If a person, male or female, after a divorce is granted, goes to court claiming alimony by falsely stating to the court that he or she is not working and has no income, he or she faces up to three years in jail, a fine, and payment of restitution. In addition, he has to repay the amounts of alimony he illegally received in full.

Witnesses who make the same false claim, i.e. that the person demanding alimony has no income, will face similar penalties. According to the Supreme Court, if a divorcee states that he or she has no income to trick the court into awarding alimony, then he or she will be required to pay compensation for the moral damage caused, the amount of which will be determined by the courts.

In addition to these penalties, he will also face charges of fraud, an offence punishable by at least 3 months imprisonment and a fine, and perjury before a court, an offence which carries a prison sentence of 3 months to 3 years or a fine. It should be noted that under the new Criminal Code, part of the 3-year sentence is now served.

In the courts

In October 2005, a couple who were having a sexual relationship were married in a civil marriage. A month later they had a daughter, but a year after the marriage they divorced. Both parties filed lawsuits for custody and contact with the child, which were jointly adjudicated, and alimony for the ex-wife of €600 per month was awarded. The former couple then appealed against the first instance decision. She, to be awarded a higher amount of maintenance, stated in court:

“Even today I am still looking for work and sending resumes, but I cannot find one, because the market in A… is non-existent, and the market in Thessaloniki is very limited compared to Athens.”

Elsewhere in her testimony, she stressed: “… both I and our minor daughter are completely deprived of income and other resources (I do not work and there is no possibility to work, due to the age of the minor, but also because I cannot find a job commensurate with my qualifications”.

The ex-wife, in support of what she said, called her sister as a defense witness, who testified: “My sister is not working, she has no resources, she keeps sending resumes and looking for a job,” and at another point, she said: “My sister is still looking for a job, but she wants a job commensurate with her qualifications, not a job for 600 euros.”

Indeed, the claims that she is not working and cannot find a job were accepted by the court, which found that “she is entitled to maintenance since she is not working” and increased the amount of maintenance from 600 to 800 euros.

However, the ex-husband turned against his former partner and her sister by presenting evidence to the court that his daughter’s mother was working, despite her claims to the contrary. In particular, the ex-husband stated that “despite what she (the ex-wife) claimed that she was not working, she was providing services at the same time, first as a freelancer and then as an employee. According to her tax return for the year …, she declared income from salaried services of EUR 4,583.10 and freelance work of EUR 11,048.17.”

Unlawful acts

According to his claims, from the point in time when he proved that he was working “she was not entitled to alimony (for herself) and illegally received it”, as the court decisions awarding these amounts were issued due to the illegal acts of both his ex-wife and her sister.

Consequently, according to the ex-husband, for 17.5 months he illegally collected the total amount of 14,000 euros (17.5X800), damaging his property with this amount respectively. In addition, he claimed that the testimony of his child’s mother constituted perjury, since she “knowingly testified falsely by concealing the truth”, while at the same time, she committed the offence of fraud in court “to deceive him to obtain a pecuniary benefit against him”.

As for his ex-wife’s sister, he pointed out that she is a direct accomplice to her sister’s fraud, while also committing the offence of perjury in court.

The Court of Appeal rejected his allegations in part as vague, as he did not “state the exact financial situation of himself and his wife, nor did he provide information about the real and personal property that each of them may have had, as well as the exact amount of money that he was earning from his professional activity, to enable the court’s review and determination.”

Nevertheless, he ordered the two sisters to pay him “monetary compensation for non-material damage for 5,000 euros with statutory interest from the date of the filing of his action”. However, the A1 Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court took a different view from that of the Court of Appeal and reversed its judgment, referring the case back for a new trial critique involving judges other than those who heard the case the first time. The appellate judges awarded the two sisters 3,000 euros in court costs.