.
The President of the "supreme court" in the occupied territories, Bertan Ozersay, reacted to the appearance of lawyer Murat Metin Haki with handcuffs in the "court", noting that complaints around this issue continue.
Moreover, the president of the Turkish Cypriot Bar Association, Hassan Esedaglia, said in a post on his personal Facebook account that a protest on this issue will be held tomorrow.
Also, the leader of the Republican Turkish Party (CTP) and candidate in the upcoming "elections" in the occupied territories, Tufan Erhurman, said in a post on social media that "judicial independence and the rule of law are essential for the Turkish Cypriot people", adding that it is neither understandable nor legally acceptable for a lawyer to be taken to the "court" in handcuffs.
CNA
* * * * * *
A citizen who was convicted at first instance during the pandemic for the offense of participating in a mass protest event in a public place on 31.5.20 in violation of the Infectious Diseases Decrees, was solemnly acquitted by the Court of Appeal, because the principle of proportionality was not respected.
As stated in the decision of the three judges of the Court of Appeal, where the citizen appealed through his lawyer Ritsa Pekri of the law firm N. Charalambidou LLC, while other universal prohibition measures had been lifted and the operation of restaurants, cafes, hotels, taverns, etc. was allowed under conditions, however, participation in a demonstration was universally prohibited.
According to the facts, as presented before the Court of Appeal, the citizen had admitted his participation in a mass demonstration, which constituted a protest march. This started from Eleftherias Square, passed, among other things, through the Ministry of the Interior and ended up again at Eleftherias Square. Its purpose was to express disagreement with the Government's immigration policy (the Minister of the Interior was Nikos Nouris) and more specifically in relation to the confinement of foreigners, asylum seekers, in the Pournara Reception Center.
At first instance in the Nicosia District Court, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Decree and in particular of Article 2.7 thereof, which reads as follows: Mass or any other events, gatherings, parades, concerts in public and private places, outdoor festivals, as well as the holding of football and other sports matches are prohibited.
The Court of Appeal, after ruling that in the present case the Court of First Instance correctly concluded that the disputed decree restricted the appellant's rights, i.e. to peaceful assembly and free expression. However, during the crucial examination of the necessity and proportionality of the restrictions, it adopted the position of Dr. Tsioutis (M.K.5), professor of epidemiology and member of the then established Scientific Advisory Committee ("SEE") that "mass gatherings were among the The last measures that had to be lifted because if they were allowed, then other less restrictive, prohibitive measures would not be justified, such as restrictions on church attendance, individual or group sports, the operation of shops and the economy in general, gatherings of a certain number of people in homes, the restriction of employees for physical access to their workplaces, etc."
According to the Court of Appeal, the above reasoning was erroneous, as the question should have been asked the other way around. Given that the rest of the activities, which Mr. Tsioutis mentioned, were allowed, subject to conditions or guidelines, the question was why mass gatherings could not be handled in a similar way. That is, that they should also be subject to conditions and directives instead of being banned outright.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the position of the Court of First Instance that the citizen failed to prove the weight of the proportionality of this restrictive measure. "It can therefore be concluded, the three judges say, that the relevant burden regarding the demonstration of proportionality belonged to the Prosecution. As the Varnakidis case (above) has shown, it was not up to the defense to present testimony or convince to the contrary.
We believe that in this case too, it was obvious, on the one hand, the lack of a consistent approach and, on the other hand, the failure to provide adequate and convincing explanations that the measures were limited to the extent absolutely necessary, in the absence of other milder measures. As a result, there has been a violation of the principle of proportionality, which determines the fate of the present appeal. On the basis of the above, the appeal succeeds. The conviction and the sentence imposed are annulled."
