Massive developments determining whether the judicial authorities will remove the masks from the protected witnesses in the Novartis case have been triggered by the revelation by Proto Thema about the millions received from American authorities by these “protected witnesses.”

Read the detailed report by Proto Thema

The new Criminal Codes introduced by Floridis and Bougas, which allow the responsible prosecutor to revoke witness protection status when the reasons for its imposition cease to exist, provide the legal framework for the victims of the conspiracy to take action. According to the requests of the four political figures involved, the reasons for protecting the witnesses have ceased since their allegations were deemed false. Furthermore, revelations in Parliament about the financial gain these masked witnesses received from cooperating with American authorities in the same case have added new dimensions to the matter. It is noted that the American authorities paid 5-6 million euros to the false witnesses to disclose the names of doctors bribed by Novartis, and not politicians, as orchestrated by the mastermind of the conspiracy, then Deputy Minister of Justice of the SYRIZA-ANEL government, Dimitris Papangelopoulos.

The statement by Kyriakos Velopoulos, president of the Greek Solution party, in Parliament that Pavlos Sarakis received 30 million euros from the American government for his services in the Novartis case has sparked reactions. Justice Minister Giorgos Floridis, commenting on Velopoulos’s statement, said: “Here, some were proclaiming that the truth would shine. We learned the truth. It was a conspiracy (the Novartis case). However, this ‘struggle’ had a remarkable reward of 30 million euros, as the president of the Greek Solution told us. We will wait to learn what services were offered, by whom, and in what way.” In the same vein, ND parliamentary spokesman Thanos Plevris noted that now “the judiciary will assess whether protected witnesses who received 30 million euros along with their lawyer can remain under this protection status or whether their masks should be removed,” while Mr. Georgiadis commented that “Velopoulos’s statement creates new facts regarding the protection of the witnesses, as this complaint proves that the law has been violated and their protection should be immediately lifted.”

According to information from Proto Thema, the total amount given by American authorities as a “reward” to the whistleblowers for testifying that Novartis promoted its drugs to doctors using illegal methods without involving political figures amounts to 56 million euros. This reward corresponds to approximately 16% of the total fine of 345 million euros imposed by the American Justice on the pharmaceutical giant for unfair practices and bribery of doctors. About 30 million euros seems to have been the fee and expense coverage of Mr. Pavlos K. Sarakis’s law firm, which represented a group of witnesses who testified in the USA.

The same sources claim that “Maximos Sarafis” and “Aikaterini Kelesi” are not clients of Mr. Sarakis; however, these two individuals testified to American authorities and were paid 5-6 million euros each for their services. Possibly, the third witness, Nikos Maniadakis (under the pseudonym “Ioannis Anastasiou”), may have also received some amount, but he voluntarily revealed his true identity and helped the Greek authorities uncover the conspiracy. He might not have been paid because he disclosed the conspiracy and his identity. It is also possible that other witnesses, whose names we do not yet know or who were not involved in the conspiracy against the 10 political figures but simply provided some information to the USA about Novartis’s methods, received a share of the 56 million euros from American authorities.

2+1 Conclusions Experienced legal experts with deep knowledge of the case tell Proto Thema that the real facts and the new institutional framework essentially compel the responsible prosecutor to re-examine and revoke the protection status of the masked witnesses who acted as executioners of the Novartis conspiracy. They explain that the totality of the evidence that has emerged leads to three main conclusions about the masked witnesses:

1. Their allegations of bribing 10 political figures were proven false as the entire indictment collapsed.
2. They recently received financial benefits as they were also witnesses for American authorities in the same case.
3. They proved to be at least of questionable credibility since “Sarafis” was later imprisoned as the “mastermind” of a criminal organization setting up financial scams.

The same sources note that the government, prompted by the developments in the Novartis masked witnesses case, proceeded with changing the institutional framework of protection provided to public interest witnesses, giving the responsible prosecutor the ability to constantly re-examine the terms to avoid instances of abuse and wonder: “What are the reasons that still impose the continuation of the protective measures for these specific witnesses?” They emphasize that it is now exclusively up to the responsible prosecutor for Economic Crime to utilize the new provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, other legal experts maintain a more moderate stance. They argue that the victims of the conspiracy have been fully restored, justice has been served, and that the issue of maintaining the witness protection status is secondary. The same sources also cite ruling 25/2022 of the Judicial Council of the Supreme Special Court, which rejected an earlier request to unmask the witnesses on the grounds of their expected personal gain, arguing that “the existence of any personal financial benefit, under the legal regime of the USA, does not prohibit their designation by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in Greece, as the benefit – monetary amount they received or are to receive from the US authorities – is not conditional upon their testimony in Greece, meaning the testimonies in the USA and Greece are not causally linked, and consequently, their testimony in the USA does not make them unsuitable witnesses in Greece.”