Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis has taken a big legal step against Irini Karipidis, owner of Greek club Aris, over claims she allegedly made online.
Marinakis is suing Karipidis for £2.1 million, alleging that she led a “smear campaign” targeting him with serious accusations, including being involved in crime and match-fixing.
Marinakis, who also owns Greek team Olympiacos, strongly denies these claims and is pressing forward with a libel suit in the High Court. According to his legal team, the accusations posted online last year were intended to damage his reputation, alleging activities like fraud, arson, and even drug trafficking, all of which Marinakis says are completely untrue.
In Thursday’s hearing, Marinakis’s lawyer, David Sherborne, argued that the claims were baseless and defamatory. He pointed out that the posts suggested Marinakis was deeply involved in criminal activities and hypocritical, particularly given his public stance on international issues like the 2022 Ukraine conflict.
The court learned that the allegations against Marinakis were published on a website named “nottinghamforestfire.co.uk” in three separate articles in November 2023. In addition, posts on an X account (formerly Twitter) and a YouTube channel in December 2023 circulated similar claims, which were later removed along with the website.
Adding to the intrigue, mobile billboards were reportedly seen around Nottingham Forest’s stadium during two match days, displaying these accusations. Sherborne said the intent was to make it look like a campaign driven by Forest fans, but claims it was a deliberate attempt to harm Marinakis’s reputation.
Amani Swiss Story
Besides Karipidis, Marinakis is also suing Amani Swiss (Cyprus) Limited, a company she leads, and Ari Harow, a former chief of staff to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with his firm Sheyaan Consulting Limited, for allegedly supporting this campaign.
Sherborne explained that Harow’s company helped shape the smear campaign with Karipidis, who he claims planned and financed the project. He further argued that the case should be heard in an English court, as much of the campaign allegedly targeted Marinakis’s activities in England.
Karipidis’s lawyer, Matthew Hodson, disagreed, suggesting that the English court wasn’t the right place for this case and called the allegations meritless. He argued that a US public relations firm named Harris Media created the campaign for Karipidis for $25,000 but noted that Harris Media isn’t part of this case.
Hodson added that the accusations against Marinakis relate to a soccer match between Olympiacos and Aris during the 2022-23 season. He claimed that Marinakis allegedly approached Karipidis’s brother, Theodoros, to fix the game in Olympiacos’s favor, but Theodoros refused, leading to tension between the families.
Advertisement
Latest Press Conference
We’re on Social Media
During that match, Marinakis was reportedly furious and allegedly threatened Theodoros if Olympiacos lost, a game that ended in a 2-2 draw. Since then, Karipidis’s side claims they have faced intimidation and even criminal damage as part of a supposed revenge campaign by Marinakis.
Karipidis’s legal team insists that Marinakis’s lawsuit is an attempt to intimidate her with massive financial demands. They argue that Marinakis’s claims of harm are exaggerated and intended as revenge for the outcome of the Aris-Olympiacos game.
Hodson also noted that Harow simply connected Karipidis with Harris Media and that Amani Swiss funded the campaign but didn’t actively participate. Harow’s lawyer, Ali Reza Sinai, suggested that his clients are not directly connected to the core of the dispute.
This case arrives during a tumultuous month for Marinakis, who also faces a separate five-match stadium ban following a heated encounter with match officials. Marinakis has attributed the incident to a cough brought on by cigar smoke, rejecting claims that he behaved disrespectfully.
The hearing continues, with both sides digging into a complex web of accusations and defenses. It remains to be seen how the High Court will address these serious accusations and counterclaims.
