Former Cypriot Minister on trial in Athens

Michaelides, his son Michalis and Syrian arms dealer Fouad al-Zayad are all involved. The former minister’s defense team attempted to cancel all court proceedings to date and adjourn for one month, while a new bench was appointed to try the case.

Following a half-hour break, the court rejected the motion and called the first, and most important, witness for the prosecution, Nikos Zigras, so that the trial could effectively start.

But before Zigras, Tsochatzopoulos’ first cousin, appeared defense lawyer Elias Anagnostopoulos submitted another motion, asking for the Greek government, as represented by its lawyers, to be expelled from the courtroom, arguing that even if the five defendants were proven guilty, there is no indication that their actions caused the Greek government any harm, financial or otherwise.

Anagnostopoulos argued that if the defendants were being tried for bribery – which they aren’t due to the statute of limitations – perhaps one could substantiate a claim of loss to the state.
“But that is not substantiated by the money-laundering charge, so how is the Greek state allowed to attend the trial as a plaintiff?” he asked.

He further argued that the concept of “public interest” effectively exists in every trial, whether it relates to a case of arson or an accident, and therefore “it is inconceivable that the state would be present as a plaintiff and claim damages.”

After conferring for a further half-hour, the court announced it would withhold its decision on the issue of the Greek state attending the trial and Zigras was called to the stand.
But the witness had not been in the room at the time, and two other witnesses for the prosecution were called, who were also not present.

The trial was once again adjourned, until Tuesday, and Zigras, along with his lawyer, appeared shortly thereafter. When questioned, he claimed the court’s latest half-hour recess had lasted less than 30 minutes.

The defense’s main argument is that the trial has been derailed by virtue of decisions taken by the judge, and that in order for the tension to be relieved the court should adjourn for one month, to resume with a new bench, even if the judge is not replaced.

As pointed out by the prosecution, the trial had been adjourned since July 27, which has allowed a “relief period” of 1.5 months.