With the concurrence of the investigator and prosecutor, prisoner, after a marathon plea, the owner of the cookie company “Violanda”, Konstantinos Tziortziotis, as part of the judicial investigation into the explosion at the factory in Trikala.

The owner of Violanda apologized in a memo and on that he was questioned by the investigator. According to reports, the magistrate mainly focused on whether and when Konstantinos Tziortziotis became aware of the propane leak that claimed the lives of five factory workers.

The key question about the propane leak

He reportedly claimed that he learned about the spill too late and again stated his grief and sorrow for the loss of the women who were working that fateful dawn at the biscuit factory. In fact, he believed that the premises of the workshop were safe and for technical issues he spoke of his colleagues who were responsible. According to reports, Konstantinos Tziortziotis said he was “shocked” by the explosion and claimed he did not know there was such a danger, and said his children were playing in the area.

At the same time, according to the same sources, he pointed to persons and associates who signed, to whom he attributed responsibility for issues that he reportedly said were under their authority. In the same context, he claimed that the odour issue reached his ears too late.

“I could not have been aware of the technical issues”

According to ERT, Konstantinos Tziortziotis allegedly claimed that he managed a business with a very high turnover and could not have had knowledge of technical issues, stressing that he had around him partners, mechanical engineers, civil engineers and electricians who had this job. At the same time, he said he would support the families of the victims “to the end”, as well as the other workers.

His hour-long apology, according to the same reports, raised questions for the prosecutor, who repeated questions seeking answers, without – according to the same reports – receiving different positions, as the owner did not move away from the basic line that he did not know, since his associates were informed and he had no technical knowledge to question them.

The indictment

.
Following the upgraded indictment, the owner of Violanda is charged with explosion with possible malice aforethought, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated battery.

At the same time, it appears that the judicial authorities are considering extending the indictment to other persons who may have been responsible for the operation but especially for the installation of the propane system, which based on the IAEA report had serious issues regarding safety, leading to the tragedy.

Earlier, a friend of the owner told the media that he had no idea what exactly had happened and that he had given a “blank cheque” to his associates to do all the studies and work.

“It smelled like LPG” months before the explosion

Meanwhile, the investigation has captured statements from workers who describe the odour problem as pre-existing, which they link to LPG. By way of example, a 31-year-old worker, who had been with the company for two months, said that a few days after he started work, from 8 to 10 December 2025, there was a gradual smell that sometimes got stronger and sometimes subsided, which he likened to “just the smell that cars make at gas stations when they fill up with LPG”. As he testified, he had reported it to a co-worker, who took it “to the bosses.”

The same employee also reported an incident of a malfunction with a multi-fuel stove to which a stove was connected, and when asked what he was supposed to do in the event of a fire in the stove, he replied that “he has shown me some things, but he has not shown me what to do if the stove catches fire.” Regarding evacuation plans and training, he said that there were plans, “but no one ever showed them to me” and that while he was there “we had not done any kind of training”. Regarding the explosion incident, he testified that “before the explosion I didn’t hear anything” and that afterwards he heard “a small audible alarm.”

A 28-year employee of Violanda testified that “nothing had ever changed” and described informing production managers of the odor, that a plumber was called, but assuring them “there was no odor.” The same statement also referred to wires in the floor which he said had electrocuted workers, and two incidents of small fires in the ovens in Ward 2. He also said the smell was noticeable “mostly in the linen room and bathrooms” and that in B Wing “no maintenance was ever done,” adding that he had photographic evidence of malfunctions.

“Clatter like a grenade” and the struggle to escape

Another worker, 27, who had been working for about 14 months, described the night of the incident, stating that at around 10:30pm he went on shift and that at the time of the explosion “the lights went out and there was a loud noise, which I likened to the crack of a grenade”, and he saw objects being thrown out, “panels, sheet metal, parts of ovens”. He described coming out the back near the propane tanks and calling the police at about 04:01, while hearing voices from inside calling for help. He testified that he tried to go back in to help, but “the sheet metal and roof were falling down” and the fire had spread. He then described moving to the parking lot and trying to locate co-workers, testifying that he encountered three women “hugging and bleeding” before they managed to exit a loading dock door.

The uncertified “plumber” and the “alleged cesspools”

Included in the case file material is testimony from an employee who was performing plumbing duties without – according to the reports – having certification or a technical school degree as a skilled tradesman. He testified that he had been aware of the smell since at least November 2025 and that it had seemed “like LPG” to him, most pronounced “in the toilets and the lavatory, in Building 2”. He claimed that he reported it verbally to the owner and that he and a production manager went to check with no indication, and then a person involved in gas installations was informed and took measurements, with no indication in the toilets that day.

When asked by authorities what his response to staff was, he testified that the production manager had told him to say “the smell was coming from the cesspools until we could see what had been done.” The same testimony also referred to a “loss of gas pressure in the furnaces” which had been severe in the last month and a half, and to a contract eight years ago to install a new propane line, with him stating that Konstantinos Tziortziotis gave him a plan for the installation and that he “knew that I did not have a degree as a propane gas installer.”

In another statement, a 24-year employee described that the smell was so strong “that … it made my eyes sting” and that in the 15 days prior to the fire she had observed it in the restrooms of Building 2, noting that it did not resemble a cesspool smell. She testified that she conveyed her concern that it might be LPG and was told that “it’s something in the cesspools.” Similarly, another employee testified that she had noticed an odor approximately four months ago, which she identified “as LPG rather than a sewer smell,” stating that, despite updates, “no work had been done” and that the odor persisted.

The leak test and measurements

An important element of the investigation is the testimony of a mechanical engineer who was asked to conduct a propane network leak test with special instruments. As he testified, during the inspection he found ‘a strong gas leak’, which, as he explained, meant that there was a pre-existing leak in the underground network through which propane was transported from the tanks to the furnace burners. He described that, on order, a section of the underground steel pipeline was uncovered and that the detector showed a “high concentration of propane” at a depth of about 60 cm, followed by measurements in a basement area where even higher readings were recorded. He then posited that a long-term leak, with venting into the basement and accumulation due to the gas being heavier than air, could lead to an explosion when it reached a point of explosiveness, “with the contribution of probably a spark.”