The video at the centre of the so-called “videogate” case appears to have been produced with the aim of harming the Republic of Cyprus, Independent Criminal Investigator Andreas Paschalides said on Monday after submitting his report to the Attorney General.
Paschalides said the evidence secured so far does not indicate any breach of the Criminal Code by Cypriots featuring in the video.
The Legal Service said the report was submitted to the Attorney General on July 17 and that its findings, together with the recommendations and reservations of Paschalides and the police investigation team, will be examined and assessed. It also said the Attorney General approved a request to extend Paschalides’ appointment until December 31, 2026.
According to the report, “the footage made public on January 8, 2026, is not authentic but the product of editing and, therefore, apart from having been obtained through unconstitutional acts and consequently constituting inadmissible evidence, is of negligible, if any, evidential value.”
It adds that “three Cypriot individuals feature prominently in the footage, two of whom are known for their active involvement in the country’s political affairs, while the third is known for his activities in the business sector.”
The report says “the objective behind the production and creation of the video appears to have been to harm the Republic of Cyprus rather than private interests.”
Based on the evidence available at this stage, “the conclusion is warranted that the video constitutes a form of hybrid attack aimed at harming the Cypriot state,” it says.
Paschalides said claims that the Cypriot government intervened to keep a Russian oligarch off the European Union sanctions list were thoroughly investigated.
“The matter was investigated in depth, including at the level of senior government officials, but no wrongdoing was found. On the contrary, the investigation established that the Cypriot authorities acted lawfully throughout,” the statement said.
The report says “the original video, which it should be noted is not free of the factors that significantly affect the evidential value of the edited footage, is approximately 26 hours long.”
It adds that “the video was produced by a privately owned foreign company, registered abroad, whose identity and details are known to investigators. According to the evidence, the company operates globally in the field of intelligence gathering and information services in return for substantial fees.”
“The company maintains and employs agents in numerous countries. In this case, non-Cypriot agents were deployed to produce the video, and investigators have also established their identities.”
On allegations relating to a construction project in Limassol district, the report says “the matter was brought to the fore by allegations made by one of the Cypriot protagonists in the original video, claiming preferential treatment of a member of the family concerned and the securing of an advantage through improper means and/or under circumstances suggestive of corruption.”
It adds that “when the particular Cypriot ‘protagonist’ was asked to comment on those allegations, he declined to do so”, while noting that “despite this, investigators proceeded to examine the allegations in depth.”
It ultimately found that “not only were the claims found to be unfounded and baseless, but in the only case identified involving a construction project linked to the family concerned, the decisions taken by the authorities were found to be entirely proper and, moreover, no member of that family bearing the name referred to actually existed.”
On cash donations during the presidential election campaign of the three main candidates – Nikos Christodoulides, Andreas Mavroyiannis and Averof Neophytou – the report says “the issue featured prominently in the interviews with two of the Cypriot ‘protagonists’ and therefore could not be ignored, as the way it was presented left no doubt that it appeared tainted by corruption.”
It notes that “despite persistent claims to the contrary, at least by one of the two, the investigation found no wrongdoing in this area, let alone corruption.”
On the Independent Social Support Body Fund, the report says “the need to investigate this aspect of the case arose from allegations portraying the Fund, managed by the First Lady, as an ‘easy and safe’ channel through which money could be funnelled in exchange for improper favours.”
It adds that “among other steps, the criminal investigator, in cooperation with the Police, obtained the Audit Office’s report, which includes findings on the operation of the Fund and the identification of donors.”
It further states that “a donor register was also obtained, the examination of which, together with the rest of the investigation, demonstrated that the allegations in question were unfounded.”
The report says “the investigation has identified the original video, the producer and those used as agents, and established the full content of the interviews, but has not been able to identify the client of the company that produced the video.”
It adds that “identifying the company’s client would shed light on this aspect of the case and, in particular, on the client’s objectives and motives.”
The report recommended that the investigation into this aspect of the case continue. According to the Legal Service, the Attorney General approved the recommendation by extending Paschalides’ appointment until December 31, 2026.