Intellexa founder says he plans to appeal Greek court ruling over wiretapping scandal

• Companies

• Intellexa AE

  Follow

WASHINGTON/ATHENS, March 24 (Reuters) - The founder of surveillance firm Intellexa plans to appeal against his conviction by a Greek court on charges of breaching personal data during a ​wiretapping scandal that rocked Greece in 2022, he told Reuters on Tuesday.

On ‌February 26, a Greek court concluded that Intellexa’s Tal Dilian and three other people were guilty of the misdemeanour charges and sentenced them to prison, suspended until an appeal.

The Week in Breakingviews newsletter offers insights and ideas from Reuters’ global financial commentary team. Sign up here.

“I remained silent during ​the trial, but I will not be a scapegoat,” Dilian said in ​a statement sent to Reuters.

“I believe a conviction without evidence is not ⁠justice, it could be part of a cover-up and even a crime. I ​will present my case before national, regional, and international institutions, including requesting the intervention ​of the UN Special Rapporteur on judicial independence.”

The affair, dubbed “Predatorgate” in Greece, emerged after allegations by a financial journalist and a political leader that they had been subject to state surveillance via the ​phone malware Predator, the flagship spyware product of Intellexa.

The case led to the ​sacking of the head of the state intelligence service, EYP, and the prime minister’s chief of ‌staff. ⁠Traces of Predator were found in dozens of phones.

The government, which has denied any wrongdoing, survived a 2023 vote of no confidence over the issue.

In 2024, Greece’s Supreme Court prosecutor shelved the case against EYP but referred four defendants, including Dilian, ​to trial on misdemeanour ​charges.

Government spokesman Pavlos ⁠Marinakis said earlier this month that the judicial authorities were dealing with the matter, and he reiterated that the top court ​had set aside the case over the state’s involvement in ​the affair.

Dilian ⁠said in his statement that the evidence presented during the trial contradicted the Supreme Court prosecutor’s analysis while there was no evidence that linked the defendants with EYP’s reported “interferences”.

He ⁠has ​said in the past that surveillance technology has ​only been sold to governments, and that they bear responsibility for using the technology legally.

Reporting by Raphael Satter ​in Washington and Renee Maltezou in Athens; Editing by Edward McAllister and Hugh Lawson

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

• Suggested Topics:
• Cybersecurity
• Constitutional Law

Share

• X

• Facebook

• Linkedin

• Email

• Link

Purchase Licensing Rights