Court Rejects Simon Mistriel Aykut’s Appeals in High-Profile Property Fraud Case
The Court of Appeal in Cyprus has delivered two critically importent rulings this week, rejecting three applications filed by Simon Mistriel Aykut, a property developer facing 242 charges related to fraudulent real estate dealings, illegal land use, money laundering, and conspiracy. The rulings mark a critical juncture in a case that has drawn widespread attention due to its scale and complexity.
Aykut,who has been in custody as his arrest in December 2024,is accused of orchestrating a scheme involving properties in the NEWS/n541780-simon-aykut-to-remain-in-custody”>Permanent Criminal Court of Nicosia. The court ruled that the defense’s argument—claiming a violation of the right to a fair trial—did not present a “new fact of difference” that would justify overturning the detention order.
“We do not agree that there is any prejudice or violation of due process,” the court stated, adding that such issues could be raised during the trial and considered in any final decision. The court also rejected the defense’s assertion that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) created a legal remedy within Cyprus’s legal order, stating, “We do not agree with the proposal that the ECHR itself creates any legal remedy in a state’s legal order.”
Aykut’s legal team had argued that the lack of an updated cadastral record for the residential areas and the failure of police to conduct a full examination into compensation claims by plaintiffs constituted a breach of due process. They claimed this would “raise immunity to such an extent that it should have led to the denial of the detention request.” Though, the Court of Appeal found these arguments unconvincing, noting that “there is no evidence that there is a new fact of difference that could affect the existing evidence in terms of the probability of conviction.”
The court further emphasized that the defense’s allegations were “direct” and lacked substantive legal grounding. “All that is, are direct allegations from the Appellant,” the decision stated.
This case has significant implications for property rights and legal accountability in Cyprus, particularly in the context of historical disputes over land ownership. The court’s rulings underscore the challenges faced by defendants in high-profile cases involving complex legal and procedural issues.
Key Points at a Glance
Table of Contents
| Aspect | Details |
|————————–|—————————————————————————–|
| Total Charges | 242 (60 for fraudulent trading, 60 for illegal land use, 62 for money laundering, 60 for conspiracy) |
| Locations | Villages in Famagusta and Kyrenia districts |
| Court Rulings | Two rejections of Aykut’s applications by the Court of Appeal |
| Main Argument | defense claimed violation of the right to a fair trial |
| Court’s Decision | no new facts presented; appeal rejected |
The case continues to unfold, with Aykut remaining in custody as the legal proceedings advance. For more updates on this developing story, follow our coverage and stay informed about the latest developments in this high-stakes legal battle.
What are your thoughts on the court’s decision? Share your views in the comments below.
interview: Legal Expert Dr. Elena Marinos Discusses Simon Mistriel Aykut’s High-Profile Property Fraud Case
The recent rulings by the Court of Appeal in Cyprus rejecting Simon Mistriel Aykut’s applications have sparked widespread debate. Aykut, a property developer facing 242 charges, including fraudulent real estate dealings, illegal land use, money laundering, and conspiracy, remains in custody as the case unfolds. To shed light on the legal complexities and implications of this case, we spoke with Dr. Elena Marinos, a renowned legal scholar specializing in property law and criminal justice in Cyprus.
Understanding the Charges Against Simon Mistriel Aykut
Senior Editor: Dr. Marinos, thank you for joining us. To start, could you break down the 242 charges Aykut is facing and why this case is so significant?
Dr.Elena Marinos: Certainly. The charges are divided into four main categories: 60 counts of fraudulent real estate trading, 60 counts of illegal possession and use of land, 62 counts of money laundering, and 60 counts of conspiracy. What makes this case notably significant is its scale and the involvement of properties in the Famagusta and Kyrenia districts, areas with a long history of land disputes. The sheer number of charges and the complexity of the alleged scheme have drawn national and international attention.
The Court of Appeal’s Rulings and Their Implications
Senior Editor: The Court of Appeal recently rejected Aykut’s applications, siding with the Permanent Criminal Court of Nicosia. What does this decision mean for the case?
Dr. Elena Marinos: The Court of Appeal’s decision is a critical juncture. By rejecting Aykut’s claims,the court has reaffirmed the strength of the evidence against him and the validity of the legal process. The defense argued that there were violations of due process, particularly regarding the right to a fair trial, but the court found no new facts or legal grounds to overturn the detention order. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s confidence in the prosecution’s case and sets a precedent for how similar high-profile cases might be handled in the future.
Challenges in Property Rights and Legal Accountability
Senior Editor: This case has significant implications for property rights in Cyprus, especially given the past context of land disputes. How do you see this case influencing property law and legal accountability?
Dr. Elena Marinos: This case highlights the ongoing challenges in addressing property rights in Cyprus, particularly in areas like Famagusta and Kyrenia, where historical disputes over land ownership are still unresolved. The court’s emphasis on jurisdiction over movable assets tied to the crimes is a notable development. It sends a clear message that illegal activities involving property will be met with strict legal consequences. This could lead to greater accountability in the real estate sector and possibly encourage reforms to prevent similar cases in the future.
The Defense’s Arguments and the Court’s Response
Senior Editor: Aykut’s defense team argued that the lack of updated cadastral records and incomplete police investigations violated due process. How did the court address these claims?
Dr. Elena Marinos: The court found these arguments unconvincing. While the defense claimed that these issues raised immunity to such an extent that the detention request should have been denied,the court noted that there was no evidence of new facts that could affect the probability of conviction. The court also dismissed the defense’s reliance on the European Court of Human Rights, stating that the ECHR does not create legal remedies within a state’s legal order. This reinforces the principle that domestic courts have the final say in interpreting and applying the law.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for the Case?
Senior Editor: With Aykut remaining in custody, what can we expect as the case progresses?
Dr. Elena Marinos: The case is far from over. The trial will likely delve deeper into the evidence, including the alleged fraudulent transactions, the use of illegal land, and the money laundering scheme. The defense may continue to challenge procedural aspects, but the Court of Appeal’s recent rulings suggest that the prosecution’s case is on solid ground.This case will undoubtedly set significant legal precedents, particularly in how Cyprus handles complex property and financial crimes.
