The Anti-Corruption Authority’s next steps, the confidential correspondence, the reappearance, and Dillian’s message on Alpha
The case of the black van came to light in 2019 when the American magazine Forbes featured a specially equipped vehicle owned by Israeli businessman Tal Dillian and its activities in LArnak. The vehicle was equipped with advanced surveillance technology for monitoring cell phones and other devices, which led authorities to launch a police investigation and seize the vehicle, which remains to this day in a customs department warehouse.
During the investigation, the equipment, the van’s data and routes were examined, while attorney Ilias Stefanou was appointed as an independent criminal investigator to look into possible illegal wiretapping.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Ceferein’s fourth and final term at UEFA
Stoiximan Super League: Atromitos vs. AEK Postponed
The Personal Data Protection Authority imposed a fine of €925,000 on Dillian Wispear’s company. The Attorney General subsequently decided to suspend criminal proceedings against Dilian and two other individuals, citing the complexity of the case. In 2022, the company itself pleaded guilty to 42 charges and was sentenced by the Larnaca District Court to a fine of €76,000. Despite the violations that were found, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the system had been used to intercept the content of specific communications in Cyprus.
In 2023, the former Auditor General filed a complaint with the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority regarding the handling of the case and potential conflicts of interest involving DeputyAttorney General Savvas Angelides. It was decided to appoint two British lawyers-investigators and one Cypriot lawyer to conduct the investigation.
The Anti-Corruption Authority’s announcement last Monday preempted the investigation and examination of the case from an institutional perspective this time around. According to the legal department, the issues the Anti-Corruption Authority intended to scrutinize had already been the subject of a criminal investigation. Under the law, a parallel investigation into the same facts could not be conducted. A public clash ensued between the two institutions.
The confidential correspondence and the four-point report
According to information obtained by “Alpha tis Kyriakis,” in the confidential letter Haris Poyatzis sent to the Attorney General on July 16, 2026, in which he expressed his intention to investigate four points related to the “black van” case, made no mention of Savvas Angelidis or of any intention to investigate a potential conflict of interest. In other words, no information was requested regarding the outcome of the investigation into this specific matter.
According to information from the legal department, the Attorney General, in his reply, addressed the four points raised by the Authority, stating that they had already been investigated or were the subject of judicial review; therefore, any investigation by the Authority regarding these points would constitute an unlawful parallel proceeding. Thus, the issue of the Deputy Attorney General was never mentioned in their correspondence, but only during their meeting on July 29, 2026. There, when it became apparent that the scope of the proposed investigation also included the Assistant Attorney General, he deemed it appropriate to leave the meeting. The Authority concluded, primarily on the basis of this conduct, that Mr. Angelidis’s case had already been investigated and that further investigation would therefore be inappropriate.
Although the Authority viewed the legal department with skepticism following its two announcements within the week, it subsequently took a step back, perhaps realizing that it had jumped to conclusions.
For the prosecutor’s office, the picture has become clear, and the Authority has every right to proceed with its investigation into a potential conflict of interest involving Savvas Angelidis. After all, George Savvidis, as they point out, never concealed his knowledge that Mr. Angelidis was also under investigation, a fact he had stated in his remarks since 2023.
The same sources believe it is appropriate for the Authority to declassify the contents of its letter—which it itself had designated as “confidential,” in order to clarify exactly what terms it would impose on its investigators regarding the matter, so that the public may also know that no written reference was in fact made to the intention to investigate Angelidis.
Sources tell “Alpha on Sunday” that the Anti-Corruption Authority’s goal is for the investigation into the black van case to continue. However, this will take time. Transparency Commissioner Haris Poyatzis met with one of the lawyers of Cypriot-British origin who have been handling the investigation of the case since 2023 to discuss developmentsin a cordial discussion.
At present, the Anti-Corruption Authority is not taking anything for granted regarding the future of the case; however, there are plans to request clarification via a new letter from the attorney general regarding the scope of the investigation that was conducted. It will announce its next steps within the coming weeks.
The “ceiling” of the Anti-Corruption Authority
Of particular importance at this point are the powers of the Anti-Corruption Authority. It is an institution that independently secures whatever information, documents, testimonies, and statements it needs to reach a conclusion in any case brought before it. However, its scope of action—legally speaking—is limited, and it is not expected to be in constant communication with the legal department regarding the details of criminal cases.
With regard to this case, the Authority has obtained virtually no documents pertaining to the Legal Service’s investigation, and it certainly does not have before it—as we have been assured— the findings of independent investigator Ilias Stefanou, which are safely tucked away somewhere in the Legal Service’s files. Moreover, the bar is set very high for the Legal Service to issue an order disclosing the contents of a criminal investigation, primarily for reasons of witness protection.
Even if the Authority proceeds with the process, now that the picture regarding Savvas Angelides is becoming clearer, it cannot take a statement from Ilias Stefanou, who, although he knows a great deal due to his position, is protected by confidentiality. The Authority intends to examine all the facts related to the case of the black van that were not investigated during the 2021 criminal investigation, as well as to determine whether any new developments or evidencethat were not investigated.
Both sides, however, —the Legal Service and the Anti-Corruption Authority—believe that last week was preceded by an unnecessary public debate that distressed the heads of both institutions, even on a personal level. Savvidis and Poyatzis have a very good personal relationship that dates back to their college days, and they would prefer not to engage in such a public confrontation.
Dillian’s Initial Statement and Its Implications
The halt in the case brought satisfaction to Tal Dillian, the Israeli owner of the black van, who was convicted in the first instance in Greece along with three other individuals in a separate legal proceeding stemming from the issue of surveillance and wiretapping.
Dillian spoke exclusively to “Alpha,” expressing the view that the outcome of the case in Cyprus could also influence the proceedings in Greece, where he hopes to be acquitted on appeal.
The van’s owner commends and respects the professionalism and independence of the Cypriot authorities, as well as the conclusions they reached. He states that he has no doubt that this decision to close the investigation will disappoint those in Greece who hoped to link the two cases, based on a narrative rather than on the actual facts. Moreover, in his view, there is a fundamental difference between a narrative and the actual facts behind it, and he emphasizes that political or media pressure cannot alter the facts, no matter how much some people may promote certain narratives.
It should be noted that in the past, Dillian has maintained that his software and services are provided exclusively to authorized governments and law enforcement agencies, and that their use and the selection of targetsare the responsibility of the relevant state authorities.
From a criminal proceeding to a major political and institutional issue
The Dillian case regarding Cyprus, at least at the judicial level, has been closed, with the court concluding that although his company’s devices were capable of surveillance, it was not proven that any surveillance had taken place on Cypriot territory.
The focus has shifted for some time now. Regardless of Dillian’s activities, serious questions remain unanswered. To what extent did the surveillance take place? Who are the “masterminds” behind this case, what were their motives, and what did they hope to achieve through this action, whether via Dillian or anyone else?
What is of concern is whether politically prominent figures were involved in the entire surveillance affair, which had been a matter of public concern long before 2019 and Dillian’s emergence.
From the very beginning, the discussion shifted from a criminal proceeding to a major political issue, behind which lie questions of institutional accountability. The case very quickly took on a political dimension, with allegations of involvement and a cover-up by political figures.
Many answers can be found in the findings of Ilias Stefanou, the contents of which we may never learn. After the Anti-Corruption Authority concluded its investigation, such a serious matter—with unprecedented ramifications—has been shelved, leaving suspicions, shadows, and clouds hanging over institutions regarding how the case was handled, turning public opinion into a spectator to a game of shifting blame.
The burden rests on the shoulders of the Anti-Corruption Authority, which, if it so desires, can continue the investigation—now with the blessing of the prosecutor’s office—and reach its own conclusion.
The Legal Service, in any case, bears the greatest institutional responsibility toward society— once it receives this conclusion, if it is ever issued—to dispel all the clouds and shadows hanging over one of its leaders, should the Authority find that he bears any responsibility. Institutionally, it bears the responsibility of ensuring that the handling of any case is governed by complete impartiality, objectivity, and institutional independence.
