Incredible and yet Greek. Akritas has completed eight full years under surveillance at the Stock Exchange and has the privilege, through the sworn auditors who sign its financial statements, to essentially violate corporate law but not disturb anyone.

At the end of 2021, the company had accumulated losses of 71.5 million euros, it had a negative working capital of 5.77 million euros and a negative net worth of 4.5 million euros, but the affiant did see substantial uncertainty but did not vary his opinion speaking of support for banking institutions. It should be noted that a reorganization agreement has been signed since 2019 and the company is still being reorganized.

An agreement where the banks were absolutely gracious as the company’s share capital was increased by 20,393,914 euros with cash and capitalization of liabilities with a corresponding de-escalation of borrowing!!! But also providing working capital.

Legislation, what legislation?

Of course, there is no mention of the company’s obligation to increase share capital due to negative equity, and the affiant probably considers this to be of minor importance despite the fact that this is provided for by corporate legislation. A legislation that is essentially a piece of paper as it is not respected.

In particular, Article 119 paragraph 4 of Law 4548/2018 provides the following:

“In the event that the total equity capital of the company becomes lower than half (1/2) of the capital, the board of directors is obliged to convene the general assembly, within a period of six (6) months from the end of the financial year, on the subject the dissolution of the company or the adoption of another measure.
The company’s auditors have the same obligation, if the Board of Directors does not convene within the above deadline.” Really, when did the Board of Directors or statutory auditor convene a meeting and by whom were they audited? Apparently they were not convened and not checked by the Capital Market services that look for the dots and commas in the internal control audit reports and do not catch up.

It is noted that corporate legislation raises the risk of legal action for the dissolution of the company by anyone with a legal interest when they do not have the required funds, but this is probably of minor importance.

But AKRITAS is a listed company, but as it seems some magic hand keeps the control mechanisms away from it when there are obvious issues. In the half of 2022, however, it showed a profit after taxes of 524 thousand euros, which was greater than before taxes as they “closed” tax losses of the past.

Unprecedented … “phishing mail”

What is surprising, however, is what is mentioned in the 2021 annual financial statements (surprisingly, there is no mention of the six-month period) that:
“In the second half of the fiscal year 2022, it was found that the company was a victim of electronic fraud, where with the method of “phishing emails” it was led to deposit funds amounting to 445 thousand. euros in bank accounts which, as it turned out afterwards, did not belong to one of its suppliers.

Following negotiations with the involved supplier, the Company has managed to restore part of the damage by approximately 180 thousand. euros due to his partial assumption of responsibility.

This amount will affect the results of 2022, ultimately limiting the total loss to approximately 265 thousand. euro”.

The outrageous thing is that they report on electronic fraud in the second half of 2022 which is a later time than the time of publication and if the company does not have divination skills there is a question of error. Regardless, all that the company mentions about electronic fraud is at least strange. Because for the first time we see a supplier compensating part of the electronic fraud. It would be of particular interest for the company to make public who this supplier is, which is not small when it comes to a deposit of 445 thousand euros. did the juror actually check what the company refers to as Phising Mail? How is it possible to make a deposit with such an email when it is a given that a company has the details of the supplier’s accounts. And how does a supplier admit responsibility when a hacker sends an email posing as a supplier asking for a deposit?