The Greek Police Headquarters has released an official statement regarding the arrest of two 42-year-old suspects, outlining the actions of those involved in the tragic Marfin Bank fire. According to the Greek Police (ELAS) account, the events of May 5, 2010 unfolded in an organized manner during the massive austerity protest rally in central Athens.
Police report that a group was moving within the body of the march, initially split into two subgroups. Shortly before reaching the bank branch on Stadiou Street, the two subgroups gathered in close proximity and, after coordinating with one another, certain members broke away from the march to carry out the attack.
How Greek Police describe the Marfin Bank attack
According to the ELAS account, the perpetrators acted in a coordinated and role-divided manner. They first smashed the glass panel of the branch entrance, then threw at least one Molotov cocktail inside, which exploded, along with a flammable liquid that accelerated the ignition and spread of the fire. The resulting blaze claimed the lives of three bank employees, including a pregnant woman.
What the case file reveals
The case file further describes how group members had distinct operational roles. Some took on an active executive role — breaking the entrance glass and throwing the incendiary devices and flammable liquid — while the remaining members played a supporting role, providing cover, coordination, and broader operational assistance during the execution of the attack.
After the fire broke out, the group withdrew from the scene, and according to ELAS, some members went on to participate in further attacks against vehicles, shops, and other buildings in central Athens.
The full official statement
Officers from the Organized Crime Division arrested two Greek nationals, both aged 42, on Friday, July 10, 2026, pursuant to relevant arrest warrants, in connection with the arson attack that took place on May 5, 2010 at a bank branch on Stadiou Street in Athens, which resulted in the deaths of three employees, including a pregnant woman.
At the initial stage of the investigation, a case file had been opened against unknown perpetrators. At a later stage, the case was re-examined following the appropriate use of intelligence material by the Crimes Against Life and Personal Liberty Unit. Within this framework, and pursuant to a directive from the competent Prosecutor’s Office, the relevant preliminary investigation material was gathered and submitted, resulting in the case file being retrieved from the unknown perpetrators archive and a full judicial inquiry being ordered.
In the course of the main judicial inquiry, two men, both aged 42, were identified, against whom arrest warrants were issued and subsequently executed. A woman has also been identified in connection with the same case and is currently being sought.
As to the timeline of events: on May 5, 2010, during a planned march in central Athens, groups of individuals participated in incidents involving the throwing of Molotov cocktails, as well as arson attacks against vehicles and shops. Specifically, the arson at the aforementioned bank branch was carried out by members of a group that moved within the body of the march, initially divided into two subgroups.
More specifically, the two subgroups converged in close proximity to the bank branch and, after coordinating, certain individuals broke away and, acting in a coordinated and organized manner, set fire to the interior of the bank by smashing the glass door panel and throwing inside at least one Molotov cocktail, which exploded, along with a flammable liquid that accelerated the outbreak of the fire. The result of this arson attack was the fatal injury of three bank employees.
After the fire broke out, the group dispersed, while some members were found to have subsequently participated, together with other individuals, in further attacks against vehicles, shops, and buildings.
It emerged that the group had an internal division of roles. Specifically, certain individuals assumed an active executive role — such as smashing the glass panel and throwing incendiary objects and liquids — while the remaining members played a coordinating and supporting role, contributing to the protection, preparation, and execution of the arson attack, as well as providing broader operational support to the primary perpetrators of the arson.
How the case was investigated
The investigation drew on forensic, on-site inspection, and laboratory findings. As determined by the Fire Service and the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit, the fire at the bank branch was caused by the throwing of improvised incendiary devices of the Molotov cocktail type.
Additionally, video and photographic archives gathered during the original investigation were collected and examined as preliminary investigative material, along with photographs extracted from a digital exhibit that had been seized in the context of a separate case previously handled by the Special Violent Crimes Division.
Furthermore, as part of the specialized laboratory and comparative analyses conducted by the Digital Forensic Research and Analysis Sub-Directorate of the Criminal Investigation Division, advanced digital analysis methodologies were applied. Through these methods, low-level data was successfully restored and recovered from digital storage media belonging to the bank’s video recording system, enabling the precise identification and synchronization of the exact timestamp of the arson attack.
At the same time, through the application of relevant algorithms, the clarity of the pre-existing older visual material was enhanced where technically feasible. This material was re-examined in full chronological alignment with the recorded frames. This process yielded documented correlations between the morphological and other characteristics of the accused, as well as the individualization of personal items based on their distinguishing features, in conjunction with the evidentiary material under examination.
Suspects brought before the prosecutor
During searches carried out at residential addresses, a large number of digital exhibits were found and seized, including laptops, USB sticks, external hard drives, and mobile phones. At the residence of one of the two suspects, processed cannabis (in block form) with a total gross weight of 18.6 grams was also discovered. As a result, a separate case file was opened against him for violation of narcotics legislation, which will be submitted to the competent Prosecutor’s Office. Both suspects — one of whom has a prior record for narcotics offences — were brought before the competent prosecutorial authority.
