Five months after journalist and author Makarios Drousiotis publicly alleged the existence of a network of corruption and collusion within the realms of politics, the judiciary, and the business world—with a woman known as “Sandy” at the center— the woman who is currently under criminal investigation by the authorities, “broke her silence” on the Cyprus Times website, addressing a written statement to journalist Manolis Kalatzis.

In it, she admits to being involved in the case and denies reports that she was blackmailed or bribed, while appealing to Makarios Drousiotis to agree to an independent technical audit of the messages’ transmission path.

The following is the Cyprus Times article in its entirety:

The woman at the center of a case with political and criminal ramifications speaks for the first time to the Cyprus Times. She acknowledges her own involvement, rejects rumors that she was blackmailed or bribed, and calls on Makarios Drousiotis to allow an independent technical audit of the messages’ route. Critical questions, however, remain unanswered

For many months, everyone was talking about “Santi.” Politicians, journalists, lawyers, analysts, people familiar with the case, and quite a few who simply jumped on the bandwagon (and that’s most of them). She herself, however, had not spoken publicly, because she didn’t know whether that would be good or bad for her. There was communication with the author, during which we discussed various aspects of the case, while making clear our own reservations regarding the actual facts. We asked questions, received answers, and very quickly agreed to speak publicly about everything. At this stage, “Sandy” wished to limit herself to a brief statement, which she forwarded to us.

Her name—or rather, her pseudonym—found itself at the center of a scandal that caused a political upheaval in Cyprus and Greece, led to police investigations and criminal proceedings, and had as its most tragic consequence the battle fought in the Intensive Care Unit by Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister Giorgos Mylonakis. All of this is not mere detail, but a real-life scenario shrouded in many myths.

Today, the woman behind “Santi” speaks to the Cyprus Times in a written statement. She gives her own account of how the story began, her contacts with attorney Nikos Clerides, journalists Stelios Orfanides and Makarios Drousiotis, the meeting at the Mall of Cyprus, the messages in question, and her statement to the police.

She does not answer all the questions and does not explain precisely what she means when she says she “took on a role,” nor does she provide a detailed account of what she said, what she wrote, and which messages she herself created. She rejects, however, the rumors that she was manipulated, blackmailed, or bribed, stating that the messages that were made public were her own fabrications and figments of her imagination.

“I am not writing this to ask anyone to justify my actions,” she states at the beginning of her statement. “I’m writing it because, for a long time, my side of the story wasn’t heard as I actually experienced it.”

“I took on the role of Santi”

She openly acknowledges that her involvement did not happen by chance and does not attempt to portray herself as a passive figure who was dragged into a case without knowing anything.

“My involvement in the case began with my own choices. I don’t deny that,” she writes. She adds, however, that there is a great difference between acknowledging her own involvement and accepting “every version, every interpretation, and every fact that was added later.”

According to her account, the story began with conversations with attorney Nikos Clerides.

“At first, it was just a conversation. Then the questions came. The answers led to new questions, and at some point, I began to slip into a role—the role of ‘Santi.’”

This is perhaps the most important point of her account, but at the same time, it’s the one that raises the most questions. She herself admits that the role was created through her own actions, without clarifying at this stage where reality ended and fiction began.

She maintains that the narrative gradually took on a life of its own and that she found it difficult to detach herself from what had begun to unfold
.”I don’t use any label as a diagnosis or as an excuse. I’m simply trying to describe how a person can get swept up in a role and, as time goes by, find it difficult to step out of it.”

She does, however, distinguish her own responsibility from what followed: “That’s my part. But that doesn’t mean that everything that followed was my fault.”

Her Contact with Stelios Orfanidis

According to her account, her first contact with journalist Stelios Orfanidis took place in 2020, following mediation by Nikos Clerides.
She notes that the journalist himself has publicly referred to both this initial contact and the subsequent interactions. He insists that mentioning this specific point in time is necessary in order to present the entire course of the case, rather than fragmented events that came to light much later.
What he does not clarify is the exact content of his conversations with Stelios Orfanidis, what information she relayed to him, and to what extent that information was true or part of the role she says she had already begun to create.

The meeting with Makarios Drousiotis

This was followed by communication with Makarios Drousiotis and their meeting on April 26, 2023, at the Nero café in the Mall of Cyprus.

“Santi” states that her purpose was to listen and find out what the journalist knew. She also admits that she sent a message, which she was asked to send, without, however, naming who asked her to do so.

“I wanted to go to the meeting and listen. To understand what this man knew,” she notes.

She claims that during the meeting she got the impression that Makarios Drousiotis already knew quite a bit and had formed an opinion about the case.
““I didn’t feel like I was revealing an unknown case to him. I felt like I was facing a man who had already formed his own picture of the situation.”

He also cites a public statement by Stelios Orfanidis, according to which the latter met with Makarios Drousiotis in Athens in 2023 and spoke to him about the investigation he had launched. According to the same account, M. Drousiotis reportedly said that he, too, had been in contact with a woman who had told him the same story.

As “Santi” claims, the two journalists compared the information they had and concluded that they were speaking with the same person.

She clarifies that she is not presenting this public account as evidence for her own claims. She uses it, however, to support the position that the story had already gained traction beyond her own contacts. “I do not accept the version of events that all the evidence later presented as the basis of the case originated from me,” she states.

Challenge to the technical audit

The part of her statement concerning the messages in question is of particular importance. She states that the cell phone she was using at the time has been lost and therefore cannot be submitted for technical examination.
The loss of the device deprives the investigation of a potentially crucial source of technical data. “Santi,” however, believes that the trail of messages can still be traced through Makarios Drousiotis’s device and accounts.

She poses specific questions: Where did the messages come from, when were they sent, through which number or account, and how did they reach the journalist?

“If there is technical data available that can answer these questions, I believe it should be examined by an independent and competent expert, through every lawful means,” he writes.

He then directly challenges Makarios Drousiotis:
“Is Mr. Drousiotis willing to allow an independent and lawful technical audit of the available data on the device and his related accounts, exclusively regarding the path of those specific messages to him?”

She states that she is not asking to be believed solely on the basis of her own version of events. “I am asking that the path of the messages be traced and that we let the available data speak for itself.”

She changed her phone number and distanced herself

After the meeting with Makarios Drousiotis, as she claims, she changed her cell phone number and distanced herself from the case. He believed the matter was over and could not have foreseen the scale it would take on.

She does not specify when or under what circumstances her previous device was lost, nor whether backups of her conversations and accounts were retained.

The public outcry came on March 31, 2026, when Makarios Drousiotis published his extensive post about “Santi” on X. “For me, it was a shocking moment. Because suddenly I was no longer just a person involved in a private matter. I had become the public face of a case that everyone was now discussing.”

She maintains that from that point on, an image of her was created that was far greater than anything she had actually done. She says she is not asking for her involvement to be erased, but she is asking that actions, information, and intentions that were not her own not be attributed to her.

The Statement to the Police

On April 2, 2026, two days after the public post, she went to the police and submitted a written statement.
She rejects the suspicions that this decision was linked to an attempt to protect another person or to an organized campaign against any of the individuals involved.

“Not to protect anyone. Not to attack anyone. But so that ‘Santi’ would finally stop being a character onto whom everyone could project their own version of the story.”

She also dismisses as baseless the rumors that she was blackmailed, manipulated, or bribed into testifying that the messages were fabricated and their content imaginary… because it was, in fact, fictional.
She cites the police statement, according to which the investigation found no evidence of criminal offenses, while the messages examined were not authentic and their content was deemed false and baseless.

“I don’t want to use this development as an excuse for anything,” he emphasizes. “But I want it to be understood that the reality is much more complex than the picture that was painted at the beginning.”

There are many questions

Today’s statement marks the first comprehensive effort by the woman behind “Santi” to publicly describe her own version of events. However, it neither closes the case nor answers all the questions.

It does not adequately explain what motivated her to create the persona, what stories she fabricated, what messages she concocted, and who knew that what she was saying was not true. It does not clarify who asked her to send a message to Makarios Drousiotis, nor why she continued the contact even as she realized that the narrative was taking on serious proportions. She also does not answer the crucial question of exactly when her cell phone was lost and whether there are any other technical traces of her communications.
She does, however, accept some responsibility, while at the same time rejecting the impression that she is the sole source of everything that was made public.

“I acknowledge my own involvement in the story. However, I do not accept responsibility for what I did not do, did not say, and did not convey,” she states.

She concludes her statement by attempting to separate the person from the role she created:

“At one point, a role was created. That role grew. Other people became part of the story. The story took on a public dimension. And in the end, the person behind the role found herself having to prove that she exists. That person is me.”
And she concludes:

“Today I don’t want to speak as ‘Santi.’ I want to speak as a person. I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m not asking to be believed without evidence. I’m asking to be judged for what I actually did, and not for what other people have continued to write into the story. And, above all, I ask for one simple thing: Let the evidence speak for itself. That is my truth.”