Cyprus denies Yugoslav claims of Milosevic cover-up

CYPRUS yesterday denied allegations by Yugoslav National Bank Governor Mladan Dinkic that it was one of the countries “covering up the financial abuses of the previous [Milosevic] regime” by refusing to hand over information on secret accounts.

The claims were yesterday refuted by the government, with both the Government Spokesman and the Foreign Minister expressing “dismay and surprise”.

Dinkic made the claims following a recent meeting with Carla del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor of the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. He criticised the international community for insisting Yugoslavia should co-operate with the Hague tribunal while simultaneously “covering up” the financial abuses of the Milosevic regime. He went on to say the Yugoslav National Bank had information that Milosevic and his associates held Swiss accounts and that it suspected there were other secret accounts in Greece and Cyprus.

Rumours that Milosevic channelled millions in funds to Cyprus have abounded for years, with both the government and the Central Bank consistently denying the island was involved. In December, US Treasury investigators suggested $1 billion had been transferred from Yugoslavia to Cyprus during Milosevic’s presidency, but the US government later distanced itself from these reports.

Government spokesman Michalis Papapetrou yesterday told reporters that the government and the Central Bank had offered every assistance to Yugoslav authorities, adding that, on January 8, Central Bank Governor Afxentis Afxentiou had replied in writing to a letter from Dinkic dated December 15, 2000, in which the Yugoslav official said he would be visiting Cyprus to discuss the controversial accounts.

Foreign Minister Yiannakis Cassoulides pointed out that the government had satisfied Del Ponte’s demand on freezing certain accounts. “I therefore feel that this reference to Cyprus is most unfortunate, and I shall instruct our ambassador in Belgrade to convey a protest.” Asked why Cyprus had been repeatedly named in such scenarios, Cassoulides said the question should best be directed at the Yugoslav authorities.