The National Bank of Greece (NBG) has provided technical explanations that indirectly challenge the Greek Supreme Court’s reasoning for dismissing complaints related to Intellexa's Predator spyware scandal, raising concerns about judicial transparency and the rule of law in Greece.
The scandal revolves around the illegal use of Predator spyware, which was allegedly deployed to monitor 87 high-ranking officials, including ministers, military personnel, journalists, prosecutors, and entrepreneurs. Among the known targets were PASOK party leader Nikos Androulakis and investigative journalist Thanasis Koukakis. A key part of the case involved a prepaid card used in September 2021 to send malicious SMS messages containing the spyware.
Greek Supreme Court Deputy Prosecutor Achilles Zisis dismissed complaints against Emilios Kosmidis, the owner of the prepaid card and a central figure in the scandal, arguing that his card had been activated by an unidentified third party, making it impossible to trace.
However, in a formal response to the newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton on Saturday, Dimitris Plessas, Deputy General Manager of Cards and Digital Banking at NBG, offered a technical explanation of the bank’s security protocols, which effectively contradicts the Supreme Court’s rationale.
Plessas stated that the activation of a prepaid card’s PIN is strictly controlled and requires authentication via SMS verification sent exclusively to the registered mobile number. He emphasized that the PIN is generated electronically, remains encrypted, and cannot be accessed by third parties. He further clarified that transactions using the card require the cardholder’s direct involvement, making unauthorized use impossible.
While the bank did not take a position on the legal aspects of the case, its technical clarifications raise significant questions about the Supreme Court’s claim that an unknown third party could have activated the card without the owner's involvement.
The Supreme Court’s handling of the case has sparked serious concerns about due process and judicial independence. A key point of contention is why Supreme Court Deputy Prosecutor Achilles Zisis chose to limit his inquiry to the brief period between September 16–23, 2021, rather than examining the full transaction history of the prepaid card from 2019 to 2024. This selective approach has left crucial questions unanswered, including how many transactions were linked to the Predator spyware, the total sum of money involved, and whether a broader financial trail could reveal deeper connections to the surveillance operation. Critics argue that by failing to scrutinize the card’s usage over its entire active period, the Supreme Court effectively narrowed the scope of the investigation, raising suspicions that key evidence may have been overlooked or deliberately ignored.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to reopen the investigation has intensified suspicions of a political cover-up. In its ruling, the court stated that the illegal surveillance of government ministers, military officials, and judicial authorities posed no threat to national security or democracy—a conclusion that has sparked widespread backlash. The court declined to classify the case as espionage, despite evidence that high-ranking officials were targeted using foreign-made spyware.
The center-left PASOK party, led by surveillance target Nikos Androulakis, has accused Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ government of enabling a judicial cover-up. In a statement, PASOK argued that investigative reports have exposed the Supreme Court’s rushed and superficial dismissal of the complaint and that the court failed to request full transaction records from the bank, blocking key evidence from emerging. The party further noted that only the cardholder could have activated the prepaid card, refuting the claim that an unidentified individual was responsible. PASOK questioned why the Supreme Court did not demand the full financial history before closing the case and who received the PIN that activated the card. The party stated that the eagerness to shut down the investigation raises serious concerns about judicial independence.
The left-wing opposition party SYRIZA has similarly condemned the Supreme Court’s handling of the case, accusing judicial authorities of deliberately ignoring crucial evidence. SYRIZA argued that the notion of an unknown third party activating the card is absurd and completely unsubstantiated, pointing to the National Bank’s confirmation that only the registered owner could have done so. The party also criticized the court for limiting its investigation to just one week in 2021, rather than analyzing all transactions over the card’s five-year usage period. It questioned why the Supreme Court deliberately restricted the investigation and why it dismissed clear evidence of espionage, describing the refusal to analyze the full financial history of the prepaid card as an obstruction of justice.
