Court upholds five-year prison sentence
The Cyprus Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by a man sentenced to five years in prison for exploiting a vulnerable pregnant woman from Cameroon who had arrived in Cyprus seeking shelter and safety.
According to “Phileleftheros“, the accused orchestrated a scheme involving a false declaration of paternity to secure Cypriot citizenship for the woman’s child. After receiving his prison sentence, he appealed, claiming that another individual presented as the child’s father had received a lighter punishment. The court dismissed the appeal, stating the Nicosia Criminal Court’s ruling was fully justified and that no new evidence warranted leniency.
Scheme aimed at obtaining citizenship for baby
The case details reveal that the illegal actions aimed to issue a birth certificate and identity card for the infant, making the child appear as the offspring of a Cypriot citizen. The mother met the appellant while heavily pregnant and searching for rental accommodation. He offered her a “solution,” promising assistance if another person was declared the child’s father to gain citizenship and permanent residence rights.
The appellant then approached a third party, aware of the individual’s financial difficulties, and offered payment in exchange for being listed as the child’s father. The arrangement went ahead, and the birth certificate falsely recorded the man as the biological father.
Over time, the declared father appeared before the Nicosia Family Court and granted full custody of the child to the mother. The appellant extracted a total of €3,200 from the unemployed mother, an asylum seeker, €600 of which went to his accomplice.
Vulnerable mother targeted for financial gain
The Court of Appeal emphasised that the case raised serious issues, including the abuse of Cypriot nationality and violation of the right to family life, while causing severe harm to a particularly vulnerable individual. The court noted that the financial gain could not be considered in isolation but in connection with the circumstances and the victim.
Regarding the appellant’s claim of unequal treatment compared to his accomplice, the court clarified that the appellant was the mastermind of the scheme, while the accomplice acted under his influence. The difference in sentences also reflected that the accomplice received a smaller benefit and had a clean criminal record, unlike the appellant, who had a significant criminal history, including previous cases of class A drug possession.
Also read: Nurses warn of emergency department collapse
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
