Deletions for PASOK executives involved in OPEKEPE asks Duke – the response of the company of “green” politician

Deletions in the event of responsibility for the OPEKEPE scandal, Haris Doukas calls on his post.

The mayor of Athens is referring to the Announcement of New DemocracyFor the former PASOK candidate and Deputy of the Rural Development Department Nikos Bunaki and the land he allegedly stated to Lake Carla.

“If there is a responsibility for any of our executives in the agricultural scandals, the only way is to delete. Let us not allow any set -off with the inspirers and leaders of the scandal, “writes Mr Doukas.

In his post, Mr. Doukas writes:
Purification in practice.

For PASOK, transparency and legality issues must be non -negotiable.

And the answer to the publications must be clean and documented.

If there is a responsibility for any of our executives in the agricultural scandals, the only way is to delete.

Let us not allow any set -off with the inspirers and leaders of the scandal.

Those of ND.

What is Nikos Bunakis’ company answer

In its announcement the company Proactive SAin which Nikos Bounakis is chief executive, speaks of a “miserable mud and slander” while heralds a appeal to justice.

The announcement points out:

In recent days, a miserable mud and slander has peaked at the expense of our company and Managing Director, Nikos Bounakis.

From the first days of the publicity of the OPEKEPE scandal – and in particular after an investigation by European prosecutors – the well -known circles in an effort to disseminate responsibilities are leaking into the media whispers for our company involvement.

Today, the seeds and hoodlums were revealed.

Surprisingly, we read a statement from the New Democracy citing media reports about a IACS statement of a producer who had been submitted through our company’s reception center and concerns a parcel rented in the lowland area around Lake Karla about 330 acres.

On the occasion of this statement by the producer, a huge misinformation and murder operation was implemented. Today we read on a variety of sites that the CEO of our company has stated ten times the extent that is 3,500 acres on Lake Carla !!!!

What is the truth:

But the truth is completely different. The producer with all its supporting documents to be submitted through the application of the IACS (Integrated Management and Control System) to OPECEPE for aid which she identified in her application as a beneficiary, already holds rights for the years 2022-2023, came to the Center for Record of our Company with all its supporting documents.

Among the documents he filed to accept the request to OPEKEPE at our center was an already associated and registered real estate lease at the Independent Public Revenue Authority (AADE). The lease she provided herself included all the information necessary to be able to be registered in the OPEKEPE system, such as a name, surname and employee and lessor, property ID number (ATAK). The result of this registration where all the necessary information was stated, which has been accepted by OPEKEPE, was both the payment of both years to the producer, with no problem being rejected.

From what we have exposed, the New Democracy factors that are misinformed should tell us where it is clear that our company is involved in the producer’s statement of the parcel.

Are they trying to offset organized processes of producing hundreds of pasture documents from well -known statements centers that have been employed and concerned with justice and are in the case file? The filing centers have neither responsibility nor the ability to control the legality of the lease issued by the AADE or other information provided by the producers and which are accepted by IACS, are controlled and paid by OPECEPE, as in the producer.

If the parcel was or is public, then why did AADE first pointed out to the individual who registered that he owns it in his property as a privately owned and even after the registration of the property was issued and a number of property ID (ATAK)?

Why did the IACS system not pointed out as in other cases that it was a public extent so as not to allow it to be declared by the producer?

Why was this not identified by OPEKEPE and were the aid to the producer who applied for them without any problems with the activation of the rights he owned?

From all of the above, and the most unsuspecting may realize that a miserable mud and slander has been orchestrated at the expense of our company, on the one hand to blur the waters and turn the spotlight by the real guerrillas of the scandal and to the realm of the company and to the sake of the company. Interests on the part of the New Democracy.

Our company and I personally will bring to justice in the coming days to defend ourselves against defamation and slander.

A little shame. Enough…