New Democracy, in a statement, denounced the “false news about SYRIZA at the expense of Mr. Papathanasis” and speaks of “reputation killing”.

According to the ND, “SYRIZA, as a favorite tactic, uses fake news and proceeds to ‘liquidate’, this time Deputy Development Minister N. Papathanasis, in order to harm the government. In this striving, he is completely indifferent to the real facts and repeats the Gebelian “tell me, tell me, something is left.” So we quote point by point the truth against each of his lies.”

The ND cites “six lies” and the truth, as stated in its statement.

In particular, it says:

*True*: Mr. Papathanasis has not repaid any of his loans as from 2005 he left an executive position in the company and remained a simple shareholder until 2016 when he transferred his shares and no longer has any relationship with the company in question and the ongoing process of its rehabilitation.

*True*: It is clear from Eurobank’s own announcement that: “The reimbursement is approximately EUR 550,000 in cash, corresponding to 52% of the claim’s balance sheet. If you also include repayment of principal during the service period, the recovery amount reaches approximately 75% of the original loan capital.

*True*: Mr. Papatanasis does not owe a single euro to the EFKA and the state, as evidenced by the insurance and tax information available to him.

*True*: Mr. Papathanasis received a mortgage loan on his house and this particular loan has been serviced normally until today and has not been subject to any regulation at all.

*True*: In the case of Mr. Papathanasis’s guarantee, all legal procedures and actions were followed by the financial institution in accordance with the usual practice applied in such cases. In particular, in 2015, Eurobank sued Mr. Papathanasis as a guarantor for loans received by a technical company, because it found that in 2010 parental compensation in the form of a 50% share in his house was provided to three of his children and the transfer of which occurred at a time when the company was making significant profits and no one could have predicted that it would face financial difficulties in the next period. In 2019, the bank’s claim was heard and a first instance decision was made against Mr. Papatanasis, against whom the latter initially appealed, and subsequently an out-of-court settlement was reached by paying the amount set by the bank to be higher than the amount that could be received in due to the fact that the bank was the second one to receive advance notice of the particular property and could not claim more than what it ultimately received from Mr. Papathanasis. The settlement agreement in question was effectively ratified by the Court of Appeal, which annulled the proceedings and accepted the settlement agreement, overturning the first instance decision to which SYRIZA refers with such great significance.

*True*: Although Mr. Papathanasis proceeded with the out-of-court settlement following the decision of the trial court against which he appealed, and accepting the settlement accompanied by the payment of a significant amount, he made a direct statement at an earlier time to the bank that in any In the event of a reorganization of the company, he remains fully liable for his guarantee, despite the fact that in the relevant cases of reorganization he would not be obliged to remain.

MONKEY BEE