The prosecutor of the Athens Single-Member Misdemeanor Court, Irini Pelekanos, proposed finding the two former protected witnesses in the Novartis case, F. Destempasidis and Maria Marangeli, guilty of perjury, but not continuously for most political figures, and their acquittal on charges of false accusation.
Specifically, regarding the crime of false accusation, the prosecutor emphasized that “the only direct complaint has been in America by Mr. Sarakis and his principals. There is no other complaint where the witness explicitly states the intention to pursue criminal prosecution against the accused persons. The defendants were called to testify in the context of an investigation following a complaint that had already been made. The false accusation was added ex officio by the prosecutor’s office. They should be declared innocent of false accusation.”
Novartis case: The prosecutor’s proposal for the two defendants
Specifically, the prosecutor requested that Maria Marangeli be found guilty of perjury committed against Antonis Samaras, Andreas Loverdos, Mario Salmas, Adonis Georgiadis, Giannis Stournaras and Lina Nikolopoulou, Dimitris Avramopoulos and Nikos Maniadakis.
Correspondingly, she requested the conviction of F. Destempasidis for perjury for part of the testimony against Adonis Georgiadis, Giannis Stournaras and Lina Nikolopoulou and Dimitris Avramopoulos.
Conversely, she proposed the acquittal of Maria Marangeli for the crime of perjury against the former associate of Adonis Georgiadis, Vasiliki Katrava, and of Filistor Destempasidis for the same crime against Mrs. Katrava, Antonis Samaras and Evangelos Venizelos.
Regarding what the two former protected witnesses testified to the corruption prosecutors, the prosecutor of the Athens Single-Member Misdemeanor Court emphasized that there is a difference, as Maria Marangeli presented what she testified as actual incidents in most cases, while Destempasidis in the overwhelming majority attributes what he says to Konstantinos Frouzis, conveying information and not facts.
“The defendants believed they could say whatever they wanted because they were under witness protection and no one could touch them”
In any case, the prosecutor concluded that “the defendants believed they could say whatever they wanted because they were under witness protection and no one could touch them. Nevertheless, they chose from the beginning to say they were conveying what they knew from Frouzis. Adding of course their own embellishments. But Frouzis denies it all, but hasn’t sued them… Does he really not want court battles as he said? Or is he afraid that a preliminary examination would dig deeper? This court does not try corruption crimes, it is a simple Single-Member court. The issue is not the defamation of persons, but the proper administration of justice was at stake.”
In detail, regarding what Maria Marangeli testified about the former Prime Minister, the prosecutor emphasized that a banking investigation was conducted and it emerged that he is in no way involved in illegal acts. “Marangeli says that Novartis won Samaras’ favor. There is no parking space at the Maximos Mansion, it is non-existent and only heads of state enter. On 28/1/2018 she reports that Frouzis met with Ptochos and then the appointment was closed. From her testimonies I see that Frouzis had the treatment he should have had from anyone visiting him. The suitcase, the colorful banknotes, the phone call for parking play a role in creating impressions. A banking investigation was conducted and it emerged that the former Prime Minister is in no way involved in illegal acts. Marangeli should be declared guilty regarding Samaras,” the prosecutor requested.
Regarding Andreas Loverdos and what Maria Marangeli testified, the prosecutor emphasized that she presents everything as true facts while the former minister was investigated and nothing objectionable was found.
Regarding Mario Salmas and what Maria Marangeli testified, the prosecutor emphasized that the former Health Minister did not favor any pharmaceutical company.
Regarding Adonis Georgiadis and what Maria Marangeli testified, the prosecutor said he was investigated and no findings were discovered. “She spoke of a 2 million euro exchange which he received in a small suitcase. She said she knew this from Frouzis. She mentioned a meeting between Frouzis and Georgiadis, a fact acknowledged by both men within the scope of their responsibilities. Marangeli reports that three money collections took place in front of her. For Georgiadis there were some unclear deposits of amounts but they were not investigated further since nothing criminal was found,” the prosecutor emphasized among other things.
Regarding what F. Destempasidis testified about A. Georgiadis, the prosecutor emphasized that he crossed “red lines. He tells us that he knew Georgiadis’ income and activities and that he was being paid. In this case he committed the criminal act.”
Regarding Filistor Destempasidis’ testimony about Dimitris Avramopoulos, the prosecutor emphasized that “the authority to decide on a pandemic does not belong to each minister. In no case are the responsibilities concentrated in the person of the Health Minister. Any retraction statement made in the courtroom is treated by me with suspicion. Destempasidis is in a position to know the inaccuracy of his statements. He committed the crime, the objective and subjective substance is established.”
Regarding what F. Destempasidis testified about Giannis Stournaras and his wife Lina Nikolopoulou, the prosecutor said that “conference organization issues fall within his professional domain, so whatever Frouzis said, Destempasidis should have known how conferences are organized. He could not be misled.”
Now, the pleadings of the prosecution support lawyers and defense attorneys will take place, while the court’s decision is expected within September.
