In an important judgment that highlights the strict standards of scrutiny with which private prosecutions should be examined by the courts, the District Court of Nicosia has recently dismissed a private prosecution case against a prominent corporation and its director.
The court concurred with the arguments presented by our Managing Partner, Theodoros Economou (together with Loizides & Economou LLC), finding that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendants.
Overview of the Case
The case involved allegations against a company accused of failing to meet loan repayment obligations. The charges pursued included obtaining money by false pretences and theft. The defence challenged the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, contending that it did not prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
Court’s Decision
In its decision, the District Court of Nicosia examined the guidelines from R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 1060 on handling submissions of no case to answer. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that no evidence had been produced to prove the elements of the offences, leading to dismissal of the case against both the company and its director.
Preddy Case
One of the defence’s key arguments, citing R v Preddy [1996] 3 W.L.R. 255, was that the method of payment (a bank transfer) did not meet the legal definition of property transfer under the theft offence. Following Preddy, the court held that a credit in a bank account creates a new chose in action rather than transferring existing property, and therefore the accused did not “acquire” property belonging to another.
The Significance of the Case
This judgment is particularly noteworthy as the first time Preddy has been referenced and applied by a Cyprus court. It underscores the courts’ commitment to a thorough, early-stage review of evidence in private prosecutions, ensuring that unfounded or tactical prosecutions are dismissed promptly to protect defendants’ rights and the integrity of the judiciary.
For those interested in reading the Court’s full reasoning, an anonymised link to the judgment is available here.
