It took years, revelations, and an entire judicial process to arrive at a strikingly simple answer. By decision of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Konstantinos Tzavellas, the investigation stops precisely at the point where it began to suggest something more.
The decision of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Konstantinos Tzavellas, the country’s highest-ranking prosecutorial official, ruled that what emerged from the wiretapping trial at the Athens Single-Member Misdemeanors Court is not sufficient to reopen the file and proceed to the next level of investigation. Even though the procedure had already produced new material, persons, relationships, indications, and key testimonies that the court itself considered worthy of further scrutiny.
The final prosecutorial judgment preferred that all these important elements remain where they already are, without becoming the starting point for anything further. Thus, a small mystery that had troubled the country for a long time was solved: who was spying on whom and why. The answer proved to be simple. So simple that one almost feels embarrassed not to have thought of it earlier.
Four people woke up one day and decided to monitor ministers, the Former Chief of the Hellenic National Defense General Staff Konstantinos Floros, politicians, journalists, and businesspeople. Without orders, without a plan, without support. Purely out of enthusiasm and love for technology.
Like some people take up photography or learn guitar, only in this case instead of chords they were “playing” with military-grade software worth tens of millions of euros. A cutting-edge software, which, according to its creator Tal Dilian, is sold to governments and security services. But apparently there is also a more relaxed version, like Photoshop Elements for beginners—a Predator Lite. You download it, press install, and start listening to ministers’ phones while drinking your morning coffee.
Because in Greece of 2026, four private individuals can acquire such tools, set up a surveillance network at NATO-level standards, select targets with precision that would make all the world’s state services envious, and operate for a long time without leaving behind anything that leads anywhere specific. Because, well, everyone has that one friend who “knows about these things.”
The SMS messages of the entrapment were enough to open an investigation, but not enough for it to continue in depth.
A story of self-organization, almost moving. Even if this group of amateurs was monitoring people who occupy positions touching the core of the state in critical infrastructure—people who in other countries and other times would trigger every available investigative mechanism. This remains a detail, and no detail should spoil a good story. Thus, Mr. Tzavellas ruled that the evidence is not sufficient to reopen the file and that what emerged does not change the picture.
What does the picture say? That all this was done by four people, a good idea, some cutting-edge technology, and plenty of free time. There is no center, no order, and of course no responsibility leading higher up. There is simply a group of people who took things a bit too far.
To pre-empt questions: citizens and journalists cannot judge a prosecutorial act that archives a case. That requires institutional seriousness, knowledge, and respect for Justice. Ministers, on the other hand, can appear daily on television and describe prosecutorial acts as “ridiculous” or “blackmail” when they concern other cases. That is considered freedom of speech.
It is a delicate system of balance. Justice is independent when it agrees with the government and problematic when it does not. The citizen shows respect when they remain silent, while the minister defends democracy when they speak. Now everything falls into place; the puzzle is complete.
There is an old Greek technique that is not taught in law schools, yet is applied with striking consistency. If a case cannot be solved, close it. If it cannot be convincingly closed, close it procedurally. There is no need for the truth to disappear, or even to be refuted. It is enough to describe it in such a way that it looks completely absurd. Then something more effective than any “cover-up” happens: no one can take the story seriously anymore.
