The Nicosia criminal court is expected to deliver its ruling on December 18 regarding the admissibility of testimony from German real estate agent Eva Isabella Kunzel, the court announced on Monday.
The session focused on a ‘trial within a trial’, examining whether Kunzel’s police statement was voluntary and independent, following a previous ruling that evidence seized from her luggage at arrival in Cyprus was illegal.
Kunzel is accused of illegal property dealings in the north, promoting unlawful transactions, and laundering income between 2023 and 2024.
Her arrest dates back to July 7, 2024 at Larnaca airport, after authorities alleged she was involved in advertising or selling properties that legally belong to displaced Greek Cypriots.
After she arrived, police searched her luggage under a consent form that the defence disputed as invalid and the court later ruled violated her constitutional rights, meaning the evidence became inadmissible.
During Monday’s session, prosecutor Anna Mattheou argued that Kunzel’s later statement to police was given voluntarily, separate from the earlier illegal search.
“The statement was voluntary, not the fruit of a poisoned tree,” she said.
Mattheou explained that legal rules excluding confessions after prior illegal actions do not automatically apply in this case.
She said the defendant’s arrest was not deemed illegal, only the searches of her personal belongings. Kunzel was informed again of her right to a lawyer and was represented from the next day, receiving full legal advice.
The prosecutor emphasised that the statement and interrogation were given freely, without pressure, deception, or promise.
She said rejecting part of the interrogation does not automatically invalidate the attached statement.
Defence lawyer Sotiris Argyrou challenged these arguments, saying the seized evidence added nothing to Künzel’s statement and did not change the case’s facts.
He argued the police had minimal prior knowledge of the defendant and that no substantial evidence supported the claim that her statement was voluntary.
Argyrou also criticised the legal precedent cited by the prosecution, claiming no case law allows splitting a defendant’s statement by removing questions, answers, or attachments.
He insisted that the statement and interrogation form a single piece of evidence and asked the court to reject it entirely.
