Pizza Fan statements: Owner and alleged deputy chief present conflicting accounts of "topping"
The owner of Pizza Fan denied the characterisation of criminal organisation, whilst the alleged deputy chief stated that he had opposed the practice of "topping".
Tax fraud Pizza Fan: Conflicting statements before investigating magistrate
According to Dikastiko.gr, 13 defendants were summoned on the second day of the marathon of statements to give explanations before the investigating magistrate in the major tax fraud case involving Pizza Fan. Among them were the owner of the chain, who is described in the case file as the head of the organisation, and his close associate, who is characterised as deputy chief and his right-hand man.
The owner opened his statement by categorically denying the characterisation of criminal organisation. "I deny the charge. All the acts concern tax offences and in no case a criminal organisation," he stated. At the same time, he expressed his consent for the return of seized and confiscated money to immediately satisfy the state's tax claims, without awaiting a final court ruling.
Invocation of business scale
In order to counter the characterisation of criminal organisation, the owner invoked the extent of business activity. "It is unjust to characterise as a criminal organisation a group of people who have created a successful business, which provides work for more than 2,500 people, pays out annually 36 million in payroll, pays 15 million in VAT and taxes, whilst tens of millions go to suppliers," he argued.
Admission on "topping" — with transfer of responsibility
On the central issue of the illegal practice of "topping", the owner admitted that he knew shop operators were making illegal use of it. However, he argued that the central order centre allowed the company to monitor shop revenues, since the percentage it received depended on the amounts declared by each shop separately. In this way he essentially transferred responsibility for this specific practice to shop operators.
Different account from the alleged deputy chief
The statement of the alleged deputy chief followed, who presented a different account. He stated that he had knowledge of the "topping" process, but had openly opposed it. "I had some awareness of the topping process, I was opposed to it and I had stated that," he stated characteristically. This differentiation from the owner's position reflects a substantial divergence between the two central defendants as to the degree of their involvement.
Source: Dikastiko.gr