The convicted up to 21 years in prison for the Energa scandal Aristidis Floros issued a statement in which he defended his right to release after 18 months in prison.
It is noted that Aristides Floros was released for health reasons (psychiatric and epileptic seizures) with a handicap of 67%.
Floros threatens with his announcement to demand a reduction of his punishment for insulting his innocence.
Read the announcement of Aristides Floros, who, in his conviction for the scandal of the € 256 million misappropriation, was sentenced to 13 years in March last year as morator in the assassination attempt of lawyer G. Antonopoulos, in the Energa trial:
In the course of the last 24 hours, statements, visions, recommendations, etc. are published and reproduced in electronic or printed media. various public and non-factors in relation to the recent dismissal, which contain a number of inaccuracies.
To inform stakeholders and restore the truth, I clarify the following:
– The setting of the term of notice has been provided for in our penal code since 1951. The relevant provisions have from time to time been amended or supplemented by laws adopted by the Greek Parliament.
– The provisions on health redundancy have been in force for years and determine the process of formal diagnosis and assessment of the health problems of prisoners suffering.
– My dismissal under certain conditions was decided by the competent court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law (Article 110a of the Code of Criminal Procedure), because I had spent time on the sentence imposed by the court of first instance and the profession that I had has not yet been assessed.
With regard to the Energa case, for which I was convicted at first instance, I notice the following:
a) I have never fled, but on the contrary, I have always been present at all stages of the procedure. I will do this in the court of appeal that will deal with the case in December 2018.
b) Already in the year 2012 I am constantly trying to collect the money that I can receive from the state and the municipalities, all of which are deposited in business and not in individual bank accounts.
c) Different statements about money that "made wings" etc. is the result of either complete ignorance of the case or deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, especially after the decision of the Three-Head Court of Appeal of Athens (1115/2017), that from March 2017 commissioned the money to spend on the state and the municipalities is in the possession of the Banks. The relevant process of implementation has not yet been completed for reasons exclusively related to the parties involved, namely the Banks, the Deposit and Loan Fund and the co-competent ministries. That is why nobody is due to the state and the municipalities.
(d) With regard to the money claimed by the UVRM and LAGIE bodies, the reimbursement of which has not been ordered by the Court, there is doubt as to the amount of the claims. In the dispute before the civil courts, it is expected that an arbitration expert will be held to determine whether and what amounts are due to the above mentioned entities.
e) The reference in the case of the attack against G. Antonopoulos is inappropriate, because this case was not dealt with at second instance and the execution of the decision at first instance was suspended, but also irrelevant to the dismissal procedure in connection with the fine imposed by the first court of appeal for the case of "Energa". I would like to point out that a legislative proposal that has already been submitted to Parliament for the transposition of Directive 2016/343 provides for a series of corrective measures that infringe the presumption of innocence, particularly in cases where public persons make statements about natural persons before an irrevocable court decision is given.
As far as health problems are concerned, I should only point out that their populist or micro-political exploitation has an impact on my human value, the respect of which, according to our constitution, is the highest duty of the state.
Those who trust the rule of law must first take it into account.