21 FEBRUARY 2017
23 MARCH 2015
Final Scene in the Special Court
Today, the final curtain falls on the evidence proceedings of the Special Court, before which Giorgos Papakonstaninou has been brought since 25 February for his handlings in the Lagarde List case.
This fact signals the final countdown for the 13 supreme judges’ rulings on whether the former Minister of Finance is guilty or not; he has been charged with two felonies: attempt of embezzlement and falsification of document. The advocate’s pleading is to be concluded during today’s hearing.
Yesterday the lawyers of Papakonstaninou, Panagiotis Koureleas and Takis Vasilakopoulos – while addressing the judges in turn – elucidated the actual events and the legal grounds on which their principal should be acquitted. Vasilakopoulos mentioned ‘logical acrobatics’ and ‘legal-logical jumps’ and explained the reasons why – in his view – the offences with which the former Minister is charged do not stand up in court.
More specifically, he mentioned that as far as the attempt of embezzlement is concerned “the damage must be specific, certain and definite. There is no crime when there are no threatening damages. We are not aware if this is a minor offense or a felony. And in this particular case, which damage are you to deem proven? The one referring to the Economic Crimes Enforcement Agency (SDOE) is confirmed; however our witnesses say that it can be nullified”.
And as for the falsification of document, he added that “there should be documents in order falsification to exist and the question here is which this document is. TheUSBitselfdoesnotconstituteadocument. Therearedocumentsinitsmemoryandneitherhasbeenaltered. Threearemissing. We are charged with falsification rather than misappropriation. But if the document in question is neither of those removed, we cannot speak of misappropriation either.”
Panagiotis Koureleas’ pleading had preceded; he highlighted that “if the original USB existed, then the defendant would automatically be acquitted”. He thinks that Yannis Diotis, who revealed the existence of a third USB, has lied repeatedly. And he also added that there is no evidence to support that Papakonstantinou was in search of specific information in the Lagarde List.
Final Scene in the Special Court
Today, the final curtain falls on the evidence proceedings of the Special Court, before which Giorgos Papakonstaninou has been brought since 25 February for his handlings in the Lagarde List case.
This fact signals the final countdown for the 13 supreme judges’ rulings on whether the former Minister of Finance is guilty or not; he has been charged with two felonies: attempt of embezzlement and falsification of document. The advocate’s pleading is to be concluded during today’s hearing.
Yesterday the lawyers of Papakonstaninou, Panagiotis Koureleas and Takis Vasilakopoulos – while addressing the judges in turn – elucidated the actual events and the legal grounds on which their principal should be acquitted. Vasilakopoulos mentioned ‘logical acrobatics’ and ‘legal-logical jumps’ and explained the reasons why – in his view – the offences with which the former Minister is charged do not stand up in court.
More specifically, he mentioned that as far as the attempt of embezzlement is concerned “the damage must be specific, certain and definite. There is no crime when there are no threatening damages. We are not aware if this is a minor offense or a felony. And in this particular case, which damage are you to deem proven? The one referring to the Economic Crimes Enforcement Agency (SDOE) is confirmed; however our witnesses say that it can be nullified”.
And as for the falsification of document, he added that “there should be documents in order falsification to exist and the question here is which this document is. TheUSBitselfdoesnotconstituteadocument. Therearedocumentsinitsmemoryandneitherhasbeenaltered. Threearemissing. We are charged with falsification rather than misappropriation. But if the document in question is neither of those removed, we cannot speak of misappropriation either.”
Panagiotis Koureleas’ pleading had preceded; he highlighted that “if the original USB existed, then the defendant would automatically be acquitted”. He thinks that Yannis Diotis, who revealed the existence of a third USB, has lied repeatedly. And he also added that there is no evidence to support that Papakonstantinou was in search of specific information in the Lagarde List.
Most popular
® all rights reserved
