The Independent Authority Against Corruption has found no evidence of corruption or other wrongdoing involving ten individuals named in a complaint filed on behalf of a retired National Guard officer, it announced on Thursday.

According to the authority, the complaint named ten individuals, including former senior officials and public servants of the Republic of Cyprus, and alleged possible offences involving forgery and circulation of forged documents for the purpose of committing acts of corruption, as well as abuse of power and undue influence.

In November 2025, the authority appointed three inspection officers to investigate the allegations: former district court president Christos Philippou, former family court judge Dimitra Kousiou and lawyer Costas Velaris.

The investigation examined whether the conduct of those named in the complaint constituted abuse of power or undue influence.

It also looked into whether decisions taken by the relevant boards concerning the complainant’s career advancement amounted to acts of corruption under the applicable legislation.

The authority said all individuals summoned before the inspection officers had cooperated with the investigation, providing the information and evidence requested.

After reviewing all testimony and evidence, the three inspection officers submitted a unanimous report to the authority, which was subsequently approved by the transparency commissioner and its members.

“No act of corruption has been substantiated or established in relation to any of the individuals named in the complaint,” the authority said.

It added that, “based on the testimony obtained and the subsequent assessment of the material gathered during the investigation, all allegations made by the complainant were rejected in their entirety”.

The authority stressed that no wrongdoing had been established against any of the ten individuals within the scope of its statutory powers.

It also explained that it had authorised publication of the findings because details of the allegations had previously been made public.

The authority said it had written to one of the individuals named in the complaint, whose identity had already received widespread publicity, seeking consent to publish their name. However, no response was received.

It said it would not disclose the names of those involved, as no wrongdoing had been established against them.