In the house restriction with electronic surveillance, the well -known “bracelet” was put in place. Christos Mauritius by decision of an investigator and prosecutor after his apology is completed. The request was made to the investigator by the defendant’s defense.
Earlier, Christos Mavrikis apologized to the investigator and refused to attempt to bribe the Areopagite. He has been practiced by him criminal prosecution for bribery judge.
Specifically, for two hours he gave his trial to the investigator for the serious criminal charges he faces for the delivery of the letter in question to the Supreme Judge, through which he asked him to intervene in a pending civil case and referred to a brokerage – € 25,000.
Christos Mauritius claimed that he did not attempt to bribe anyone. “In the letter I gave him in person, I asked the Areopagite, in terms of his or her duties, to be interested in making a decision on the substance of the case. As far as the issue of the divestment of the above property is concerned, Mr. Areopagite’s mediation, the finding investor and the brokerage fee in the event of his disposal, I did not approach him in the context of his duties as a judicial officer, but because of the acquaintance he had and his father and his father.
So at least I thought when I wrote the letter and handed it over. The real estate fee mentioned in that letter was not proposed in return for an action tangible to the exercise of Mr. Areopagite’s duties, but In return for finding investor and on the condition of divestment of the above property. I never had such sums of money in order to be able to offer them in return».
In addition, the defendant in his apologetic memorandum stressed that “I did not give him any detail of the date of the judgment of the case, the court and the proceedings followed, the president who heard the case, nor the parties who participated in the trialand I handed him the letter almost two months after the case was discussed (01.04.2025) and in no way did I see his bribery.
I did not address him because I knew that he had somehow involved involved in the case, but because of his previous communication with his father and himself for the obstruction of a decision on the lawsuit. I did not hide my identity, nor did I try to avoid my arrest in the context of the autopsy, obviously because I did not realize the consequences of my act. “
His daughter also testified to the investigator.