Legal practitioners often face the challenging task of distinguishing between civil and criminal law—a distinction that is not always clear-cut. The Criminal Court of Nicosia recently confronted this issue in a case involving an alleged breach of a loan agreement.

The court's decision drew heavily on the reasoning from the House of Lords in the case of R. v. Preddy [1996] W.L.R. 255. Essentially, the court agreed with the defendant's lawyers, concluding that transferring money from the claimant's bank account to another does not constitute the transfer of property belonging to the claimant. This is because a bank deposit is legally considered a "chose in action," which only creates a right for the depositor to demand payment from the bank.

Ultimately, the court endorsed the defence’s view and dismissed the case at the prima facie stage. This landmark decision has profound implications, extending from straightforward loan disputes to intricate financial litigation. The successful defence was spearheaded by Theodoros Economou, Eleftherios Economou, and Ioannis Economou — a brilliant victory that underscores the nuanced nature of law.