The Independent Authority Against Corruption has found no evidence that donations to the Democratic Rally (DISY) by naturalised foreign investors were linked to the granting of Cypriot citizenship, following an investigation triggered by a complaint from MP Christos Christofides.

In a detailed announcement dated 27 November 2025, the Authority also decided – exceptionally – to lift the legal ban on publicity and publish the inspection officers’ report in anonymised form, citing the high level of public interest, the extensive prior media coverage and the disclosure of personal data related to the complaint.

Christofides’ complaint was submitted in three letters in September 2022, before regulations had even been adopted on how the Authority should examine complaints. It named 13 foreign natural persons who had obtained Cypriot citizenship and who, either personally or through companies they controlled, made donations to DISY.

The complaint also referred to the Russian bank Promsvyazbank, which operated in Limassol, and alleged links to relatives of a former official, focusing on the bank’s housing in a building bought from Y.A.M. Imperio Enterprises Ltd.

The terms of reference given to the inspection officers were narrowly focused: to determine whether the conduct described involved any acts of corruption as defined in the law governing the Authority. Crucially, the Authority excluded from this investigation the circumstances under which Cypriot passports had been issued to the named individuals and any potential responsibilities of officials in that process. That wider issue, it said, is being examined in a separate investigation which remains at a preliminary stage.

Initially, two inspection officers were appointed but later resigned for reasons the Authority deemed satisfactory. Three new inspectors then took over and ran the probe from scratch until completion: former judge Lemonia Koutzani, economist and chartered accountant Dimitris Georgiadis, and lawyer with criminal law experience Dimitris Tsolakidis.

They held eight sessions/hearings, heard testimony from 16 witnesses – including some of the naturalised persons – and gathered 73 exhibits, many of them multi-page documents. All those summoned to testify complied, and all requested information and documents were provided promptly, the report notes.

The Authority admits there was a delay in completing this first major investigation under the new law and says there were also some initial methodological errors. However, it argues that after the appointment of the new inspectors and with the experience gained in running investigations, these problems were successfully resolved.

On the core allegation – that donations to DISY by naturalised investors or their companies could have constituted an unlawful quid pro quo for the granting of Cypriot citizenship – the inspectors’ report is categorical.

First, for none of the naturalised persons named in the complaint had any order been issued to strip them of Cypriot citizenship, nor was any such deprivation procedure under way during the investigation.

Second, the report states that there is no testimony showing that these individuals were granted citizenship as a result of any promise or offer of present or future benefit to public officials or officials via party donations. It finds no link between the donors’ naturalisation decisions and the contributions made to DISY by them or by companies in which they held an interest or office, which could create suspicion of corruption offences.

On the Promsvyazbank aspect, the inspectors examined the bank’s housing in a building purchased from Y.A.M. Imperio Enterprises Ltd. They concluded that there is no evidence that this transaction was carried out due to any promise or offer of benefit to public officials or officials, or that it conferred any unjustified advantage in a manner that would raise suspicion of corruption offences.

While effectively clearing the donations and the Promsvyazbank property transaction of corruption suspicions, the Authority stresses that it has not examined – in this specific case file – whether the passports themselves were lawfully granted or whether any officials bear responsibility for abuses of the naturalisation programme. That dimension, it underlines, is the subject of a separate, ongoing investigation still at the preliminary stage.