Hagyó's Testimony: Segment on AAM Plc.

III. AAM Plc.:

According to the indictment in the 21st point of Count I/A. in connecion with the contracts between BKV and AAM Plc. I think the most important to record is that contract, which is imposed to my burden by the prosecution - although at one of the previous hearings, in connection with this Count whatever happened, I'm afraid and dare to note - is dated on the 24th of January 2007, at a time when Zsolt Balogh has not yet been employed by BKV.

It is also a question of fact, that the BKV resulting from the contract in question with AAM Plc. the payment obligations had also almost entirely been fulfilled, until IV. accused, on the 18th of April 2008 got to BKV as the Investment Directorate office manager / team leader, in which scope of activities, a contract related to DBR Metro project did not belong to the scope of his work.

In my opinion everything listed in the Minutes in connection with AAM Plc. need to be evaluated in light of these basic data.

1. Falsifiable assertion:

In 2010. February 24th Minutes the first interrogation of suspects included the following statement:

"I can tell that I know, that with AAM Plc. the contracts had to be concluded of the instruction of Miklós Hagyó."

Reference: Volume 64. page 41.741.

Contradiction:

The first reading of this statement a question occurred to me: Which BKV-AAM Plc. contract was concluded for the instruction of Miklós Hagyó?

By studying in detail the investigative documents, it is found indeed, that BKV with AAM Plc. concluded 8 contracts, which fact - partially - Zsolt Balogh himself reported on the Municipal Assembly meeting which took place on the 28th of February 2008:

The contract concluded on the 24th of January 2007: the Metro Line 4 project related support, project management, audit reports and management structure. The amount of this agency contract was 49 million 997 thousand 500 forints. With this contract, I am accused.
The contract concluded on the 1st of Februaray 2007: The preparation of a tender profile to the Technical Directorate of BKV, which is defined by the Technical Directorate short and medium-term development plans for their proposals include funding opportunities, NHDP and community programs (eg EU-FP7) connection points, and tender of key decision-making information.
The contract concluded on the 6th of March 2007: CAFM IT strategy and system selection process determining the technical specifications and the offers of the Contractor in accordance.
The contract concluded on the 12th of July 2007: the Metro Line 4 project management of information systems and consulting support.
The contract concluded on the 1st of August 2007: to the screening of DBR Metro Project Directorate, and the audit of the organization and operation of information systems.
The contract concluded on the 20th of November 2007: Metro Line 4 project to the overall project of founding documents and the preparation of operations manuals TOP.
The contract concluded on the 22nd of December 2007: the implementation of priority projects of BKV, preparation, implementation and quality assurance of expert support statement in response to the second Metro Line 4 to the investment project-related tasks in support of experts.

Reference: http://infoszab.budapest.hu:8080/akl/tva/Tir.aspx?scope=kozgyules&sessionid=5044, and the attached Annex by me on today's hearing.

The statement contained in Protocol in the light of certain contracts, nevertheless the following disproves:

a.) At the conclusion of contract 1., 2., 3. on the 24th of January 2007 as I have said, Zsolt Balogh, has not yet worked at the BKV. The beginning of his employment is: the 18th of April 2007.

b.) At the conclusion of contract 4., 5. - between the 12th of July and 1st of August 2007 - Zoltán Donáth was the deputy CTO of BKV until the 11th of September 2007.

Zoltán Donáth and to which I have referred to in my written testimony that he claims the following in his testimony: „Within my organizational unit direct instruction is not made on such a basis of my knowledge, any request or instruction from any bears an explanation that it was the request of Hagyó or other politicians."

Reference: Volume 39. page 25.757.

IV. accused, became the deputy CTO of BKV from the 24th of September 2007, before he was the Head of the Department of Technology Investment Directorate. The question arises: did the investment department have any relation at all with the consultancy contracts?

c.) At the time of the conclusion of the 6th contract on the 20th of November 2007, even that Zsolt Balogh was already the deputy CTO, but it's about a special subject contract, which belonged directly to the DBR Metro Project Directorate, that on the contract as the procurer is also DBR, and on behalf of the procurer it was signed by Attila Antal CEO and Árpád Balogh project director.

d.) About the two concluded contracts on the 22nd of December 2007, Attila Antal III. accused, said the following in his investigative testimony:

„Then I thought that BKV would also need in relation to the priority project a related project management, project administrational, decision-making, quality system development operation. In December 2007, it was apparent to me that I am unable to control and manage alone so many featured tasks. In my own initiative, I have not received instructions from anyone, I simply saw, that one person can't manage so many projects."

Reference: Volume 65. page 37.675/B

This allegation of III. accused, here in the trial testimony he also confirmed, and even completed with a detailed report about the pre-history of these contracts.

Summary:

At the conclusion of contracts 1., 2., 3. Zsolt Balogh, has not yet been employed at the BKV. At the time of the conclusion of contracts 4., 5. Zoltán Donáth was the deputy CTO, who declares, that to his organizational unit no request or instruction arrived from Hagyó, nor from other politicians. The 6th contract is the separate contract of DBR Metro Project Directorate. About the two contracts concluded in December, Attila Antal stated, that he did not receive instruction for the conclusion.

2. AAM statement:

Falsifiable assertion:

1. The separate interpretation of the No. 23. e-mail message attached by Zsolt Balogh:

„Date: 04/05/08; From: BZS; To: RM; Subject: AAM up to date payments; Significance: In my testimony at the Municipal Prosecutor's Office Investigation I have said, that in relation to the fulfillment of AAM there was a consultation at Miklós Hagyó, in which the AAM leaders also attended. Here, Miklós Hagyó had a definite "request", that AAM pro rata temporis billed the most possible fulfillment. The e-mail indicates that I have received direct instruction from Miklós Hagyó in the AAM matter.

RM: Miklós Regőczi BKV marketing and communications deputy CEO.

Reference: Volume 64. page 41.887

2. The continuous minutes of interrogation of suspects dated on the 8th of September 2010 also includes an abbreviated interpretation of the email:

„No. 23. I have received direct instructions from Hagyó, in connection with AAM contracts, and if possible BKV with the most payments to be made for AAM. "

Reference: Volume 64. page 42.057.

Contradiction:

The e-mail itself:

From: Zsolt Balogh

Date: 04/05/08 18:25

To: Miklós Regőczi

Subject: AAM up to date payments

"Miklós,

Two weeks ago I had an interpreter at Mr. Hagyó's request, that the factual details of the AAM contracts to be constantly communicated to the press, set to face the actual gross payment per contract. We stated that it would be so.

I have not seen any news yet.

What's up with that?

Thanks”

Reference: Volume 64. page 41.973.

Summary:

- This e-mail’s literal meaning, interpretation, and the notes thereto contained, as has been mentioned in my general observations is entirely different. This is again a good example that if an absolute concrete documentary evidence is interpreted subjectively, then the result can be fully pushed off from reality. The only question is, that in the case when the actual happenings occured, e.g. something has been delivered or not, compared to the e-mail - which is available - we can't control it, so then what may be defined according to that opposed to subjective interpretation, what was the objective reality.

- It is also important the true content of the email, which supports the investigative and my testimony at the hearing: in this instance, I requested the capital's fair, accurate and truthful information!

3. AAM statement:

In 2010. September 14. in the daily Minutes of confrontation the following can be read:

Investigator: Did AAM representatives met with Zsolt Balogh, in the office of Miklós Hagyó at the town hall in early 2008? Why this meeting took place?

Suspect Zsolt József Balogh:

Miklós, I tell you straight in the eye, when the AAM scandal erupted, then we were invited by you in the big office with the top management of AAM and the rapporteur of BKV, Edit Horváth in March-April 2008. We were with you on the 6th. There were the two of us, and on behalf of AAM they were 3 and Éva Horváth. This meeting according to my memories was initiated by AAM or by you, because I could not call up a meeting to your office. The subject of the meeting was whether to terminate the AAM contract, and to discuss the certificate of completion. In this meeting I had to provide datas, I had to say, pro rata temporis that where AAM's fulfillment stands at the time. In this meeting a decision was born, that BKV unfolded the AAM's contract and pro rata temporis account for them the maximize performance. At this meeting it was decided that it's fulfillments AAM would save them on a DVD, and will try to make BKV accept this performance.

Zsolt József Balogh

suspect

To these statements I gave the following answers at the confrontation, which I still keep to this day:

Miklós Hagyó is suspect.

I do not remember this meeting. All I wish to say, however, that you mentioned that this meeting took place in March-April 2008. Are you keeping this, do you? (Zsolt Balogh nods) You see Zsolt, you will fare ill with everything, I tell you why, in everything will turn out the truth. This happened on the General Assembly on the 28th or 29th of February 2008, from which there were written Minutes, audio and video recording available, if it's necessary I will enclose the files. You held a long presentation of all the contracts concluded with AAM. And the kind of works were done by AAM for BKV, there were many pages of the presentation. You informed the General Assembly and the entire public about this.

You know very well, that the General Assembly decided that all of AAM-related contracts SC are the most widely investigated, and there in the verbatim report of proceedings, I have spoken twice, that I also asked for an all-encompassing full investigation.

This investigation has been done.

Miklós Hagyó

suspect

Zsolt Balogh also subsequently responded to my statements:

"Miklós, I tell you straight in the eye, that on the 2008th February General Assembly mentioned by you, I substituted Attila Antal who got sick then a few day ago. Now that you mention it, you're right, I was the rapporteur there."

Reference: Volume 68. Minutes of confrontation, page 6.-7.

Contradiction:

In the Minutes of confrontation of IV. accused, in its first statement on the 28th of February 2008 Capital General Assembly Minutes of the meeting, and within that Zsolt Balogh's speech contradicts which is the "Summary of the Metro Line 4 project 2007th annually progress " titled, linked to the the 33rd agenda item.

1. Zsolt Balogh statement on page 86 of Protocol of the accounting method:

„The certificate of compliance and reporting is governed by the contract between BKV and AAM are defined in detail. AAM deliverables will be accepted along the above steps. AAM monthly prepares a preliminary task plan and monthly expense plan, which in acceptance, as indicated in the contract will be confirmed by the signature of the completion certificate. AAM monthly prepares a progress report and a monthly expense summary report of the client's activities, which in acceptance, as indicated in the contract will be confirmed by the signature of the completion certificate. Thereafter, on the basis of the adopted certificates of completion by BKV, AAM shall submit monthly an invoice for the BKV. "

So IV. accused, himself exerted the payment method in an extremely precisely way, and fully excluded the possibility of paying more than the actual fee.

2. At the same meeting, however as a reference I asked, that in connection with AAM contracts, the Supervisory Committee of BKV conduct the most comprehensive investigation, which can be read on page 100. of the Minutes:

„I think that the Supervisory Committee under the economic law is that organization, where the Capital's all fraction representatives are there, the workers are there.

I suggest in this case and I would ask, that the Supervisory Committee explore the whole truth in this matter all the questions regarding what my colleagues feel like, or in connection with the procurement process upfront or not upfront...so all questions must cover by the Supervisory Committee's investigation."

Reference: http://infoszab.budapest.hu:8080, and today's hearing attached Annex

In this context, the Municipal Assembly’s decision:

„"262/2008. (II.28). M.A.d.

The Municipal Assembly occasionally distract the powers of Economic Committee and acting under its ownership power authority asks the Supervisory Committee of BKV, that the light of expediency, professional, legality and economic aspects, fully investigate all contracts concluded between AAM and BKV and submit an audit report to the General Assembly.

Deadline: 15 days

Responsible: Dr. Gábor Demszky

(41 yes, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions) "

3. Finally, dr. Gábor Székely, as the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of BKV, in a letter dated on the 2nd of October 2008 informed the mayor, that having regard to the 262/2008 (II.28.) General Assembly Resolution, the Supervisory Committee of the BKV of expediency, professional, economic and legality aspects comprehensively examined all concluded contracts between AAM and BKV. According to the information the internal audit staff and the Competition Authority also took a position, but it was not a finding that would justify a competition supervision proceeding.

Reference: Mayor's Office documents, Annex Mayor's Office Volume 1. page 674.

Summary:

- Zsolt Balogh stated on the occasion of confrontation, that the meeting referred by him took place after the general meeting in February. He has reported at the General Assembly the exact order of the actual settlement.

- What is most important is that these AAM- BKV contracts in question were terminated in April, so even if this meeting had happened, by then the previous certificates of completions have been approved already, so on those until the closing of the contract it could not be changed. The task plan also had to be given by March, ie, to modify that was also not possible. All this means, that it was not allowed, but assuming that statement is true, which included in the Minutes of confrontation, then in respect still this claim could only stand for a fraction of a month.

However, I explicitly state that:

1. I have not participated in any meeting where the resolution of any contract AAM has been decided!

2. I did not ask Zsolt Balogh, to provide data to me that towards AAM Plc. what time of the proportional outputs are accounted for.

3. I did not ask anyone, and gave no one any instructions to account for by most of the pro rata temporis performance to AAM Plc.

4. AAM statement:

Falsifiable assertion: The 2010. February 24th Daily Minutes of interrogation of suspects includes the following:

„I tell, when the AAM scandal revealed, then Hagyó asked me to go to the town hall, and there I met with the leaders of AAM with Edit Horváth, with Tamás Vahl and with Mr. Kornai."

Reference: Volume 64. page 41.741.

Contradiction:

The head of AAM Gábor Kornai, contrary during his interrogation as witness on the 29th of June 2011. under the burden of legal warnings communicated to him said the following:

"I have never met Miklós Hagyó, and I don't know Ottó Lelovics, or Éva Horváth."

Reference: Volume 44 page 30.515.

Summary:

Definitely I declare that I have not met with Gábor Kornai, Tamás Vahl whom I do not know, if we ever met, then I apologize to him, but I do not remember him. As I said in my written testimony, I only know Edit Horváth from AAM Plc.

According to the Minutes, to the meeting referred by IV. accused, with the presence of those people without a doubt could not take place.

IV. The criminal organization: Éva Horváth, József Mihály, etc...

1. Falsifiable assertion: Why did Zsolt Balogh go to the Town Hall:

The 2010. September 14th Daily Minutes of Confrontation read as follows:

"once a week, but it happened every other day, Éva Horváth ordered me in to her room at the Mayor's office, and 90% of the time when I arrived in her room, then Éva Horváth went to speak to you and you came to me in Éva Horváth's room and in relation with those matters which I enumerated above. These were related to information about Mr. Kocsis, BKV-related professional issues, and related to my situation."

Reference: Volume 68., Minutes of Confrontation page 14.

Contradictions:

1.) According to the 2011. March 29th continuous daily Minutes of interrogation of suspects:

"Éva Horváth almost every day, or even several times a day ordered me in to her office at the Town Hall. This "ordering in" had always happened, that Éva Horváth said "come on over, Hagyó is waiting for you." Every time I wanted to go to Hagyó directly, but usually the secretariat told me to go over to Éva Horváth. It happened only a couple occasions, when I really had to go to Hagyó, and he was waiting fo me."

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.069.

2.) In the 2011. March 30th daily Minutes of continuous interrogation of suspects, the following statements, I have to say one of those extremely rare cases when the objective reality is recorded in the minutes:

"As I said earlier, when as Acting CEO very often I had to go to Hagyó's office, to various meetings, joint meetings with other leaders or even just alone eg.: meetings in connection with the Parameter Book."

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.091.

It was in fact, in actuality it was not Éva Horváth or me who ordered in to the Town Hall IV. accused, or other senior executive staff of the BKV, but as stated in my written testimony, they all had to come to the Town Hall because of the General Assembly, Cabinet Meetings and because of the reconciliation with the departments, and in most cases they didn't meet with me, but the committees, or members of the Cabinet. Therefore the leaders did not come to me daily for control, in accordance with the provisions of the Organisational and Operational Regulations to the competent body, persons.

In addition to answering such cardinal questions, and possible solutions anticipated for the capital and leadership of BKV, which are not only at the Mayor's Cabinet meetings and at the Municipal Assembly included in the agenda, but of course, as I have repeatedly stated, the press was "boomed" from these too.

2. Falsifiable assertion, illegally employed colleagues, including József Mihály:

In more Minutes it is legible such that, I add fully untrue and unfounded statements, that there were colleagues who were illegally employed, and their wages were financed from the deriving received communication contracts.

1.) According to the 2010. February 24th Daily Minutes of interrogation of suspects, like this:

"Regőczi told me after I didn't sign the contracts, that he does not need them, because these contracts need to be signed for Miklós Hagyó and Ernő Mesterházy, because some individual consultants working in the town hall were getting paid through these contracts."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.737.

2.) In the 2011. March 30th daily Minutes, about József Mihály, it is legible as follows:

„I would like to say, that I as the Acting CEO, to József Mihály I had to report fortnightly regularly, who was the economic adviser in the Cabinet of Miklós Hagyó. He - to my knowledge - has not been the holding of The Municipality, was one of the consultants, who had illegally earned money. József Mihály's job was, that all the utility companies belong to Miklós Hagyó, all investments in a level of excel table are checked with bi-weekly. By the way, he had an office on the mezzanine."

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.111.

Contradiction:

At the Town Hall, the colleagues working in the Cabinet was divided into two groups:

1. The majority of them, was employed by the Metropolitan Municipality, their employer was Dr. Zsolt Tiba chief notary.

2. Those Cabinet members, who were employed by the Metropolitan Municipality with an agency contract from the Cabinet's budget.

The Metropolitan Municipality's Internal Audit Department has repeatedly examined the operation of Cabinet of the Deputy Mayor, detected no irregularities, and the municipality, the mayor and deputy cabinet also received ISO certification.

In connection with the above generated test materials, and decisions:

1.) The National Audit Office auditor's report dated in November 2010, of the Municipality of Budapest in the formed budget management monitor the operation of internal controls:

The National Audit Office following an investigation at the Metropolitan Municipality filed charges, which the basis of the Budapest Police Headquarters Economics Defence Department on the I. department, on No:01000-666/2011. c. criminal proceedings have been initiated. The investigating authority at the same time, opposite to "black jobs" examined, that employed by the Municipality, or colleagues with agency contracts, such as József Mihály, if there was actual work behind the paid wage.

The National Audit Office Report on page 37. in the 1st paragraph, in connection with József Mihály, reads as follows:

The fulfillment of tasks, before each payments were made, the professional certified confirmed despite that, according to the certificate of performance, tasks supporting documentation was not available. Related to the payments, "József Mihály, with asset management, and with company associated the framework of his mandate, (Contract No. 16-2066/09)" titled, without a signature and date information is available of the tasks order. Furthermore, the "József Mihály, additional materials for the Contract No. 16-2066/09 certificate of completion" titled, according to the file folder of contractual tasks, and payments of certain underlying sub-tasks has not been established. Because these are (1 pc reminder, 2 pc of proposal draft sent to responsibles, 9 pc sent by the client, as well as 3 pc sent by the client via e-mail) was dated pre-contractual, earlier dates apply. Documents dated after the signing of the agency contract (1 pc memo, 2 pc of proposals, 3 pc of e-mails sent by the client) files sent to client by the public officials of the Mayor's Office, prepared submissions within their work. In the context of the subject matter of the contract the client's opinion in a reminder all together in 22 lines is formulated on the 29th of April 2009.

During the investigation, members of the cabinet have been heard as well as and a number of utilities and public services company's managers.

2.) The investigation was conducted by BRFK Economics Department of Defence I. Department, as a result of the conducted detailed proof of the procedure in 2012 23rd of July 01000/6143/2012. c. Resolution No., - not legally binding - in the absence of offense ended:

„The employees of the Deputy Mayor's Office, among the subordinates of Kálmán Antal, the testimonies of Mrs. Gusztáv Káposztás, Ferenc Bieber, Enikő Téglási and Máté Farkas municipality advisors, are supported in the defense of suspects József Mihály confirmed the presence of a regular job and working practices.

József Mihály's work also supported by György Palkó, CEO of the Budapest Sewage Works Plc., and in the testimonies of Zoltán Csorba, the Metropolitan Waterworks Board member and Éva Medorvárszky, deputy CEO of the Metropolitan Waterworks."

The witnesses reported that József Mihály, received for review the prepared filed working documents, participated in the General Assembly meetings, and the capital owned or part-owned companies in the negotiations on behalf of the owner. Negotiations were always led by József Mihály, who is absolutely on a commercial basis, the economic aspects into consideration held the discussions. Before the named agency contract, he performed these tasks under public service within legal relation at the Mayor's Office, which a legal relationship was terminated because he could not and did not want to perform his duties full-time any longer. His work was still needed, his expertise and experience could not be replaced, that's why he remained employed within a framework of an agency contract. He fully performed his work, therefore the change in conditions of his employment was not noticeable to the negotiating parties.

To perform the tasks according to the agency contract, he possessed with the appropriate professional knowledge and experience.

Besides of the personal evidences obtained, it can be stated, that at the hearings during the investigative period, József Mihály, was indeed present. The facts supported by testimonies are not affected by that circumstance, that opinion on the certificate of completion has not taken place.

Reference: my written testimony Annex 3rd point.

Summary:

It can be concluded that, while according to the protocols I had a number of colleagues, whose employment did not take place properly, and their wages were paid "black", until in the criminal proceedings initiated by the National Audit Office due to a complaint, the investigating authority just examined, that officially behind the payments made by the Metropolitan Municipality, was actual work, ie, that statement that I have been illegally employed any of my colleagues does not correspond to the reality.

The decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and investigations were clearly stated, that my colleagues, including József Mihály, furthermore Ottó Lelovics, the engagement of their contract were properly fulfilled.

3. Falsifiable assertion: What did he know about the employment of Éva Horváth:

Of the 2011. March 29th continued interrogation of suspects in the report includes the following:

„To the parenthetical question I tell, that even as the Acting CEO and not even before that, I had no knowledge that Éva Horváth is employed by BKV. I knew that she was the press manager of Miklós Hagyó. When the first articles were published in the press about the scandal, I then got to know that Éva Horváth is a BKV employee."

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.077.

Contradiction:

1. In 2010 the 7th of September, attached 43rd numbered e-mail, which was written by Éva Horváth on the 21st of December 2007 to many of her colleagues, including Zsolt Balogh. In a letter Éva HOrváth says goodbye to her colleagues, and notifies them of the following:

"...I will continue my work in other areas, although this does not mean that I say a final goodbye to BKV or to the Metro 4 line. As a direct colleague of the Deputy Mayor responsible for the field, surely we will meet again in the future. "

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.021.

2. The interpretation belonging to the e-mail, is one of that few, which matches the literal meaning of the e-mail as well:

"Significance: "the e-mail was written, when Éva Horváth left BKV DBR."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.897.

3. The above also refutes Mr. Szalai Dr. Eleonóra Szilágyi XIV. accused's statement, of the 2010 February 4th Minutes of continued interrogation of a suspect, which was described at a previous hearing by the Honourable Tribunal:

„To answer the question, that I did not know about the employment of Éva Horváth, and that I found that out in August 2008 when Zsolt Balogh asked to compile the application documents related to Éva Horváth. Éva Horváth did not work at my expertise field, therefore for a year and a half I didn't even know that she is a fellow-worker of the BKV.... I had no working relation with Éva Horváth. Éva Horváth's boss was Miklós Regőczi, and as HR Director the uptake of the employees was not my task, that is the task of the relevant person exercising the employer's rights.

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.611.

It clearly shows that the quoted statement is false, as Zsolt Balogh has been appointed as Acting CEO from the 19th of February 2008. From the above with written certainty, it is clearly established, that previously, in December 2007. he knew that Éva Horváth works at the BKV, within working with DBR Metro.

4. Falsifiable assertion: Éva Horváth as the "gendarme's hat"

In 2010. July 6th continuous daily minutes of interrogation of suspects includes the following:

„I maintain my earlier statement that Éva Horváth was the "gendarme's hat", in almost everything she had full authority when Mr. Hagyó was on leave.”

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.809.

Contradiction:

This has a significance in that the title the "gendarme's hat" from IV. accused, prior to this wasn't said at the previous interrogations of suspects, but in 2010 the 6th and 7th of March in the given interviews to Hungarian Nation and HírTV, when he characterized Éva Horváth as the "gendarme's hat," who mediated the instructions of his superiors to the leaders of BKV.

Reference: Volume 1., pages 279.-285., as well as my written testimony Annex 5th point.

In relation with the "gendarme's hat " denomination, the 2010. July 6th continuous interrogation of suspects Minutes contains another fundamental contradiction:

"The’ gendarme hat’ role of Éva Horváth became clear to me, when I was the deputy CTO, Éva Horváth was already involved in several professional meetings had had a say into their management. This is the winter of 2007."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.811.

The statement quoted obviously does not correspond to reality, since, the e-mail written by Éva Horváth in December 2007, also supports that during fall and winter of 2007 she was still employed by BKV, and her boss was Miklós Regőczi. I didn't know then Éva Horváth was allowed to participate in what professional meetings, and that who instructed her to what, but I do know that she has not worked for me yet.

The Metropolitan Municipality with Éva Horváth only in 2008 concluded an agency contract, of which, if I remember correctly, from the 1st of February she helped the work of the Cabinet.

5. Falsifiable assertion: Zsolt Balogh's allegations in relation to Éva Horváth's behavior:

In 2010. September 7th continuous daily minutes of interrogation of suspects includes the following:

"To answer the question I tell, that in these meetings Éva Horváth, clearly peremptory, behaved with us as magistrate, rather than an employee of BKV. This type of magistrate Éva Horváth partly attributed to herself, and was partly given to her by Miklós Hagyó, that she was present at all the negotiations of Miklós Hagyó, and to many professional discussions she had a say, and her comments Miklós Hagyó supported them 90% of the time."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.865.

Contradiction:

1. Éva Horváth did not participate in all of my negotiations, or even a substantial part of my conciliation,

2. Like nobody else, Éva Horváth did not receive authorization from me to arrange my affairs

3. Again, I stress that Éva Horváth's tasks were as follows:

Compilation of materials to be submitted to the General Assembly
Responding to media inquiries
Organization of press conferences
As well as carrying out the above tasks negotiations

4. Éva Horváth, as a colleague of the Cabinet, could not speak into the BKV professional issues. The BKV professional matters were not with her, but agreed with the competent professional department.

This is supported by the e-mail written by Éva Horváth on the 16th of July 2008, which is bearing the designation of 9B among the 43 attached e-mails by Zsolt Balogh, on the 7th of September 2010.

Éva Horváth in the referenced letter writes the following:

"Dear Recipients!

Since there is no referrence, therefore my definite request is, that materials of BKV do not enter the Cabinet as proposals, but as the inter-working information materials of BKV.

É.H.”

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.943.

According to the attached written material to the Protocol, IV. accused, to the e-mail, added the following interpretation:

"Significance: Éva Horváth, joins the subject e-ticketing correspondence, who formulated a "strong request" to the participants, that is, to the Cabinets of Dr. Gábor Demszky and Miklós Hagyó, and to the BKV."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.879.

In the 2010. September 8th daily continued interrogation protocol, also the interpretation of the same e-mail, however, reads as follows:

„Rarely an observable sentence. Éva Horváth writes to Berger, to me, to Regőczi and Kerényi, that her firm request is, that materials of BKV do not enter into the Cabinet as proposals. Éva Horváth orders in writing, that some of the materials of BKV in what form should be submitted to the Mayor's Cabinet.”

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.053.

Beyond that the obviously false interpretations content conferred Éva Horváth's request,

it is also worth checking out: what was the real reason?

The answer is simple. From the 10th of July 2008 I spent my holiday, whereby in between the 11th of July and 20th of August, I took part on St. Stephen's trek. Consequently, at the time of the Mayor's Cabinet Meeting in question, I wasn't in the Mayor's Office, but as it stated on the web page www.szentistvanvandorlas.hu, we were hiking with my colleagues at section

Csicsó forester's house - Városlőd Kislőd-station.

Éva Horváth, therefore only formulated that request in her e-mail, that the material in question not be submitted as a proposal, but only an interim information, because in light of my absence, I could not have been the referring to the material arriving from BKV.

I would add only "I would not be" in despite of Éva Horváth's "most powerful" request, in my absence, I became the referring, and indicated as the responsible person.

As a matter of fact, while on this Cabinet meeting for the above reasons I could not participate, until then, according to the protocol, IV. accused could.

21st of July 2008

Information about the introduction of e-ticketing system

Submitted by: Miklós Hagyó

Invited: László Németh, Deputy Head of the Transport Department;

Zsolt Balogh, Deputy CEO of BKV Co.; Ferenc Bieber, Deputy Office Manager;

Dr. Gábor Dancs, public transport councilors; Imre Lakos, Urban Operating and

Environmental Management Committee

Decision:

338./2008

The mayor’s requests, that the proposal contained the financing alternatives of the No.4, the electronic ticketing system was exclusively from private capital, perform towards the realization of BKV Co. in connection with the implementation of the e-ticketing system continued work. The mayor has proposed the use of GKI colleague, a system developed by Róbert Gyárfás.

Responsible:Miklós Hagyó

Reference: Mayor's Office documents of Annex, Mayor's Office Volume 1. page 623.

I also refer to the 337th and 338/2008. Cabinet decisions, which establishes that it is not only my name that was filed with the proposal, but I recieved further works at this meeting.

Reference: Mayor's Office documents of Annex, Mayor's Office Volume 3. page 333.

I would add that the OOR sorts out the substitution order in an exact way, so the above would not have been necessary.

6. Falsifiable assertion: Zsolt Balogh's allegations in relation with the behavior of Éva Horváth, allegation2:

In 2010. September 7th continuous daily Minutes of interrogation of suspects even the "gendarme's hat" designation goes further, and presented Éva Horváth as a contingent of a powerful person:

„Éva Horváth’s actual position as an example, it occurred to me, that as the Acting CEO of BKV I participated at the Ministry of Finance on the negotiation allusive to the possible funding of BKV. On this, on behalf of the Capital, Gábor Demszky, Imre Ikvai-Szabó and Miklós Hagyó participated in, and 3-4 consultant from the financial department. On behalf of the Ministry of Finance attended László Keller, as well as the Assistant Secretaries of different ministries heads of departments. From the BKV Norbert Tóth, Regőczi and I were present. At the negotiating table with Mr. Keller sat opposite Mr. Demszky, who were two sides of the two Deputy Mayor, Hagyó and Ikvai sat. Éva Horváth was at least 15 minutes delayed, and did not sit down at one of the empty spaces at the end of the table, but went next to Hagyó, and the persons sitting next to him, made them stand up and transposed them. In the room, nobody found this strange, no one questioned it. This example also demonstrated that Éva Horváth possessed power in the town hall, which was not called into question even by Demszky.”

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.867.

Contradiction:

All this is therefore a concise summary of the following means:

while Éva Horváth was only an employee of BKV, with other words one of the 13 thousand workers, until she instructed her bosses (Antal, Regőczi, Balogh).
and when the Municipality has established an agency relationship with her, it was not just me, as opposed to the Vice-Mayor, but against the 18-year reigning mayor possessed major power.

These are themselves unrealistic statements, however, in fact, a number of documents, correspondence, denies that it was precisely the opposite!

7. Falsifiable assertion: Name Stamp Use by Éva Horváth:

According to the 2010. July 6th continuous daily minutes of interrogation of suspects:

„On paper Éva Horváth has nothing to do with the OOR, as she is a press person, but I actually had the feeling that Mr. Hagyó and all his related powers of BKV pushed to Éva Horváth, as 90% of our conversations, Éva Horváth was there with him. I maintain my earlier statement that Éva Horváth was the the" gendarme's hat", had almost complete power when Mr. Hagyó was on holiday, Éva Horváth issued letters bearing the seal of Miklós Hagyó. If revealed letters like this are in front of me, this could probably point out that name stamped. If I could get the letters written by Hagyó to BKV, or those e-mails he wrote to me as to the Acting CEO, from those accurately shows, that Éva Horváth took part in this, and gave specific instructions."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.811.

Contradiction:

1. For the use of the name stamp, OOR provided opportunity, and also precisely regulated it. Only my office manager or the deputy office manager was entitled to use it, and with my knowledge and my consent besides them, others have never used it.

2. The Cabinet was checked several times, but in connection of the use of the name stamp, irregularity has never been set!

3. The claim that if the authority would reveal such letters in front of IV. accused, which were issued by Éva Horváth with my name stamp on it, then probably, he could show those ones with such a name stamp on them, but to tell you the truth, frankly I do not understand. However it is an interesting fact, that although Zsolt Balogh, obtained his e-mail messages and their attachments from BKV, he could not attach not one message which justifies the unauthorized use of the name stamp. And where he believed to catch Éva Horváth's instruction, there it turned out that Éva Horváth's request had not been fulfilled at all.

8. Falsifiable assertion: Éva Horváth and C.C.Soft certificate of completion:

In accordance with the 2010. February 24th daily minutes of interrogation of suspects:

„Then Éva Horváth instructed me to sign the contracts, at the same time threatened me, that because of the C.C.Soft certificate of completion which I have signed as deputy CTO, they will destroy me and get fired from BKV."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.737.

Of the 2011. March 29th continued daily minutes of interrogation of suspects can be read as follows:

„Éva Horváth then asked me if I remembered the case of C.C. Soft? I replied, "I remember well, as I have shown you what kind of SMS messages sent to me the manager of C.C.Soft."

Éva said to this, "think about this thing, because if it turns out that the completion certificate you signed was unlawful, that could cost you your job, or if you face globally against Hagyó, that will have a very bad end."

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.077.

Cotradiction:

1. Again, I confirm that on the given project, ie the HÉV visual passenger information system, concerning the construction of either the preparation nor the tendering, and nor the process of contracting I did not participate, just as in the implementation phase I did not cross-check with anyone about it, even I didn't ask for any information on this subject from BKV, the first time I heard about it from the press.

2. From this also follows, that I didn't instruct neither Zsolt Balogh, nor any one else for the signature of the certificate of completion on the 6th of December 2007.

3. It is a fact, that Éva Horváth has established an agency relationship with the Municipality only from February 2008. In contrast, as later I found out, the contract conclusion between C.C.Soft and BKV took place on the 12th of July 2007, in the indictment constituting the certificate of completion dated on the 6th of December 2007, so it can also be concluded that the merits of the project consists of: tendering, implementation, the first payment was completed before Éva Horváth began to work in the Municipality!

Only the 2. invoice payment falls for the period, when Éva Horváth has already helped the Cabinet's work, but as it is apparent from the investigative documents, as well as from the factoring notification dated on the 12th of December 2007 revealed, by this time BKV no to the Ltd. but under the between the tripartite factoring agreement of BKV-C.C.Soft-MKB, fulfilled to the Bank!

4. The fact that Éva Horváth had any information about this project, and, if so, where did she get it, I do not know! However, I firmly declare, that from me certainly she did not receive information on the circumstances of the signing certificate of completion, and about it she certainly did not consult with me, because I had no information about it at all.

5. I would like to refer to an e-mail message in this connection:

On the 17th of September 2008, in an e-mail János Franka to Péter Takács (Logistics Department, Head of the Department) in which he asked help and managerial decision to manage the project, added that: "It would not be fortunate again to appear in a newspaper article with this issue."

In addition, therefore, on the basis that it contained investigative documents, dozens of BKV employers knew about the problems of the Szentendre Hév passenger information system, from the correspondence can be inferred, that this was also known by the press. For this reason, Éva Horváth as dealing with the media could obtain her information from this source.

9. Falsifiable assertion: said good-bye to the "gendarme hat”:

As previously mentioned contents of the protocols are clearly indicated that IV. accused, that in a cynical tone speaking with "gendarme hat", who had such power recognized by even the Mayor, and who constantly threatened and urged the alleged payment of 15 million, did not maintain good relations, and even feared her too.

Contradiction:

The 9th page of the 2010. September 8th daily Minutes of continued interrogation of suspects, where IV. accused, reports that following his departure from BKV, to whom he said goodbye:

"I say that following my departure from BKV, with Éva Horváth I met in her apartment ... Given that after I was appointed as Acting CEO that year, with those people at the General Assembly on several occasions met with them, basically I just wanted to say goodbye to them. "

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.061.

To the above, I think, unnecessary to add anything.

10. Falsifiable assertion: The appointment of Gábor Mihálszky and Tibor Bolla:

The 2010. July 6th daily Minutes of continued interrogation says:

1.) The appointment of Mihálszky:

„I also received specific instructions from Éva Horváth, for example the consultation related to the parameter book was at Éva Horváth's room, with Mr. Hagyó and Somodi, the four of us sat around the table. Then I deposed Somodi and appointed Gábor Mihálszky, and Éva Horváth for a couple of weeks explicitly reproached on me why I didn't appoint their candidate, whose name I don't remember. This person was suggested by the union, it was then when the union bought 50 roses to Éva Horváth to this end.”

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.811.

2. The appointment of Bolla:

I replaced Norbert Tóth with Tibor Bolla, I knew him from earlier, I called him to the company as an economic expert.

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.807.

Contradiction:

From the 2010. September 14th daily Minutes of confrontations the following can be read:

Zsolt József Balogh accused:

Miklós, I would like to ask, to explain that, if according to what you say in operational issues you didn't have a say, that during the period of my mandate as Acting CEO, why did I have to go to your office to approve candidates for the position of the two Deputy Chief Executives? The two candidates were Gábor Mihálszky and Tibor Bolla.

Reference: Volume 68., the 14th page of the Minutes of confrontation

1. It is clearly established, that the Minutes which contained the appointment of these two persons carries a mutually exclusive contradiction.

2. I would like to stress, however, as I have already said earlier, that in the operational management of the companies I did not take part in, neither the appointment of Mr. Mihálszky and Mr. Bolla. Neither with Mr. Mihálszky, nor with Mr. Bolla, I have not and had never been cousinly, nor amicable nor having a business relation with. After their appointment, I only dealt with them on professional matters, and we had no direct or meaningful connection.

11. Falsifiable assertion: The appointment of the director of DBR Metro:

The 2010. July 6th daily Minutes of the continued interrogation of suspects includes the following:

Prosecutor questions: "What can you tell about Gusztáv Klados?"

Zsolt Balogh: In this context, Olti contacted me sometime in spring 2008, that an expert is needed because he can not see through this construction job. He met Klados at an international meeting, who will not be cheap, but we should win him. He was a very good manager, he was well-managed himself. For two weeks he was here in Hungary, then Ference Olti introduced us to each other.

Virtually they cooped me up: Olti asked if Guszti could come, I said yes. Nóra called me and asked, do you know how much he is asking? It was given in Dollars or Euro, converted it was 8 million. I told Olti to write it down that he needs such a specialist, and then they can decide whether he can get this much. Then someone in the town hall - I do not know exactly who - approved. "

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.819.

Contradiction:

The 2008 February 27th Mayor's Cabinet sitting daily reminder, and the decisions taken there:

The Agenda: The Metro 4 project management project was to strengthen the organization, and at that Cabinet meeting, Zsolt Balogh was there as the acting Chief Executive Officer of BKV! I have to say in the memo he was erroneously listed as deputy CEO.

At this meeting, the Cabinet called on the BKV, that the person leading the project make a proposal as soon as possible!

Decision:

102./2008

The Cabinet supports the strengthening of the Metro Line 4 project management.

Responsible: Miklós Hagyó

103./2008

For the position of Project Director, BKV make a personal proposal

Responsible: Miklós Hagyó

104./2008

The proposed organizational structure the Cabinet is considered temporary, which after the appointment of the new Project Director, if necessary, should be reviewed.

Reference: Annex of Mayor's Office documents, Mayor's Office Volume 3., page 322.

The Metro Line 4 project and the DBR Metro Board of Directors belonged to the BKV, the

operational management of the project was carried out there. The question of who will be on the Project Director position, it was the BKV's internal matter, accordingly, they have proposed

the person, and not the Municipality!

12. Falsifiable assertion: DBR Metro Directorate position:

In the 2010. July 6th daily Minutes of the continued interrogation of suspects, the following

can be read:

1. "The DBR is an independent project organization, which BKV had to create because of EU funds tendering. The EU said it would not finance such a diverse organization acting as the BKV, this had to be an independent legal entity. I did not know that this had to be a separate company, or by a separate department. "

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.817.

2. "To the activities of DBR I did not had an insight, regardless of according to the OOR that it is an organizational unit of the BKV.

Éva Horváth personally prevented, that DBR gets to the right position in OOR. In my personal opinion, construction of the metro stations were over billed, and they didn't want that too many people would find out about this. "

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.817.

Contradiction:

The above statements do not correspond to reality for the following reasons:

The DBR Metro Project Directorate is not an independent project organization!

In 2004, the two Metro contracts were born, thus the 1. investor contract between the Capital and BKV, and the 2. financing between the Hungarian State and the Capital, which are agreements on the implementation of the project and financing of Metro Line 4.

In 2005, followed by the contract with EIB.

+ 2 Metro Act, well as the OOR of BKV also regulates in detail the DBR Metro, as I have explained in detail in my written testimony.

These rules undoubtedly determined the Project Board location within the BKV, having regard to what can be concluded that the DBR Metro matter is not a topic about which merely is the basis of "personal view" that could take a position on anything.

The 10.3.1 point of the investor basic treaty states, that "the Project Directorate of BKV organizational system directly and exclusively operates under the direction of the Chief Executive."

However, the current CEO of BKV, is also a member of the Project Steering Committee, and its leader, so as the Acting CEO Zsolt Balogh also served this function. It follows that in fact it had to be a clear understanding of the situation of the DBR Metro Directorate.

I would add, Éva Horváth, like any BKV employees working in the field of communication, for the BKV Organisational and Operational Rules establishment, in my judgment, she had no such influence. Reference is made in this regard to Attila Antal's as experienced professional observations made at the hearing, which clearly showed that the organizational and operational change is a very complicated and complex process, which, as he put it, therefore, sought to avoid.

13. Falsifiable assertion: Communications contracts:

According to the 2010. February 24th daily Minutes of continuous interrogation of suspects:

„Once the number of contracts and its amounts I found too much, after a while I told Regőczi, that I won't sign the contracts... Then Regőczi complained to Éva Horváth, and apparently to Miklós Hagyó as well. I tell, that at the Town Hall in the office of Éva Horváth in the presence of Miklós Regőczi, Miklós Hagyó ordered me to sign the contracts."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.737.

Contradiction:

1. Acording to the 2010. July 8th daily Minutes of continuous interrogation of suspects:

"... I held back the unsigned contracts of Regőczi and waited for what will be the reaction. Regőczi did not look for me, but a couple of times Éva Horváth came up to me and asked why some of the contracts are not signed, but I do not remember exactly which contract was."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.833.

2. In the 2010. July 26th daily Minutes of the continuous interrogation of suspects:

"...in the summer of 2008 it occurred several times, that I had to meet with Miklós Regőczi and Éva Horváth, and when they urged the signing of the held back contracts."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.839.

3. In the 2010. September 7th daily Minutes of the continuous interrogation of suspects:

„Regőczi constantly verbally urged these contracts’ signatures. When the oral urgency was unsuccessful, then he complained to Éva Horváth, who 1-2 times in her office at the Town Hall and 2-3 times in Pilvax-köz she called me in, which on occasion, she instructed me to sign the agreements or to let them go further. When at the Town Hall I met with Éva Horváth, as I recall Miklós Regőczi was there too... I can tell, that meetings held between the three of us took place at least 2-4 times."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.865.

4. In the 2011. March 29th daily Minutes of the continuous interrogation of suspects:

„As I recall, at sometime in July 2008, Miklós Regőczi told me in his office, that the contracts yet not signed by me needed to be signed, because Miklós Hagyó and Ernő Mesterházy needs them, they pay some of the advisors working at the Town Hall through these contracts. I strongly say, that at this conversation besides us, no one was present."

Reference: Voume 64., page 42.067.

5. Of the 2011. March 30th daily Minutes of continuous interrogation of suspects:

„As I recall, only two of those times was when Miklós Regőczi and Éva Horváth talked to me about to sign the contract. "

Reference: Volume 64., page 42.097.

6. Hence there is also the attached e-mail numbered 1. in the 2010. September 7th daily Minutes of continued interrogation of suspects:

„From: Ágnes Vitéz

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:19 PM

To. Dr. Péter Tóth

Cc: Dr. Katalin Várhelyi; Miklós Regőczi

Subject: FW:Sport Beach; Agárd Pop Strand

Dear Péter,

I ask, that with the organizers of the two events each worth of 600,000 HUF, to establish an agreement. None of them can be tendered, because we are talking about specific events, which are operated by specific entrepreneurs. Please, conclude the contracts in a fast procedure, that to the programs already in July employees can go.

Thank you

Ágnes Vitéz

Head of Marketing Department

Sales Directorate

BKV Co.

Phone.: 461-6571

From: Miklós Regőczi

Sent: 2008. July 15 9:25

To: Zsolt Balogh

Subject: FW: Beach Sports, Beach Pop Agárd

signed by:

Attachments: BKV agreement 2008.doc; beach.doc Sports

I was informed that these two cases are currently with you, and on the 30th of June we launched towards the public procurement as this is for our employees, and summer is progressing, so please check them out to be able to start as soon as possible if you agree.

thank you

Regards, Miklós”

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.901.

Interpretation of the email, as in all other cases, they are also different from the literal content of the text above, from it draws illogical conclusions:

„2008 July 15. 9:25 From: RM To: BZS Subject: FW: sports beach pop beach Agárd

Significance: At the Investigation of the Municipal Prosecutor's Office in my given testimony I referred to, that during my job from the end of February as Acting CEO, after a certain period of time (approximately 2-.3 months) I have restrained from the signature of a number of marketing and sales contracts. This is evidenced by that e-mail, where Miklós Regőczi, writes in connection with one of the retained contract, and since I didn't do anything in order to be signed, he "complained" at Éva Horváth, who instructed verbally to the further releases of the contracts. Before the e-mail message of Regőczi, Ágnes Vitéz, (BKV Sales and Marketing manager) urges the conclusion of the contract at the purchase, where obviously the information was given, that the contract is at Zs.B. Acting CEO, but he didn't sign it.

MR: Miklós Regőczi BKV deputy Sales and Chief Marketing Officer. "

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.871.

I believe that the facts of these contradictions are unnecessary to append any comments.

14. Falsifiable assertion: FFVD Lp., Vision Consulting Ltd. Well Ltd.:

Let's see what were those contracts, which according to the above, Zsolt Balogh should have signed:

Under the 2010. February 24th daily Minutes of continued interrogation of suspects:

1. "I'll tell, that György Tótfalusi, besides the signing of the property and Promix contracts, also instructed me to sign various advertising contracts related to communications contracts. This happened when I refused to sign communications contracts for Miklós Regőczi. Then on top of my accountability of Miklós Hagyó and Éva Horváth, György Tótfalusi also ordered me to sign the contract of FFVD, SYGMA, Soda, Zeus, Well, HRK and Kornus. I don't know who was at present when this instruction was given."

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.745.

Contradiction:

1. FFVD Lp.

1. The 2010. July 8th daily Minutes of the continued interrogation of suspects in contrast, the report includes:

Prosecutor asks: "What do you know about FFVD Lp.?”

Suspect: I only saw it on the list, I do not know anything about it.

I can tell, that in the summer of 2008, between Regőczi and me, such body language evolved, that was not communicated to me that why do they have so many communication contracts, so I held back of signing them and waited for what will be the reaction. Regőczi did not look for me, but a couple of times Éva Horváth came up to me and asked why some of the contracts are not signed, but I do not remember exactly which contract was. "

Reference: Volume 64., page 41.833.

2. The indictment I/A Point 2/a) is dealing with the F.F.V.D. Lp. case:

Contracting dates in the indictment:

Date of conclusion: 2007. April 27th Subject: Smile Inspectors deployment

Zsolt Balogh, worked at BKV since the 28th of February 2007 as the office manager / team leader of Directorate of Investment
Éva Horváth as the previously explained, did not work in the Metropolitan Municipality!

Date of conclusion: 2007. August 23th Subject: "Starting School" event

Zsolt Balogh, Head of the Department of Investment.
Éva Horváth is still not working at the Metropolitan Municipality!

Date of conclusion: 2007. November 14th Subject: Christmas programme management as the subcontractor of Sportlife Media Ltd.

Zsolt Balogh, then Chief Technical Officer
Éva Horváth, however, still does not work at the Metropolitan Municipality!

It can be concluded that all three contracts were signed before Éva Horváth had an agency contracted with the Municipality, and she began to assist the work of the Cabinet.

But more importantly, however, is the question, what kind of list Zsolt Balogh saw or could see the name of FFVD Lp.?

2. Vision Consulting Ltd.:

Here I am referring to the fact that this is not the first time when the list expression entered in the minutes, as well as the quasi-"crack" which is not only readable here, and the need for certain contracts or justifications contained in the list were decided by, thus 2011. March 29th daily Minutes of continued interrogation of suspects, like this in a previous hearing, mentioned above, includes the following:

"At my interrogation on the 24th of February 2010 they showed me a list, where it also showed the concluded contract with Vision Consulting, and because I have seen what the contract was concluded for, therefore, I could say during my testimony that BKV did not need that contract:"

Reference: Volume 64. page 42.083.

Without having to draw any conclusions, as it is not my business, I would like to draw attention to the fact about FFVD Lp. as well as Vision Consulting Ltd. Zsolt Balogh, at first stated, during his interrogation of suspects on the 24th of February 2010.

3. Well Ltd:

The indictment I/A point 1/a.) specifies five pieces of the contract concluded between BKV and Well-Advertising and Public Relations Agency Ltd.

1. Conclusion date: 2006. March 1st, Subject: Combino type trams related complete range of PR activities

Zsolt Balogh had not yet worked at BKV Co. Ltd.!
Neither Ottó Lelovics, nor Éva Horváth did not work at the Metropolitan Municipality!
I was not yet Deputy Mayor!

2. Conclusion date: 2006. December 1st Subject: Holding of Christmas public events, Fabulous Christmas, Fabulous Santa Claus, TaleTram

Zsolt Balogh had not yet worked at BKV Co. Ltd.!
Neither Ottó Lelovics, nor Éva Horváth did not work at the Metropolitan Municipality!
I was not yet Deputy Mayor!

3. Date of conclusion: 2007. February 21st Subject: Campaign against cheaters

Zsolt Balogh had not yet worked at BKV Co. Ltd.!
Éva Horváth is still not working at the Metropolitan Municipality!

4. Date of conclusion: 2007. April 2nd Subject: BKV's advertising spot entry of Foreign Review

Zsolt Balogh from the 18th of April 2007 has been employed at the BKV!
Éva Horváth is still not working at the Metropolitan Municipality!

5. Date of conclusion: 2007. December 5th Subject: BKV Streetshield Campaign

Zsolt Balogh, at this time is already deputy CTO, however, in my opinion the communications contracts were not part of his task and responsibility!
Éva Horváth is still not working at the Metropolitan Municipality!

Of the certain contracts that are examined more precisely becomes clearly visible, that in the minutes contained, here also contradicts to obvious facts, of which I think, as a single explanation, only IV. accused's testimony at the hearing may serve as reference conditions.

Search form

You are here

Hagyó's Testimony: Segment on AAM Plc.