GREEK CYPRIOTS CONVICTED OF FRAUD IN CASE ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L NICOSIA 001565

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/13/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM ECON EUN TU CY
SUBJECT: GREEK CYPRIOTS CONVICTED OF FRAUD IN CASE ON
TURKISH PROPERTY

REF: NICOSIA 1505 AND PREVIOUS

Classified By: Ambassador Ronald L. Schlicher, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (SBU) On September 12, a court in Paphos found six Greek
Cypriots guilty of illegally selling Turkish Cypriot-owned
properties in the south. The conviction, which could bring
the defendants up to fourteen years in prison each, results
from an investigation dating back to the year 2000. The
defendants, who include municipal officials from the village
of Kato Pyrgos and the ROC's district land registry, were
found to have operated a scheme to obtain false deeds for
property belonging to Turkish Cypriots (the vast majority of
whom fled north after the 1974 war),and then resell the land
to property developers, who in turn passed it off to
unsuspecting buyers. The six were found to have made well
over USD 1 million through such sales.


2. (C) This story has received muted coverage in the south,
but has been highlighted in the Turkish Cypriot press as
evidence that the Greek Cypriots are also guilty of
property-related sins. The Turkish Cypriot lawyer who
represents several of the owners (who, while not parties in
the Paphos criminal case brought by the Cyprus AG, are
nonetheless interested observers) told us that she and her
clients would seek compensation for their usurped land. She
added that this case, although a particularly egregious
example of fraud, represented the "tip of the iceberg," since
Turkish Cypriot property in the south was frequently used by
the state or others without compensation or permission.
Turkish Cypriot legal complaints over property -- including
one recently filed against the ROC at the ECHR -- would
multiply, she promised.

COMMENT
--------------


3. (C) This case highlights an inherent contradiction in the
ROC's approach to the most complicated aspect of the Cyprus
problem: property. On one hand, ROC officials and individual
Greek Cypriots have insisted in court, with much success,
that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots must immediately honor
the rights of pre-1974 owners seeking restitution of, or
compensation for, their property in the north (reftels). On
the other hand, Turkish Cypriot property in the south (which
is a small fraction of the total area under the GOC's
control, but often concentrated in high-value tourist areas
and urban centers),is treated differently. Pending a
solution to the Cyprus problem, the rights of the Turkish
Cypriot owners are deferred and the property remains under
the control of the Ministry of Interior, which -- according
to the "Guardianship" Law -- holds the land in trust, looks
after it, and ostensibly pays rent or compensation into a
trust fund whenever the property is used or expropriated.


4. (C) This case suggests, however, that Turkish Cypriot
critics are correct when they charge that the Guardianship
Law does not always protect their rights as property owners.
Many legal observers on both sides of the Green Line agree
that the ROC will eventually need to reform the way it
handles Turkish Cypriot property if it is to live up to the
same European standards to which it insists Turkey be held.
END COMMENT.
SCHLICHER