Cyprus Expands Probe into Presidential Palace Video Scandal Involving Three Complainants

4 Min Read
Disclosure: This website may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. I only recommend products or services that I personally use and believe will add value to my readers. Your support is appreciated!

video scandal — video scandal — The investigation into an alleged illegal recording scandal involving staff from the Presidential Palace has widened, now including three complainants. An independent criminal investigator has been appointed to scrutinise the situation further, ensuring that all aspects of the case are examined thoroughly.

Photo: in-cyprus.philenews.com

Following the release of a video on the X platform by the account “Emily Thompson” on 8 January 2026, the Attorney General appointed Andreas Paschalides, a former Supreme Court judge, to lead the inquiry. This investigation will delve into any potential criminal offences arising from the video, including violations of lobbying laws.

Initially, the focus appeared to be solely on the creators of the video, but the scope has now expanded to include the three men who filed complaints: former government official Giorgos Lakkotrypis, Charalambos Charalambous, who was the President’s office director until recently, and Cyfield managing director Giorgos Chrysochos. It is a significant development, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations.

According to a statement from the Law Office, Paschalides will investigate the video’s content, authenticity, origin, and the circumstances surrounding its production and publication. The urgency of the investigation is underscored by the directive that it must be completed within three months.

Lakkotrypis wasted no time in filing his complaint, alleging that the video included illegal recordings of his discussions with purported investors from Stratix Wealth, a company claiming to be poised to invest €150 million in Cyprus’s energy sector. He also contended that the video misrepresented his statements through misleading editing.

As the investigation unfolded, Lakkotrypis provided additional details during a recent visit to Police Headquarters, including documentation of his cooperation with Stratix Wealth over three months. Charalambous submitted his statement shortly before resigning from his position, while Chrysochos provided testimony thereafter.

Police representative Vyronas Vyronas confirmed that the investigation encompasses “the entire spectrum of the video we saw in public” but did not clarify whether the roles of the three complainants would be scrutinised. Sources have indicated that the inquiry will focus on two main areas: the actions of the video’s creators, who are suspected to be part of a well-organised group, and the involvement of the three complainants, particularly regarding any obligations they may have had under lobbying legislation.

Authorities may seek judicial assistance from the Netherlands and Britain as part of their investigation efforts. Lakkotrypis has already provided investigators with specific details regarding his meetings with the alleged investors in both Amsterdam and London. This includes information about restaurants, hotels, flights, and financial transactions that could be traced through banking records.

Legal experts have noted that interactions with Stratix Wealth should have been conducted transparently, suggesting that channels like the Cyprus Investment Promotion Organisation and the Energy Ministry’s investor support service should have been utilised.

In addition to examining the video creators, the investigation will also look into the potential responsibilities of the three complainants under lobbying laws. The implications of trading in influence may also come into play, echoing similar charges in past cases, including the Al Jazeera investigation.

The video itself reportedly features Charalambous in a 45-minute video conference with someone claiming to represent Stratix Wealth, alongside Lakkotrypis. In a particularly revealing excerpt, Charalambous states, “If you proceed with the process with Giorgos (meaning Lakkotrypis), let’s say, and you start working on applications and face an issue, give me a call, and I’ll call them to prioritise it.” Such comments raise further questions about the nature of the discussions and the potential for improper influence.

Share This Article
Leave a review