The trial of the legacy of George Trangas took place in Monaco last Thursday after a lawsuit was filed against Giannis Trangas in the Principality of Monaco by Maria Karras. The lawsuit was also partly against the Greek state, which is claiming its share of the Tranga inheritance, according to the journalist’s son, who had informed the auditing authorities to protect the country’s interests.

Essentially, the journalist’s widow was asking that the case of her late husband’s inheritance be transferred from the Greek courts to those in Monaco. The discussion of the lawsuit began at 15.30, as is customary in the courts of the principality and not in the morning as is the case in our country. The opponents in this inheritance case made their final oral arguments before the prosecutor and the president, while the Greek State was also present, represented by a Monaco lawyer hired for the case.

Lack of evidence

All the requests of George Trangas’ widow, such as the immediate issuance of a decision, the acceleration of the proceedings, the exclusion of Yannis Trangas so that there could be a unilateral acceptance of the inheritance by Maria Karras, as well as the appointment of a temporary executor were rejected by the Court of Monaco, for lack of sufficient evidence. The President and the Prosecutor pointed out that they could not understand why Mrs Karra had brought the case to the judicial authorities in Monaco.

The intervention of the Greek State in favour of Yiannis Tragas was a catalyst for this trial, supporting his positions, the main one being that there is neither jurisdiction nor subject matter jurisdiction of the Monaco courts in the case of the property of George Tragas.

The court gave Ms Karra a deadline to produce evidence which categorically establishes the jurisdiction and the substantive jurisdiction of the Monaco courts. After two and a half years, no solution was found because, as the side of the son Tranga claims, Maria Karra maintains an intransigent attitude, which she denies. After losing two trials at the Amarousiou Magistrate’s Court, Greece, which involved the temporary suspension of payments with inheritance money unilaterally by the co-executor of the will, Ivo Ottavio Franceschon, her next move was to take the dispute to Monaco.

She therefore appealed to the courts of the Principality, seeking to be recognized as heir under the Law of Monaco, without the consent and signature of her son Tranga. Although her late husband had chosen Greek law in his will, in the lawsuit she filed against John Trangas on 4 April she asked for unilateral acceptance of her inheritance. She also asked the court to appoint Franchescona or another person chosen by the Court of First Instance of Monaco as co-executor of the will.

And she accused her late husband’s son at two hearings of blocking the inheritance by the moves he has made, refusing to accept it as well as the specific payments that must be made at regular intervals.

The hearings

It was June 27 when Yannis Trangas, with counsel Nikos Agapinos and Geraldine Gazzo of Monaco, presented their legal arguments against the lawsuit filed by Ms Karra. The latter refuted them on 4 July and a week later, last Thursday, the hearing between the two parties took place at the Court of First Instance of Monaco.

The lawyers for the two sides orally developed their positions before the prosecutor and the president in the courtroom of the Court of First Instance, with Maria Karra absent. Present along with his lawyer Nikos Agapinos was Yannis Trangas, whom his father’s widow accused that because she did not sign the acceptance of inheritance she did not know the exact details of the property.

The above was categorically denied by Trangas side, which over the past two years has discovered properties in America and Europe that Ms Karra’s side denied existed. And it was this refusal by George Trangas’ widow to include in the inheritance the properties in the US (in Washington, Miami and Las Vegas, in which Maria Karra even proved through published documents that she sold) that forced his son to clash head-on with her.

Yannis Trangas’ side presented all the evidence for why the succession case should not be transferred from Greece to Monaco, while the Greek State also filed a multi-page intervention in favor of this position.

The intervention

In it, it points out that the Greek state has a fundamental interest as a creditor of the estate and the lawyer it hired supported all of Yannis Trangas’ positions. The intervention also stressed that Greece was the deceased’s usual place of residence, although he had declared himself a tax resident of Monaco in recent years.

As pointed out in this document of the Greek State, the residence permit of George Trangas in Monaco cannot be valid in the present case, due to the abundance of evidence in his file confirming that the deceased had his actual residence in Greece.

It should be noted that the Hellenic Tax Authority, in cooperation with the Greek Diplomatic Authority in France and the Greek State, immediately sought a lawyer to represent the Greek Tax Administration and defend its legal interests in the Monaco trial.

As people familiar with the case point out, the competent authorities will continue to closely monitor the development of the case and the appointment of a temporary administrator for the preparation of a list of assets and liabilities of the estate in order to ensure the satisfaction of their claims.

What lawyers Karra-Traga say

Maria Karra’s lawyer, Georgia Kouvela, responded to the newspaper’s report by claiming that her client does not want to be the sole heir although in her lawsuit she reportedly asks the court “to authorize Maria Karra widow Tranga to sign the notarized document accepting the inheritance alone, without the intervention of Yannis Tranga.”
As for the appointment of a temporary administrator, he allegedly asked for Ivo Ottavio Franceschon or another while claiming that at no time did the president and the prosecutor express concern that they could not understand the jurisdiction of the Monaco courts.
As far as the Greek State is concerned when Mrs Karra who is being investigated for tax offences in Greece files a lawsuit in Monaco and not in Greece for the inheritance of her late husband, this according to Yannis Trangas’ side says a lot.

In closing, Maria Karra’s lawyer insists that her client’s claims were not rejected, something with which Yannis Trangas’ lawyer, Nikos Agapinos, strongly disagrees.

“With regard to Ms Karra’s requests in her lawsuit,” the lawyer stresses, “Ms Karra was requesting, and indeed with a procedure that she herself described as extremely urgent, that a third party be appointed as administrator, in derogation of the will of Georgios Trangas, who had appointed the two co-executors to act jointly.”
It then refers to the involvement of the Swiss co-trustee in Maria Karra’s lawsuit, pointing out that “In this application and in Ms. Karra’s lawsuit as a whole, Mr. Ivo Franchescona, who is involved in Greece in felony lawsuits filed by Ioannis Trangas, made an additional intervention in her favour and his removal as co-trustee is sought at the Maroussi Peasants’ Court.”

With regard to the involvement of the Greek State, it made an additional intervention in this case, both in writing and orally, by appointing a proxy attorney who intervened in this proceeding, and in which it requests, fully aligning itself with the positions of Ioannis Trangas, that the case should be decided outside the jurisdiction of the courts of Monaco and supports its legitimate interest as a creditor of the estate.

Finally, regarding the court’s decision, the President of the Court expressly expressed that she could not understand why the case took place in Monaco since the whole procedure has been conducted in Greece so far and the prosecutor took a decisive position in favour of the dismissal of the relevant claim and the court reserved its decision by setting a deadline for Ms Karra to produce documents, stating that it would reconsider the issue as at present and with the information available to it which was deemed insufficient to hear the case, the position was that the court would not be able to decide the case.

It is understood that Ms. Karra’s requests for an immediate decision and success of her claim were not granted.