Predator Wiretapping: Statute of Limitations of Offenses and Lawsuits Against Supreme Court Prosecutors

The high-profile Predator spyware wiretapping case appears to be entering a new phase of intense judicial and political controversy , as lawyer Zacharias Kesses , who represents 13 victims of surveillance, announces the filing of a lawsuit for abuse of power against three Supreme Court prosecutors . The case, which has already caused strong reactions at the national and European level, is returning to the spotlight with sharp criticisms about the way the case file was handled and its recent filing.

He claims that crucial evidence was not adequately evaluated, while he speaks of institutional deviation and lack of substantive investigation. At the center of the announced lawsuit are three prosecutors, whom the lawyer links to decisions and procedural moves that, in his opinion, fall under article 239 of the Criminal Code on abuse of power.

New data, “frozen” lawsuits and complaints about delays

According to Zacharias Kesse, the Supreme Court prosecutor's office had already been informed of the existence of six new individuals who wish to file lawsuits and provide additional information. This information, he says, includes emails, financial data and witness statements related to the operation of companies in the Predator network.

See also: Intellexa: Predator network survives despite sanctions – New evidence

Particular emphasis is also placed on issues of role conflict, as according to the complaints, persons who were involved in the management of the case in previous phases are also alleged to have participated in the evaluation of the case file. The lawyer claims that there was a refusal to provide substantive cooperation in determining a procedure for submitting new evidence, which, according to him, exacerbated the delay.

Following are excerpts from Z. Kesse's statement to journalistic questions:

Z. Kesses: "Let me clarify that I do not represent only Mr. Koukakis, I represent 13 victims of the illegal Predator spyware, 7 of whom had already filed a lawsuit and the rest did not have time to file a lawsuit. Let me state the following: we are experiencing an institutional deviation and I am obliged to speak about the erosion of justice and therefore of democracy, when we see and experience such decisions that have to do with darkness, the same darkness, which exists in the room in which this case was investigated and I am talking about the prosecutor's office.

I want to put the issue as follows: there is the judgment of the judge, the prosecutor, of what he decided, and there is also the evaluation of what he did not do. I want to be very specific and before I get into what Mr. Tzavelas, I want to denounce the following, promising, because it is my commitment to my clients, but also to what we consider to be our obligation as legal representatives, to promise all those who are so dedicated to the cover-up, that I will dedicate to them Article 239 of the Criminal Code, which is abuse of power.

Those who have taken care, while it is their job, instead of prosecuting the guilty, they are abetting them, the time will come when they will face the familiar lawsuit that will be brought against them at the appropriate time, not now, and this concerns Mr. Zisi, Mrs. Adeilini and Mr. Tzavellas. No one is uncontrollable. I will say this: sensing that for 20 days now the Areopagus has been obstructing and while many lawyers have repeatedly requested an appointment to file new lawsuits, to provide evidence, Mr. Tzavellas is avoiding meeting with us in an official request that was made, he refused to meet with us and from what I know others and Mr. Androulakis have requested an appointment with him.

Because we sensed that something was wrong and because we are here on Monday, but we have seen it coming, last Friday, and this is my complaint, I visited the Supreme Court Prosecutor's Office myself and filed an application on 24/04/2026, the application protocol number is 3247. With this application, I requested, firstly, in view of the risk of statute of limitations and the fact that almost two months have passed since the issuance of the decision of the Single-Member Misdemeanor Court and in view of the fact that offenses were statute-barred every day, that we be informed, firstly, about who is handling the case file, to whom the case file has been charged.

Secondly, taking into account the fact, we stated in the application that it could not be Mr. Tzavelas, we considered it a given that he would abstain, because not only was he the deputy supervisor of the EYP during the disputed period, not only were criminal acts committed during the period he supervised the EYP, not only has he signed the lifting of Mr. Koukakis' confidentiality, all of Mr. Koukakis' confidentiality liftings, but he has also been examined as a witness, in the Committee on Institutions and Transparency in Parliament, where he refused to cooperate and invoked confidentiality.

So we took it for granted that the Supreme Court prosecutor, as is the case, would not handle the case file himself. I remind you that Mrs. Adeilini had not handled it either, she had assigned it to Mr. Zisi.

But beyond that, I asked for two very specific things. I asked that we be officially informed by the Supreme Court prosecutor's office how we will file the new six lawsuits. There are six very important individuals who want to file new lawsuits, individuals who have not appeared so far. So I asked that they inform us so that there is no risk of obstruction and delay, to tell us where the lawsuits will be filed.

Secondly, I asked the Supreme Court prosecutor's office to inform us where, how and by what procedure we will process the confidential, sensitive documents that we have in our hands and are not even in the case file, so that they can be investigated. This is what I did on Friday.

Someone might think that okay, an application was made to the Supreme Court prosecutor's office, they didn't see it. I want to inform you that half an hour after I submitted the application, I was called by the secretariat of the Supreme Court prosecutor's office, I went up to the Supreme Court, I was greeted by the deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Mr. Bakelas, with whom I had a detailed 45-minute informational meeting.

I fully informed him of everything that exists, everything that is needed, and I asked him to show the corresponding diligence in how, who and when he will receive this crucial evidence that is necessary for the investigation of the case, in addition to everything that is in the decision of the Single-Member Criminal Court of Athens and in the evidence. This happened on Friday.

As you can see, the sudden filing of the case on Monday, the first working day, Monday, April 27 today, proves that there was no desire to investigate the case. The Supreme Court's prosecutor's office, and I denounce it, Mr. Tzavellas, rushed to file the case, because he was afraid of new lawsuits, because he wanted to avoid new evidence. And someone should answer us why this happened and that's why, after due process of law, I'm also talking about 239, because here we have acts and omissions that are associated with criminal indecency. This is what the Supreme Court did not do.

I want to say, however, a couple of words about Mr. Tzavellas' judgment, because you know, we must understand that we are six years after the investigation, after the start of the case, and we have the prosecution at the highest level coming and telling you that the entrapment, or the attempt to entrap half of the Cabinet of state actors, the head of the Armed Forces and the Greek Police, does not constitute any other offense, not even in the form of an attempt, it is not espionage, it is only three minor misdemeanors and this is the judgment of the prosecution of the Supreme Court.

See also: Explosions in Lebanon: How Mossad's "Unit 8200" is connected to Predator in Greece

I think this crisis will be taught as a counterexample in all law schools. And even more so, it will be used as an argument for the next spies who will come to our country. The one who trapped Mr. Dendias , and Mr. Dendias knows that he was trapped, is not being prosecuted for espionage. I feel the need to try to imagine what Mr. Dendias's thoughts will be after this, after this conclusion.

But I also want to say a couple of words about what Mr. Tzavellas said in his report, reminding that in the court decision there is a list, an index with 43 pages in which there are dozens of pieces of evidence. Mr. Tzavellas did not see this evidence, did not evaluate it, did not judge it. And if someone reads the act, they will understand that it does not refer to them at all, it only refers to what the court decision says without any reference to the evidence. And he comes and refers to the criminal liability of the 9 participants and claims that everything that concerns the 9 participants who were named and identified during the single-member misdemeanor court is evidence that Mr. Zisis has already evaluated.

And I want to tell you that beyond what Mr. Zisis evaluated, dozens of pieces of evidence emerged that Mr. Zisis did not even know about, so you understand that Mr. Tzavellas' judgment has no value when he invokes Mr. Zisis's already existing judgment. I will say only one thing: there were witness statements in Court, there was the secretary of one of the defendants who testified that the general manager of the company is the one who gave the Predator export documents to Sudan.

So this piece of evidence, Mr. Tzavellas considered to have no value. He did not evaluate the emails that were presented at the trial, he did not evaluate the expense reports, he did not evaluate the other testimonies, even the testimonies of a company employee who highlighted how the company operated. I will also say this: we have the following unprecedented, I think that until now we have been mocking - because we could not do anything else - the judgment of Mr. Zissis that the use of the card was made - the prepaid card with which the trapped messages were paid - by chance by someone who guessed the PIN 3 times. I believe that this set a level that no one would exceed!

Mr. Tzavellas passed it. In the order he issued, one will read that he comes and says that by questioning the data that Mr. Spirtzis and anyone else contributed, saying that these could have been contributed, pulled from his email and not from his mobile phone, and saying the following: that "if someone accesses his email from a mobile phone and deletes an email, it is not deleted from his computer". This is a judgment, an opinion of Mr. Tzavellas that I do not know if it proves that he is electronically illiterate, but it proves that he did not want to do his job.

“Now delete something from your email on your mobile phone and go to your computer to look at it.” This is what Mr. Tzavellas, the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, said. He came and said that no evidence had emerged from the EYP, saying that Mr. Kosmidis , who had the card, came and revealed that he had obtained it from a person who works for the EYP, is related to the EYP, and he said that this was not proven, Mr. Tzavellas. But you know, the decision of the single-member committee that he forwarded for investigation, this is what it asked for: to investigate who Mr. Petrisis, what his connection is to the National Intelligence Service. And Mr. Tzavellas said that this was not proven in court.

So we have a judgment from the Prosecutor who says that "I believe that I should not search because these have not been proven", while they were not the subject of proof. I do not want to say anything more. I simply want to add that as was said, felonies are felonies, they do not expire no matter what they do. Archiving provisions do not produce a res judicata, especially those that have been made in such an inelegant, technically, legally inconceivable, blatant way and that those who have run so diligently to satisfy Mr. Dillian's wishes and to revive the partnership between public and private law that existed from 2020 until now, I want to see how they will react when the lawsuits are filed and when this evidence is introduced. I will want to see them then.

See also: Predator spyware – USA: New sanctions on Intellexa executives

I am convinced that the application I submitted on Friday accelerated the developments and led to the issuance of the archiving. In the application I submitted on Friday, I explicitly state that: " Sensitive data, the confidentiality of which must be ensured and given the need to avoid unnecessary delays from their unnecessary movement, I ask that you indicate to me before which Authority and by what procedure the said documents will be added to the case file."

I explicitly request it, I also said it verbally to Mr. Tzavellas, we even discussed the issue of the confidentiality of these documents without the content, and of course the next move of the Supreme Court Prosecutor's Office was on Monday morning, instead of informing how it would receive these documents, instead of informing how it would receive the lawsuits in order to evaluate them, to put the case on file.

Abuse of power, as I said, has to do with the criminal responsibilities of those who, by virtue of their authority, are obliged to investigate and prosecute. Beyond that, we have specific, in my opinion, criminal and disciplinary responsibilities of the specific operators.

The lawsuits that are about to be filed, and that the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Prosecutor's Office, did everything it could to prevent them from being filed, have to do with the entrapment, with the Predator spyware, its use in Greece, and the company's relationship with the National Intelligence Service.

Just to clarify that it is very important for someone to see in the filing act that Mr. Tzavellas says that no secret, state secret, arose because the mobile phone devices were searched. And even he did not dare to request the examination of the mobile phones, nor for the 87 victims or those of the victims who fell victim to the Predator software to appear before him in order to provide explanations as to whether they had it on their mobile phone or where they were at the time they were trapped. (…)

Let me say that I think that after Mr. Tzavellas' decision, trust in the Greek Justice system will plummet further, beyond the 80% who have no trust according to the latest opinion polls. In relation to what you asked me, I will tell you that I certainly cannot tell you either the qualifications or who the individuals are. But I can tell you more confidently that on Friday the Supreme Court Prosecutor's Office was informed of who these individuals are. So, you can make the connections.

Abuse of power is a felony and just as the legacy that these three prosecutors leave on the prestige of Justice has a negative sign, I will make sure that it comes to them as a legacy when, in addition to enjoying the disapproval of the legal world, they will look back on their course in the judiciary. Obviously, it will not happen immediately now, it will happen at the appropriate time.

The history of Predator and the chain of digital vulnerabilities

The Predator case is not limited to its judicial dimension, but is also linked to a complex technological and geopolitical background. The surveillance software, which has been linked to the company Intellexa and Tal Dillian, is based on the exploitation of “vulnerabilities” in mobile phone operating systems.

According to evidence that has come to light through lawsuits and technical investigations, the supply chain for such vulnerabilities includes specialized intermediaries, cybersecurity companies, and former intelligence officers. The acquisition and commercial exploitation of these security vulnerabilities is considered extremely costly and strategic, as it allows the secret installation of spyware without the user's knowledge.

The growth of activity in Greece in 2020–2021 was linked to the emergence of infrastructure and digital deception mechanisms, such as fake links that imitated news sites. Since 2021, the first confirmed targeting has been recorded, including the surveillance of journalists.

See also: New information: What are the common goals of Predator and EYP?

International reactions and European dimension of the case

On 26 February 2026, the Single-Member Misdemeanor Court of Athens issued a conviction for four individuals associated with Intellexa and Krikel. The court imposed a prison sentence of 126 years and 8 months (with a maximum of 8 years). The sentence has been suspended pending appeal. At first instance, the four were found guilty of breach of communications confidentiality and illegal access to information systems.

Along with the conviction, the court decided to forward the minutes to the Prosecutor's Office in order to investigate the commission of further offenses, including the crime of espionage.

The case has taken on a clear European and international dimension. Amnesty International has spoken of a “rare moment of accountability” after the first court rulings in Greece, while the European Parliament has discussed at length the implications of the use of spyware in member states.

In these discussions, MEPs have pointed out that targets of surveillance included politicians, journalists and MEPs, raising issues of data security and possible external interference. At the same time, the need for a stricter European framework for the use of spyware technologies has been highlighted, due to the risks they pose for fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Political warnings about statutes of limitations and institutional inaction

At the same time, political interventions are intensifying the pressure on the judicial process. Opposition figures (Christos Kaklamanis, PASOK's Justice Secretary) have warned that delays in the handling of the case file are leading to statutes of limitations on individual acts, resulting in the loss of crucial aspects of the case.

According to reports that have been made public, dozens of individual incidents are reportedly already time-barred due to time delays, while it is noted that as long as the case file remains pending, the risk of losing criminal liability for individual acts of surveillance increases.

These remarks reinforce the image of a case that is evolving not only in the courts, but also in the field of institutional credibility and political confrontation.

It is noted that Mr. Kaklamanis had warned in the previous days about a possible amendment of the penal code by the government regarding the wiretapping scandal. He specifically stated that it is possible that "article 80A on the conversion of imprisonment into money may be changed upwards (currently it is 2 years)".

According to him, "this will remove the risk of any of the convicted or any of the new suspects being sent to prison after the first-instance proceedings. The 8-year sentence will be compulsorily converted into money, it will be redeemed for 10€/day (including the surcharges, add 20) and all will be well. Thus, calm and normality will be restored to everyone's relations."

See also: The Supreme Court withdrew the case against EYP for use of malicious software

A system under pressure: Justice, technology and time

The Predator case highlights a broader issue that goes beyond the boundaries of a single case file. At the crossroads between technological development and institutional adequacy, the issue of addressing digital surveillance proves to be extremely complex.

The speed at which surveillance technologies are evolving often seems to exceed the pace of justice, creating gaps in accountability. At the same time, complaints about delays, role conflicts and failure to assess critical elements reinforce the debate on the need for institutional upgrading of control mechanisms.

As new lawsuits are announced and additional evidence is expected to be added to the case file, the case remains open and dynamic. The only certainty is that its final outcome will serve as a benchmark for both the functioning of Greek justice and the management of digital security in Europe.