*Source: CNA

Regarding the financial charges brought against the monks of the Holy Monastery of Saint Avvakum, the circumstances under which they allegedly admitted to misconduct, as well as the handling of funds and items transferred to the Metropolis of Tamassos, were the focus of the cross-examination of the prosecution witness, Father Dionysios Koptides, by attorney Kostis Efstathiou, defense counsel for the first defendant, Monk Nektarios, before the Nicosia Criminal Court.

During today’s proceedings, questions were raised, among other things, regarding the sum of €790,000 linked to the monastery’s safes, the time at which financial evidence was gathered, the issuance of a statement by the Metropolis calling on citizens to file complaints, as well as the circumstances under which a sworn statement was signed by the monk Avvakum.

The cross-examination also extended to reports regarding matters of a sexual nature, the transfer of items from the Monastery to the Metropolis of Tamassos, as well as to matters of ecclesiastical and canonical law concerning the relationship between the monasteries and their respective Metropolitan.

Questions regarding the financial allegations against Nektarios

Mr. Efstathiou pressed on whether the financial misconduct—which, according to Father Dionysios’s written testimony, was attributed to the monk Nektarios—had been specifically identified.

Referring to a section of the statement, the attorney read a passage stating that “indisputable evidence” had been presented to Nektarios “indisputable evidence” from audiovisual recordings, which concerned ecclesiastical misconduct, violations of Church canons, and financial misconduct.

The attorney requested clarification on exactly which financial misconduct allegations had been presented to the monk and whether specific acts attributed to him had been explained to him.

Father Dionysios stated that during the meeting at the Metropolis of Tamassos, the discussion was not limited exclusively to financial matters, adding that the details of the financial issues emerged later, after his appearances at the Metropolis and the launch of the investigations that followed the public disclosure of the case.

When asked when information regarding these specific financial matters came to light, the witness referred to the start of the financial investigation, as well as to the publication of an announcement calling on citizens to report any problems or complaints they had with the Monastery.

The Safes and the €790,000

Regarding the Monastery’s safes and the €790,000 they allegedly contained, Mr. Efstathiou asked for clarification on whether the reference to financial misconduct was linked to the existence of funds that had not been declared to the Metropolis.

Father Dionysios stated that the amount should have been reported to the Diocese, clarifying, however, that at the time in question, no financial audit had been conducted and that the funds were subsequently reported.

The attorney returned to the issue, questioning whether it was possible to speak of an admission of financial misconduct by Nektarios without the specific acts attributed to him having been identified.

The discussion also extended to the circumstances surrounding the opening and counting of the safe. Mr. Efstathiou referred to a passage in the testimony stating that Abbot Nektarios had requested to be present during the counting, as he knew the safe’s combination.

The attorney asked for clarification on who opened the safe and whether the abbot was present during the process. Father Dionysios stated that he was present during the counting for a few minutes before leaving.

References to matters of a sexual nature

Mr. Efstathiou cited a passage from the written testimony stating that the monks Nektarios and Avvakum allegedly admitted their guilt, while at the same time seeking a compromise.

When asked what he meant by the statement that the monks had no other choice, Father Dionysios replied that this concerned not only financial matters but also issues of a sexual nature. The attorney noted that these specific references were not included in the witness’s written testimony and asked for clarification as to whether Nektarios had been investigated specifically regarding such matters.

Father Dionysios stated that the monk had been investigated for financial misconduct, adding that the remaining issues arose from the audiovisual material. Mr. Efstathiou argued to the witness that his references to offenses of a moral or sexual nature were not corroborated by his testimony and that he was lying on this specific matter. Father Dionysios rejected the accusation, stating that he was not lying.

Abbakum’s Affidavit

The attorney then referred to the case of the monk Avvakum and to the sworn statement that, according to the testimony, he had signed. Mr. Efstathiou asked for clarification on exactly what charge was brought against Avvakum and whether this charge had been presented to him verbally.

Father Dionysios stated that in his case there was a specific charge—that of sacrilege—which, as he explained, concerned the placement of myrrh on the cross. When asked who had prepared the sworn statement, the witness replied that he had prepared it himself.

The attorney requested further clarification regarding the circumstances under which the document was signed and whether this was shown in the audiovisual material that had been presented.

Father Dionysios referred to the existence of a video and claimed that Avvakum himself had admitted to everything contained in the sworn statement. Mr. Efstathiou refuted the claim, arguing that the monk had never accepted that specific content.

Questions were also raised regarding Father Dionysios’s role during the proceedings and whether he was writing down what the Metropolitan or other individuals were dictating to him.

The Metropolis’s Statement and the Collection of Complaints

Regarding a written announcement prepared at the suggestion of the Metropolitan of Tamassos, in which those who had a problem or complaint regarding the Monastery of Saint Avvakoum or its members were asked to contact the Metropolis, Mr. Efstathiou asked the witness whether the Metropolitan had requested the issuance of the statement and whether he had explained the reason to him.

Father Dionysios confirmed that the Metropolitan had requested the publication of the announcement, clarifying that the reason had not been explained to him. The attorney linked the issuance of the announcement to the public disclosure of the case and the first phone calls that, as he noted, began coming in to the Metropolis.

He also asked how many people responded to the invitation and what actions were taken afterward, including complaints filed with the police. The witness stated that he did not recall the number of complaints but confirmed, however, that they had been filed with the police.

The items transported to the Metropolis

Regarding the items that were collected from the Monastery by 16 authorized individuals and transported to the Metropolis, Mr. Efstathiou asked the witness to specify what they were and where they were placed.

Father Dionysios stated that he did not recall where the items were placed on the night they were transported, adding that he saw them again shortly thereafter in the basement of the Metropolis.

Disagreement Regarding Ecclesiastical and Canon Law

Part of the cross-examination concerned ecclesiastical and canonical law, with Mr. Efstathiou and the witness disagreeing on the degree of autonomy of the monasteries and the scope of the relevant Metropolitan’s authority.

The attorney argued that provincial monasteries are fully subject to the relevant metropolitan, citing provisions of the Charter and ecclesiastical canons.

The witness, for his part, maintained that the canon that had been read to him concerned the monastic order and monastic tonsure—that is, the examination of the candidate prior to tonsure.

The discussion expanded to the legal personality of the monasteries. Both sides agreed that monasteries are legal entities, but disagreed on whether this implies independence from the Metropolitan or coexists with a relationship of ecclesiastical subordination.

A disagreement also arose regarding the analogy used by the witness, who compared the relationship between the Metropolis and the monasteries to that of a parent company and its subsidiaries.

Mr. Efstathiou described the analogy as “offensive” to religion and the monasteries, while Father Dionysios replied that it was an example intended to illustrate a monastery’s dependence on its respective Metropolitan See.

Mr. Efstathiou also invoked the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, arguing that the Metropolitan’s relationship with a monastery concerns his consent solely regarding the construction and establishment of the monastery.

The 16 authorized individuals and the defense’s intention to cross-examine

Furthermore, Mr. Efstathios’s cross-examination also focused on the events that unfolded at the Metropolis of Tamassos, referring to the 16 individuals who, according to the testimony, were authorized by Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos to go to the Monastery of Saint Avvakoum.

During the proceedings before the Nicosia Criminal Court, the witness was asked to clarify whether he knew these specific individuals, as well as the role certain ones of them played in the events that followed.

The defense stated that it intends to call these individuals to the stand for cross-examination, while also expressing its intention to call Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos to testify.