By Elias Hazou
POLICE and the Attorney-general yesterday seemed far from satisfied by Limassol bishop Chrysanthos’ input into a $3.7 million fraud investigation to which he has been linked.
On Monday, Chrysanthos met with police investigators, and effectively washed his hands of any involvement in the fraud. In a terse statement delivered to police, he regretted he could not be of “no further assistance in this matter.”
He also denied receiving, using or having any “access” to the £3.7 million.
The police are investigating the cleric’s alleged involvement in the fraud case, after four suspects arrested in Britain named him as their accomplice.
But in exercising his right not to respond to questions, it appears that the bishop has drawn even more attention to himself.
Attorney-general Alecos Markides told reporters that the investigation was far from over, and that further sessions between Chrysanthos and the police would follow until questions were answered.
He went on to say that if incriminating evidence was found against the bishop, then Chrysanthos would be dealt with like any other citizen. “No- one is above the law,” he added.
The Attorney-general met with Archbishop Chrysostomos on Monday and briefed him on the ongoing investigation.
The Archbishop also met on Monday with Justice Minister Nicos Koshis, who reportedly presented him with new evidence implicating Chrysanthos in other shady business dealings, beyond the alleged fraud.
It was reported yesterday that the two British detectives, who have been on the island in connection with the case since July 20, insist on questioning the bishop, and are considering asking for the cleric’s extradition to Britain, should he continue to refuse to testify.
One of the detectives was present at Monday’s meeting as an observer.
The possibility of extradition could not be confirmed by the Attorney- general’s office.
But Eva Papakyriakou, head of the Unit for Combatting Money-laundering, yesterday told the Cyprus Mail that there was sufficient evidence to justify further investigation into the Cyprus angle of the $3.7 million fraud.
Asked whether the unit’s involvement suggested the investigation was turning to money-laundering, Papakyriakou simply said that the unit was “somewhat involved”.
But she added that her department was co-operating with the Economic Crimes Division of the police and would only become fully involved if concrete evidence of money laundering came up.
Though denying he had any part in the alleged fraud, Chrysanthos has not denied knowledge of the business transaction. He told reporters on Monday that the money involved was “clean”, adding that it had been legally moved between banks. And Chrysanthos’ lawyer, Sotiris Karapatakis, added yesterday that the money had been moved from Cyprus to an Australian bank. He denied that any money laundering was involved in moving the cash.
With the police investigation expected to be long drawn-out, pressure on Chrysanthos to provide any sort of detailed account now seems to be coming from the Church itself.
The Holy Synod convened for an extraordinary session yesterday to discuss the ratification of election results for the Morphou bishopric, and also “various other matters”, an Archbishopric spokesman told the Mail.
These matters, as expected, turned out to be Chrysanthos’ business dealings.
In a statement issued after the meeting, the Synod noted that “based on documents presented and what the Bishop of Limassol informed the Synod, it was ascertained that he had undertaken commitments and entered agreements of a financial nature without the prior approval of the Holy Synod and the Financial Council.”
The statement went on to say that a Church committee would be set up to investigate the matter.
Speaking to reporters after the Synod’s marathon meeting, Chrysanthos admitted that he had not informed the Archbishop of certain business transactions, adding that he was “happy because the Church system works well, in a democratic manner and according to the rules of the Church that we love and respect.”
The Church’s governing body has the authority to expel any of its members from its ranks, and can also defrock any Church member who has broken ecclesiastical law. In these cases, the matter is resolved by a vote.
According to the Archbishopric spokesman, no member of the fold has ever been expelled, “not during this century at least.”
