The extension of the appointment of Andreas Paschalidis, former Supreme Court Justice and President of the Independent Authority for Claims and Complaints Against the Police, in his role as independent criminal investigator for the high-profile “Videogate” case.

The reason? To continue, in cooperation with the police, the investigations concerning the revelation of the identity of the person who commissioned the company that produced the video, as well as their objectives and motives.

READ ALSO: “Hot air and empty rhetoric”: Here is Paschalidis’s statement on Videogate; he finds no violation

As stated in a written declaration by the Legal Service, “in January 2026, Mr. Andreas Paschalidis, a former Supreme Court Justice and President of the Independent Authority for Allegations and Complaints Against the Police, was appointed by the Attorney General of the Republic as an Independent Criminal Investigator to conduct investigations, in cooperation with the Police, to investigate the possible commission of any criminal offense by any person in connection with a video posted on the account under the username “Emily Thompson” on the social media platform “X” on January 8, 2026.”

Read the rest of the announcement:

“In accordance with the terms of his appointment, Mr. Paschalidis was instructed to investigate any matter related to the video in question, including its content, its authenticity, origin, and the circumstances and motives behind its production and publication, as well as any other issues that may arise from the aforementioned investigation.

The findings/report, which essentially concern the investigation of the content aspect, were submitted to the Attorney General of the Republic on July 17, 2026. This aspect, along with the recommendations and reservations of the Independent Criminal Investigator and the Police investigation team, will be reviewed and evaluated by the Legal Service of the Republic.

In addition, the findings/report include a recommendation by Mr. Paschalidis that the Attorney General of the Republic grant an extension of his appointment so that, in cooperation with the Police, to continue the investigations regarding the disclosure of the identity of the person who commissioned the company that produced the video, as well as his objectives and motives.

The Attorney General of the Republic, having reviewed the evidence before him as well as the recommendation by Mr. Paschalidis regarding the extension of his appointment as Independent Criminal Investigator for this specific aspect of the case, decided to approve the request and extend the appointment until December 31, 2026.”

READ ALSO: Time for the Videogate findings: Report submitted to the Attorney General, pending announcements from Paschalidis

Andreas Paschalidis, the independent criminal investigator and head of the Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints Against the Police, identifies empty rhetoric and hot air, regarding the notorious video posted last January on Platform X, which allegedly revealed cases of corruption and collusion, featuring close associates of the President of the Republic, Nikos Christodoulides, as the “main figures.”

Six months after his appointment by the Attorney General and following two extensions granted to him and the team of police investigators assisting him in his work, Mr. Paschalidis recently released a written statement detailing the findings of the high-profile “Videogate” case.

The investigation led the investigators to eleven key conclusions and recommendations, the most important of which states that:

“Based on the evidence secured to date, there is no indication of a violation of the Penal Code by any of the Cypriot ‘key figures’ involved.” Nevertheless, the Criminal Investigating Magistrate, as well as the police investigation team, have been considering the possibility that the parties involved may have violated the Council of Europe Convention on the Criminalization of Corruption (Ratification) Law 23(III)/2000, due to their actions, conduct, promises, statements, and general behavior. However, in this regard, the Criminal Investigating Magistrate and the police investigation team have expressed a number of reservations.”

According to reports, the findings have already been submitted to Attorney General George Savvidis and will be reviewed and evaluated by the Legal Service, which will provide guidance on how to proceed.

SEE ALSO: The Videogate report is in: It has been submitted to the Attorney General, pending announcements from Paschalidis

The announcement in its entirety:

“This is a multi-page document in which the criminal investigator, referring to details from the voluminous body of evidence—which, with the cooperation of the police, has been secured to date—makes observations and findings, draws conclusions, and makes recommendations.

Specifically, based on the current state of affairs as established by the evidence gathered to date:

The footage that was made public on 08/01/2026 are not authentic but are the result of manipulation; therefore, in addition to constituting the product of unconstitutional actions and thus inadmissible evidence, they have negligible, if any, probative value. In these videos, three individuals from the Cypriot side play leading roles; two of them are known for their active involvement in the country’s political affairs, while the third is known for his business activities.

The original video—which, it should be noted, is not free of all the elements that significantly affect the evidentiary value of the edited video— is approximately 26 hours long. In it, from the Cypriot side, in addition to the three individuals who feature prominently in the edited footage from January 8,January 2026, other prominent figures—both current and former—from the country’s political and business circles also appear.

The original video was obtained through the mediation of the heads of the Legal Service, the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, and subsequently, with the consent of the criminal investigator, was granted—in the public interest and under strict, explicit conditions— immunity was granted to those who “…participated in the production (audio and/or video recording), as well as the publication of the…video that took place on January 8, 2026, and all of the audiovisual material that was handed over, as well as to any other persons who participated in any other way in the preparation and/or organization and/or other actions aimed at producing the audiovisual material, including any partners, employees, or officers of the clients…solely and exclusively in connection with offenses arising from the aforementioned actions, including offenses that may arise under the Personal Data Protection Law.”

Responsibility for the production/creation of the video lies with a private company, not affiliated with Cypriot interests, registered abroad, the name and other details of which are in the possession of the investigators, which, according to testimony, operates in the field of information gathering and provision on a global scale in exchange for substantial compensation. To this end, the company maintains and employs agents in numerous countries. In this specific case, the company’s agents—not Cypriots—were enlisted to create/produce the video, and investigators have also obtained evidence regarding them.

The aim of producing the video appears to be to harm the Republic of Cyprus, rather than to serve private interests. In this regard, among other things, it is noted that one day before the publication of the edited video, Cyprus had assumed the Presidency of the European Council, as well as the fact that the posting on January 8, 2026, of the doctored video bore all the hallmarks of a specific campaign by a specific country, which began in 2021 with the aim of undermining, among other things, Member States of the European Union—though other countries hostile to Cyprus cannot be ruled out— but also the fact that the key players were given different scenarios regarding investments in Cyprus, which, upon evaluation, do not appear, at least at this stage, to be consistent with the company’s position regarding its client’s motives. In short, as things stand at this stage, it is reasonable to conclude that the video constitutes a form of hybrid attack aimed at harming the Cypriot state.

An analysis of the original video revealed the following issues (7(a)–7(e)), which, having been deemed worthy of investigation, were thoroughly and in-depth examined, leading to findings and conclusions.

a) The exclusion of a specific Russian oligarch from the European Union’s sanctions list. The relevant allegations made by one of the key Cypriot figures regarding improper government interference—including the possibility of his own involvement—were thoroughly investigated. The matter was thoroughly investigated, with the inquiries extending to high-ranking government officials, without any evidence of wrongdoing emerging. On the contrary, it was found that the Cypriot side acted entirely in accordance with the law at all relevant times.

b) A construction project in the Limassol District, undertaken by a specific member of a well-known Limassol family throughout Cyprus. This specific issue was brought to light by relevant reports/allegations from one of the Cypriot protagonists in the original video, which concerned preferential treatment of a member of the family in question, whom he even names in his statements, and gaining an advantage through improper means and/or under circumstances that smack of corruption. When this particular Cypriot “protagonist” was asked to comment on these statements and allegations, he refused to do so. Nevertheless, the investigators proceeded to conduct a thorough investigation into the relevant reports. Not only was it proven that such allegations were baseless and unfounded, but also that in the sole instance identified—which concerned a construction project by the family in question— the decisions of the administration at the time were entirely above board and beyond reproach; moreover, no member of that family with that specific name existed.

c) Cash contributions made during the presidential election campaign by the three main candidates (N. Christodoulides, A. Mavrogiannis, and A. Averoff). This is an issue that “came up” prominently during the interviews in question involving two of the Cypriot “key figures” and therefore could not be ignored, since the manner in which it was presented left no doubt that the entire issue appeared tainted by corruption.

Nor in this area, despite persistent claims to the contrary—at least on the part of one of the two—was anything reprehensible, let alone corruption, found following investigations.

d) Lobbying Issues: This specific aspect of the case was also thoroughly investigated. The focus was on the conduct of the Cypriot key figures. As part of the investigations, the opinion of the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority was also sought; the Authority issued a detailed report on the matter, which did not reveal anything reprehensible.

e) Fund of the Independent Social Support Agency: The need to investigate this specific aspect of the case arose from allegations that portrayed the Fund, which was managed by the First Lady, as an “easy and safe” channel through which money could be funneled in exchange for “suspicious” benefits. Among other actions taken by the criminal investigator in cooperation with the police was the securing of the Audit Office’s report, which includes, among other things, information regarding the Fund’s operations and the method used to match donors with their contributions, as well as the Audit Service’s findings. A list of donors was also received; an audit of this list, in conjunction with the rest of the investigation, revealed the baseless nature of the “reprehensible” allegations in question.

8) Various agreements (confidentiality and service agreements) were signed between three of the key Cypriot figures and the alleged investors, various agreements (confidentiality and service agreements) were signed, pursuant to which two of the aforementioned Cypriot key figures derived financial benefits.

9) Based on the testimony secured to date, it was possible to locate the original video, reveal the identity of the video’s producer/creator, as well as the identities of the individuals/agents involved, and to make the full content of the interviews public; however, it was not possible to reveal the identity of the company’s client, the producer/creator of the video. It is evident that revealing the identity of the company’s client would shed light on the mystery surrounding this specific aspect of the case and, in particular, would lead to the full disclosure of the client’s objectives and motives. Consequently, a motion has been filed to continue the investigations regarding this aspect of the case, a recommendation that was accepted, resulting in the extension of the Criminal Investigator’s mandate until December 31, 2026.

10) The evidence secured to date does not indicate a violation of the Penal Code by any of the Cypriot “key figures” involved. Nevertheless, the Criminal Investigating Magistrate, as well as the Police investigation team, have been considering the possibility that the individuals involved may have violated the Council of Europe Convention on the Criminalization of Corruption (Ratification) Law 23(III)/2000, due to their actions, conduct, promises, statements, and general behavior. In this regard, however, the Criminal Investigating Magistrate and the police investigation team have expressed a number of reservations.

11) The Criminal Investigator and the team of police investigators have concluded that the remarks heard in the video, allegedly made by some of the Cypriot protagonists, amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric and “bluster” intended to create a sensation around themselves for the purpose of deriving personal financial gain—which some of them have already begun to reap. It should be noted that when they were asked to comment on these reports/allegations, only one responded positively, and he confirmed the Criminal Investigator’s specific finding. The others refused to comment and/or take a position.”