The EXPRESS SERVICE minister: the Papakonstantinou scandal

On the Sunday issue of «Proto Thema» on March 27, we uncovered the Finance Minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou's favorable decisions toward the No 1 tax debtor to the state, G. Raptopoulos of EXPRESS SERVICE. In his reply, the minister not only does not deny the substance of our revelations, but also rather confirms it. We note that in his reply the minister dedicates an entire page to acting as the counsel of EXPRESS SERVICE arguing that not only is the company not in debt, but also that the Ministry of Finance should instead expect to receive money from it. The minister’s unprecedented advocacy for the No 1 debtor speaks for itself.

Thus, we are publicly putting forth the following questions:

1.   If Raptopoulos was not in debt, why is it then that Papakonstantinou tried twice to eliminate the debts of three companies of Raptopoulos’ interests under the umbrella of EXPRESS SERVICE, with a bill he brought to parliament, which caused a fierce reaction by PASOK MPs? And why is it that the IRS blocked Raptopoulos’ personal fortune if he was not in debt?
2.   How can a Finance minister triumphantly announce the return of 27 million euros in VAT to a major tax debtor, while threatening the rest of the country with imprisonment for not returning the tax for even one euro?
3.   How can Papakonstantinou ignore the total debts of 37 million euros to IKA of companies of Raptopoulos’ interests and provide favorable arrangements?
4.   Does he realize that his actions are helping a fraudulent operation against the state and individuals for the transfer of EXPRESS SERVICE contracts from one indebted company to another?
5.   Which other regulations in favour of major debtors to the state has he signed, as he himself confesses, and for whom?
6.   Why does he not respond to the issue of granting the project of state property clearance directly to “our guys” through “ghost” companies ?

As for the personal attacks of Papakonstantinou against “Proto Thema” and the threats about the use of tax mechanisms against us, we should remind him that some ministers of ND did the exact same thing before him, worried about issues of personal conflicts of interest and the acquisition of wealth. They did not succeed, however much they had threatened us.

Moreover, we are very sorry that the statements of Papakonstantinou create the image of a minister, characterised by conflicts of interest, attempting to blackmail and gag the press. But whatever he does against “Proto Thema” will not stop us from uncovering compelling evidence of the actions whereby he favors, conceals or collaborates with well-known businessmen, while at the same time butchering the simple and anonymous employee in the most callous way .

For the record, we should note that it is the first time that the “legal and ethical” syndrome has infected the government of PASOK in the person of Papakonstantinou. It remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself.

The announcement by the Finance Ministry

«During the past few weeks the publisher of 'Proto Thema' newspaper, Themos Anastasiadis, has sent two extrajudicial summons to the Finance minister, Giorgos Papakonsantinou, following the minister’s answer to a parliamentary question regarding the pending investigation of the Anastasiadis cases by the Financial Crime Unit under a public prosecution order. These statements are an unprecedented and obvious attempt to intimidate and obstruct the investigation by the relevant services.

The article, in which the newspaper falsely claims that there was an attempt to eliminate certain debts and remove measures applied to a company undergoing the bankruptcy process,  and to lift measures taken by the tax authorities to ensure payment of tax liabilities by the EXPRESS SERVICE SA company, moves along the same lines. The supposed “story” of the newspaper deliberately publicises incomplete information, concealing substantial evidence, misrepresenting and distorting it, in order to slander and create impressions.

The article refers to two decisions signed by the Finance Minister (No. Ref 1009262/10039/DE-G '/ 22.01.2010 and 1099569/12545/DE-G' / 27.6.2010). Τhe decisions relate to the individual enterprise of Giannis Raptopoulos, and not the limited company EXPRESS SERVICE SA, as stated in the publication. In the text of the decisions, cunningly and deliberately published in fragments, it is clear that the coercive measures taken against Raptopoulos relate to debts of his personal company and not the debts of the limited liability company. There was never a signing for the removal of measures on a company that is declaring bankruptcy.

The private company is putting forward claims against the State and asking the relevant departments of the Finance Ministry to refund overtax of 27 million euros. By decision C13/2006 of the Court of Justice (DEK), it is stated that fee-based vehicular assistance is considered an insurance service and therefore is not subject to VAT. Therefore, VAT is reimbursable and the reimbursement shall be made after checking whether there is a case of unfair acquisition of wealth under Article 61 paragraph 1 of Law 3842/2010. Thus, in view of the company's debts, which amount to 6.605.643 and 7.043.859 euros, and its claim for a tax return of 27 million, it was deemed necessary to remove part of the measures on the freezing of 50% of company deposits and accounts in banks for a limited time, until the settlement of the refundable VAT amount and the completion of the offsetting.

This decision was made to avoid jeopardizing the continuation of a company’s operation, which employs 1300 workers, and so that it could be able to meet its tax obligations. It is perfectly legitimate, identical to the corresponding decision for another company in the same industry, and the result of a recommendation by the relevant authorities, certainly not an arbitrary decision of the Finance minister.

It should also be noted that the decisions mentioned in this publication preclude the granting of licenses and certificates required for the notarial deeds, transfers of property and other assets, contrary to the contention of the publication. Finally, the records of the company do not show tax liabilities of 70 million euros, as falsely claimed in the article.

The article also gives hints of preferential treatment, referring to alleged “relationships” with people working in this company but who are unknown to the minister. Based on the above, many questions arise about the “story” of the newspaper and particularly its motives. Why does it mention two old decisions, legally and practically correct, a year after they were made? Why did they not cross check what was written and why didn’t the journalist approach the Ministry for the necessary clarifications?

The time when some media used alleged “revelations” to cover their own obligations towards the State and could achieve preferential treatment has passed for good. It is obvious from all the above that the minister will file a lawsuit against the newspaper for defamation.»