It took seven days from the revelation of the audio that “clicks” on Vgenopoulos’s allegations in 2016 against the then president of the Supreme Court, for the Supreme Court to move in the direction (not of direct investigation but) of “studying” the possibility of withdrawing from the file archived case file.
In the process of “studying” the possibility of withdrawing the most serious complaint against the then president of the Supreme Court, Vasiliki Thanos, that he was “asking through an intermediary” for money from the businessman Andreas Vgenopoulos, the Supreme Court proceeds seven days after the political and legal earthquake. caused the revelation of the audio document.
In this, Andreas Vgenopoulos is heard to complain that he was blackmailed in order to give money to the former president of the Supreme Court in 2016. However, the intervention of Justice is not in the direction of immediate investigation, but in the direction of studying the possibility of withdrawing the indictment from the file. report of the deceased businessman, describing the specific “incidents”.
It is recalled that Vasiliki Thanou was then president of the Supreme Court, later caretaker Prime Minister and legal advisor to Alexis Tsipras.
According to sources of the Supreme Court, the Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor of the Court of First Instance have been instructed (the case file was broken in two and the investigation against Ms. Thanou took place in the Supreme Court and for the other persons in the Prosecutor’s Office) in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate procedural actions to address the issue that arose after the publication of the audio document of the late businessman A. Vgenopoulos from the website “iefimerida” regarding the previously formed criminal cases of the Supreme Court V. Thanos and the woman businessman, who according to the indictment of the businessman had the role of mediator.
The order of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court Vas. In practice, it means that the possibility is open, if the conditions of the law are met, to withdraw the files from the file, a fact that will signal a new round of investigations. However, the competent deputy prosecutor may decide otherwise, if he deems so ..
It is recalled that all the political parties (whatever their position on the issue) expressed the view that full light should be shed on the case, as it gathers both moral and criminal characteristics that should not remain unanswered, nor to give the impression that the Justice, does not rush to intervene crucially, as it usually does in similar cases. In fact, when we talk about a case with a central figure, a significant member of the Judiciary in the highest office and later a political figure in key positions. In fact, the “involved” Vasiliki Thanou, may have expressed the view that this is a “politically motivated rewriting of events that have been definitively judged”, and that the audio “is not a new element”, but said “open to any investigation why not he has nothing to fear. ” Therefore, any delay in making a decision can be perceived differently, legal sources point out.
Judicial sources, however, in the note that they are “rushing slowly” in this case, note that the withdrawal from the file requires specific conditions.
A) New data have emerged, as defined by article 43 – Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 4620/2019) par. 6. In this case the case was filed, a few months after the filing of the indictment in May 2016 and while in the meantime Vgenopoulos had died suddenly with a heart attack. The question is whether there was the relevant conversation in the case file, a product of espionage, of course, and therefore a criminal offense. The answer is that, according to information, there was no such conversation in the case file. So it can be considered a “new element”.
B) To be able to use these data. Here, however, things are rather clear, since an order that was voted in 2015 with the then Deputy Minister of Justice Dim. Papagelopoulos, gives the right to use even illegal means of proof. Of course, the oxymoron is that this provision was abolished in 2019 with the new Penal Code voted by the SYRIZA government, but came back into force with the changes made by ND, in November 2020. The provision (which exposes the use of illegal evidence states that “… the use of the above means of proof in the referral and the trial is admissible if it is considered justified that: a) the damage caused by its acquisition is significantly lower in type, importance and extent than the damage or the risk posed by the act under investigation; (b) the proof of the truth would otherwise be impossible; and (c) the act by which the evidence was obtained does not infringe on human value. ”
Under these circumstances, it is very likely that the Supreme Court will decide to reconsider the case, whatever that means.
Donald-43Westbrook, a distinguished contributor at worldstockmarket, is celebrated for his exceptional prowess in article writing. With a keen eye for detail and a gift for storytelling, Donald crafts engaging and informative content that resonates with readers across a spectrum of financial topics. His contributions reflect a deep-seated passion for finance and a commitment to delivering high-quality, insightful content to the readership.