Police raid on the Royal Casino in Larnaca. Sixteen people were arrested on the spot for engaging in robberies. Police in riot gear stormed a rally on Friday, removing hundreds of protesters by truck. Police in riot gear stormed a rally on Friday, removing hundreds of protesters by truck. , from members of the Emergency Intervention Unit (OPE), the Larnaca Department of Small and Small Transactions, the Foreigners Service, as well as the Police Headquarters. As we are informed, this is the Royal Casino property, which belongs to Antonis Fanieros, whose manager was Andreas Kyriakou, otherwise Thai. The latter, like the other detainees, was charged in writing and released. Royal Casino is located on the ground floor of the Les Palmiers Hotel, on the corner of Athens Avenue, in the Finikoudes area.Police in riot gear stormed a rally on Friday, removing hundreds of protesters by truck. Police in riot gear stormed a rally on Friday, removing hundreds of protesters by truck. Police in riot gear stormed a rally in Larnaca on Friday, removing hundreds of protesters by truck. where they were charged in writing and released to be summoned later.
Illegal foreigners were also arrested.
The person in charge of the premises was charged in writing because, according to the Police, he allowed a robbery to take place in his premises, while as part of the investigation, two other persons were also located and arrested for a case of illegal residence on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus. We are informed that this is an Indian and a Palestinian whose residence permit has expired and they have been arrested in order to be deported. The scene received a sum of € 13.560, a check for € 300, a computer and a computer screen, 14 computer towers, which had unlicensed electronic gambling games, 4.580 items of various kinds. correspond to different color values, 520 playing cards, two roulette and 5 tables where blackjack and poker games were played.
Fanierou's appeal
Meanwhile, the lawyers of Antonis Fanieros, Loukis Loukaidis, Antonis Indianos, Michalis Pikis, Kriton Tornaritis, Marios Panagiotou and Paris Loizou, appealed against the detention of their client, until their due date, on December 2, 2011. of the Criminal Court. To this end, they formulated and reasoned before the Supreme Court three reasons.
According to them, "the court erroneously ordered the detention of Antonis Fanieros, based on the risk of not attending the trial due to the seriousness of the offenses and the penalty that can be imposed in case of conviction, although the seriousness of the offense is not in itself a criterion. for the detention of subordinates. In any case, the court did not pay due attention and failed to properly assess the strong links between Fanieros and Cyprus and other relevant factors set out in the case law and were brought before him, although the presence of the appellant in the trial could be ensured by the imposition of satisfactory warranty terms ”.
Explaining the first reason for the appeal, Fanieros' lawyers say that the court decided to detain Antonis Fanieros, due to the risk of not attending the trial after ruling out the possibility of the risk of witnesses being affected. And they emphasize: "The court did not properly assess the strong ties of Antonis Fanieros with Cyprus and the compensation of any risk of escape by imposing satisfactory warranty terms, which ensure his presence at trial." The first instance court's error, the lawyers explain, is reflected in the following excerpt of the decision.
"Certainly the present court does not remain indifferent to the health problems of the accused, nor to the consequences of their possible detention in their family and professional environment. I have also taken into account the links that the defendants maintain one and three with the Republic, but it cannot be ignored that in a serious case, such as the present one, they do not overstate the seriousness of the offenses ".
Faniero's lawyers also note that the "seriousness of the offenses alone cannot justify the refusal to dismiss a judge and where it is presented as the sole reason for detention must lead the court to seek satisfactory warranty terms to ensure his access to trial. The defendant's ties to the country in which he is being persecuted are crucial, as the criterion is whether the consequences and risks of escape will be less severe than his continued imprisonment. "
Fanieros' ties with Cyprus
According to the lawyers, the strong ties of Antonis Fanieros with Cyprus are due to the fact that he is married, while he has five children and 13 grandchildren, and that he last traveled outside Cyprus in 2001 while he was convicted to undergo surgery, and returned. on his own to serve his entire sentence. Also, the fact that he has been living in the same privately owned house for years and maintains businesses in the Republic, while he has no connection with a foreign country or with the occupied ones. And finally, because he has very serious health problems and is taking medication while he needs to be in a clean environment, and that he has suggested that his presence at the trial can be ensured by imposing conditions.
They are based on EDAD case law
Lawyers make a special mention of the issue, based on EDAD case law, which is summarized in various relevant books. And they report:
· The trial court has given too much weight to the seriousness of the offenses in question.
· He did not give due importance and attention to the relevant factors defined by the case law, namely the strong ties of Antonis Fanieros with Cyprus, as compensatory factors of the risk of escape.
· He ruled that the opportunity to be released on bail was not provided for the seriousness of the offenses and the penalty that could be imposed in the event of a conviction, while, contrary to the seriousness of the offenses, which is not in itself a reason for detention, the court should to order the dismissal of Antonis Fanieros in case his presence at the trial could be ensured by imposing satisfactory warranty terms, which was entirely possible.
· The court had to show that it turned its attention to all the measures that provide an alternative to detention and to explain why these do not guarantee the presence of Antonis Fanieros in the trial.
"Testimony is impossible"
The second ground of appeal, according to the lawyers, concerns the court's decision to order the detention of Antonis Fanieros due to the risk of escape, "which lacks justification". The court, they emphasize, failed to assess the personal incidents of Antonis Fanieros in contrast to the risk of escape and failed to explain with reference to the facts of the case why the detention is justified and why the imposition of warranty conditions does not ensure the presence of the defendant. at the trial. And a third ground of appeal, Faniero's lawyers say, is:
"The trial court erroneously ordered the detention of Antonis Fanieros without taking into account that its validity against the testimony, judging by its appearance, is impossible. Our position is that the case against Antonis Fanieros, which is revealed by the evidence, which was brought before the court of first instance, is impossible and creates a justified expectation in our client that the possibility of conviction is remote ". The hearing will continue on November 8, 2011, with the speech of the Prosecutor's Office. Source: sigmalive.com