The court ruling in Greece’s illegal surveillance case has opened new and far-reaching lines of investigation, extending well beyond the conviction of four businessmen and pointing to possible new suspects and more serious criminal offenses, including espionage. Alongside the verdict, the court ordered that the full trial record be forwarded to public prosecutors, citing evidence that emerged during the hearings but had not been uncovered during the original investigation.
Following a five-month trial, the court convicted Tal Dilian, Felix Bitzios, Sara Hamou and Giannis Lavranos of multiple misdemeanors related to the unlawful interception of communications and illegal access to information systems. The four were sentenced to a combined total of 126 years and eight months in prison, with eight years to be served, pending appeal. The judges rejected any mitigating circumstances, pointing to the recruitment of unidentified individuals, the involvement of intelligence services that were aware of the illegal nature of the material, and the storage of sensitive data whose location and potential future use remain unknown.
Crucially, the court ruled that the scope of the case cannot be considered closed. New individuals and new offenses are now under scrutiny, prompting prosecutors to launch further investigations. Among those to be examined is an individual identified in court as A.K., a private citizen whose prepaid mobile phone card was used to send spyware-laden text messages to senior figures, including the leader of Greece’s main opposition party. Judges noted that A.K. failed to provide credible explanations for the use of the card and contradicted himself during testimony.
Prosecutors will also investigate allegations of false testimony during the trial, following doubts raised over the credibility of key witnesses. One former employee of the company Krikel, summoned by court order after new evidence surfaced during the hearings, claimed not to remember exchanging text messages that were in fact available to the court. The testimony of another central figure, Stamatis Tribalis, who until recently appeared as Krikel’s legal representative, proved particularly significant. Tribalis told the court that he acted merely as a front for Lavranos and admitted that he had given false testimony to a parliamentary inquiry into the surveillance scandal, having been supplied in advance with prepared answers.
The court further ordered an investigation into whether surveillance software continued to operate in Greece even after the scandal became public. Testimony suggested that the company Intellexa, linked to the Predator spyware, may have remained active through successor entities in 2023 and 2024, potentially violating national laws banning the circulation and use of surveillance software.
The most serious development concerns possible espionage. Prosecutors have been instructed to examine whether the actions under review amount to attempted espionage, at least in its misdemeanor form. The investigation will not be limited to the four convicted businessmen but will also extend to additional individuals identified during the trial, as well as anyone else found to have played a role. The court cited several factors justifying this inquiry: the high status of the surveillance targets, which reportedly included lawmakers, cabinet ministers, judges and senior military officers; the fact that many of these individuals were never called to testify; the structured organization and training of personnel within the companies involved; and the potential involvement of foreign actors, including Israeli interests.
Despite the length of the proceedings, two central questions remain unanswered. The true number of people who clicked on the malicious links used to deploy the spyware was never established, as many potential victims were not summoned to court. Equally unclear is who currently possesses the personal data, private communications and documents allegedly extracted from targeted devices, raising concerns about ongoing risks to national security and individual privacy.
Investigative authorities are now expected to pursue a multi-track inquiry based on the evidence that emerged during the trial. What remains unknown, and what prosecutors must now determine, is not only how extensive the surveillance operation truly was, but also where the intercepted data ended up — and whether it may still be used.
