Breaking news

Central Information Register: Upholding Banking Integrity In Cyprus

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

September 26, 2025

Overview

The Central Information Register (CIR) stands as a critical safeguarding mechanism, maintained by the Central Bank of Cyprus. This computerized system aggregates data on individuals and legal entities involved with dishonoured cheques, thereby ensuring the reliability of the nation’s payment network while providing financial institutions with essential insights into client conduct.

Regulated Registration Process

Registration occurs when a cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficient funds and is governed by strict criteria as stipulated by central bank directives. Whether it involves multiple instances of non-payment, a single high-value cheque, or repeated offenses within a specified time frame, the obligation to report lies with the commercial bank holding the account. The bank supplies detailed information—including account details, the cheque issuer’s name, and identities of key account controllers such as directors or authorized signatories—while the final decision rests solely with the Central Bank of Cyprus.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Consequences And Removal Procedures

Inclusion in the CIR carries significant financial and reputational repercussions. A registered individual may face the freezing of personal and commercial accounts, an inability to issue new cheques, diminished creditworthiness, and difficulties establishing new banking relationships. Professionals and business leaders particularly suffer reputational damage. However, those registered have recourse: a formal removal request can be submitted provided evidence is presented that they were not liable for the dishonoured cheques, debts have been settled, or the registration period has lapsed. This appeal is reviewed by the CIR Management Committee, which may seek further information from the reporting bank before rendering a decision.

Legal Clarifications And Supreme Court Rulings

A landmark Supreme Court decision (Case No.C.A.221/2015) elucidated the responsibilities surrounding the CIR. The ruling affirmed that the Central Bank of Cyprus retains exclusive authority to register an individual, while commercial banks are mandated only to provide verified information. The court highlighted that adherence to official documentation—such as corporate records and board meeting minutes—precludes allegations of defamation, provided that the data is accurate. This decision underscores the critical importance of maintaining up-to-date corporate records to prevent erroneous registrations.

In summary, the CIR process reflects a clearly defined institutional framework where commercial banks function as data conduits, and the Central Bank executes final determinations. Such procedural clarity is vital for upholding financial integrity and ensuring due process within Cyprus’s banking sector.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.