“There were many people, I won’t say their names for now, who told her that if she didn’t confess to having taken the money she would remain in prison and wouldn’t see her daughter again. She still decided to tell the truth, that is, that she wasn’t corrupt “. Michalis Dimitrakopoulos, the lawyer of Eva Kaili, former vice-president of the European Parliament involved in the Belgian investigation into Qatargate in the context of alleged corruption cases between Qatar and EU parliamentarians, told Sky TG24. The lawyer began his speech on the Start program by thanking the “Italian press for shedding light on the truth in a difficult moment for Eva Kaili, when she could not see her daughter. I also thank the feminist associations who supported her”.
The lawyer responded to a question on a key fact of the investigation, namely the money found in Eva Kaili’s house: “When money is found in a house this money does not have a signature, you have to see where this money comes from So far the Belgian justice system has not given a clear and serious answer or clarified whether the money comes from Qatar or Morocco. From our data this money was not his, it belonged entirely, at least 95%, to Mr. Panzeri. This is proven from dialogues between Panzeri and Francesco Giorgi, Eva Kaili’s partner. She should not have been taken to prison”. But why was the money there and where did it come from? Why did Kaili ask her father to take them away? “The question is logical – replied the lawyer – but the data from the judiciary says why the money was there. I can’t say everything, but now we have new data provided by the justice system which says that she didn’t know about the money. The latter was preserved so that they could be given to Panzeri who would then in turn give them to political exponents”. According to the lawyer, “Kaili didn’t know the money was there. When the news spread, her father took it to hand it over to Panzeri. Only 150 thousand euros belonged to Francesco Giorgi and the reasons why he kept this amount are in the accusatory framework”.
“Investigating judge had to resign”
The lawyer concluded his speech by declaring that during the investigation “it was shown that the son of the investigating judge Michel Claise collaborates with the son of an important person involved in the affair, a Belgian MEP. The children of the two have a company together. He was obliged by law to resign immediately, but he didn’t. In other countries it would be a crime.”