He accuses SYRIZA of six lies in the case of Nikos Papathanasis Fake News Observatory of the New Republic.

In more detail it states:

SYRIZA, according to its favorite tactics, uses Fake news and proceeds with “character assassination”, this time of the Deputy Minister of Development N. Papathanasis, in order to hurt the Government. In this effort, he is completely indifferent to the real facts and repeats the Goebelian “say, say, something remains”.
So we quote point by point the truth against each of his lies.

1. Lie: “Mr. Papathanasis arranged his loans for free and 97% of his debts were written off.”

Truth: Mr. Papathanasis did not settle any of his loans, as since 2005 he has left the company’s executive position and remained a simple shareholder until 2016, where he transferred his shares and no longer has anything to do with the company in question and the ongoing its sanitization process.

2. Lie: “Loans of 1.8 million euros were freely settled with only 50,000 euros.”

Truth: From Eurobank’s own announcement, it is clear that: “The recoveries amount to approximately €550,000 in cash, which corresponds to 52% of the accounting balance of the claim. If principal repayments during the service period are also included, the amount of recoveries reaches approximately 75% of the initial capital of the loan.

3. Lie: “Mr. Papathanasis owes EFKA and the State”.

Truth: Mr. Papathanasis does not owe a single euro to EFKA and the State, as evidenced by the insurance and tax information available to him.

4. Lie: “The loans of Mr. Papathanasis were cut when no other citizen is treated accordingly.”

Truth: Mr. Papathanasis has received a mortgage loan for his home and this particular loan has been serviced normally until today and has not undergone any regulation at all.

5. Lie: “Eurobank did not initiate the proper procedures against Mr. Papathanasis.”

Truth: In the case of the guarantee of Mr. Papathanasis, all legal procedures and actions were followed by the financial institution according to the usual practice followed in similar cases. More specifically, in 2015, Eurobank took legal action against Mr. Papathanasis as a guarantor for loans received by the technical company, as it found that in 2010 a parental benefit of the 50% share in his house had been made to his three children and which transfer had taken place at a time when the company was making significant profits and no one could imagine that it would face financial difficulties in the next period. In the year 2019, the bank’s lawsuit was heard and a first-instance decision was issued against Mr. Papathanasis, against which the latter initially appealed, while an out-of-court settlement was subsequently reached by paying a price assessed by the bank as being higher than the amount that would could receive judicially, as the bank in question was the second to have a pre-notification on the specific property and could not claim a larger amount than what it finally received from Mr. Papathanasis. The settlement in question was essentially ratified by the appeals court which annulled the trial and accepted this settlement, eliminating the first instance decision to which SYRIZA refers with so much importance.

6. Lie: “Mr. Papathanasis cleared without any further burden on the issue of his guarantee, eliminating his guarantee liability”.

Truth: Despite the fact that Mr. Papathanasis proceeded to an out-of-court settlement after the first-instance decision against which he appealed and by accepting the settlement accompanied by the payment of a significant amount, he has made an explicit statement at an earlier time to the bank that in any case of reorganization of the company remains fully responsible for his guarantee, despite the fact that in corresponding cases of reorganization he would not be required to remain.