The financial relations between the Metropolis of Tamassos and the Holy Monastery of Saint Avvakum, including the transfer of real estate from the Metropolis to the Monastery as part of a debt settlement, were examined on Monday by the defense during the cross-examination of Archimandrite Dionysios Koptides before the Nicosia Criminal Court. The defense argued that the transfer was made as a gesture of appreciation toward the monks, to which the witness replied that “property transfers are not made as a gesture of respect.”
During the hearing, the defense for the first defendant, Father Nektarios, represented by attorney Maria Kestoros, initially referred to his career in the Church and his ordinations, as well as the ceremonies during which he received the ecclesiastical offices of spiritual father, archimandrite, and abbot. The witness stated that he had attended his enthronement as abbot, but not the other ceremonies.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Regarding the operation of the Monastery, the witness stated that after the events of March 5, 2024, he had in his possession the keys to the entrance and the office of the Monastery, as he had assumed the duties of administrator following a decision by the Metropolitan. In response to the defense’s argument that the monastery is a separate legal entity, the witness disagreed, noting that it falls under the jurisdiction of the Metropolis of Tamassos.
Special mention was made of the agreement dated February 6, 2024, between the Metropolis of Tamassos and the Monastery of Saint Avvakoum. The witness stated that the agreement concerned the settlement of debts related to capital taxes and current expenses, while the payment of the remaining amount by the Diocese to the Monastery was to be made through the transfer of a residential plot.
As he stated, the agreement was signed on behalf of the Diocese by the Metropolitan of Tamassos, while the second defendant, Father Porphyrios, signed on behalf of the Monastery. The first defendant, who was the abbot of the monastery at the time, did not sign because, according to the witness, he had stated that he was unable to attend. As the witness stated, while reviewing records from that specific period, he had identified a subscription renewal for an online dating platform, which, he said, had been charged to the first defendant’s credit card and was allegedly made on that day.
The defense argued that the transfer of the property did not constitute repayment of a debt, but was made as a gesture of appreciation toward the monks for the financial support they had provided to the Metropolis. Ms. Kestoros even argued that the Metropolitan wished to proceed with the transfer as a gesture of gratitude to the Monastery for sums that, as she stated, had been paid to his communications advisors during his election campaign, as well as to his brother. The witness rejected this claim, adding that “no one donates land to monasteries for such purposes.”
In response to the defense’s claim that the proceedings before the Episcopal Court were a “farce,” the witness stated that it was an ecclesiastical proceeding and added that the Church has, under the Constitution, the right to manage its own affairs internally.
When asked about the seven checks totaling €18,776.58, which were issued from the account of the Church of St. Nicholas in Fterikoudi between June 20 and July 13, 2020, the witness stated that he had not received the relevant minutes of the church committee meetings. The defense argued that the money was deposited into the defendants’ account in order to pay in cash the church’s merchants and creditors, who did not accept checks.
The witness replied that payments could have been made directly from the church’s treasury to the suppliers, adding that depositing money into a personal account raises suspicions of personal gain.
Subsequently, the cross-examination of the witness by the attorney for the second defendant, Father Porphyrios, Efstathios Efstathiou, focused, among other things, the events that took place at the Monastery on March 5, 2024, as well as the circumstances under which decisions regarding the defendants were made before the Episcopal Court.
The witness confirmed that certain actions on March 5 were carried out by him following instructions from the Metropolitan, including the preparation of documents regarding the penalties and admissions before the Episcopal Court, as well as authorizations for clergy and laypersons to enter the Monastery.
Regarding the audiovisual footage from the Monastery’s cameras, the witness stated that it was kept at the Metropolis and referred to an excerpt from the transcript of a conversation between the two defendants, dated February 22, 2024. According to the excerpt, the second defendant allegedly suggested to the first a way to hide money so that the Metropolis would not find it. “He suggested that he dig a hole in the ground and build a concrete chamber to hide the money, so that the Metropolis wouldn’t raid the place and take it,” stated the witness, who transcribed the recording for the purposes of the proceedings.
Regarding the alleged admissions made by the second defendant before the Episcopal Court, the defense argued that these were made under psychological pressure and without adequate prior preparation. The witness stated that the defendant appeared before the ecclesiastical court, signed the relevant documents, and admitted to the charges against him. However, when it was pointed out to him that the second defendant had not admitted to the charges and had never stolen the sum of €12,484.20, the witness stated that the defendant had referred to “black money,” but had not personally mentioned to him a specific act of theft, a specific bank account, or any intent to embezzle funds.
The defense further argued that the second defendant had not admitted to embezzling the sum of €807,000, while arguing that the Metropolitan had not repaid the loan he had received from the Avvakoum Monastery and still owed more than €150,000. The witness replied that “the Metropolitan owes nothing.”
At another point, the defense presented bank documents regarding payments from the monastery’s account to individuals associated with the Metropolitan. Specifically, a payment receipt for €13,000 to the Metropolitan’s brother, dated October 16, 2021, was presented. The witness recognized the individual but stated that he was unaware of this specific payment or who had requested it. The defense argued that the amount was a contribution to a Christmas event organized by the Metropolis.
A check for €4,000, dated December 26, 2021, was also presented, made out to a third party whom the witness knew as a visitor to the Metropolis. He stated that he did not know whether that person had provided services or who had authorized the payment. The defense linked the check to services that, as it claimed, this person had provided during the Metropolitan’s campaign for the archiepiscopal elections. The witness replied that during that period he was a student and did not hold the position of chief secretary, so he was not aware of those specific matters.
The defense also presented a bank statement for the amount of €21,900, which was transferred by a third party to a car dealership, on August 16, 2021, with reference to the Metropolis of Tamassos, asking the witness whether the payment pertained to vehicles belonging to the Metropolis. The witness stated that he had no knowledge of the matter.
In the same context, the defense returned to the issue of the transfer of the property from the Diocese to the Monastery, arguing that it was a donation made as a gesture of appreciation and respect, rather than payment to settle a loan agreement. The witness stood by his position, stating that “property transfers are not made as a sign of respect.”
The proceedings before the Criminal Court will resume on November 9 at 9:30 a.m.
It should be noted that the case involves the monks Nektarios and Porphyrios, who face, among other charges, conspiracy to defraud, forgery and the use of forged documents, theft by an agent, unlawful possession of property, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and filing a false tax return.
Source: CNA
