The prosecution witness, a construction worker, testified before the Nicosia Permanent Criminal Court that Father Nektarios had asked him not to issue receipts for the construction work he was performing at the Holy Monastery of Avvakoum in order to avoid paying VAT, was raised before the Nicosia Permanent Criminal Court by the prosecution witness, a builder by trade, during the continuation of the hearing on Wednesday.
His testimony was the focus of cross-examination, with the defense attorneys challenging his claims and suggesting that he was attempting to shift the blame for his own tax omissions onto Father Nektarios, while at the same time raising the question of whether he had a personal interest in cooperating with the authorities.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The witness stated that during the period 2022–2024, he carried out various construction projects at the Monastery, with a total value of approximately €38,700, with agreements regarding the scope of the work and payments being made, as he said, with Father Nektarios.
According to his testimony, the work included space renovations, tile installation, work in an area he described as a living room, and the construction of a pergola.
The witness stated that the collaboration began following a recommendation from a third party and after he visited the monastery, where he discussed the requirements and provided a verbal quote, which was accepted.
As he stated, Father Nektarios asked him to inform him of the cost before carrying out certain tasks. He added that at the end of the collaboration, €3,000 was deducted from the total amount, as, he was told, Nektarios had also commissioned certain tasks to other individuals.
The witness also mentioned a request to build a residence near the monastery and another space for the monks to stay, which, as he said, he did not accept because he did not have the necessary equipment.
Checks, wire transfers, and failure to issue receipts
The representative of the prosecution, Vasilis Bisas, presented bank checks and wire transfer receipts to the court, which the witness was asked to identify.
Specifically, four bank checks were presented, for the amounts of €11,700, €4,000, €2,500, and €2,500, as well as five bank transfer receipts for the amounts of €5,000, €5,000, €3,000, €2,600, and €3,000.
The witness stated that he did not issue invoices for the specific jobs, while he claimed that Father Nektarios had told him not to issue receipts so that VAT would not be paid.
According to the same testimony, Nektarios allegedly told him that he was a trained accountant and that, in the end, he himself would not have to pay VAT either.
When asked by Vasilis Bissa whether he had used receipt pads from a bookstore that did not bear his company’s details, the witness replied that he did not remember.
He stated that the monastery’s debts to him had been paid in full.
It should be noted that during the period when the case involving the Holy Monastery of Avvakoum came to light, this particular witness had been under investigation as a suspect in various offenses, including fraudulent evasion of VAT and failure to issue legal receipts.
Kestoros disputed the allegations regarding the receipts
The claim that Father Nektarios had told him that he was a trained accountant and that, in the end, he himself would not pay VAT either, was challenged during cross-examination by the defense attorney for the first defendant, Maria Kestoros, who pointed out to the witness that Nektarios had never told him he was an accountant.
The defense consequently also challenged the claim that Nektarios was the one who urged him not to issue receipts.
The witness stood by his position, and when Ms. Kestoros suggested again that the decision not to issue receipts was entirely his own initiative, he replied: “Whatever he told me, I said yes.”
Efstathiou raised the issue of tax omissions and personal interest
The cross-examination by the defense attorney for the second defendant, Efstathios Efstathiou, focused on the witness’s tax status during the period the work was carried out.
When asked whether he was registered with the VAT registry while performing the work at the Monastery, the witness answered in the affirmative, stating that he had registered in late 2019.
Mr. Efstathiou pointed out that his registration date was March 19, 2021. The witness clarified that his company was registered at that time, whereas previously he had worked as a self-employed individual and had a VAT number.
The defense attorney suggested to the witness that Father Nektarios had never asked him not to issue receipts and that he was attempting to shift the blame for his own tax omissions onto Nektarios.
The witness replied in the negative.
Mr. Efstathiou then referred to the police investigation into seven offenses allegedly committed by the witness, raising the question of whether he had a personal interest in cooperating with the authorities and placing the blame on Father Nektarios.
The witness denied having had any discussion with the police or the prosecuting authority regarding his own case, nor that he had been given any promise or assurance of favorable treatment regarding his criminal case.
When asked whether he was always the only one present during his meetings with Father Nektarios, he replied that there were other people present, though he did not know who they were.
The defense attorney argued that there is no evidence linking the second defendant, Father Porphyrios, to these specific transactions.
Specifically, Mr. Efstathiou noted that Father Porphyrios was never present during the discussions in which, according to the witness, Nektarios urged him not to issue receipts.
Purchases of plastics and the monastery’s needs
During the trial, the director of a plastics company also testified; she was questioned by the representative of the prosecution regarding orders, invoices, packaging products, and bank transactions of the Holy Monastery of Avvakoum.
The witness referred to purchases of plastic containers, salad bowls, glasses, stationery, and other packaging supplies, while explaining how orders and contact information were recorded on the relevant documents.
As she stated, both she and a colleague of hers were involved in the orders and in serving the Monastery; her colleague was also responsible for issuing the relevant invoices.
During her cross-examination by Maria Kestoros, questions were raised regarding who placed the orders and who received the products.
The defense also presented invoices and requested clarification regarding the nature of the products, pointing out that they were ordinary everyday items, such as coffee or water cups and plastic containers of various sizes.
Subsequently, attorneys Maria Kestoros and Efstathios Efstathiou focused on whether the quantities purchased by the Monastery could be justified by the needs of hosting pilgrims andvisitors.
The witness stated that she knew from customers and colleagues that the Monastery received a large number of pilgrims, and she was aware that sweets were offered.
However, she clarified that she had no personal knowledge of the extent of the hospitality, whether meals were served, or the quantities of products used daily.
When asked whether she knew what happened to the products after they were delivered to the monastery, she replied in the negative.
The witness further stated that she had no personal knowledge that any of the products supplied by her company were used for Father Porphyrios’s personal purposes.
The defense argued to the witness that the orders served the Monastery’s genuine operational needs, particularly the extensive hospitality provided to the faithful and pilgrims.
The trial is scheduled to resume on November 19, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Source: CNA
