After two years of investigation, the findings on the “Mafia State” were released, with its findings—as documented in the 67-page summary report by the Independent Authority Against Corruption—set to explode like a megaton bomb at the very foundations of the state and its institutions.

The possibility that individuals who played leading roles in the political arena, the judiciary, and Cypriot public life in general, cannot possibly go unnoticed.

In total, the Authority has established, based on the balance of probabilities, reasonable suspicion that 13 individuals and 2 legal entities may have committed acts of corruption.

In addition to the former President of the Republic, Nicos Anastasiades, the list of these individuals also includes the name of the former President of the Nicosia District Court, Charis Solomonides, regarding whom the Authority considers that the testimony it has obtained gives rise to reasonable suspicion that he committed the offenses of “bribery of a public official, transactions with agents that suggest corruption, and unlawful acquisition of financial gain.”

According to the Authority’s findings, based on a balance of probabilities, there is sufficient evidence to create a reasonable suspicion that the former judge agreed with a law firm representing a Russianto issue rulings in his favor, in exchange for his wife’s employment at that law firm.

Anastasiadis’s Appointment

In 2015, following the retirement of Judge Haris Solomonides, the then President of the Republic, Nicos Anastasiades, selected him for the newly established three-member Committee for the Exclusion of Economic Operators from Public Procurement Procedures, a position to which he was appointed by a ministerial decision dated December 21, 2016.

As government sources have confirmed to us, in 2018 Haris Solomonides was appointed by the then-Anastasiades government to the position of Chairman of the Exclusion Committee, a position that was renewed in 2021 and which he held until 2024, when he resigned.

The Committee for the Exclusion of Economic Operators from Public Procurement Procedures is a three-member body established in April 2016 with the authority to review and decide on the future exclusion of economic operators from public procurement procedures for a specific period of time.

According to its operating procedures, the Committee consists of a Chair and two members who make decisions by majority vote; in the event of a tie, the Chair has the deciding vote. Both the members and the Chair of the Committee are appointed by the Council of Ministers for a five-year term.

According to the minutes of the meetings of the then Council of Ministers, in July 2018, following the resignation of Committee Chairman Giorgos Arestis, Nikos Anastasiadis appointed one of its members—specifically, former judge Haris Solomonides—to serve as Chair of the body.

In December 2021, upon the completion of the Commission’s five-year term and again by decision of the Anastasiades government’s Council of Ministers, the former judge was reappointed as Chair of the Commission for another five years, that is, until December 2026, a term he did not, however, complete, as he submitted his resignation in May 2024 and was replaced by a decision of the Christodoulides government’s Council of Ministers in January 2025.

Makarios Drousiotis’s book *Mafia State* was published in 2022 and served as the central basis for the allegations investigated by the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority, beginning in February 2024. At that time, Mr. Solomonides was serving his second term on the Disqualification Committee, while Nikos Christodoulides had taken office as President of the Republic.

The judge’s resignation was submitted to the Christodoulides government in May 2024, when the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority had been investigating the case of the “Mafia State,” with the Cabinet’s decision to replace him being made on January 15, 2025.

Essentially, for three months—while the former judge was under the microscope of the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority’s investigations— he simultaneously held the key position of Chairman of the Exclusion Committee, which, while not raising a question of legality, nonetheless raises issues of political propriety and decisions that also affect the current government.

The findings regarding the former judge and the Ribolovlev case

The case of Mr. Solomonidis, according to the Anti-Corruption Authority’s findings, concerns the rulings the former judge issued in favor of Russian oligarch Dmitry Ribolovlev and, in effect, againsthis estranged wife, Elena Ribolovleva, who, having filed for divorce, was claiming half of the assets the couple had acquired while married, an asset worth the astronomical sum of $9 billion.

Based on the investigation and testimony gathered by the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority, the Inspection Officers determined, on a balance-of-probabilities basis, that there is sufficient evidence to create a reasonable suspicion that the former President of the District Court of L, Mr. Haris Solomonides, had abused or exploited his judicial office by agreeing with the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Sia LLC, which represented the oligarch’s side, to hire his wife at said law firm, in exchange for the judge issuing rulings in favor of that law firm’s clients.

The following is the exact excerpt regarding the findings of the “Mafia State” report by the Independent Authority Against Corruption:

“70. MANIPULATION OF THE JUDICIARY / INFLUENCE ON JUDGES
(CHAPTER 1: THE OLIGARCH AND HIS FEUDUM)

Allegations

70.1 Mr. Drousiotis refers to a family and property dispute between the “Russian oligarch” Mr. Dmitry Ribolovlev and his estranged wife, Ms. Elena Ribolovleva, which arose in the context of divorce proceedings. According to Mr. Drousiotis, Ms. Elena Rybolovleva, who filed for divorce in a Geneva court, claimed an amount of $4.5 billion, which corresponded to half of the assets acquired during their marriage.

70.2 Mr. Drousiotis asserts that Mr. Ribolovlev sought by every means to protect the family’s wealth from his wife’s financial claims. Therefore, according to Mr. Drousiotis, Mr. Ribolovlev and the individuals acting on his behalf implemented a “plan to manipulate” the justice system in Cyprus, with the ultimate goal of forcing his estranged wife to settle on the financial terms of the divorce.

70.3 Mr. Drousiotis alleges that Judge Haris Solomonides played a central role in allegedly serving Mr. Ribolovlev’s interests. In summary, Mr. Drousiotis cites a series of alleged facts that raise suspicions that two court cases were deliberately assigned to Judge Solomonidis, so that he would issue orders and rulings in favor of Mr. Ribolovlev’s interests. Mr. Drousiotis draws a connection between the timing of the issuance of favorable rulings and orders and the employment of the judge’s wife at a company linked to the law firmAndreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, which represented Mr. Ribolovlev’s interests.

Findings

70.4 Based on the testimony taken and the evidence presented, the Inspecting Officers find, on the basis of the balance of probabilities, the following:

Initial Application No. 2092/2013

70.5 In October 2013, Initial Application No. 2092/2013 was filed with the Nicosia District Court by Montrago Trustees Ltd (“Montrago”), in its capacity as trustee of “The Aries Trust,” through which Mr. Ribolovlev held part of his assets.

70.6 In the aforementioned Initial Petition, the Petitioner sought, among other things, an order prohibiting Ms. Ribolovleva from taking any legal action anywhere outside the jurisdiction of the Cypriot courts with respect to the aforementioned trust.

70.7 Simultaneously with the filing of the Initial Petition and within the framework thereof, a unilateral motion for a temporary injunction was filed.

70.8 The aforementioned Initial Petition and the ex parte motion were filed by the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC.

70.9 The ex parte motion for a temporary injunction was filed on the same day before Judge Haris Solomonides (the “Judge Solomonides”), who at the relevant time was serving as President of the District Court of Nicosia.

70.10 On October 9, 2013, Judge Solomonides, having taken up the ex parte motion, unilaterally issued the requested interim order against Ms. Ribolovleva. This order prohibited Ms. Ribolovleva and her attorneys from initiating any legal proceedings in any court anywhere other than before the Cypriot courtsin support of her alleged rights arising from her marital relationship with her husband and/or from the divorce proceedings. The prohibition, pursuant to the order, remained in effect until the final adjudication of the Initial Petition and/or until any subsequent directive and/or order of the Court.

70.11 On January 20, 2014, following a new application by the company Montrago, Judge Solomonides ordered that the above-mentioned interim order be served on Ms. Ribolovleva’s foreign attorneys abroad.

Initial Application No. 2125/2013

70.12 Five days after the filing of the Initial Petition No. 2092/2013 and the unilateral interim petition, an identical petition, namely the Initial Petition No. 2125/2013, was filed with the District Court of Nicosia by Merco Trustees Ltd (“Merco”), in its capacity as trustee of “The Virgo Trust,” through which Mr. Ribolovlev held part of his assets.

70.13 The claims and facts on which the aforementioned Application was based were the same as those set forth in the Initial Application No. 2092/2013.

70.14 Simultaneously with the filing of the aforementioned Initial Petition and within the framework thereof, a unilateral motion for a temporary injunction was filed.

70.15 The aforementioned Initial Petition and the unilateral motion were again filed by the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC.

70.16 The ex parte motion for a temporary injunction was filed on the same day before Judge Solomonides.

70.17 On October 14, 2013, Judge Solomonides, having considered the ex parte motion, issued a provisional order, the content of which was identical to that of the order dated October 9, 2013, which he had issued in response to the Initial Petition No. 2092/2013.
70.18 It should be noted that the Petitioner Companies in the Initial Petitions No. 2092/2013 and No. 2125/2013 had the same Board of Directors, which consisted of members of the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC.

Motion for Recusal – Employment of Judge Solomonides’s wife at the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC

70.19 On May 13, 2014, Ms. Ribolovleva’s attorneys filed a motion to recuse Judge Solomonides from hearing Initial Application 2092/2013 on the grounds of bias. The main reason for the motion was the hiring of the judge’s wife by the company A. Neocleous Trust Company Ltd, which, according to the motion, was affiliated with the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, and the Petitioner companies in the Initial Petitions Nos. 2092/2013 and 2125/2013.

70.20 On July 9, 2014, Judge Solomonides issued a decision rejecting the aforementioned motion for recusal. In that decision, Judge Solomonides stated, among other things, that his wife was hired as an accountant under an employment contract by the company A. Neocleous Trust Company Ltd, which, as he pointed out, is not the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC handling the two Initial Applications. At the same time, he emphasized that the two Petitions were filed before him in accordance with the case allocation schedule maintained by the Court Registry. Ms. Ribolovleva’s attorneys filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision.

70.21 The Inspection Officers find that the aforementioned statement by Judge Solomonides in his decision on the motion for recusal was not accurate, since, based on the testimony presented, it was established that his wife’s employer was the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, and not the company A. Neocleous Trust Company Ltd, as the Judge had stated in his Decision.

70.22 Based on the evidence presented, the Inspection Officers find that the Judge’s wife was hired by the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, on November 1, 2013, that is, a few days after Judge Solomonides issued the interim orders dated October 9, 2013, and October 14, 2013, which were issued in favor of the clients of the aforementioned law firm.

70.23 The Inspectors note that the judge’s wife was hired by the aforementioned law firm at a high salary. They also note that at the time the two Initial Petitions and the unilateral interim motions were filed, the judge’s wife was unemployed (specifically since February 2013).

70.24 Based on the evidence presented, the Inspection Officers find, on a balance of probabilities, that Judge Solomonides intentionally concealed and contributed to the non-disclosure of the fact that his wife’s employer was the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Sia LLC, which was handling the aforementioned Initial Applications pending before him for adjudication.

70.25 Similarly, based on the testimony presented, the Inspection Officers find, on the basis of the balance of probabilities, that, although the aforementioned issue of the employment of Judge Solomonides’s wife had been raised in the proceedings regarding the motion for recusal, the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, and Mr. Panagiotis Neocleous, a lawyer and partner at the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, who appeared before Judge Solomonides, representing the law firm in the legal proceedings in question, intentionally prevented the disclosure of the fact that the Judge’s wife’s actual employer was the law firmLaw Firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, which was handling the aforementioned Initial Petitions.

Court Decisions dated July 9, 2014, and November 4, 2014

70.26 On July 9, 2014, following a hearing, Judge Solomonides finalized the preliminary injunctions that had been issued on October 9, 2013, and October 14, 2013.

70.27 Subsequently, the Petitioner companies in the two aforementioned Initial Petitions filed a motion for a ruling due to the failure of Ms. Ribolovleva’s side to file a notice of appearance, in the main petitions. On November 4, 2014, Judge Solomonidis, having considered the aforementioned petitions, issued two rulings in favor of the Petitioner companies, finding that Ms. Ribolovleva’s side had been duly notified.

70.28 On August 27, 2015, following a relevant motion filed by Ms. Ribolovleva’s attorneys, Judge E. Efrem issued an interim ruling setting aside the decision issued by Judge Solomonides on November 4, 2014, in the Initial Petition No. 2092/2013, due to the lack of a proper legal basis for the petition, with the result that the proceedings leading to the issuance of the ruling were deemed irregular.

Complaint before the President of the Supreme Court

70.29 Following the issuance of the decisions dated November 4, 2014, Ms. Ribolovleva’s attorneys filed, on December 2, 2014, a complaint to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, requesting that an investigation be ordered against Judge Solomonidis for possible “collusion.”

70.30 On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court, acting in its capacity as the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC),ruled by a majority that, with the appeals still pending, it was not appropriate at this time to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the judge.

70.31 Following the withdrawal of the relevant appeals and cross-appeals on December 14, 2015, the Disciplinary Council informed Ms. Ribolovleva’s attorneys of its decision that no disciplinary proceedings could be brought against Judge Solomonidis, because he had since retired. The Disciplinary Council informed them that they could appeal to the Attorney General.

Conclusion

70.32 Based on the evidence presented, the Inspectors conclude, on the basis of the balance of probabilities, that there is sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the former President of the Nicosia District Court, Mr. Haris Solomonides, by abusing or exploiting his judicial office, agreed with the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC that his wife would be hired by said law firm, in exchange for the Judge issuing rulings in favor of the clients of the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, in the context of the Initial Applications Nos. 2092/2013 and 2125/2013.

70.33 As mentioned above, the testimony shows that on November 1, 2013—that is, a few days after Judge Solomonides issued two interim orders dated October 9, 2013, and October 14, 2013, in favor of the clients of the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, the wife of the Judge in question was hired, at a high salary, by the law firm in question, which was handling the applications in dispute. The testimony shows that at the time the applications in question were filed, the judge’s wife was unemployed. Consequently, this employment constituted a significant financial benefit for the family of Judge Solomonides.

70.34 Furthermore, based on the evidence presented, the Inspectors conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that there is sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the former President of the Nicosia District Court, Mr. Haris Solomonides, the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC, and attorney Panagiotis Neocleous may have conspired to conceal and obstruct the disclosure, in the proceedings regarding the recusal motion dated May 13, 2014, that the actual employer of Judge Solomonides’s wife was the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Sia LLC, which was handling the aforementioned Initial Applications.

70.35 The close temporal proximity between the hiring (November 1, 2013) and Judge Solomonides’ issuance of the ex parte interim orders in October 2013, combined with the intentional non-disclosure or inaccurate or misleading statements by Judge Solomonides, the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC and attorney Panagiotis Neocleous, regarding the actual employer of the judge’s wife, during the proceedings on the recusal motion dated May 13, 2014, raises a reasonable suspicion that the hiring may have constituted consideration or/and the remuneration and/or financial benefit for the favorable treatment of clients of the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC.

Consequently, the Inspectors, based on the testimony presented before them, find, on the basis of the balance of probabilities, that there is reasonable suspicion that the following acts of corruption may have been committed by the natural and legal persons listed below:

Offenses:

(A) Haris Solomonides, former President of the Nicosia District Court:

a) Bribery of a public official (Article 100(a) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 154).

b) Transactions with agents that suggest corruption (Article 3(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Law, Chapter 161).

c) Unlawful acquisition of financial gain (Article 3 of the Law on the Unlawful Acquisition of Financial Gain by Public Officials and Civil Servants, of 2004 (Law 51(I)/2004).

(B) Andreas Neocleous & Co.LLC:

a) Bribery of a public official (Article 100(b) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 154),

b) Transactions with agents that suggest corruption (Article 3(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Law, Chapter 161)

(c) Active bribery of relevant public officials and corporate liability of a legal entity (Articles 2 and 18 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Criminalization of Corruption, dated January 27, 1999, ratified by Law 23(III)/2000, and specifically Article 4)

(C) Panagiotis Neocleous (Attorney and Partner at the law firm Andreas Neocleous & Co. LLC)

a) Conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice (Article 121(a) of the Penal Code, Chapter 154)”

READ ALSO: “Mafia State” Report: Submitted to the Legal Service—What Lies Ahead | AlphaNews