György Sziebert Segmented In-Court Testimony
Brought to justice, witness DR. GYÖRGY SZIEBERT, did not ask for personal data protection. He works as an adviser.
With regard to the Code of Criminal Procedure 286. § section (2) the chief judge found that the personal data of the witness matched that of the recorded data in the investigation documents.
In response to the chief judge's questioning of witness:
I do not contribute to the creation of a voice or a picture record of me.
The chief judge apprises the press members that without the consent of the witness it is forbidden to record his face and his voice.
In response to the chief judge's questioning of witness:
I am not legally connected, in a negative or positive way, to the defendants. I am also not legally connected to the BKV Ltd. There is no way that I could be interested or partial in this case.
The chief judge warned the witness according to the Code of Criminal Procedure 82. § section (1) paragraph b) that he can deny the testimony which with he charged himself of a crime.
I have understood the warning.
The chief judge warns the witness that he is liable to tell the truth to the best of of his ability. Furthermore, the chief judge warns him that the law punishes a false testimony with imprisonment.
I have understood the warring.
The chief judge informs the witness about the hearing of the witness.
Witness: I would like to ask if I can briefly tell some things about the case before the prosecutor put questions?
The chief judge agrees to let the witness speak before the prosecutor questions the witness.
First of all, I would like to talk about the circumstances of my testimony and other circumstances which are in connection to the case.
Because of another case, unrelated to the BKV story, I was arrested on 4 December 2009, and from 7 December 2009 to 16 December 2010 I was in custody. In that case the airport police conducted the investigation, because 90% of the case was connected to the airport. So, on the 7th day of December 2009 I went into custody and for almost two months they did not communicate with me. They did not interrogate me. At the beginning of February 2010 some time before 10th, they took me to an interrogation with the airport police. It was during the afternoon when my continuous interrogation was quickly conducted. There they announced to my one time defendant Dr. Gyaula Zámbó, that the hearing had just finished. At the airport one can only cross the gates with a special escort who allows people to get in or leave. So they must have taken the lawyer out from the airport like this, and they announced that the lawyer could leave because they had no more questions. They said that they would take me back to Venyige, to the spot of the arrest. When the lawyer left the airport, a member of the airport police told me that I should remain because they would like to talk with me. It was a scene from a classical movie: the room was dark. Perhaps there was no window, or because it was winter and it was in late afternoon about 5 or 6 pm the room was absolutely dark. A lamp was lit on a table, and across from me on the opposite side of the table sat one police officer on the right side and one on the left side. They started to talk with me but they document the conversation in a minute-book. Among other things, they communicated to me that it was Thursday and if I make any incriminatory testimony against Gábor Demszky or Miklós Hagyó or István Kocsis, then before the following Wednesday they would discharge me. I said to them that it is very interesting, and they told me that this is out of the minute-book and that it is only help for me. I repeat again that they had not talked with me for two months, and then they conducted this interrogation. It took about 1-1.5 hours. They knew that I have two little children. One of them is under one year, and they mentioned that. They told me that I would be there for 20 years, because everybody incriminated me.
One of the most interesting sentences was that everyone accused me, and it was 100 % that I would be in custody for a very long time. I asked, for example, who were the accusers? They said, for example, Attila Antal also talked about criminal cases which were connected to me, but loosely connected with the BKV. I said that was very interesting, because Attila Antal's employment at the BKV Ltd. had ended three months before I got to the BKV ltd. After that they said that information was correct. It wasn't Attila Antal. It was everyone except him. Then I said that I thought it was too late; let it be.
One month later, the script was all the same. Again, they did not communicate with me for a month. They took me out to the airport police. The script was a little different in that from my case we spoke only about ten or 15 minutes. Also they again told the lawyer that communication was not permitted. They again put me in the cell. They again took me into to the interrogation room which was not dark that time, because I remember that there was light. That time I think it was before noon. There was a representative of the airport police who said that we would continue the previous conversation. He added a new name to the previously mentioned three names: Gábor Demszky, Mr. Hagyó, István Kocsis, and he added that if I said anything against Mr. Mesterházy, Sándor Futó (who was an adviser to the managing director of the BKV) or István Veres (who gave taxi services) I could rapidly go home. Or rather they said to me that this was the last time they would give me that chance, so I could think about this because if I felt like I could not help them, even though they said that I could, then they would arrange for a long detention.
And again, after two or three weeks they took me out. The hearing was the same. The defendant went away. The same gentleman called me out, a representative of the airport police, and asked if I wanted to do anything. I said no because I have nothing to tell, and then he announced that was all right but he thought that this cooperation has ended and I could thank myself. So it took about all that time. After that, they didn't have me.
According to these, the next moment was in the middle or end of July 2010, but before that, in order to understand the whole thing, I have to talk briefly about the arrest. So, it happened during the imprisonment. If someone had a trial or an interrogation on the next day, he could prepare for it, or rather they took those people in spite of the shower day and gave them a chance for the shower. Once a week the bath went on in Venyige [a prison in Budapest] out in the shower room.
It was 10 p.m. sometime in the middle or the end of July 2010, because the television was switched off. The television was always turned off around nine thirty or ten p.m. So, after ten p.m. they opened the little door of my cell. There they told me, “Sziebert prepare. There is a trial tomorrow.” I have to mention that it was impossible that I had trial because it was about the middle or the end of July during the summer break. The next possible date would have been in September, so it wasn't possible to have a standing petition in the court. What could had been the reason of any trial?
Somehow I cried back the guard something like “What kind of trial?” It was clear that I had no idea what it was all about. I was absolutely disturbed. What did they want with me? Nobody told me anything. He said only that: trial. They woke me at dawn. They took me down, and I also asked the guards who escorted us to tell me where I had to go. I said that it must be a fallacy that I have to travel all day, but they said nothing.
We arrived at the Nagy Ignác street. There, they delivered me. There, I continued with the same questions. They said that I was going to have a trial, but they did not take me to the quarters named “csurma” where they always took the people, but instead to the basement, or in the ground floor. They put me into a cell wherein they usually put the protected persons, separate from those who are suspected with very serious crimes.
And again for two hours nobody talked with me. Suddenly at ten-o'clock or at eleven-o'clock, they said, “Come on. We're going.” Obviously, I cannot definitely remember that, and because of the situation I was absolutely disturbed. I did not know what kind of trial I would have. There, they took me to a meeting room inside of the Nagy Ignác street, and there two prosecutor ladies from the Central Prosecution Office sat down opposite of me. They informed me that they would like to hear me as a witness in the Hagyó case. They said that they would tell me the game rules. They mentioned seven topics about which they would like to hear me as a witness: how I got to the BKV, the connections with the consultation contracts, and the labor contract. They announced, which was very interesting, that although they knew that I could talk about more things, I should not incidentally mention anything else. So only those seven topics. The 8th and the 9th incidentally not, because there are too many suspected persons in that procedure and that number is really enough. I did not have to talk about anything else. In return, they would arrange at the Main Counsel of the Capital during my 9-month trial, in which was the coming September, they would arrange for me a home leave or a house arrest. They would arrange a subdued coercion provision if I cooperated with them.
Then they told me, that these were the topics and I could start to think about them. When they would call me in as a witness, and they would get me there, I could talk about these. These were the three days: the 11th, the 23rd, and the 26th of August. During those days, they heard me at the Central Investigation Main Prosecution. So if it actually is not documented in my testimony, they transported me from my custody during these days. On the second day of the hearing, so on the 23rd, they said that the nine months were over on the 7th of September. We had not known at that time when the [BKV] trial would occur, but they did not take me to my trial on the 23rd of August. They wanted to hear me speak about the labor laws, the agreements, and the labor contracts, but they did not bring the relevant documents. There, we discussed that they would question me on the 8th [of September] from home, because I would be at home. I would come from there because the nine-month trial would last until then.
On the 26th, there was again an interrogation day when they kept connecting my BKV testimony to my trial and my custody until the 6th of September. It was Monday or Tuesday. The previous Friday I got a petition from the Prosecution which showed that they intended to protract my detention by three months. What is interesting, by the way, is what I have brought, and soon will give it to the court, the minute-book from my prolonged trial on the 6th of September where I also made these same statements. When I told that, Judge Matusik was surprised, but it is not in the minute-book. Other defendants and I think the prosecutor can also underline this. It was not exactly word for word, but when I told the whole story the judge asked the representative of the Prosecution of the Capital who was also there and if he had known about the steps of the Central Investigation Main Prosecution. There, the main prosecutor answered “yes.” I primarily wanted to tell these circumstances before I answer any questions. I would also like to give the minute-book that was from the 6th of September. On page three, it is told.
Witness gives the minute-book from the trial on the 6th of September. The chief judge attaches it to the number 13/T/40. Report. After that the judge expounds the marked part from the page 3.
The chief judge again warns the witness about the consequences of a false testimony, and also warns about the consequences of a false accusation.
Witness: I have understood the warning.
Prosecutor's question: Before I start with the main part, in connection to that which you told now, I would like to ask one, two questions. The first: By the way, from which scope of activities could you have information about the incidents connected to those about which they have asked you?
Witness: Sure, there were things from which I could know because of my lay, but I think there were things about which I haven't needed to know.
Prosecution's question: Though, you are a lawyer. Obviously you know the prescription of the investigative bargain from the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hadn't you thought to consider it on account of your witness hearing?
Prosecutor's question: Was your defendant at the interrogation?
Witness: At the interrogation at the Central Investigation Main Prosecution, yes. At the airport interrogation, no, or rather not in that previous discussion.
Prosecutor's question: By the way, have you informed your lawyer that the Central Investigation Main Prosecution's prosecutors found you?
Sure, he personally took part.
Prosecutor's question: And he raised that it was not the correct form of the proceeding?
Witness: I do not remember if it was in the air. I cannot remember, because it was 3 years ago.
Prosecutor's question: What you said at that time, in those three interrogations, which is in the minute-book's content, did anyone influence you?
Witness: So, it is interesting that the questions were missing from the interrogations. In these moments there were, when I was talking, they started to ask me about something. I said something in general, and then they started to talk with me in exalted strain. That so, this was not what we discussed, and it was not in the air and immediately we called someone, and they brought you back to Venyige because this was not what we talked about before. Thus, they told that this was not what we talked before. They wanted concrete things from me, and this was not what we talked before, and they took me back to Venyige and then the bargain was over. These were the said things during the first day.
Prosecutor's question: The same persons heard you, with whom you established an arrangement?
Witness: They were also inside. So, it was three times. I do not know exactly. So I have met two ladies. One of them, exactly, but I am not sure about the other one, except they were was inside there. It is on. I think Gábor Győri was also in and two other persons from the police, but the two ladies took part in the previous discussion. They asked questions, but if both of them were inside, I can not remember exactly. But it occurred. They attended, and they asked questions too.
Prosecutor's question: You had three interrogations. From these, the first was the longest. In which interrogation was it said that this was not what we discussed before?
Witness: Immediately at the beginning. On the 11th of August they started to question me in connection to the Promix contract, and then because I could not talk about concrete things they told me that if the prosecutor took a look at the sentence from the page 5 there you could find the part “I think that person was Miklós Hagyó.” So there they told me that it was not absolutely correct, and then I responded to the question. That it was Miklós Hagyó's requirement. So, there was that sentence when they made me feel that. I just made you feel that I thought if he told that, then at the turn was at the Promix case.
Prosecutor's question: The sentence that you cite from the 2nd section, that sentence does not contain your knowledge?
Witness: Yes, but I just think, that the two sentences are not exactly coherent. At first it was about the Promix case, but I thought that in one or two other cases the deputy lord mayor had had some kind of orders.
Prosecutor's question: Do these investigation testimonies contain any statements which do not reveal your knowledge? That is, things, as a matter of fact, you have not said?
Witness: No, these do not contain things which I have not said.
Prosecutor's question: In that interrogation on the 11th August of 2010, from the authority, three persons proceeded: prosecutor György Győri, police captain Éva Gál Vadváradiné, police lieutenant Gábor Nagy. Who told things with which you did not agree?
Witness: The prosecutor.