5 Greek government officials resign over EU farming subsidy fraud allegations
Five high-ranking Greek government officials, including a minister and three deputy ministers, resigned Friday following allegations of involvement in corruption over the mismanagement of European Union farming subsidies.
The case stems from the alleged mismanagement of EU subsidies for agriculture between 2019 and 2022 by a government agency, known by its Greek acronym OPEKEPE, tasked with handling the funds.
According to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, a 'significant number of individuals' received subsidies through the agency based on false declarations, including claims of owning or leasing pastures that were in fact public land. The suspects continued submitting false declarations of livestock until 2024, maintaining subsidy payment entitlement, it added.
The prosecutor's office sent a hefty case file to Greece's parliament earlier this week including allegations of the possible involvement of government ministers in an organized fraud scheme. Members of parliament enjoy immunity from prosecution in Greece that can only be lifted by parliamentary vote.
In a resignation letter to the prime minister Friday, Migration and Asylum Minister Makis Voridis maintained his innocence, saying he was stepping down in order to concentrate on clearing his name. Voridis served as agriculture minister from mid-2019 to early 2021.
Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis accepted his resignation, as well as those of the deputy ministers of foreign affairs, agriculture and food, and digital governance, and of the general secretary of agriculture and food. Replacements for all five will be named 'in the coming days,' government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis said in a statement.
The European Commission announced earlier this month it would reduce the amount of farm subsidies for Greece by 5%, for a total of 392 million euros.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘We were treated like animals': Champagne workers reveal inhumane conditions
France's Champagne region conjures up visions of picturesque vineyards, rolling hills and church steeples, as well as grapes lovingly hand-picked by 120,000 seasonal workers. Yet the idyllic image has taken a huge knock due to a court case brought by a group of 57 grape pickers – most of whom are African and without papers. At a trial last week, they recounted the 'hellish' conditions endured at the hands of allegedly unscrupulous middlemen and a winemaker accused of turning a blind eye to 'modern slavery'. ' We were treated like animals in those vineyards. I'm still traumatised,' Kanouté Djakariayou, a 44-year-old migrant from Mali, told The Telegraph. 'It was inhuman, I'm still trying to forget,' added Diabira Bouhou, also from Mali. They and their fellow complainants – from Mali, Mauritania, Ivory Coast and Senegal – were all bussed from Paris to the criminal court of Châlons-en-Champagne for the six-hour hearing, taking a similar route that brought them to the region in 2023, for what they were promised would be a well-paid job in decent conditions. 'We responded to offers on WhatsApp and TikTok to work in the vineyards for €80 per day, with the bus leaving from Porte de la Chapelle (northeastern Paris),' recalled Mr Djakariayou. 'They said we would be in comfortable housing, three or four to a room.' They were told they would receive a bonus depending on the harvest, however the court heard they were never paid. Due to the level of their alleged mistreatment, prosecutors requested two years behind bars for subcontractor Svetlana Yourevna Goumina, a Kyrgyz woman in her forties, on charges of human trafficking, exploiting seasonal workers, and housing them in appalling conditions. 'No food, no water, nothing' Two defendants, Abdoulaye Camara and Témuri Muradian, who helped recruit the workers with false promises, face three-year prison terms, two suspended. A fourth, Olivier Orban, head of a wine cooperative, faces a €200,000 fine for turning a blind eye to black market labour that helped him sell his harvest 20 per cent cheaper per kilo than normal. 'The victims…were promised a hotel, with six toilets for almost 60 people,' said the presiding judge. But worker Modibo Sidibe said: 'They put us in an abandoned building with no food, no water, nothing. And then they took us to harvest the grapes from 5am to 6pm.' The accommodation, a warehouse and a house under construction in the village of Nesle-le-Repons, contained ' worn and dirty sanitation facilities ', an outdoor kitchen, and living areas that were unprotected from the weather. The dangerous state of the showers, with bare electrical cables sticking out, forced pickers who returned exhausted after backbreaking harvesting in scorching temperatures to use a bucket of water to wash off the grime. 'There were blown-up mattresses covered in dust strewn on the floor. The toilet was soon blocked and s--- poured out into the sleeping area. It was unbearable. There was no electricity, not even to charge our mobile phones,' said Mr Djakariayou. Grape pickers said they had to make do with 'drinking water from the pipes', which made them ill, as did the defrosted sandwiches they were handed for lunch. They were crammed into vans with no windows and taken to the vineyards. 'From the initial 80, around 30 threw in the towel and demanded to leave. But the rest of us stayed because they refused to pay us if we left, and I have debts and rent to pay,' Mr Djakariayou, who said he was granted a temporary work permit after his ordeal. Lawyers have asked for €5,000 in damages per worker. After a neighbour alerted the French police, investigators in September 2023 inspected the living conditions of the harvesters, according to prosecutor Annick Browne. Following the inspection, regional authorities ordered the closure of the accommodation, citing 'unsanitary' and 'undignified' living conditions. Disrespect for 'human dignity' As well as human trafficking, Ms Goumina, manager of the subcontractor Anavim, was also accused of concealed labour, submitting vulnerable or dependent persons to undignified housing conditions, and employing foreign nationals without authorisation. Maxime Cessieux, the lawyer of the victims, said before the trial that the defendants had shown 'total contempt' and disrespect for 'human dignity'. 'We cannot accept any champagne bottle concealing unregulated subcontracting and blatant mistreatment,' the prosecutor told the court. Jose Blanco, general secretary of the CGT-Champagne trade union, which has been instrumental in bringing the case to court, said he hoped the July 21 verdict would result in tough sentences to set a precedent. He pointed to another upcoming trial in November regarding the alleged mistreatment of 100 Ukrainian grape pickers crammed into an unsanitary building during the 2023 harvest. In a historic first, the Champagne board, CIVC, filed as a civil plaintiff in this month's trial 'to express its firm opposition (...) and to have the serious damage to the image of the appellation recognised'. Union demands worker protections But Mr Blanco said his union wants it to go further. It is calling for proper pay and housing for grape pickers to be added to the Champagne appellation's specifications, which grants assurance about how and where the drink was produced. 'Any producer who fails to do so will not be able to sell his grapes,' he said. 'That would create a huge financial disincentive.' Clients – large Champagne houses, wine cooperatives or independent winegrowers – who use service providers for 'turnkey harvests' would then be considered 'jointly liable before the law'. But CIVC has refused to go this far, saying it has already put in place extra checks and procedures to verify subcontractors. As a result, Mr Blanco said, the wine producer in the dock was able to sell his grapes to the big champagne houses – he mentioned two in court, Montsard-Baillet and Moët-Chandon. 'They weren't on trial, but I think that the justice system could have looked into their role more deeply,' he said. 'Champagne must have impeccable ethics. But the first bottles made from those grapes of human misery will be on sale this year.'
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.' With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes. Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty. 'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London. 'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.' Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus. 'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added. Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government. 'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.' Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill. 'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people. 'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign. It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?' The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals. 'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?' 'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next reversal must be on non-doms before it's too late
The abolition of the non-dom tax regime could turn out to be the worst decision taken in Rachel Reeves's first Budget. The Chancellor was convinced that few of the 83,000 foreign entrepreneurs and investors would leave the UK after its abolition and that they would still contribute £12bn in taxes over the course of the parliament. The reality is turning out to be starkly different. Non-doms are leaving in their thousands, and taking their tax contributions, investments and potential to create jobs with them. The latest report into the abolition of non-dom status by a former Treasury economist found that more than 10pc of non-doms have already left the UK. This follows analysis from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) that found that once 25pc of non-doms have departed, the policy will end up actually costing the Treasury money. Tax advisers are predicting that 40pc, possibly more, of non-doms will leave the country. This will have a huge impact on our public finances, leaving the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound shortfall in tax receipts, which every other taxpayer will have to pick up. While Britain is showing these highly productive people the door, other countries are rolling out the tax red carpet. Italy recently introduced a flat tax regime for foreign investors, allowing them to pay a fixed annual payment of €200,000 (£170,000). In Greece, they are charged a flat annual tax of €100,000 if they invest in the country. America is planning to expand its golden visa programme and the UAE has built one of the world's fastest growing and dynamic economies by fostering an exceptionally welcoming environment for international entrepreneurs. As an entrepreneur with investors and clients based internationally, I am acutely aware of how this policy is damaging the UK's standing. Britain has huge advantages that can attract the world's best entrepreneurs to come here, especially our outstanding schools and universities. But the message I hear constantly from those affected by this tax change is that the UK is not somewhere that welcomes them. That perception urgently needs to be addressed. Despite the prevailing narrative that they are not paying their fair share, the somewhat inconvenient facts are very different. Non-doms currently contribute disproportionately to public finances. In 2022-23, the average non-dom paid 21 times more income tax than the median UK worker. They are not just taxpayers, they are economic catalysts. They build businesses, invest in start-ups, create jobs and contribute to philanthropic causes – hospitals, the arts, charities and even football clubs. Their financial footprint extends beyond income tax to VAT, capital gains tax and National Insurance. The CEBR estimates that in 2023 alone, this group generated £7.7bn in total revenue across all tax types and consumer activity. It is unrealistic to expect the Chancellor to backtrack completely on what was a flagship policy, even considering the enormous economic harm it is causing. Another reversal would likely be too embarrassing after the welfare debacle this week. But there are practical steps she can take to ensure Britain has a competitive offer in comparison to other countries, while ensuring these individuals pay their fair share of tax. Two changes would send an important message that Britain wants entrepreneurs and investors here. First, altering the rules so non-doms do not have to pay inheritance tax (IHT) on all their worldwide assets. These are businesses or assets they built away from Britain and before they came here – not only is it excessive overreach, but it is the single most uncompetitive policy a government could implement in a modern highly fluid and global world. The Government should ensure that the value of non-UK assets accrued by non-doms before 2025 will not be included in future IHT assessments. Returning to the rules before this year that ensured these assets were not subject to tax is the crucial first step in winning back confidence in Britain. Second, the Government bodged a Budget measure it thought would attract non-domiciled people to stay - the temporary repatriation facility. This was supposed to enable them to bring all their worldwide capital into the UK at a preferential 12pc rate. The problem is that tax advisers are warning, understandably, that they fear the government will find a way to tax this capital at higher rates in the future – retrospectively. A simple amendment to the next Finance Bill could offer greater certainty and security, but without it, few foreign entrepreneurs will want to risk bringing their global assets into the UK. The real question is whether the UK wants to remain a hub for global capital and entrepreneurship, or whether it's prepared to watch that capital and the entire ecosystem that depends on it move elsewhere. If the Chancellor doesn't fix this issue fast, the question will not be 'how many are leaving?' but 'why would they ever return?'.
