The Trajectory of Democracy: Why Hungary Matters

The Trajectory of Democracy: Why Hungary Matters 

The hearing begins at 40:41


The Helsinki Commission heard the testimonies from three different panels regarding the growing concern on the rise of tyranny in Hungary on Tuesday, March 19, 2013.

The most relative testimony to the Hagyó Case comes from Constitutional Law expert, and former Hungarian resident, Kim Lane Scheppel. Her speech begins at 1:49:00.


Source: http://thehagyocase.wordpress.com/

The 4th Amendment (Un)officially Strips Hungary of Democracy

“We are people too!” People protest the 4th amendment outside of Parliament in Budapest on March 11, 2013.

Hungary has again made international headlines. As in the recent past, it is because of the political antics of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz cronies, who wield a super-majority presence in the legislative body, Parliament.





Mainstream international media powerhouses like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Al Jazeera, Spiegel, and BBC all reported on the newest amendment to the 14-month-old constitution.

Former CEO of BKV Is In The Hot Seat

On March 5th, the Kecskemét Tribunal in Hungary saw the continuation of the trial of the Miklós Hagyó and 14 other defendants associated with the Budapest Transit Company (BKV).




The hearing was fairly mundane – not much fresh information was presented.

The most interesting occurrence, though, involved Mr. István Kocsis. He was promoted to CEO of the transit company immediately following Zsolt Balogh’s time in the high seat. Kocsis therefore was responsible for transferring the demanded BKV-related data to the investigation authorities. Included in the submitted material was an internal audit of BKV’s operations. According to Erzsébet Székelyné, the current director of communications at BKV, the audit ordered by Kocsis was hastily created. She stated in court during the March 5th hearing that because of the imposed sense of urgency around the audits, they were not “substantial.”

Justice or No Justice: The Prosecution Manipulates the Indictment, Again

image source: http://madubesbrainpot.wordpress.com

The trial of Miklós Hagyó and 14 other defendants continued in Kecskemét, Hungary on February 28th. During the hearing, the court witnessed another alteration to the indictment. This time, the changes were made to the alleged financial damage accumulated to the Budapest Transit Company (BKV). Unfortunately, the article from which I get this information does not detail the modifications. I would not be surprised if the prosecution and/or the Kecskemét Tribunal obstructs this information from the public.

The prosecution has already changed the charges in the indictment many times. In fact, defendants and followers of the case have dubbed the indictment the “political pamphlet.” This, no doubt, refers to the widely held belief that the case is show trial – a highly publicized trial in which the verdict is rigged. One cannot help but sympathize.

Out of curiosity, I briefly researched the possibility to change the original charges of an indictment in two other judicial systems which are usually considered “fair” and objective.

According to the Department of Justice’s website, it is generally forbidden to alter the original indictment charges in the United States. For example, the 1962 case of Russell v. United States yielded the opinion that if the original charges were changed or amended, then the defendant(s) “could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury which indicted him.”

In England, the Crown Prosecution Service’s website states that amending the indictment requires “an express order of the court to comply with s5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915.” Otherwise, the amendment is null.

Judicial law permits the alteration of original indictment charges in Hungary. I fail to see, though, how that supports a fair trial. If the prosecution can amend or draft new charges throughout the trial, why even bother to create an indictment in the first place?


Source: http://thehagyocase.wordpress.com/

Hagyó, the AAM Contract, and the Holey Accusations from the Prosecution

Hagyó, the AAM Contract, and the Holey Accusations from the Prosecution

The Budapest Metro Line 4 (Metro4) has for many years been a major project for the Budapest Transit Authority (BKV). Once finished, it will be the first fully automated metro line in Hungary. Totaling more than 12 kilometers (7.5 miles), it will pass from south Buda under the Danube River and continue deep into Pest. The project has been notorious, however, for its continuity. Critics of the project have considered its progress slow and its management incompetent; tell-tale signs of government corruption. Those in charge of the project say that a lack of resources and manpower are the true hindrances.

Miklós Hagyó is quite familiar with the project. From 2006 to 2010 he served as deputy mayor of Budapest, and in that capacity he was responsible for the political oversight of the city’s assets. In the trial of Hagyó and the other 14 associates of BKV, the prosecution claims that Hagyó “instructed” then chief executive of BKV Attila Antal to strike up a business agreement with the Hungarian consulting firm AAM, who has a strong public sector track record. The alleged purpose of the arrangement was the creation of an assessment report on Metro4. It intended to ascertain the quality and progress of the project’s “management, the administration, as well as quality assurance activities.” The prosecutors assert that Hagyó was required to present the report to the City Council’s Budget Committee.

At this point, everything seems fairly normal. As usual with the Hagyó Case, though, the abnormalities appear when one analyzes the prosecution’s accusations and methodology.  Regarding the contract with AAM, the prosecution claims in the indictment on page 17 section 21 the services provided by AAM were “unnecessary,” and they caused BKV financial damages totaling 50,093,400 forints (nearly 230,000.00 USD at the time of writing).

Here arises the first question: By what means has the prosecution determined this contract to be unnecessary? There are most certainly no explanations provided in the original indictment. Neither has the prosecution explained thus far in the trial how this contract and the related work were unnecessary.  Besides that simple question, the major refute to this assertion is that the prosecution admittedly neglected to seek consultation from any organization or individual who could be capable of accurately determining the necessity of the AAM contract.

On the other hand, Miklós Hagyó did provide ample evidence for the worthiness of the contract during his first in-court testimony. Perhaps most significantly, though, Hagyó indicated that while he scoured through tens of thousands of pages of collected evidence related to the AAM contract, he failed to find the actual Metro4 assessment report…Let me repeat that: The prosecution did not provide the assessment report of the Metro4 project in the case file. Mind you, this accusation that Hagyó “instructed” his subordinate to create a needless contract with AAM from which he could extort a significant sum of money was one of the most significant reasons Hagyó was forced to endure nine months of hard jail time prior to the trial. The AAM accusation was one of the biggest indicators that Hagyó was an Al Capone-like figure, dictating his less capable minions to do his dirty deeds. Indeed, this questionably “unnecessary” contract which Hagyó allegedly “instructed” his subordinate to create is a major catalyst for the entire trial.  And the prosecution did not even include the report, the primary evidence, in the case file.

Other parts of Hagyó’s testimony strongly support the necessity of the AAM contract. For example, he included several quotes from then City Council members who reviewed the report produced by AAM. Here are a few excerpts:

“It is a very fair, well-prepared report. It also shows that we got a lot of information.”

– Former Minister of Transport Katona Kálmán

“We can thank both the referring Deputy Mayor [Miklós Hagyó] and László Becker [Metro4 Commissioner] that this material was prepared…”

- Dr. Gábor Dancs

There are more which attested to the necessity and value of the assessment report from AAM.  They are available in this section of Hagyó’s testimony. He also systematically explains how he was not directly involved with the Metro4 project or AAM. According to him, the Metro Commissioner László Becker held the reigns for the project’s development.  Hagyó claimed that he was merely the political representative of the project for the City Council.

Despite, these shortcomings in the validity of the prosecution’s case against Hagyó, the trial persists. When I inquire to those who follow the case how this is possible – how a trial can subsist when an overwhelming amount of evidence supports innocence of the defendants – the Hungarians just shrug their shoulders. “It’s Hungary. It’s normal,” is a typical response.

Please visit http://www.hagyomiklos.com to view the original indictment and the testimony of Miklós Hagyó.

Source: http://thehagyocase.wordpress.com/

BKV case: the prosecution quipped to the Népszava

BKV case: the prosecution quipped to the Népszava

The prosecution disapproved the latest report of the Népszava on the Thursday’s hearing of the Hagyó case on the Kecskemét Tribune. We wrote that on the hearing of the former BKV leader who gave opinions about the contracts what were signed at the time of the main defendant of the case, Hagyó Miklós (former deputy lord mayor), it turned out that the witness of the prosecution agreed her testimony with the present leader of communication at the BKV.

We also reported that the prosecution made the witness to give back the glucose (candy) what she got from Hagyó Miklós, because according to the prosecution it can be suitable to have the “sympathy pique” of the witness.

According to the prosecution the published article which came out during the break of the hearing could influence the witness with the comments of our article what they criticized and the similar phenomenon’s can effect in the future that the witnesses will pick their words. However the defendants – from them occasionally Hagyó – continually communicate, they socialize/touch with the reporters who are in the hearing, the prosecution thinks that behind the writing which can influence the witnesses is „Hagyó’s impact”.

Kádár András, the lawyer of Hagyó Miklós on the hearing indicated that he feels a twin standard in the observation of the prosecution. „They labeled my protégée as the number one public enemy, they outraged him in the nation media, but in that time they didn’t take the stand” – drafted the lawyer.

Kádár also remembered, that the character of the Népszava report, whom the prosecution disapproved of, the BKV leader who was heard as a witness wanted to be in the media herself, because she signaled in the crossfire of the cameras and of the photographers that they can make pictures and sound recording of her and she allows the usage of the records. 

The BKV case after the interact, continued with the hearing of the witnesses about what henceforward we will report – without bias, according to the letters of the records what is available on the internet (www.hagyomiklos.com). 

On Thursday’s hearing on the court they heard 3 leaders of companies what were signed for BKV’s PR communication tasks. According to the indictment the contracts were unneeded and unsubstantiated. After the Népszava, the prosecution had to hang up in their witnesses too, because according to them the BKV was unable to do it by itself, as the indictment said.

Népszava-information

Source: http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=629894

BKV case: the witness of the prosecution let something slip

BKV case: the witness of the prosecution let something slip

On the hearing of Dezslik Magdolna (who was the head of the department where they made opinions about the contracts of the Hagyó period) it turned out that the witness of the prosecution agreed her testimony with the present communication leader at the transportation company. The writer of the corroborator of the experts’ opinions of the accusations at the time of the direction of Kocsis István admits that she didn’t have experience or diploma for the contract’s audit. Hagyó gave her a candy on the hearing what the prosecution disapproved.

„Yesterday I talked on the phone with the director of the social connections at the BKV. I don’t know if it’s a problem” – said Dezslik Magdolna as an answer for the question of the prosecutor, who is a witness of the prosecution, and the former leader of the public relations at the BKV  on the hearing of the Hagyó case on the Kecskemét Tribune. As we already reported the mentioned Székelyné Pásztor Erzsébet the present leader of the communication was heard in the court, also as a witness on Tuesday. For the question of her defenders Dezslik first answered that they had a „psychic talk” with her former boss, but later she admitted that they were talking about their paradox statements against Hagyó and his fellows.

(Picture: www.thesecret.hu)

Dezslik Magdolna was engaged to the BKV by Kocsis István and she audited the contracts from the Hagyó period with him, from what later the accusations became which is the basis of the case. From most of the contracts since the beginning of the case it turned out that they existed before Hagyó and his fellows and it still exists.

On the hearing Dezslik Magdolna also admitted that she gave „expert opinions” for the accusations what Kocsis did about the BKV contracts that she didn’t have a professional qualification. „I didn’t have a diploma, I’m not an expert, I couldn’t give an expert opinion” –drafted the witness. About her carrier before the preparation of the BKV accusations she told that she was working at women’s magazines but it was boring professionally that’s why she registered at the assistant of Kocsis for the BKV. At the transportation company Dezslik earned 960 thousand forints per month and after helping the preparations of the accusations she left the company.

On the break of the hearing of Thursday Hagyó Miklós gave a candy to the witness what the prosecution observed that it can be suitable to have the sympathy pique of the witness. Dezslik Magdolna gave back the candy to Hagyó, and Hadnagy Ibolya asked the prosecution that doesn’t get away from the point.

NÉPSZAVA-information

Source: http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=627986

Original:

BKV-per: Elszólta magát a vád tanúja

Címkék: kecskemét hagyó miklós bkv per | Szerző: Hagyó Dosszié | 4:30 pm

Dezslik Magdolna, a Hagyó-éra szerződéseit véleményező BKV-főosztályvezető kihallgatásán kiderült, hogy a vád tanúja egyeztette vallomását a közlekedési cég mostani kommunikációs vezetőjével. A Kocsis István irányítása idején tett feljelentéseket alátámasztó szakvélemények írója elismerte, hogy sem releváns tapasztalattal, sem diplomával nem rendelkezett, amikor a szerződéseket vizsgálta. Hagyó cukorkát adott neki a tárgyaláson, amit az ügyészség kifogásolt.

"Tegnap telefonon beszéltem a BKV társasági kapcsolatok igazgatójával. Nem tudom, hogy baj-e" - mondta ügyészi kérdésre adott válaszában Dezslik Magdolna, a vád tanúja, a BKV korábbi közkapcsolati főosztályvezetője a Hagyó-per tárgyalásán, a Kecskeméti Törvényszéken. Mint arról beszámoltunk, az említett Székelyné Pásztor Erzsébetet, a cég jelenlegi kommunikációs vezetőjét kedden szintén tanúként hallgatta meg a bíróság. Védői kérdésre válaszolva Dezslik először azt mondta, hogy csak "lelkiztek" volt főnökével, később azonban elismerte, hogy Hagyóékra nézve terhelő vallomásaik közti ellentmondásról beszéltek.

(Fotó: www.thesecret.hu) 

Dezslik Magdolnát a BKV-hoz Kocsis István vette fel, és vele vizsgáltatta át a Hagyó-éra azon szerződéseit, amelyekből később az ügy alapját képező feljelentések születtek. A szerződések közül többről a per kezdete óta már kiderült, hogy azok Hagyóék előtt és után is éltek és élnek.

A tárgyaláson Dezslik Magdolna azt is elismerte, úgy adott "szakmai véleményt" Kocsis feljelentéseihez a BKV-s szerződésekről, hogy szakirányú végzettséggel nem rendelkezett. "Nem volt diplomám, nem vagyok szakértő, nem tudtam szakvéleményt adni" - fogalmazott a tanú. A BKV-s feljelentések előkészítése előtti pályafutásáról elmondta, hogy női magazinoknál dolgozott, de az unalmas volt szakmailag, ezért jelentkezett be Kocsis titkárnőjénél a BKV-hoz. A közlekedési cégnél Dezslik havi 960 ezer forintot keresett, és a feljelentések előkészítésének segítése után nem sokkal távozott is a cégtől.

A csütörtöki tárgyalás szünetében Hagyó Miklós egy szem cukorkát adott a tanúnak, mire az ügyészség észrevételezte, hogy ez alkalmas lehet a tanú szimpátiájának felkeltésére. Dezslik Magdolna a cukrot visszaadta Hagyónak, Hadnagy Ibolya bírónő pedig arra kérte az ügyészséget, hogy ne térjen el a tárgytól.

NÉPSZAVA-információ /

BKV case: The defendants shout Kocsis

BKV case: The defendants shout Kocsis

Székelyné Pásztor Erzsébet had to answer for embarrassing questions (who is the present responsible director of the social communications) on the yesterday hearing of the Hagyó case on the Kecskemét Tribune. The defendants with the questions what they asked from their former colleague they unambiguously tried to prove that in the background of the expedition/campaign which is against them it’s Kocsis István the former CEO of the BKV.

Székelyné admitted that for the inside audits/inquires which established the accusations of Kocsis they had little available time and in more case the audit/inquiry could not be substantial. She mentioned as an example that they had dismissed audit results in a case in which – although they couldn’t find entire documentation – on the internet it can be still found the typographical turnouts which proves the compliance of the contract.

As it known the height of the BKV scandal was the accusations from Kocsis István and the investigation process which was the consequence from that. Székelyné admitted that Kocsis István before proposed a leader position and they already worked together before in the nuclear power station of Paks. During the investigation Székelyné made incriminatory testimonies against the more of the defendants. Now she admitted that the transportation company did and does the communication tasks what the prosecution consider as crime in the case of Hagyó and his fellows. For answering the questions she said that up to this day they vend BKV (and BKK) souvenirs what return profits for the public transportation company. She firmed that under her leadership they sponsored sport and culture and they signed contracts with the same companies in several cases as the defendants before. 

Székelyné firmed the thereon standpoint of the defendants in the questions which is connected to the Well Ltd. (and which is a basically influential accusation) that the campaign of the Combino and the other assignments weren’t unneeded. She stated that there were only form mistakes in the documentation, by this time she didn’t talk about the suspicion of malfeasance. Moreover, she so firmed that she also extended contracts with the Well Ltd. but she doesn’t remember for 2,5 or 5 million net/month. The defendants in the break of the hearing talked about that they don’t think it is a coincidence that Székelyné since the departure of Kocsis from the BKV „she forgot a lot and now she is in the same professional opinion with the defendants”.

(Source: bkvfigyelo.postr.hu)

According to them Székelyné in the time of the expels and accusations she was acting on as the trust person of the former CEO and with her testimonies and statements she acted on the expectations from Kocsis, but now she doesn’t have that strong defense. The responsible director of the social communications didn’t deny that in that time she followed all the orders from her former boss.

The dice has turned

The prosecution accused Kocsis István the former CEO of the MVM (Hungarian Electricity Ltd.) and his 5 associates with 15 billion forint misappropriation which caused asset/property disadvantage. Their trial started yesterday on the Kaposvár Tribunal, reported the kapos.hu. According to the accusation Kocsis and his associates pumped the money of the Electricity through foreign companies. The prosecutor said as an example that they paid 44 million forint for an Austrian company for a 3 page long presentation, in where they presented a Novi Sad and an Albanian thermal power station. Kocsis denied the accusations, according to him at the time of his running the Hungarian Electricity Ltd. was successful and if they didn’t dismiss him in 2010 and if they didn’t stop the investments what are in the accusations it would have bring profit.

NÉPSZAVA - information

Source: http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=627460

BKV defendants: Kocsis can be in the background

BKV defendants: Kocsis can be in the background

The defendants of the BKV case asked questions to the present leader of the communication at the transportation company about Kocsis István, the former CEO of the BKV.  From the answers of Székelyné Pásztor Erzsébet who has an old work relationship with Kocsis it turned out that the inside audits/inquires which established the accusations were frivolous, and at the time of Hagyó and his fellows the communication of the BKV wasn’t unneeded what the indictment states.

Székelyné Pásztor Erzsébet had to answer for embarrassing questions (who is the present responsible director of the social communications) on the Tuesday’s hearing of the Hagyó case on the Kecskemét Tribune. The defendants with the questions what they asked from their former colleague they unambiguously tried to prove that in the background of the expedition/campaign which is against them it’s Kocsis István the former CEO of the BKV. Székelyné for answering the questions she admitted that for the inside audits/inquires which established the accusations of Kocsis they had little available time and in more case the audit/inquiry could not be substantial. She mentioned as an example that they had dismissed audit results in a case in which – although they couldn’t find the entire documentation in the record-office of the BKV– on the internet it can be still found the typographical turnouts which proves the compliance of the contract.

As it known the height of the BKV scandal was the accusations from Kocsis István and the investigation process which was the consequence of that. Székelyné admitted that Kocsis István proposed a leader position when she joined the BKV and they already worked together before in the nuclear power station of Paks. During the investigation Székelyné made incriminatory testimonies against the more of the defendants. Now she admitted that the transportation company did and does the communication tasks what the prosecution consider as crime in the case of Hagyó and his fellows. For answering the questions she said that up to this day they vend BKV (and BKK) souvenirs what return profits for the public transportation company. She firmed that under her leadership they sponsored sport and culture and they signed contracts with the same companies in several cases as the defendants before.  

Székelyné firmed the thereon standpoint of the defendants in the questions which is connected to the Well Ltd. (and which is a basically influential accusation) that the campaign of the Combino and the other assignments weren’t unneeded. Székelyné stated in the concerned contract that there were only form mistakes in the documentation, by this time she didn’t talk about the suspicion of malfeasance. Moreover, she also firmed that she also extended contracts with the Well Ltd. but she doesn’t remember for 2,5 or 5 million net/month. The defendants in the break of the hearing talked about that they don’t think it is a coincidence that Székelyné since the departure of Kocsis from the BKV „she forgot a lot and now she is in the same professional opinion with the defendants”. According to them Székelyné in the time of the expels and accusations she was acting on as the trust person of Kocsis and with her testimonies and statements she acted on the expectations from Kocsis, but now she doesn’t have that strong defense. The responsible director of the social communications didn’t deny that in that time she followed all the orders from her former boss.

NÉPSZAVA - information

Source: http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=627476

BKV case: they revised the indictment again

BKV case: they revised the indictment again

The defendants responded for the again revised indictment on the Thursday’s hearing of the Hagyó case on the Kecskemét Tribune. The prosecution several times revised the indictment which is already stands in weak legs, what Hagyó and his fellows during the investigation named it as „political pamphlet”. At this time they made the indictment softer in several places and now they are not writing about „orders” for unneeded contracts, now they are writing about „requests”. 

In the indictment the amount of the damage – not at first during the process – changed again and similarly with the before ones, the prosecution had problems with the math again. More of the defendant and their lawyers said that the part amount of a few contract does not bring out the whole amount of the damage. Because of this they proposed that the prosecution present itemized that with amount they charge with which defendant.

(Source: taneszkozok.hu)

Z. Tibor defendant also said that in a big case like this the prosecution’s scuttlebutt place phrases in the indictment. With this he referred that in the „soft” indictment there is unusual shady/cloudy statement which says „they had to complete a request from an unknown leader of Budapest”. ” I never thought that in a strange story like this I will be the goldfish” – added Z. Tibor.

With the neediness of the communication contracts the defendants brought up the testimony of Bolla Tibor, who is the present CEO of BKV, when he said that for communication and marketing the transportation company still spends money. However the prosecution in the revised indictment states that the BKV has no concurrency, L. Otto defendant in his observation listed 11 path/line and alternative solution in the case of if „he has to go to the honored investigation prosecution” from his home.

On the Thursday’s hearing they heard the leader of the communication, Székelyné Dr. Pásztor Erzsébet, who is in this position at the BKV up to this day. Székelyné changed her testimony what she said years before with not remembering that she would have notice any signs for malfeasance with the defendants. She only alluded to the reason of the loosing of the trust is just that Kocsis István prosecuted in the case of the BKV contracts. From that matter Kocsis after his nomination as the CEO of the BKV proposed a leader position to Székelyné who now confirmed the standpoint of the defendants, which said that the BKV needed and still needs for communication and that the company is not monopoly in the field of the transportation of Budapest. She remembered for Z. Tibor defendant, her former employee as a scrupulous/conscientious labour/manpower.

NÉPSZAVA - information

Source: http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=626102

Original:

BKV-per: ismét módosították a vádiratot

Címkék: marketing kecskemét hagyó miklós lelovics ottó bkv per | Szerző: Hagyó Dosszié | 5:20 pm

A vádirat újabb módosítására reagáltak a vádlottak a Hagyó-per csütörtöki tárgyalásán, a Kecskeméti Törvényszéken. Az ügyészség már többször hozzányúlt a gyenge lábakon álló vádhoz, amit az eljárás során Hagyóék "politikai pamfletnek" neveztek. Ezúttal több helyen puhították az irományt, és már nem szükségtelen szerződéskötésre adott "utasításokról", hanem "kívánságokról" írnak.

A vádiratban a károkozás összege - nem először az eljárás során - ismét változott, és a korábbiakhoz hasonlóan az ügyészségnek ismét meggyűlt a baja a matematikával. Több vádlott és védő jelezte, hogy az egyes szerződések részösszegei nem adják ki a teljes kár összegét. Emiatt indítványozták, hogy az ügyészség tételesen mutassa be, pontosan mekkora összegű károkozással vádolja az egyes vádlottakat.

(Forrás: taneszkozok.hu)

Z. Tibor vádlott azt is szóvá tette, hogy egy ilyen súlyú ügyben az ügyészség mendemondai kitételeket helyez el a vádiratban. Ezzel arra utalt, hogy a puhított vádiratban szerepel olyan szokatlanul homályos állítás, amely szerint "egy ismeretlenül maradt fővárosi vezető kívánságát kellett teljesíteni". "Sosem hittem, hogy egy ilyen különös történetben én leszek az aranyhal" - tette hozzá Z. Tibor.

A kommunikációs szerződések szükségességével kapcsolatban a vádlottak felidézték Bolla Tibor, jelenlegi BKV-vezér vallomását, amely szerint marketingre és kommunikációra ma is költ a közlekedési cég. Bár az ügyészség a módosított vádiratban is azt állítja, hogy a BKV-nak nincs konkurenciája, L. Ottó vádlott tizenegy útvonalat és alternatív megoldást sorolt fel észrevételében arra az esetre, ha otthonából "be kellene fáradnia a tisztelt nyomozó ügyészségre".

A csütörtöki tárgyaláson tanúként meghallgatták a BKV mai napig a posztján lévő kommunikációs vezetőjét, Székelyné Dr. Pásztor Erzsébetet. Székelyné évekkel ezelőtt tett vallomását némileg megváltoztatva már nem emlékezett arra, hogy észlelt volna visszaélésre utaló jeleket a vádlottakkal kapcsolatban. A velük szemben tanúsított bizalomvesztése indokaként csupán arra hivatkozott, hogy Kocsis István feljelentéseket tett a BKV-s szerződések ügyében. Kocsis egyébként vezérigazgatói kinevezése után vezetői állást ajánlott Székelynének, aki most megerősítette a védelem álláspontját, amely szerint kommunikációra szüksége volt és van a BKV-nak, és nincs a cég monopolhelyzetben a budapesti közlekedés területén. Z. Tibor vádlottra, korábbi beosztottjára lelkiismeretes, terhelhető munkaerőként emlékszik.

NÉPSZAVA-információ /

BKV case: the prosecution „freely handled” the documents

BKV case: the prosecution „freely handled” the documents

The prosecution kept back one testimony and changed another testimony in the documents of the BKV trial – turned out in the Tuesday’s hearing of the Hagyó trial in the Kecskemét Tribunal. The prosecution in the hearing – for the previous call from the court – attached 2, previously kept back documents. The records contain the investigation testimony of the former press person of Hagyó from the 3rd and 9th of February, 2010.

Around the 2 records the lawyers and the defendants attracted the attention for several anomalies. For the defense from these documents now it turned out that the record what the prosecution handed in now didn’t match with the copy.

In the case of the record what they made in the 9th of February, 2010 the prosecution simply kept back the document. Now, for the defense’s ask they handed in to the court, but in the review of the document they just „skipped it”. According to Kádár András, the lawyer of Hagyó from the interesting of the documents „several concludes can be made” and they will do it later.

Hagyó Miklós also thought it’s weird that although the Main Prosecution only started to refer to the range of the Central Investigation Main Prosecution from the 20th of May, 2010, the KNYF (Central Investigation Main Prosecution) already gave effect to investigation action earlier, on the 3rd of February. According to Hagyó’s opinion it’s surprising that the prosecution wanted to get in the case and– according to the statement of Hagyó’s former press person – ask for an incriminatory testimony with arm-twisting, on the day when the policemen already questioned the press person and who disinclined to accuse others wrong. According to Hagyó the paradox around the records suggest the suspicion of the forgery of the notaries document, „and this is strictly punished by the Penal Code.”

(Source: helyitema.hu)

On the Tuesday’s hearing the first hearing of a witness started. The summoned witness was Bolla Tibor, the present CEO of the BKV. The lawyers and the prosecutors bombed the leader of the Transport Company for hours with their questions. In every question Bolla verified and supported his predecessors, the defenses from the present defendants.

For answering of the prosecution’s questions Bolla said that the contract signing are often happens in a basis of the trust up to this day, and he is asked with favors in a form of recommendation. According to his testimony, he is working with these similarly to Antal Attila (his predecessor), he informs the leaders of the given professionals. For the question from the lawyers he reported that personally he doesn’t check every signed contract, for this – similarly to Antal Attila – he would have no chance.

Bolla with his answers one after the other denial the indictment’s statements (according to the defendants they think it’s unprofessional too). He firmed that the BKV sets kid’s days today too and other marketing events, they spend for communication and – in opposite with the statements of the prosecution – the company is not in monopoly status in the scope of the transportation of Budaoest. However Hagyó and his fellows were accused with several set up for events – tram with lights, Santa Claus, gift makings, etc. – according to Bolla, these are - up to this day - a part of the working of the company.

                                                                                                                                      népszava.hu

Source: http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=625402

Original:

BKV-per: "szabadon kezelte" az ügyészség az iratokat

Címkék: marketing hagyó miklós ügyészség bkv per Bolla Tibor | Szerző: Hagyó Dosszié | 4:07 pm

Egy vallomást visszatartott, egyet pedig megváltoztatott az ügyészség a BKV-per iratai közül - derült ki a Hagyó-per keddi tárgyalásán, a Kecskeméti Törvényszéken. A vád a tárgyaláson - a védelem és a bíróság korábbi felhívására - becsatolt két, korábban visszatartott jegyzőkönyvet. A jegyzőkönyvek Hagyó egykori sajtósának, a nyomozati vallomásait tartalmazzák 2010. február harmadik és kilencedik napjáról.

A két jegyzőkönyv körül több anomáliára hívták fel a figyelmet a védők és a vádlottak. A védelem számára rendelkezésre álló iratokból kiderült, hogy az ügyészség által most benyújtott, eredetinek nevezett jegyzőkönyv tartalma nem egyezik annak állítólagos fénymásolatával.

A 2010. február 9-én kelt jegyzőkönyv esetében pedig az ügyészség egyszerűen visszatartotta a dokumentumot. Most, a védelem kérésére átadták a bíróságnak, de az iratismertetéskor a nyomozás anyagából "kihagyták". Kádár András, Hagyó védője szerint a dokumentumok körüli érdekességekből "több következtetés is levonható", és ezt később meg is fogják tenni.

Hagyó Miklós azt is furcsállta, hogy bár 2010. május 20-tól utalta a Legfőbb Ügyészség az ügyet a Központi Nyomozó Főügyészség hatáskörébe, a KNYF már korábban, február 3-án is foganatosított nyomozati cselekményt. Hagyó véleménye szerint meglepő, hogy az ügyészségnek aznap jut eszébe beszállni az ügybe, és - Hagyó egykori sajtósának állítása szerint - terhelő vallomást kérni nyomásgyakorlással, amelyik napon a rendőrök már kihallgatták a sajtóst, aki nem volt hajlandó alaptalanul vádolni másokat. Hagyó szerint a jegyzőkönyvek körüli ellentmondások felvetik a közokirat hamisítás gyanúját, "ezt pedig a Büntető Törvénykönyv szigorúan büntetni rendeli".

(Forrás: helyitema.hu)

A keddi tárgyaláson sor került az első tanúkihallgatásra is. Az idézett tanú Bolla Tibor, a BKV jelenlegi vezérigazgatója válaszolt. A közlekedési cég vezérét órákon át bombázták kérdéseikkel az ügyészek és a védők. Bolla minden kérdésben igazolta és alátámasztotta elődei, a jelenlegi vádlottak védekezését.

Ügyészi kérdésekre válaszolva Bolla elmondta, hogy a szerződések megkötése a mai napig gyakran bizalmi alapon történik, és tőle is gyakran kérnek szívességet ajánlások formájában. Ezeket vallomása szerint elődjéhez, Antal Attilához hasonlóan kezeli, tájékoztatja az adott szakmai területek vezetőit. Védői kérdésre beszámolt róla, hogy személy szerint nem ellenőriz minden megkötött szerződést, erre - Antal Attilához hasonlóan - lehetősége sem lenne.

Bolla válaszaival sorra cáfolta a vádirat - a vádlottak szerint is szakmaiatlan - állításait. Megerősítette, hogy ma is rendez gyereknapot és egyéb marketing-rendezvényeket a BKV, költ kommunikációra, és - az ügyészség állításával ellentétben - nincs a cég monopolhelyzetben a budapesti közösségi közlekedés területén. Bár Hagyóékat megvádolták több rendezvény megszervezése miatt - fényvillamos, Mikulás, ajándéktárgyak gyártása, stb. - ezek Bolla szerint mai napig a cég működésének részét képezik.

nepszava.hu