The trial before the Three-member Criminal Appeals Court proceeded with the examination of the first witnesses in the case of Folli Follie’s falsified data for a number of years and the manipulation of its stock which was revealed five years ago by a report by the QCM fund and allegedly caused damage of tens of millions of euros to individuals and legal entities.

In the trial for the international dimension “Folli Follie Scandal” the company’s interim administration will be absent since today the court did not accept the representation in support of the charge that FFG stated when the proceedings started on September 14. By their decision, the judges refused the representation of the temporary administration on the side of the Support of the Class, agreeing in essence with the decision that had been taken by the previous court before which the trial of the case had begun which had finally been postponed.

The temporary management of Folli Follie claimed its representation in court as materially and morally damaged by illegal acts, with the main defendants, members of the Koutsoliutsos family, opposing the request. The defendants cited the “bindingness” of the court’s previous ruling on the matter while questioning the interim administration’s ability to make decisions to appear as a civil action in criminal courts.

After the dismissal of the temporary management of the company, the founder of the Folli Follie Group, Dimitris Koutsoliutsos, his wife and their son, as well as their seven co-accused, will have EFKA, two banks, EOPYY as well as investors “opposite” them in court in the Support of the Class. whose representations were accepted by the court.

During today’s trial, the testimony of the first witnesses who had filed lawsuits as investors when the case was revealed began.

As the first witness reported, no one had been alarmed by the first indications, before the full details about the Group came to light, as the differences between the real position of the company and what it was showing were so vast that they could not be believed real facts.

Another witness told the court: “I chose the shares of the company because I was following its course and financial data. An equally important criterion for me was that its founders were shareholders of the company. I did not sell the shares immediately after the fund’s report because the Koutsoliutsou family denied that there was a problem and the Securities and Exchange Commission was not making any decision to suspend the share».