Laws as a tool to protect the corrupt - How legislation was devised to expose protected witnesses

The contrary legislation by the respective Parliament in order to serve their own interests or to cover up scandals of dates has once again been proven to be absurd with the prosecutor’s decision to remove the protection of public interest witnesses in the Novartis scandal.

The merry-go-round of legislation based on the criteria of… “legitimate party or private interest” in which the two governments of Kyriakos Mitsotakis have indulged, on the one hand spreading an umbrella of protection over its own people (with the pursuit of bankers, Giorgos Pitsilis and others… excellent) and on the other hand by exterminating “dangerous elements”, it culminated with the Floridis amendment which drops the Novartis’ witnesses in the crosshairs by revealing their evidence, at the same time placing a tombstone on the very institution of protected witnesses.

Against European directives, stern warnings from the OECD about possible violations of the rights of witnesses and from the other side of the Atlantic by leading lawyers, such as Steven Cohn, who represented the public interest witnesses in America whose testimony forced Novartis to pay large damages.

But let’s see what our country did not to protect, but to bury the institution of the protected witness.

When they were forced to incorporate the directive

It was 2014 when the “legislators” Antonis Samaras and Evangelos Venizelos as co-governors were forced to incorporate into our internal legislation the European directive regarding strong witness protection in order to fight or at least limit corruption.

In 2018-19 and while the investigation into the Novartis scandal was ongoing, the then SYRIZA government, pressing on this provision of the criminal procedure, which was a result of the European directive, placed three key witnesses of the case under judicial protection .

Unfortunately for Samaras and Venizelos, and not only, the protected witnesses implicated them in the scandal, even appearing as protagonists. From a rare, at least for Greek standards, game of fate, their legislation turned into a weapon that marked them.

So when the ND took over the governance of the country, it set out to neutralize the institution of the protected witness. In order to achieve this and to arrive today at its de facto abolition, he had to proceed in an artful way with two successive amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the fall of 2021 with n. 4855/2021 and in article 118 (amendment of article 218 CPC) opens the back door for the final disintegration of the institution, providing among other things: “During the hearing process the court can order the disclosure of the real name of the witness, if requested by the prosecutor or by a party or ex officio. If the identity of the witness has not been revealed, his testimony alone is not enough to convict the accused”.

Despite the fact that since 2019 there was a new European directive (1937/2019) which greatly strengthened the framework for the protection of witnesses in the public interest, the integration of which had to be done by the end of 2021. However, the prime minister froze the promotion of the relevant bill in Parliament. As it turned out later, since the case would not reach the audience after filings followed, the way was already being “cooked”, under the cloak of the law, which would be revealed in order to… punish the protected witnesses in an exemplary manner.

Ignoring European directives, even the OECD which as early as 2022 with a report-kola against the government called on it to protect public interest witnesses in every way, pointing out that an immediate improvement of the relevant law is needed, expressing concern “for identifying and dealing with offense of foreign bribery from Greece”.

They sealed the mouths with a legal coup

With a second amendment to article 218/n. 4855/21 and with n. 5090/24 article 79, with a normal legal coup, now definitively seals the mouths and prevents from revelations all those who want to contribute with their anonymous testimony in the fight against corruption and a series of very serious crimes. The controversial amendment was passed in February 2024 and a month after it came into effect political figures like Ant. Samaras rushed to request the lifting of the protection of public interest witnesses in the Novartis scandal.

How exactly did it get the green light? The prosecutor was given the option to withdraw witness protection at his discretion at any time.

The relevant provision now states: “The appropriateness and necessity of the protective measures are constantly examined by the competent prosecutor, who may, at any time, in the event that they have been imposed by his order, modify or revoke them or in any other case recommend the their modification or revocation, when at his discretion the reasons for their imposition change or disappear”.

“Greece is the kingdom of corruption and will continue to be”

Pavlos Sarakis, Lawyer – independent member of parliament

The institution of the protected public interest witness is the essential tool of Justice to fight corruption in public life. The Greek state stubbornly refuses to protect him legally, despite all the pressures of the EU and the OECD.
Everyone understands why. Greece is a “kingdom of corruption” and will continue to be. Public money is being looted, tax-paying citizens are being looted and the Greek Judiciary is advocating. Impunity for the stock market scandal, for Siemens, for the kickbacks in the equipment programs. Novartis confessed its unfair practices in Greece to the US authorities and was forced to pay an exorbitant fine.

American Justice rewards public interest witnesses both morally and financially. The Greek Judiciary, on the other hand, challenges legal certainty by advocating their targeting, opposing the institution, effectively canceling its functionality.

It is certain that this particular legal development will target the Greek state in international organizations and the American government. At the same time, the choice of me and my principals to appeal against Novartis only in the American Court is fully justified, where we were completely justified.

“The death certificate of the institution”

Yiannis Mantzouranis, Lawyer, coordinator of the Justice sector SYRIZA – PS

Laws as a tool to protect the corrupt – How legislation was devised to expose protected witnesses
–

With article 79 of n. 5090/2024 the provision of §7 was added to article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which opened the slippery road for the legislative burial of the institution of public interest witness protection. The recent prosecution of two protected witnesses in the Novartis case, pursuant to the aforementioned provision, is the death knell of an institution, which in all modern states of law is used to effectively deal with organized crime. However, in today’s Greece it is proven daily that everything can be sacrificed on the altar of party interests, especially during the prime ministership of Mr. Mitsotakis.

“Documento well published”

Adonis Georgiadis

Since yesterday, I have been following with interest the objections of the opposition that the decision of the Economic Prosecutor’s Office to lift the protection status of the two remaining public interest witnesses in the Novartis case affects the essence of the institution and that it will discourage any subsequent interested party from following the same path in the future. Since I have the opportunity to speak at Documento, I ask the following question: What is most damaging to the essence of the institution? Yesterday’s decision of the Economic Prosecutor’s Office or for example the fact that when the corruption prosecutor Mrs. Touloupaki was starting this story had he not taken care to ensure the confidentiality of the process? Witness statements were leaked to Documento before they reached Parliament and the names of public interest witnesses were leaked to the public within 24 hours and I make it clear that I do not blame Documento newspaper. The newspaper did its job. After finding them it was a journalistic success and she published them well, but for the essence of the research it was a loss. Because the confidentiality of the process was not ensured, as provided by law. As it was not ensured that the names, while they were supposed to be a sealed secret, in 24 hours then they were published in all the media of the country and we experienced the horror of the public interest witnesses making statements on the channels and denying that they are the public interest witnesses and now to prove that their rebuttal was as much a lie as their original statements.

This case went completely wrong from the beginning, in my opinion, with significant responsibilities of the corruption prosecutor, mainly because she gave this character of public interest witness to completely unreliable persons. If anything finally really hit the institution, this is it. To receive this protection is a great privilege on the part of the state, but because it is a great privilege that deprives the accused of their right to a fair and equal trial it should be given very sparingly by prosecutors and only where the witnesses they have to adduce hard evidence that will definitely lead to a conviction.

In this case, not only did the evidence not lead to a conviction, but it wasn’t even enough to prosecute, commonly…waterloo. Now the story begins to find out who put it. On Tuesday, my lawyer Michalis Dimitrakopoulos withdraws the lawsuit against the two and we file the lawsuit as well.

Documento’s response to the part of Adonis Georgiadis’s statement about the source of our journalistic revelations about the Novartis scandal

As Ad is well aware. Georgiadis, because the publisher of Documento Kostas Vaxevanis has made it public, the newspaper’s information came from various sources, not prosecutorial sources, and in fact the main source of the revelations was the former protected witness and adviser of Mr. Georgiadis Nikos Maniadakis.

The K. Vaxevanis handed over all the evidence, such as the messages and the recorded conversations, where N. Maniadakis stated that he was being blackmailed by Giannis Stournaras. And this was done by K. Vaxevanis when N. Maniadakis with his testimony led to the criminal prosecution of the publisher of Documento with false accusations.

In order to support the truth K. Vaxevanis broke journalistic confidentiality and submitted all the evidence to the interrogation, which of course, as it turned out, did not come from sources from the area of Justice.

After submitting the data, K. Vaxevanis was solemnly acquitted by the will of the Supreme Judicial Council of the special court which fully accepted their truth.

Laws as a tool to protect the corrupt – How legislation was devised to expose protected witnesses –