“No one ever bribed me” the former minister Giannos Papantoniou states in his announcement for whom the prosecutor has recommended his guilt and after the completion of the purchases the court is expected to issue its decision.
The former minister, after the conclusion of the hearing of his lawyer, Michalis Dimitrakopoulos, proceeded with a detailed statement in which he states the following:
“In the trial, which has been going on for several months, the Prosecutor suggested my guilt according to the indictment, that is to say that I have committed the crime of money laundering, stemming from the basic crimes of infidelity and passive bribery, of whose penalty is time-barred. Because the prosecution’s proposal received wide publicity, I consider it imperative that public opinion be informed – in summary – of my positions, as they were developed during the five (5) hour long hearing of my attorney, Michalis Dimitrakopoulos, so that he would be informed about the case also for the politician, who has been an elected MP and MEP for many years.
The Court, when adjudicating the charge of money laundering, incidentally scrutinizes, in accordance with the case law of the Supreme Court, whether the basic offenses of dishonesty and passive bribery have been committed, regardless of the fact that the offense has been eliminated.
In the year 2003, during my tenure at the Ministry of National Defense, the modernization program for six (6) type “S” frigates of the Navy was awarded at the Skaramanga shipyards, as a contractor, with the Dutch company Thales as sub-manufacturer, which has built the specific frigates . The agreed price amounted to €381 million and was accompanied by significant compensatory benefits for Greek companies. The District Attorney characterized this modernization of the six (6) frigates as disloyalty at the expense of the Greek State with a certain caused damage equal to the above price, i.e. €381 million. He based his judicial reasoning on the argument that, if this modernization took place at the Salamis Naval Station, the Greek State would not pay a single €1, everything would be wasted.
The decision to modernize the six (6) frigates was taken by the Plenary of the Supreme Naval Council (ANS) in the year 1998, updated by the ANS on 10.09.2002, and the modernization specifications were set by the Navy branches. The assignment to the Skaramanga shipyards was made by the previous Minister of National Defense and a tender was held for the subcontractor between Thales and Raytheon. The numerous technical and economic evaluation and negotiation committees chose the company Thales.
The modernization of the six (6) frigates by the Skaramangas Shipyards and the Thales company for a price of €381 million was also approved by all the services, such as DIKE, GGOSAE, GDAE, DEX, KEGEP (where the Chief, Deputy Chief and Branches of the Military participate Navy), as well as from KYSEA. The Plenary Session of the Legal Council of the State with its Opinion No. 85/2007 accepted that the process of modernizing the six (6) “S” type frigates was absolutely legal and served the public interest.
The Naval Shipyard – and not a shipyard – of Salamina was very small, it did not have the infrastructure and know-how to objectively carry out the modernization of the six (6) frigates.
The modernization of the frigates mainly requires advanced technology systems, know-how, hundreds of millions of euros. Who would give them away or give them JABA to the Salamis Naval Station, as the respected Prosecutor pondered?
These frigates, to this day, 21 years after the approval of their modernization program, are still guarding the maritime borders of the country, being the tip of the spear of the Navy, while during the Greek-Turkish crisis of the summer of 2020, they stood guard against the Turkish fleet, as Vice-Admirals, Vice-Admirals and Admirals have testified in the present trial. How does the prosecutor’s proposal erase this historical reality and say that the cost of modernizing the frigates is a loss of the Greek State? Did the frigates disappear, were given away and are guarding a foreign country??? If this were to happen, indeed the cost of modernization would be a loss for the Greek State.
A new frigate at that time cost 700 million euros, and for the construction of six (6) new frigates around 4.2 billion euros were required!! We all want the new, but there is a strict condition, that the country can afford it. 21 years have passed and the Greek state has not managed to buy new frigates. Existing modernized frigates are worth 30% of a new one.
In 2003 a new frigate cost €700 million, therefore each modernized one had a value equal to 30% of the new one, i.e. €210 million. The six (6) ‘S’ type frigates, with a modernization program costing €381 million, acquired a value of €1 billion 260 million. So it is reasonable to ask, what is the basis for the alleged loss of the State of €381 million according to the prosecutor’s proposal!!
Regarding now the second basic offense of the alleged passive bribery, read the following: The Athens Misdemeanors Prosecutor, who actually recommended to the Athens Misdemeanors Council, regarding whether or not I should be referred to the audience, had proposed not to refer me to trial, as this basic offense of passive bribery, among others, was not established. The District Prosecutor, regarding passive bribery, said that “there is this problem, the charge is undefined in terms of place, time and facts… by permissible alteration or completion of the will”.
In other words, he diagnosed the vagueness of the will and counter-procedurally, contrary to the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, he determined the place, time and other circumstances with facts, which are NOT in the case file, but were fabricated by him. Indicatively, he said that allegedly in the office of an officer dealing with supplies in the Navy, the alleged donor would meet an unknown person and give him money, which was then transferred to me. There is no such reference against me either by a witness or by any other evidence in the case file.
If I lie in public I invite refutation by presenting evidence to journalists. It is a false allegation, with no basis, but a fruitless attempt to identify cash withdrawals made by the alleged donor for his own reasons with cash deposits made by me, which are completely unrelated and unconnected. with the above withdrawals. The alleged donor is unfortunately not living to be questioned and answered.
The cash withdrawals he made differ in time and quantity from my own deposits. I had already started depositing money seven (7) months BEFORE the deceased supposed donor started making his aforementioned withdrawals. This money, while described as “orphan” by the District Attorney and unspecified by the will, yet without any indication, in a metaphysical way, it is alleged that it was given to me in an unknown way by the deceased.
Deceased’s wife testified that they had nothing to do with me, nor did they know me. The then legal representative of the Thales company in Greece testified that the deceased had received a subcontract from their company and that the Ministry of National Defense had nothing to do with this assignment, so logically it had no reason or obligation to give me money my alleged donor. Regarding the money I deposited, I gave an explanation to the Court about its origin.
I want to assure my fellow citizens that I have never been bribed by anyone. In conducting the main inquiry I waived my right to bank secrecy and requested with judicial assistance that the banking system around the world be searched to establish that the only deposits I had were the ones found.”
#Giannos #Papantoniou #denies #bribery
