I. Defendant I Miklós Hagyó's Testimony Given to the Kecskemét Tribunal

Testimony of Miklós Hagyó I. accused at Kecskemét Tribunal  No.1.B.73/2012. with pending criminal proceedings












IV.2. The decision-making mechanisms OF THE ASSEMBLY. 24


     COMPANIES. 26

V.1. GENERAL principles and objectives 26


VI. the Bkv co. 30












VIII.5. THE III.-IV. COUNTS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 69



IX.2. principles and objectives 70


IX.4. Who was responsible?. 73



IX.6.1. Budget- year of 2007. 76

IX.6.2. Budget drafts. 77


IX.8. The cost of investment. 83

IX.9. who used the complete material?. 86

IX.10. Unnecessary services?. 87

IX.11. the affected persons 88

IX.12. relation between aam plc and bkv. 90

IX.13. the afterlife of aam contracts 91

X. in connection with IV. accused person accusations incriminating me. 92



X.1. C.C.Soft ltd. or the I/14. count. 93


X.1.2. head of c.c.. soft ltd. 94

X.1.3. the contract entered into between c.c..soft and bkv on the day of 12th of july 2007. 97


X.1.5. criminal conduct imposed in me. 104

X.1.6. the unfounded fears of IV. Accused. 107

X.1.7. modus operandi 111

X.1.8. location of crime. 111

X.2. the II. count. 112

X.2.1. the count. 112

X.2.2. the background of my relationship with IV. accused. 112

     X.2.2.1. What role did IV. defendant had?.. 116

X.2.3. why did he want o meet with me?. 117

X.2.4. Gödöllő. 117

X.2.5. Hévíz. 119

X.2.6. Synergon PLc. 120

X.2.7. 2009. transferring the second 15 million. 124

X.2.8. Nokia box. 125

XI. Summary. 128
















Honourable Tribunal,

My confession will be relatively bulky. Before we talk about the incriminating counts, I'd like to elude to the antecedents, to my short political career, of my activity as deputy mayor, as well as the organizational and system operating conditions and content. Unable to follow the logic of the prosecution in everything, I will speak thereafter in general about the accusation incriminating me, about my allegedly played role in a criminal organization, then the accusation of mandates of AAM Plc. (I/21.), about the two counts connected with IV. accused (CC. Soft Ltd. [I/14.] and in section II.). In my testimony I will refer to a number of documents, many of them are also found in the investigation material, some of which I consider important, and then briefly or at length, however, quoted documents – which is not entirely clear to me - cannot be read among the investigation documents.

To understand my defense, and to make it understood, it is inevitably necessary, that I can not deem away from that, that by the analysis of evidence which are militate in favor of me, I already cite such persons (co-defendants or witnesses)  investigation confessions  - highlighting the obvious  and factual contradictions -, who are in the court proceedings according of the criminal procedural rules have not heard me, could not hear me yet. Reference should be made also to such media utterances, which, of course, did not arise in accordance with the criminal procedural rules, but which later have been given the wording and content of the fact - best of my knowledge - has not been challenged. In this regard, I try to show restraint and with my detailed comments associated with certain affected persons and add my observations after their hearings.



I was born in Jászberény, I finished my elementary school studies there, after that I went to the Csermajor Dairy industry Secondary School in Győr-Moson-Sopron county, where I obtained my high school graduation as well as a certificate of a skilled worker. The fact that I went to this school was due to a family tradition, since my father and my grandfather also graduated from the same high school.

After graduating from high school I find employment in Jászberény dairy plant, while in parallel correspondence courses, later full-time I obtained a university degree at Budapest University of Horticulture and Food Industry faculty in Szeged. Here I was the organizing secretary of the Student Committee, and as recognition of my work it provided me a special prize at graduation. In Szeged I graduated as a product engineer and as a result of my academic achievement I went to Budapest. Here at the University of Horticulture Department of Economics I received a food engineering degree.

On the same department I have targeted a Phd degree, therefore I started the necessary courses, however to finish it - after the completion of three successful semesters - it was left behind due to political and personal life difficulties. It belongs to my vocational work, that I attended the Scientific Student Conference in Gyöngyös, where I gained a special award, and at the university I participated in researches, and I am also a co-author of numerous scientific publications. In order to continue university, in 1989 I moved to Budapest, and after completion I worked for several international companies, I perform advisory functions, besides I had smaller or larger ownership at food retail and wholesale trading companies. I founded my own company in 1999, and created and named it Wirtass Ltd. Thanks to the economic boom I have successfully taken on any obstacles, with the result that the company has grown into prospering commercial enterprise. By 2002, ie for the period of my selection as a Member of Parliament, the Company had considerable financial resources, and I also could call my own a significant business and real estate assets, which in 2003 I further enriched by the purchase of another property.

I would like to point out, that during my mandate as deputy mayor, I only bought a single property, of which quid pro quo however I was able to settle, as I have described above, much earlier, and meanwhile acquired and sold properties with the purchase price covered. These revenues of course were all received into my bank account, and have been paid out from there, therefore it can be precisely traced back.

So I should say, that by the time I became a politician, as a result of my work in economic life, I have made arrangements for a significant business and private wealth, so there were no substantive reason why I chose a political career.

About my relationship with the Hungarian Socialist Party, I can say that I joined the Communist Party in 1998 of September after the parliamentary elections, whereas Gyula Horn's personality and role had such impact on me, that I turned towards to politics.

At first I became a member of  the XII. district's organizational of the Hungarian Socialist Party , and if I recall it correctly, in 2000 I also got into the district presidency basis of youth quota. In August 2000, we formed the Hungarian Socialist Party Branch School of Charity, of which I've been elected as the executive president, and in this field of activity we also held a number of rallies nationwide, such as food distribution, at the start of school we organized sharing of school supply packages, and in Transylvania after the floods, in cooperation with the Red Cross donations were delivered to those in need, and organized summer camps in Hungary for nearly a 100 children, to ensure that during the camps the parents are able to deal with recovery.



Then, at the next election, in 2002, I was included in the Hungarian Socialist Party Budapest list, but the winning call I gained from the national list, thanks to which I became a member of Parliament, and then I've been elected as the president of the Hungarian Socialist Party's XII. district organization. In addition, I never had other elected positions within the party.       

I consider it important, that during my activities both in the economic and political life, I acted by carefully following the prevailing laws, and lived a decent, law-abiding lifestyle. Prior to the present action against me, criminal proceedings have never occurred, and no irregularity nor even a suspicion arose.

This is the reason why I am still puzzled to this process, as well as other criminal proceedings against me before. Time, in my opinion, and the credibility of the words proves my innocence.

1.)  Taken into consideration the present method of pre-trial detention, during the most severe coercive measures with myself and my partner and with my lawyer acting in my civilian affairs - according to the prosecutor committed during my detention - has started private forging documents offenses of criminal proceedings. I believe that this is due to being under coercive measures I committed another crime suggested and used by the investigating authority, breaking me away from my family members. Referring to this reason the prosecutor's office prohibited the maintenance of contacts with my partner, and in many cases brought up this reason for the extension of my pre-trial detention.

In contrast is the fact, that during my detention in penal institution I observed all the rules, and no case has been made against me. During the contacts with my companion I acted in good faith, not knowing the penal system rules of procedure, that of a responsible person, that is, following the informations of my educator I have initiated the contact with my companion.

In the case of the Pest Central District Court on the 16th of January 2012 and the Municipal Prosecutor's Office due to withdrawal of appeal on the 17th of April 2012 has become final No.6.B.35.649/2011/11. judgment, from the offense of forgery of private documents the accusation were finally acquitted. (Appendix 1)

2.)   Following an investigation at The National Audit Office's Local Government Municipal, Dr. Zoltán Fejes, based on the denunciation xxxx of the Head of Unit of the National Audit Office on the 17th of December 2010 at the Budapest Police Headquarters Defence Economics I. Department on criminal number 01000-666/2011. prosecuted felony misappropriation and other crimes against Dr. András Gyekiczki and xxxx others, the framework of which on the 24th of August 2011 my interrogation of the suspects took place.


According to the denunciations that I, as urban management and asset management Deputy Mayor of the Mayor's Office, acting as a client representative, undue favor to the trustee, I concluded fictitious agency contracts with two members of the Cabinet, with xxxx and V. accused, whose remuneration, contract performance unchecked, in the absence of supporting documentation issued certificates of completion has occurred.

In fact, both members of the Cabinet of high professional quality, and tangible results showing work performed, - which working together with a number of Cabinet member confirmed by their testimony of a witness - and to compensate fully entitled to take up their remuneration.

In this case, the investigating authority, separated from the main case, and from each other with the V. accused, as well as the affecting accusations of xxxx, on the 5th of June 2012 criminal number 01000/5357/2012. and on the 23rd of July 2012 CNo. 01000/6143/2012. decisions of the criminal offense in the absence of law is not abolished. (Appendix 2)

Here I refer to the fact that the prosecution of the mayor, the town clerk, the capital city utilities and managers of the public service companies and other staff, and numerous members of Cabinet have been heard and they have been said, and bought the documentary evidence obtained in the investigation authorities to believe that in neither case I committed a crime.

The insulted Metropolitan Municipality took note of this decision, however, the denounced National Audit Office lodged a complaint against the decision, I might add, because the evidence is very detailed and thorough evidence obtained in the course of legal proceedings resulting from a position unknown.

Note that the National Audit Office did not examine any of the former deputy mayors nor of the other two former deputy cabinet and their contracts. I would add: that during the time the National Audit Office pointed towards an examination of my person and V. the accused were already in custody. In reference to this question, that why exactly did this cabinet and such contracts examined by the State Audit Office replied that "the selection of areas to be examined in the risk-based approach prevailed."? (Source: National Audit Office letter of reply dated on the 13th of April 2012 of the Budapest Police Headquarters, Department of Economic Defense for Special Affairs Group, Appendix 3)

Beyond the criminal proceedings against me I think that for the rest of my life will be an unprocessable experience that was the pre-trial detention and its extension for nine months.



In the case regarding my first interrogation as a suspect, and also before my arrest, on 11th of May 2010 together with my lawyer indicated in writing to the investigating authority, that is, the Budapest Police Headquarters, that at any time I am available to the authorities, the permanent registered residence in my abstaining, and all our contact details are given. In spite of this after a few minutes of the formation of a new parliament 7-8 policemen burst into my apartment, where I was immediately set to wall and handcuffed, the prosecution considered it necessary to use against me the heaviest use of coercive measures, that after the imposition of the petition,  and that based on that in criminal investigation of judicial decisions featured in the ascertainment at several times, that fleeing abroad, risk of hiding the underlying data is available to the authorities, to which after referring my pre-trial detention regulary was extended.

I Firmly declare: that I have never tried to escape, and that can stated as fact, that throughout the proceedings I was readily available to the investigating authority, and in everything I cooperated with the authorities.

My defender continuously in all submissions requested, that the prosecution according to the rules of the criminal procedure code presents us those evidences, in which in my case refer to the risk of absconding or hiding, and substantiate it, but never, we have not recieved in a single case not even substantive information about it, what evidence is involved and as a result, in question "evidence"  to refute our arguments could not distribute.

The Metropolitan Court as the court of second instance dated on 10th of June 2011 No. Ijc.1448/2011/2. in order to terminate my house arrest the following has been fixed:

"The appellate court held that in this case of Miklós Hagyó suspect are not available for any information and facts, which continues the fear of escape, of his hiding, and which have a probable, that his presence of the procedural only  by maintaining his house arrest can be ensured... The merits of coercive measures in relation reported earlier and also referred to a decision of the investigation incurred by the information which, according to which Miklós Hagyó wants to leave abroad from criminal responsibility, however of this investigation of material sent by the Central Investigative Prosecutor's Office to the court, in this regard does not contain any data, so that is not clear, that in case of the suspect what facts demonstrate the intention of leaving abroad. "


Note that, in principle, from the copy of the complete investigation of digital  data medium referred to the decision just the material that contains the above statement's second page is missing.  (Appendix 4)




More important is a question that occurred to me: If the Honourable Tribunal also  provided to me by law with the same content a complete investigative file that contains no such information, the risk of absconding or hiding, that is, the intention of my departure abroad, then I'm wondering what the prosecution has based this allegation for nine months?!


However, the reason for the extension of pre-trial detention on several occasions appeared in danger of influencing witnesses.


I continue to maintain, that I wasn't in touch with not one, then only a suspect, currently an accused man, never looked for them and in no way influence them. As I also said in my testimony investigation, with III. accused on 20th July 2009, while with IV. accused in August 2009 I met the last time. In 2010 17th of May on the day prior to my remand decisions at the session of my hearing at the Buda Central District Court, (investigative documents 67. volume 43.873 pages), given information on the competent investigative judge (and I quote verbatim):

"A few words about the persons involved. In relation with IV. accused I would say, I did not instruct him, I spoke to him last in August 2009. With III. accused I spoke on the 20th of July 2009 and since then I have no connection with him. With one exception, a Christmas sms was exchanged. With VIII. accused I have never met, only congratulated for his child in sms, it was the only connection. With xxxx I have not spoken since last summer. With VI. accused I haven't spoken since the end of 2009. With V. accused we are on friendly terms and we keep in touch. Those names have emerged in the media, the overwhelming proportion of those I do not even know. "


Four months later, on the 14th of September 2010, during the confrontation with IV. accused, these facts in relation with IV. accused has been confirmed.


I am in the present case as a defendant and interviewed witness, and for the media often with a completely opposite statement, against the persons stated misstatements about me, solely acted in one way. The legal way.


Thus, in all cases, when the general public was faced by and guaranteed by the media, my honor is abused, and libelous statements were made, and filed charges against the perpetrators ended which were part of the procedures for legal accountability of perpetrators, and in part is still ongoing.




I highlight these cases, when against IV. accused on the 10th of March 2010 for a base reason, before the general public, causing considerable injury of interest, continuously committed misdemeanors of defamation in which I made a complaint. It is based on the investigative documentary 1. volume found on pages 279-285. given by IV. accused to the Hungarian Nation newspaper, in March 2010 in the 6th issue published interview, as well as in the evening show of "Contrast" were made untrue, and statements were used to offend me (Appendix 5) on the 7th of March 2010 in Hír TV.


In the case the Pest Central District Court dated on the 14th of September 2010. No. 11.B.MV.33.949/2010/6. - the second instance of the Municipal Court No. 20.Bf.9794/2010/2. legally binding order - decision of the prosecution of these proceedings has been suspended until the definitive conclusion.




Prior to my appointment at the Metropolitan Municipality


Prior to my appointment with the Metropolitan Municipality or its proprietary collectively referred to as public companies, I never had any dealings with them. I was also not dealing with government representatives, nor its board members, not the capital of any company's supervisory board or board member. I never had any direct or indirect relationship with the Municipality or its bodies, committees, departments and its companies prior to my appointment.


Following the elections, Mayor Dr. Gábor Demsky informed the fraction's management that he considers me as an appropriate person to fill in the position as Deputy Mayor after a private consultation with me, and then he invited me for the position. I then tried to assess the complexity of the task awaiting me, therefore with my predecessors, with Pál Vajda and Tibor Bakonyi consulted in order to get an overview about exactly which areas, and what responsibilities will be included for me.




The urban management and assets management, Deputy Mayor


III.1. My election


On the municipal elections of 2006, I was transferred from the Capital list of MSZP's as a representative of the Capital Municipality.


The indictment's fourth page 1. paragraph says the following:

"Miklós Hagyó I. accused, between the election cycle of 2006-2010. was a parliamentary and municipal representative, who had been elected as deputy Mayor by the Municipal Assembly on the 16th of December 2006, in which nature the authority of the capital's public transport also included his competence.”


I take observation, that my appointment took place on the 14th of December 2006 not on the 16th of December 2006. In this context, I would like to quote verbatim a meeting held by the Municipal Assembly at the new city hall on the 14th of December 2006.  No. 1866/2006.(XII.14.) decision of the Municipal Assembly from the 30th page of Protocol dated on the 14th of December 2006.



"The mandate of the Municipal Assembly for the duration of the 2006th with effect from 14th of December, Miklós Hagyó metropolitan representative as full-time deputy mayor shall be elected.

Closing date: immediately, Responsible: Dr. Gábor Demszky (56 yes, 5 votes against, 4 abstentions) "


At my election, the Mayor's press office issued a statement that included the following:

„Dr. Gábor Demszky asked from Miklós Hagyó Deputy Mayor, to enforce with every means also set in the joint coalition program a new urban management approach. His person is also a guarantee, as he is an experienced, yet young and dynamic politician ... First of all, he will make the city more permeable, renew BKV, create a resolution for the parking process, generate multiple equipment in urban regeneration, implement a utilization of European funds needed for decisions which can not be postponed and recommendations made that awaits from the newly elected deputy mayor. Since Miklós Hagyó is currently the only Deputy in the near future, tasks will be given to him for more effective division of labor, which are not necessarily included in the final portfolio."



I emphasize and underline, that prior to my appointment as deputy mayor I was not involved in those consultations coalition, on which it was also decided, inter alia, that how many deputies will be of Dr. Gábor Demszky, and to the deputies which areas will belong. In addition to these consultations, Gyula Molnár Capital Party Chairman and Dr. Pál Steiner represented the Hungarian Socialist Party. The negotiations resulted in the approval of the relevant party and faction regulations, or other governing documents, as defined according to the documents indicated that the decisions are duly authorized in behalf of agencies and bodies. The specific areas I will have to deal as deputy mayor, from me which is entirely independent, was decided in the consultation process as described above.

Following my election, besides the mayor I was the only deputy, and I took over the tasks of the two former deputies Tibor Bakonyi and Pál Vajda. The significance of this fact I will describe in detail later.


It is a fact, that  on the 15th of February 2007 the Municipal Assembly only two months later elected Imre Ikvai-Szabó metropolitan representative as a full-time Deputy Mayor with 36 yes, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions, with the decision of the  Municipal Assembly No. 117/2007.(II.15.). Responsibly, similar to my election, Dr. Gábor Demszky was designated, and as it's outlined in the Municipal Assembly extraordinary meeting held on the 15th of February 2007, on the 15th page of the protocol is stated.



The third deputy Csaba Horváth was also elected by the Municipal Assembly decision No. 126/2007. (II. 15.) with 36 affirmative votes, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions, as it's stated on the 20th page of the protocol on the 15th of February 2007 during an extraordinary meeting.



All this meant that while the previous term of five Deputy Mayor helped the mayor's work, until the three of us performed their previous duties in addition to the ever expanding new tasks, connection with which I would like to stress again that until the middle of February 2007, I was the only Deputy Mayor.


III.2. My other tasks


Next to my position as Deputy Mayor I served a number of other mandates. Firstly as I previously mentioned, I was a parliamentary representative of the Hungarian Socialist Party. During the period of the criminal offenses imposed on in my burden, 186 persons of the  MSZP, 18 persons of the SZDSZ represented in the parliament, and within the National Assembly 194 votes were needed to achieve a simple majority. As a result, the party compulsory prescribed participation in the meetings of the National Assembly, which took place on Mondays, but very often it was a sitting on Tuesday as well.


I was the president of MSZMP's XII. District organization, which shall be subject to the social and public events associated with continued participation. In addition, I was the Hungarian Socialist Party, Charity Division Executive Chairman, and a member of the MSZMP's capital city fraction, which had a session every week or every two weeks.


In addition, I was the mayor delegate of the Central Hungarian Region Development Council, as the responsible Deputy Mayor for EU Affairs Supports, and from that several tens of billions of aid arrived in the capital.


Additionally, I participated in public forums, so as to refer to the fact that the during my mandate as the Deputy Mayor the development plan of the Budapest transport system has been elaborated, a connection with which several forums was also held.


As Deputy Mayor among my task was also the reception of the international delegations of the Mayor's office, Thus, only with the Japanese delegation according to my memories I met four times. Above these official engagements I filled in several civil functions, and last but not least, I had to do well as a father too.



III.3. The Cabinet


The members of the Cabinet, as I have also told in my investigative testimony, the following persons were involved:


xxxx: he was the the office manager from the 1st of January 2007 until the middle of spring 2008, so he was responsible for the organizational and operational rules and for the observance of the legislation.


xxxx: he replaced xxxx in the middle of spring 2008 as office manager, and we have worked together until the 20th of November 2009. xxxx have been in the Mayor's Office employees for years, including Dr. Andrea Szolnoki who was the former Head of the Cabinet of the Deputy Mayor, and who was recommended to me by Dr. Zsolt Tiba.


xxxx: was the deputy office manager at my predecessor Pál Vajda Deputy Mayor’s office, and carried out office management tasks.


xxxx: carried out secretarial tasks.


xxxx: took care of document management. Previously she worked at the office of Pál Vajda, the former Deputy Mayor.


xxxx: dealt with the legal tasks of the Cabinet and had been recomended by Zsolt Tiba notary, as an excellent professional, who used to work at the specialized department of the the Metropolitan Municipality.


xxxx: within the Cabinet he performed the city's asset management operations belonging  to the Deputy Mayor public utilities and public service companies restructuring, cost-effective and sustainable related tasks. At the occasion of his selection, I took into consideration, that at the time of my election Dr. Gábor Demszky dated in March 2007 „ scheduled tasks of the deputy mayor responsible for, (found in the letter of 2007-2010 investigative file Volume 67. within the pages 44.019.-44.031.) transformation, as well as increasing the efficiency", and that xxxx previously worked for Deutsche Bank as a controller. For a while he was employed, then in an agency relationship helped the Capital's work.


xxxx: due to the increased tasks, partially took over xxxx responsibilities.


xxxx: was responsible for the community and the entire metropolitan transportation system related coordination tasks, and supported the Metropolitan Municipality and the Municipal Cabinet work. A proposal of xxxx requested him to fill the position.

xxxx: worked as environmental management desk officer. And he has been transferred from the Cabinet of Tibor Bakonyi, former Deputy Mayor.


xxxx: dealt with the grants drawdown opened by EU accession. Prior to this he worked at the PRO Region Agency.


The work of the Cabinet was also supported by the work of V. accused and VI. accused, whose identity and activity I would like to elaborate in the future.


I emphasize that by the selection of my Cabinet members, I considered solely professional aspects, in which one goal had driven me: The backbone of the Cabinet was formed with colleagues worked at the Cabinet of Tibor Bakonyi and Pál Vajda former Deputy Mayor, the staff previously worked at other departments of the Metropolitan Municipality, and workers coming from expert companies. The Cabinet basis of the Organisational Operational Regulations operated as an independent unit, and guided by a separated leader.


Here, I refer to the basis of the National Audit Office denunciation, the Budapest Police Headquarters pending criminal proceedings against me, including  9 colleagues working in the Cabinet with me which was heard by the investigating authority, who are professional and running a professional operation, together with the fact that the Cabinet and the internal audit department is continuously examined, and equally confirmed. This effort also led to a final result: indeed, the Cabinet of the Municipality's internal audit, and the Department of Controllers checked several times, during which there were never any significant irregularities detected, and also received ISO certification.



III.4. Tasks of the Cabinet


My office and I, according to the Organizational and Operational Regulations, had merely preparatory, co-ordinating tasks, and furthermore contributed to the preparation of proposals, which have been presented to the Mayor's Cabinet and the General Assembly, and provided cooperation with the specified departments and agencies. The tasks set by the Mayor, I did have the following toolbars: exploratory talks, professional coordination, and negotiation.


On the local government 1990th LXV. Law § 34. (2) paragraph, § 35. (2), and of the Municipality Organisational and Operational Regulations then in force No. 7/1992. (III. 26) Municipal Assembly regulation in the § 59. (3) (Annex 6) the Mayor of Budapest City - the investigative documentary of Mayor's Office of the Annex to the Mayor's Office can be found in the first Volume pages 560-563. - No. 512/2007. measure had the tasks and division of labor between the Deputy and the Mayor.

The measure is detailed and exhaustively define and demarcate the responsibilities and scope of activities, whereby to overreach and because of the later named legal and administrative controls not only I had no opportunity, but had no chance.


It was furthermore in full compliance with the Mayor of Budapest, and head notary of measure No.525/2005. - can be found in the investigative documentary records Annex of the Mayor's Office on pages 42.-196. in 1. Volume - with the provisions measures the tasks and division of labor between the Deputy and the Mayor, of the tasks and procedures of substitution is provided by a specific measure.


Given that the City of Budapest by the Mayor referred by me of  No.512/2007. measure is part of the investigation documents (Volume 67. 44.011-44.017), I do not wish to describe, but I am referring to the fact that it can be found on pages 560 and 561:


- 1 point b) subsection states that Imre Ikvai-Szabó Deputy Mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality owned public utility companies, provides single or more personal management of economical related companies - in particular the annual business plans, Annual reports adoption of a public service contract for specific tasks and overhead costs relating to the definition - Mayor's duties are;


- the 1. point of the measure c) subsection main professional area of ​​the city-owned utility companies and companies related to the management of the tasks carried out in the Department of Enterprise Asset Management and supervision of the professional activities.



During the investigation, consistent with my testimony, therefore underlines once more, that the metropolitan utilities and public service companies following the election of Imre Ikvai- Szabó Deputy Mayor are jointly supervised, that issues relating to the management of the companies belonged solely to Imre Ikvai-Szabó.


The foregoing have resulted in practice, that most of the public utilities and public service companies and the Commission's presentation at the Joint Meeting with both of our signatures have been submitted to the decision-making bodies.


In context of the tasks to be performed by me, and by my Cabinet however is essential to mention another important document, namely, Dr. Gábor Demszky Mayor dated in March 2007, topic of the city's Deputy Mayor responsible for operations, scheduled tasks 2007-2010 letter passed to me, which a relevant part of the investigative documents can be read in Volume 67. on pages 44.022.-44.023.


The letter V/2 pursuant my highlighted duties formed , inter alia:


"The industry-professional criteria involvement of BKV in 2007, to prevent the growth of the debt-focused proposal business plan, in cooperation with Imre Ikvai-Szabó Deputy Mayor",


According to point V/3.:


"The industry-professional criteria contribute to the restructuring of the commencement of BKV, cost-effective and sustainable operation of the foundation, in cooperation with Imre Ikvai-Szabó Deputy Mayor" and


According to point V/4.:


"The industry-professional collaboration in terms of the local government-owned companies and financial due diligence work and to increase the effectiveness of the measures to be taken in cooperation with Imre Ikvai-Szabó Deputy Mayor."


A City Property Management Service and Office of the Deputy Mayor and responsibilities for the operation of the provisions of the Budapest Mayor's Office of Organizational Rules, regulations, and the prevailing laws and measures were determined by officials. On this basis, it was approved by the chief notary of the City Property Management Service and Office of the Deputy Mayor No.50-454/2007. of internal rules of operation, which is not part of the investigative document that I attached to the Honourable Court. (Appendix 7) Again, I stress that the Bureau has worked as an independent unit. The employer's rights over my colleagues have been exercised by the chief notary, so I was not the employer.

The Rules of the Office lists the following responsibilities:


  1. The Deputy Mayor of the City Service and Asset Management (hereinafter referred to as Deputy Mayor), with the support of the activities, tasks of data collection and analysis, and preparation of background materials and the development and elaboration,
  2. keep in touch with the mayor, deputy mayor, the notary's main offices, with departments, committees, and local governments and other public entities,
  3. perform the secretarial services of the Deputy Mayor,
  4. the daily program of preparation and coordination of Deputy Mayor
  5. Deputy Mayor of everyday activities resulting from the operational tasks (self correspondence, administration),
  6. the necessary negotiations submitted proposals by the Deputy Mayor to General Assembly and the Commission's,
  7. deal with the individual cases of the Mayor,
  8. program of the Deputy Mayor's Office, organization of meetings, preparation of events initiated by Deputy Mayor
  9. requests arriving directly to the Deputy Mayor and the transmission to the appropriate organs of self-government,
  10. assort the incoming mails, specify the necessary guidance, check the incoming letters before signature,
  11. the Municipal Assembly (or committees) decisions in a timely and professional manner in the framework of the implementation of the tasks related to the Deputy Mayor belonging to the professional field.


The Office also participates in:


  1. tasks and division of labor between the Mayor and Deputies, the responsibilities of the Deputies, preparing and supplying the Mayor's measure, specific tasks implementation,
  2. urgent matters and requires individual treatment, the overlapping responsibilities of various departments of the Office, in competence with the Mayor, and in cases can be drawn immediate coordination and operational transaction,
  3. the Communal, Transport, Infrastructure, Environment, Sports and Housing Department - except the city-owned public utility companies and the management of companies and public land use-related tasks - the Venture and Asset Management, governance of the Assets Registers Department Municipality activities professional policy, furthermore the Urban Development, together with the Economic and Social Policy Deputy Mayor's Bureau governance of the professional policy activities of the European Union Affairs Office. The strategic issues concerning urban development and professional activities of all sectoral department professional policy management,
  4. Featured in the Development Committee from the scope of application of EU funding (Structural and Cohesion Fund) project opportunities for the exploration of related applications in the preparation and submission,
  5. the affecting tasks of the capital city of European Union and Regional Affairs supplying (central region, agglomeration) as well as the strategic nature of Budapest Urban Development Concept related tasks, in collaboration with the Urban Development, Social Policy and Economic Deputy Mayor's Bureau,
  6. communication strategy for the Office in coordinating the execution of subtasks,
  7. in Financial Regulation of 8200 addresses with the defined framework of the Asset Management and Environmental Fund, with an address 8429 Municipal Strategic Fund, as well as on address 9200 - classified to the Deputy Mayor's sphere of interest - Commission framework provisioning municipal concerning tasks,
  8. the Municipal Cabinet proposals to be submitted to the preparation,
  9. to be submitted to the Municipal Committees in the preparation of proposals,
  10. to be submitted to the Municipal Assembly in the preparation of submissions.


In regards to the duties of my Cabinet, it also contains provisions the measure of Budapest Mayor and General notary No.525/2005. § 27. - the Annex of the Mayor's Office investigative documentary records, Mayor's Office 1. Volume on page 72. - according to which the City Property Management and Asset Management Deputy Mayor's Office shall provide:


  1. related function performed by Deputy Mayor, a social level coordinating organizational supportive data collection and analysis, as well as the preparation and development of background materials and the development of related tasks as well as the preparation and development of background materials and the development of related tasks,
  2. keep in touch with the mayor, deputy mayor, the notary's main offices, with departments, committees, and local governments and other public entities,
  3. perform the secretarial services of the Deputy Mayor,
  4. the organization of programs of the Deputy Mayor's Office, the tasks associated with the preparation of meetings,
  5. requests arriving directly to the Deputy Mayor and the transmission to the appropriate organs and the related coordination,
  6. assort the incoming mails, specify the necessary guidance, check the incoming letters before a signature,
  7. the Municipal Assembly (or committees) decisions in a timely and professional manner in the framework of the implementation of the tasks related to the Deputy Mayor belonging to the professional field.


The Urban management and Asset Management Office of the Deputy Mayor shall contribute to:


  1. tasks and division of labor between the Mayor and Deputies, the responsibilities of the Deputies, preparing and supplying the Mayor's measure, specific tasks implementation,
  2. urgent matters and requires individual treatment, the overlapping responsibilities of various departments of the Office, in competence with the Mayor, and in cases can be drawn immediate coordination and operational transaction,
  3. to be submitted to the Municipal Assembly in the preparation of submissions,
  4. the Municipal Cabinet proposals to be submitted to the preparation,


Although this has already been mentioned, here again, I stress that the tasks given to the Mayor's Office are prepared by professional departments. In the case of, if any, an utility company is involved in a task, then the department of the Office in cooperation with the utility company makes ​​the submission. In this process, the Cabinet of Deputy Mayor, in each case performed only the co-ordination and consultation, which in practice meant that if such submission had to be ready for a certain deadline, for what I have been identified as the Deputy Mayor of the urban and asset management, then the members of my Cabinet started to cooperate with the competent department and public company. The wording of the proposals submitted by me, however actually was the task of the Office's professional departments.

The general order of business therefore looked like, that, after the department received a job - for the implementation, where appropriate as the Deputy Mayor of the urban and asset management I was responsible - been processed on conceptual level, and in nearly all cases, only afterwards sent to the Cabinet accompanied by the necessary documentation.


The submission of the cabinet therefore in nearly all cases were examined after the preparatory work, and after the necessary consultations have been completed, together with proposals sent back to the particular profession department. In so far as the professional department approved the opinion of the Cabinet, based on that they prepared the final submission.




This final submission according to the procedure I was the last to sign, in other words, when the head of the professional department, head of the legal department, the sub notary, the desk officer of my Cabinet, the lawyer of the cabinet and the manager of the Cabinet or its deputy signature on it featured in, that is, when they're all checked and agreed with. For me, I had special importance in this respect that in each case, the proposals included in the chief notary or the sub notaries, that is responsible for legal professionals were countersigned.

If I got a task for which besides me Imre Ikvai-Szabó was also responsible, then this coordination also had taken place with his Cabinet, to the best of my knowledge, under similar circumstances.


Furthermore the proposals also had to be provided for the Mayor's Cabinet, which had a meeting regularly every week. Its members were: Dr. Gábor Demszky Mayor, xxxx Cabinet manager, Dr. Zsolt Tiba chief notary, xxxx communications manager, xxxx fraction leader, xxxx fraction leader. Csaba Horváth, Imre Ikvai-Szabó and I as Deputy Mayor. The Cabinet discussed the submissions and decided that the General Assembly or the obligated committee to discuss if it can be submitted to the councillor, or it needed to be supplemented.


The above described procedure in practice fully agreed with the legislation in force, and with the norms of the internal control standards, and all public company CEO appointment and dismissal perambulate the same way.

By me the above mentioned, such as the diversity of tasks as the Deputy Mayor of  urban management and asset management, the role of departments as well as the quality of the actual completed work shows well, in the letter written by Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky registry No. 30-160/3/2008 dated on the 22nd of January 2008, in which he asked my comparison of the 2006 roads renovations expert opinion made by and with the help with involved professional departments, and of which second paragraph reads as follows:

„ I did not contest, and I do not wish of substantially contesting your professional work. On the contrary, I think it is effecient, and in addition, this foundation was laid the request."

(see: Mayor's Office investigative file documents named Annex, in the 2. Volume of the Mayor's Office on pages 13-14.,  No.3)


The cabinet's budget in 2007 was over 20 million, in the years of 2008 and 2009, slightly more than 20 million. As I recall, the Cabinet provided this budget and not once used up completely. I find it important to point out, that as the members of the Cabinet had been gainfully employed by the Municipality, and the employer’s power above them been practiced by Dr. Zsolt Tiba chief notary and their remuneration was obviously not the Cabinet, but the Metropolitan Municipality who was liable.


Furthermore I remember, that similar budget was available to all three Deputy Mayors, maybe Imre Ikvai-Szabó had a slightly higher amount.

The Cabinet used the available budget for such an accomplishment of the tasks, which the Organization and Operational Regulations or the Mayor to me, with other words delegated to the deputy mayor of urban management and asset management, which meant, that we reimbursed for the performance of our functions avail and the essential contributors remuneration from this.


I consider this important: the fact that the budget was used lawfully in its entirety, according to the National Audit Office. The Budapest Police Headquarters Department of Defence & Economics conducted an investigation of the evidence obtained and is fully supported by the reference to which the investigating authority in criminal offenses in the absence of a final judgment was terminated.





The operation of the Municipality after my nomination


IV.1. The structure of the Municipality


I would start with the organizational issues, which is mainly in connection with the local government concerning on the 1990 LXV. Act, the Municipality Organisational and Operational Regulations in which I have referred and attached (see Annex 6) - 7/1992. (III. 26) Regulation of the Municipal Assembly, the Municipality of Budapest Mayor's Office of Organizational and Operational Regulations of Rules of procedure on the Budapest Mayor and General notary No.525/2005. - I have also referred to the Mayor's Office investigative documentary Annex Mayor's Office 1. Volume on pages 42.-196. - measure, respectively the Urban and Asset management of the Deputy Mayor's Office - to which I have referred and attached (see Annex 7) in reference to internal rules of operation.


Budapest City General Assembly of Local Government concerning the modified 1990 LXV. Act (hereinafter referred to as LGA.) 1. § (6) paragraph a) point and the basis of the 38. § No. 7/1992. (III. 26.) municipal decree created the Municipality Organisational and Operational Rules.


The 7/1992. (III. 26), Metropolitan General Assembly regulation in accordance with paragraph 1. § (4) the functions of the Municipal and bodies of the General Assembly: perform by the Committees of the General Assembly, the Mayor and the Mayor's Office. The 1 § (5) as delegated by in some of the powers of the General Assembly of the decree to the Mayor, of its Committee, to the metropolitan regional minority government bodies, delegate to an association as defined in the Act.

In exercising this power to possibly give instructions and such powers may withdraw on a case by case basis. Of the powers delegated, occasional withdrawal is decided by a qualified majority of the Assembly. The powers conferred further is non-negotiable.


I emphatically declare that I or anyone, in any form has never been transferred on the basis of rules other than from the respective powers I was not entitled to.  Furthermore, I never asked anyone to act upon it for me or in my name because of my post I held.


The Municipal Assembly had 16 permanent committees, and 4 subcommittees.


The responsibilities of the permanent committees list of transferable powers moreover the 7/1992. (III. 26) Metropolitan General Assembly Regulation contains in Annex No. 5. (Annex 6).

The role of two of the permanent committees I would like to briefly draw attention to in reference to the Honourable Tribunal: namely the Economic and the Urban Operating committees.


The president of the  Economic Committee: Csaba Somlyódi (MSZP), Vice-Presidents were: Dr. Gábor Székely (SZDSZ), - who is also the then Chairman of the Supervisory Board of  the Budapest Transport Company (hereinafter referred to as BKV),- and Dr. János Fónagy (FIDESZ), members of the representative: Sándor Andó (MSZP), Dr. Gábor Bagdy (KDNP), Dr. Gábor Dancs (SZDSZ), András Kolozs (MSZP), Sándor Szaniszló (MSZP), János Wieszt (MSZP), Judit Z. Halmágyi (SZDSZ), not representing members were: Csatlós Csaba (MDF), Gyula Hutiray (FIDESZ), and József Molnár (KDMP).


The significance of the Economic Committee was in regards to the decision of the Municipal Assembly that this body exercised the employer's rights. I emphasize, that I was not a member of this Committee, never attended its meetings, and, as shown from the above list, from the 13 members altogether 5 people were socialist politicians.  Consequently, the five of them alone would not have been able to decide at voting in any matter, furthermore according to the fraction's policy, all personnel issues were tied to its resolution. Such as the socialist members of the Economic Committee with the appointment of the chief executives, and during the related recall of decisions could only act accordingly. It is therefore not only a falsehood, but it is impossible to say that by the appointment of the chief executive officers, I as one person with my "political influence" could have abused it.





The Urban Operations and Environmental Management Committee members were: Imre Lakos (SZDSZ), his Vice-Presidents were: József Gábor (MSZP), and Zsolt Wintermantel (FIDESZ), the representative members were: Dr. Pál Balogh (MSZP), Gábor Dancs (SZDSZ), Dr. István Endrédy (KDMP), József Egerfai (MSZP), Zsuzsanna Mitus (MSZP), Levente Riz (FIDESZ), non-representative members were: Dr. Zoltán Illés (FIDESZ), and Mátyás Porkoláb (MDF).


I was also not a member of the Urban Operations and Environmental Management Committee, however I attended the meetings a maximum of one or two times. In relation with BKV this committee discussed all professional issues and proposals, and only the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer and the revocation of powers did not belong to them.


I would like to point out that Dr. Gábor Dancs, the transport advisor of SZDSZ, Imre Lakos who was the Chairman of the Urban Operations Committee and later was transferred into the transport councilor position, were members of both committees.

Imre Lakos and Dr. Gábor Dancs attended the Metropolitan Cabinet meetings when BKV-related topic issues were on the agenda.


The Municipal Assembly referred to in Regulation 60/A § (1) further provides that it can choose councilors, in addition to the concurrent function of supervision and municipal responsibilities by the Committees of the General Assembly from among its members.

During the meetings of the Municipal Assembly I was just one out of the 67, furthermore, I was not a member of neither the Economic nor the Urban Management Committee.


Municipality of Budapest Mayor's Office (hereinafter: the Office), Budapest City Mayor and General notary No.525/2005. measure in the 1. § (1) of the administrative body with legal personality and financial management in terms of budget allocation among its own independent management authority.


According to § 3. (1), Office of the Mayor, the decisions of the Assembly and its powers of municipal directs, while in accordance with the 9. §, the Office of the chief notary, or the sub notaries and their responsibilities measures set out in the order according to the sub notaries, or their duly authorized public officer represents. Of the staff of departments under my professional supervision, the chief notary exercised the employer's rights and surveillance. With the professional departments, I and my Cabinet had solely and exclusive coordination and consultation powers.


The Office had a separate system of internal control, which having regard to the summed in 9. §, includes the management control, professional, financial integrated workflow management activities of control and internal audit.


In regards to the Mayor's Cabinet the measure paragraphs of 10. § (1)-(5) directive provides, that the Mayor's Cabinet with the leadership of the Mayor, regularly holds a prompt and timely meeting, in connection with the Mayor's operation, giving determination of each task, giving instructions, in order to review the performance of tasks. On the weekly meeting of the Cabinet the Mayor makes all the decisions.


Members of the Mayor's Cabinet: the Mayor, and other person or persons are invited by the Mayor. The chief notary with the right of consultation are regularly invited.

Regularly invited as observers:

a) the manager of the Mayor's Office,

b) the Mayor’s Office Director of Communication.


In addition, the Mayor's Cabinet meeting received occasional invitations to officials dealing with matters, with other experts, and other stakeholders.


In this context, I mentioned in my investigation testimony, that in practice there was a group of five people who met on a weekly basis, and coordinated and discussed the strategic issues. This five-member team were: Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky, officials from the Mayor's office xxxx, chief notary Dr. Zsolt Tiba, Deputy Mayor Imre Ikvai-Szabó, and II. accused who according to the wording of the indictment was the "Mayor's main political advisor".

Apart from them, perhaps xxxx, manager of communication of the mayor occasionally joined them.


For completeness, reference should be made to the above referenced measure of 11.- 12. §, according to which the chief notary regularly hold meetings with the heads of departments, under which review some of the current tasks, especially the General Assembly's agenda preparation of proposals, monitoring and implementing  the decisions of the enforcement. At least two times per year the office and the leaders of departments hold a workshop, which is assessed in the framework the recent work and an overview of the anticipated tasks.


IV.2. The decision making mechanism of The General Assembly


In this context, in particular the 7/1992. (III. 26), Metropolitan General Meeting Regulation - I am referring to see 2. Annex of Annex 6. which states: "The General Assembly effective and lawful operation of appropriate content and quality, as well as the prepared submissions preparation.

The General Assembly proposals, the basic rules governing the order of the Organizational and Operational Regulations define which implementation proceed as follows: "


Then the 1. point of Annex of the General Assembly detailing the preparation of proposals, preparation and the rules of submission, the preparation of meetings of public meetings, as well as the implementation of the decisions of the general meeting and registration tasks.


In doing so, in point I./2. determines those that may make a submission to the General Assembly:

a) the representatives,

b) the mayor and his deputies,

c) Committees of the General Assembly,

d) the chief notary

e) the metropolitan regional minority municipalities,

f) in case of the signatures of at least 12 district delegates, the district delegates,

g) College of the District Delegates Presidency. [OOR 18. § (2)]


The professional coordination regards the I./6. section provides that the proposals should be decided in consultation with the professional aspect of the Mayor's Office, and then with the committees, councilors and all bodies with which this obligation is required by law. The submissions should be sent at the time, that for the reviewer at least 8 days should be available for the related pre-dissemination of its position. The fact of agreement or disagreement, or that circumstance, that the respondent authorities did not comment on the first page of the proposal - designated by name - should be included. In case of issuing its opinion the rapporteur must enclose the essence of dissent, and shall address the related position. The submission should reflect the final position as a result of coordination.


This is followed by coordination of legal regulation, according to which the proposals - after consultation with the Office Professional - legal terms agreed with the chief notary, who checked the manuscript that the proposal meets the requirements of these rules. This legal decision coordination activities primarily include checks of the legality of proposals, further, that the Board is to decide the questionable jurisdiction, and that the decision on the legislation is in force.


It is crucial if the chief notary determines that the proposal for the legal point of view, or according these rules does not meet the requirements, then it is required to inform the rapporteur and the Mayor.



The legal issue of co-ordination, as I said in my investigative testimony, I wish to emphasize that according to my experience chief notary Dr. Zsolt Tiba, unflinchingly in all cases that the law and the law was grounded, which was true even when he was in the interests of the law had to go against with the General Assembly.


All the subject of personal choice, and BKV-related proposals traversed the same way.

If anyone would have had an objection, they could had indicated that through official channels and the light of the above excluded, that a personal will of a single person sole effect could have been obtained in this process.




The affair between the Deputy Mayor and public utility service companies


V.1. General basics


Budapest Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky, in his letter subject 2007-2010 the scheduled tasks of the Deputy Mayor of urban management - located between pages 44.019-44.031. in the 67. Volume of the investigative documents - accurately defined those tasks, which belonged to my competence, although later this greatly expanded and is supplemented with specific tasks.

Accordingly the following departments professional supervision belong to the urban management and asset management Deputy Mayor's Cabinet:

  1. Communal Department
  2. Department of Environment
  3. Department of Utilities
  4. Housing Department
  5. Sporting Department
  6. Asset Register Department
  7. Entrepreneurship and Asset Management Department, the city-owned utility companies and the management of economic companies, with the exception of the use of public land-related tasks
  8. The professional supervision of the EU Affairs Office together with Imre Ikvai-Szabó Deputy Mayor.


The capital had and still has more than 20 utilities and public service companies. Most of these companies, including all of the major firms we jointly supervised with Imre Ikvai-Szabó Deputy Mayor. Among these in terms of sales revenue, BKV was not the greatest.


I emphasize that during the contacts with the public companies, both I, and members of the Cabinet were followed by the Organisational and Operational Rules, and were fully in compliance with the law.

At all times, with the first operative executive of utilities and public service companies, ie with the CEO I reconciled, which meetings, consultations were always in compliance with the official order. With each lower-level executives of public companies - mostly -, I only came into contact, if they were together with the CEO. With the managers of the utility and public service companies, they held consultations among the members of the Cabinet, the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar and the desk officer, were almost always present.


What kind of subjects included the consultations for the Cabinet of deputy mayor of  urban management and asset management?


The subjects belonged to me, which the Lord Mayor, the Mayor's Cabinet and the Municipal Assembly requested, and which by law I had to act upon. Here I am referring to the fact that the life of the companies and operational issues were not part of my work, and that I did not define any such request from nor give instruction.


The natural daily decisions of operative tasks in the Internal Rules of the Organization and Operation, as well as under the provisions of the Company Act, were indeed the Executive Directors and the Managing Director’s responsibilities, the above which the Board of Directors of the Company, and Supervisory Board had full power and control.

I draw the attention to the fact that many of the major urban public companies in recent years conducted investigations and prosecutions that were launched, among which there are also those where the action was already reached by the Court. Despite this, except the present case, there is not a single procedure, where I had been heard even as a witness. The reason for this is, that in all cases I adhered the existing legislation and internal regulations, so it had not occurred, that I have instructed directly or indirectly any of the managers. Furthermore, I asked no one on my behalf, and any request or instruction to be formulated instead from me.


Those requests that are actually from me, only relate to the tasks, of which I was stated as the responsible person, ie the Commission, the Mayor's Cabinet or the Municipal Assembly with reports to be submitted to, or referrals, and those dates, purpose, or related to a specific task.


Again, I stress that in the operational management I could not intervene, I did not interfere with, which was not differently neither involved in the present case of BKV. Over the Municipally owned economic companies the ownership rights were practised by the Municipal Assembly, and following the decision of the Assembly in December 2006, the Economic Committee.


The Organizational and Operational Regulations clearly regulated which companies related issue were covered by the committees, and which one to the Municipal Assembly, but there was no difference which provided professional way both cases had to go. The professional materials began to reconciled with departments, which could take 2-3 months or even half a year. During the process for each issue specialists are joined in, whom within the Cabinet a larger area belonged to, such as BKV-related professional issues that belonged to xxxx, the related issues of management and of rationalization that belonged to xxxx.


V.2. Certain public companies


Here I would like to report in a few sentences about the most important transacted projects at public companies during my activities as deputy mayor:


At first let's look at the the Metropolitan Gas Company, which revenues several times exceeded the revenues of BKV. The company’s 51% ownership ratio was owned by the Municipality.


The Metropolitan Waterworks 74% was posessed by the city. The company over 900,000 homes and a number of public utilities provided water, thankfully which a lot of discussions have been consulted with this company. As a result due to the 2007 consultations, for example, in 2008, the management fee of nearly 1 billion was paid into the capital budget.


74% of the Sewage Works was owned by the Municipality. The referenced letter of the Mayor on March 2007 is noted above, and the third point of it which has defined a number of tasks that are related to the Sewage Works (on page 44.027. 67. Volume of the investigative file):

  1. For the Csepel Central Wastewater Treatment construction completion. Here I refer to the fact that it was Central and Eastern Europe's largest ongoing investment in environmental protection, which an investment of over HUF 120 billion in value project supervision was imposed on me.
  2. The Southern Buda Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and associated facilities final preparation, construction commencement and completion.
  3. The preparation of the complete finishing section of Budapest Sewerage, of the construction commencement and completion, which project for example from the capital's 23 districts 19, ie a total of 250 km sewage network were affected, and that with the affected districts detailed consultations had to be conducted.


In the letter was not listed, but at this time the renovation and transformation of the North-Pest Wastewater was also in progress.


With the 240 thousand Budapest apartments heating and hot water supply Főtáv Co., the coordination of professional supervision also belonged to the Cabinet.

Here I refer to the fact that this company was in a very difficult situation when it got to the Municipality. This is due to the transformation of the support system which dramatically increased the service fees, which resulted in that many people wanted to get detached from the system, but for the capital at the same time would have been an ecological disaster. In order to settle the unfortunate situation therefore on the one hand we started a cost saving program, a result of which we managed to shave off 3-5 billion in operating costs, on the other hand, in consultation with the Government which was achieved, that the program has been prepared to regulate the consumption of homes to make it measurable. The latter is particularly important because it was close to a180 thousand homes in the capital, where the district heating could not be controlled and measured. In addition, the panel insulation programs were continuously running, so we were able to make district heating competitive compared with individual heating.


At the Metropolitan Public Maintenance Co. at the time a program was in progress, which the aim was to increase the number of the capital's selective waste collector islands from 600 to 1,100. And parallely what took place was the preparation of the second build up pace of the Pusztazámor Regional Waste Management Centre.

Here as well started the further cost reduction for conversion processes, which resulted that from the 30 billion operation budget close to 2 billion that could be saved.

The underpasses also belonged to the FKF Co. management, among which during my appointment, cameras had been placed to the 17 busiest underpasses, and at the same time began the renovation and featured cleaning program in all the metropolitan underpasses.


Furthermore, I would like to highlight the Budapest Property Management Co., whose role is important because during my term, 50 small and large EU projects were underway. On the EU tenders, for each 1 forint metropolitan source could obtain about 3 HUF EU resources, therefore, it was important that we could mobilize suitable properties. The Capital as a result, acquired by a nearly 40 billion in sales revenue, during which for example, our exchange trade equity-package - which now wouldn't be worth half the amount - close to a historical peak, could be sold for 14 billion HUF.


In addition during the performance of my public tasks, projects were conducted in context of major road improvements, which are properly listed as follows:


  1. Situation report of the construction of M0 ring road, and to develop an action plan to accelerate the construction to be acceptable, or to be undertaken by government / official duties, (Note, that both, the Megyeri Bridge and the M0 ring road affected sections has been fulfilled).
  2. Preparation of financing plan, action plan and budget, for the taking up construction of Aquincum Bridge in 2010,
  3. Situation report preparation of the Liberty Bridge renovation and its preparatory work, monitoring the implementation, aligning to the Metro 4 investment,
  4. Measures plan, financial plan and funding plan of Margaret Bridge renewal in order to begin in summer of 2008 in synergy with the M0 bridge construction.
  5. Control the work of the reconstruction of Margaret Bridge.


I must add, that during this period - as it reveals from the Mayor's letter, dated in March 2007 - that at all public companies significant changes and investments have taken place, and even from the most important ones, I highlighted only a part of.


I stress that, during the performance of my tasks, all along I acted in favor of the population of Budapest, complying with the rules, and never expanded beyond my powers, therefore I did not interfere with the operational management of certain public companies.





The Budapest Transport Company


VI.1. The special features of the BKV


The BKV is not only one of the Capital functioning public companies, but if we were to formulate it this way, then it is the most targeted priority company of all the public services.

The reasons for this are as follows:

  • BKV has approx. 13,000 employees, which means that the Metropolitan Municipality-owned public firms with a total of 25,000 employees in approximately half of them is employed by the BKV,


  • the BKV as the responsible economic company for Community Transport plays an extremely important role in the everyday life of the capital's residents, which is also shown by 1 million people who use its services on a daily basis,


  • compared to other public service companies BKV had the largest debt, which was more than 70 billion HUF at the time of my appointment.




This amount has had a great importance, because as a debt of the Metropolitan Municipality owned company, it appeared in the economic indicators of the city, so each of the management report and statement is also contained, and since in this way it was affected the creditworthiness of the capital, it posed a huge risk.


  • This precise fact, namely that the BKV financial situation affects the capital, resulted  in that the Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky in his letter of " Scheduled Tasks and responsibilities of  Urban Management Deputy Mayor 2007-2010”, (the 67th volume of investigative file pages 44.029., that I previously referred,  V. point 2.and 3. subpoints) to prevent the BKV's growth of debt, and the foundation of cost-effective and sustainable operation, declared as the basic tasks to be accomplished, in cooperation with Imre Ikvai-Szabó deputy Mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality owned public companies management,


  • the BKV was, and is still the city's most important and largest investment since the regime: the construction of Metro Line 4, which I. and II. pace exceeds the 510 billion HUF expense needed,


  • the BKV and a number of other eligible EU big-budget projects are in progress simultaneously,


  • after I was appointment at BKV in 2007, what has taken place was the largest-volume, cost-cutting restructuring and reorganization, which the results were clearly visible. The balance sheet of the net profit or loss recorded for 2008 was 11.5 billion lower,


  • the BKV was that public service company, in particular due to the Metro 4 as well as those listed, in relation to which the meetings of the Municipal Assembly received most of the proposals, information materials and reports.


VI.2. The organizational structure of BKV



From the BKV and the Municipal Assembly relationship to one another, supplementing my testimonies were given during the investigation, moreover the above-mentioned legislation and internal standards, BKV in 2007 and in 2008 the instrument of incorporation, Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors of the organizational and operational rules and the requirements,  I'd like to briefly elaborate with special attention to the fact that these documents are part of the investigative file, so I had the opportunity to review them after the document disclosure.


According to the 5th point of the Instrument of incorporation the founder of the Company and its shareholder is: the Municipality of Budapest.


In accordance with the law of economic companies Act of 2006. Act IV. (hereinafter CA.) according to the Instrument of incorporation 9.1 point the General Assembly is the association's supreme body, which consists of all the shareholders.


As long as the shares are owned by one person, without holding a shareholders' general meeting shall decide on all matters, which the CA., and according to the Instrument of incorporation the General Meeting / Founder has exclusive discretion.


Instrument of incorporation of 9.3. states: Founder of the exclusive competence of the Companies Act. the exception of §37, members of the Board of Directors, the Supervisory Board and the auditor of the election and removal of determination of his remuneration.


The basis of 10.1. section of the Board of Directors of the Company's executive body, which acts as a body, powers exercised at the Board of Directors meetings. Containing provisions related to the Executive Board procedural rules, namely, that the Board members elected by the Founder (designating), or whether the board membership, inter alia is terminated by revocation.


The above mentioned is also supported by the BKV Organizational Rules, whose requirements are very important to consider the following:


The Board of Directors of the General Assembly consists of 8 to 11 members, elected by the Founder. Member of the Board in this respect to their activities carried his employer can not instruct.


Any member of the Board or the Supervisory Board, in writing, simultaneously marking the reason and purpose, the Board of Directors may be convened.


The Board of Directors of the Company from the persons in such positions generally expected care and attention - unless the law makes no exception - the interests of the Company's are priority. The law, the Articles of Association, the decisions taken by the founder or management of the company in breach of their obligations attributable to damage caused to the general rules of civil law responsible against the Company.




After my Deputy Mayor appointment the Executive Board members were: III. accused, Chief Executive Officer, Endre Berki, (SZDSZ), Dr. Zsolt Beleznay, (SZDSZ), András Derzsi, (MSZP), Zoltán Forró, (SZDSZ), Péter Kardos, (MSZP), Dr. György Király, (MSZP), László Pál, (MSZP), György Pál Tóthfalusi, (SZDSZ), Éva Judit Rozsi, (Government Delegate), Dr. Éva Voszka, (Government nominee).


Allow me to say a few words about my relationship to each member of the Board:


  • the two persons appointed by the Government, I don't know them,
  • Endre Berki and Dr. Zsolt Beleznay, I may know them only by sight,
  • with László Pál, András Derzsi and Dr. György Király, I was in nodding acquaintance.
  • with Zoltán Forró it was only a nodding acquaintance, since he was the Head of Cabinet of former mayor,
  • with György Pál Tóthfalusi we had minimal contact, usually met at Metropolitan Cabinet meetings, and turned to him by letter, if any of the BKV-related professional issues were necessary,
  • I know Péter Kardos from his helping with the economic work of the fraction at the request of MSZP parliamentary group leader Dr. Steiner Pál.

Overall, we can say that with the Board members I had neither business or friendship, or any other relationship with. Most of them I didn't even know personally, and that few I did know, I had only a nodding acquaintance with them.


The Company's CEO was appointed by the Founder according to the Corporate Operational Regulations. The CEO is an employee employed by the Company, who is also a member of the Board of Directors. The employer's rights with the CEO with the exception of the authority with the Founder, exercised by the Executive Board.


The CEO manages the Company's organization, carries out his duties with accordance of the CA., Articles of Association, the Organisational and Operational Rules and the decisions of the Executive Board. The CEO is also the leader of the labor organization, exercises the employer's rights over the employees of the company.


The appointment of CEOs would like to refer in general to, that the appointment of the submissions, take place in the same manner as as all other submissions:





The Municipal Assembly members share a very close, 33-34 in favor of the government party, which has resulted inter alia, that at the end of 2006 an agreement has been reached, that about the managers of the metropolitan public companies, about the members of the Executive Board and Supervisory Board will be a separate collation in each case, as well as the employer's rights, such as the right of appointment and recall that belonged to the Economic Committee. This proposal for a Decision was presented to the Municipal Assembly by Imre Ikvai-Szabó and Dr. Pál Steiner representatives.

Here, again, to I draw attention that from the 13 members of the Economic Committee only 5 people were socialist politicians, they were only entitled to determine in personal matters only after the decision of Fraction.


The consultation was attributable, that the leaders of the Metropolitan Municipality owned public companies were appointed in 2007. June-July. During the consultations in almost all cases we participated with Imre Ikvai-Szabó and Dr. Pál Steiner. This consultation has subsequently been maintained, it only changed, that it is often supplemented with Csaba Horváth and xxxx as well. In respect of the companies managers, the supervisory board and the board members at the consultation the candidates were not concrete persons, it was actually divided by the quota, that which coalition party for which positions sustains itself the notation right. As I recall, for example, SZDSZ insisted for the leader recommendations rights of FKF Co. and Budapest Spa.


All this meant that in the Capital, they could not be appointed or replaced the leader of any public company without the Mayor's approval.


I would raise the question, if at the other utility and service companies the new supervisory board, board members, and the managers have been appointed in the summer of 2007, than the head of BKV, why did they have to be appointed in late 2006?

This had two reasons:


  • First of all, the press had all knowledge of the facts that with xxxx, the former CEO of BKV and Dr. Demszky's relationship has been irretrievably broken down. This fact is mainly called the leading switch. xxxx is opposed to the new candidate III. accused, enjoyed the most extensive trust and support from both the governing parties and the opposition parties.


  • On the other hand, after the consolidation the debt of BKV by the end of 2006. again came close to 70 billion HUF. The extent of debt is an important issue because, as already explained, is wholly included in the Capital's financial judgement. This case required a quick and effective action, and the fundamental idea was that to start the full business year with the new CEO.


In this light Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky the beginning of the year 2007. guaranteed a 100 days for III.accused to prepare a new long-term strategy.


The fact that the proposal relating to the appointment, going through the official presentation and order specifications nothing proves it better than, as among the meeting of the Mayor's Cabinet memos several can be found, where this topic was discussed.


Thus, to refer to the investigative file documents called the Mayor's Office Annex, the Mayor's Office pages 616. and 619., made from the Mayor's Cabinet meetings on the 31th of March 2008, the "Chief Executive Officer of BKV-related personnel issues," and  on the date of 14th of May 2008 "Tendef for fill in the CEO position of BKV" related propositions made ​​in connection were reminders and the decisions were made there.


Clearly visible from the said reminder, that as referring persons we were indicated together with Imre Ikvai-Szabó, and in the meeting as an invited person the competent Head of the Transport Department László Sándor Kerényi, the Community Transport Councillor Dr. Gábor Dancs, of the Economic Committee as the competent body to decide, president Csaba Somlyódi, and in 2008 14th of May meeting, the president of the Urban management and Environmental Management, Imre Lakos also attended.


According to the decision of the meeting taken on the 31st of March 2008, about the settlement of legal relations issue of III. accused, a legal expert opinion had to be made,   which shows the Budapest Municipality how the issue can be sorted by the most legitimate way. As a responsible person, Dr. Zsolt Tiba chief notary has been indicated.


In addition, the No.146./2008 decision has been taken at the Mayor's Cabinet meeting on 31st of March in 2008. decreed, to - having regard to the departure of III. accused - until the election of a new chief executive officer of the BKV, duties of chief executive officer and the substitution of the chief executive officer, prepared a submission for the Economic Committee, who, as responsible people, we were indicated again together with Imre Ikvai-Szabó, with the criterion that in our work, apart from us, as a contributor Mrs. Haszonics Dr. Mária Ádám sub notary is also involved.


In addition, in the No.196/2008 decision has been taken at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th of May in 2008. related tasks of the tender for fill in the CEO position of BKV I was responsible along with Imre Ikvai-Szabó. It was also recorded that "prior to the selection of the candidates the Mayor recommends two rounds hearing: at first the competent deputy mayors, and secondly, the mayor personally negotiate with the candidates. "


I also emphasize, that the chief officers and lower-level managers in the appointment of the current CEO had jurisdiction, so III. accused, as the CEO of BKV the employer's and at the same time exercise of his decision-making rights, appointed xxxx IV. accused, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx and xxxx. I previously did not know these people, I was not related with them as friends, relatives or in business. They have been introduced to me by III. accused. III. the accused could completely and independently decide about with whom he wants to work with, and in the case of IV. accused Acting CEO was the same, at least as I remember.


About IV. accused I would like to repeatedly emphasize, that the Metropolitan Municipality or any of its committees had no power over him, his employer was III. accused until his mandate as CEO. The Acting CEO during his mandate, the employer's rights over IV. accused was exercised by the Board of Directors of BKV, xxxx his CEO nomination, the employer of IV. accused obviously xxxx . Therefore I strongly declare, that on IV. accused I had no employer's rights.

IV. accused, of the investigation file volume 68. of our confrontation on page 14. featured two persons, xxxx and xxxx Deputy Chief Executive Officers, claming that I have been involved in their appointment.


In fact, as I have just stated, the BKV at all times according to the Organizational Rules, over the employers of BKV the CEO exercises the employer's rights, so the above mentioned two persons were selected by the then-CEO IV. accused completely independently and appointed as Deputy CEO.

I stress, that I was not related to them before, I did not know them, and except for their presentation related to their appointment, never at any time I did not directly deal with them.


Therefore I strongly declare that IV. accused wanted to create a false impression by when he said that I had control over any of their appointments, and once again, I want to strongly emphasize that both III. accused, and IV. accused, according to the BKV-Organizational and Operational Rules, completely independently and without influence could elect their colleagues.


Finally, I mention briefly the Supervisory Committee. The composition of the Supervisory Board and the 6.1.2 point of the Corporate Operational Regulations has (investigative file Volume 14th page 9.127). Accordingly the members of 2/3 parts of the Supervisory Board were selected by the Founder, while the 1/3 part of the Works Council shall be appointed from among the employees. The members were: Sándor Andó, Gábor Nemes, Dr. Gábor János Dancs, Ferenc Schumacher, Pál Kerekes, István Szabó, Dávid Vitézy and Dr. Gábor Székely.


From the nine members only two were socialist politicians: Dr. Pál Balogh and Sándor Andó, while Dr. Gábor János Dancs and Dr. Gábor Székely the SZDSZ, Pál Kerekes the MDF, Dávid Vitézy were the delegates of FIDESZ, and the latter is also the Chairman of VEKE. Three people were also representatives of the works council.

I draw attention to the fact that the works council members and two opposition delegates could be against the majority of the four "pro-government" delegates.


According to the Supervisory Board and the 6.3.1. point of the Corporate Operational Regulations (investigative file Volume 14th page 9.131.), the executive management of the company business policy decisions are obligated to be continuously monitored, tested and checked. If the Supervisory Board considers that the activities of the executive management conflict with the law, Memorandum and Founder’s decision, or otherwise interfere with the Company, or the interest of founder, it is obligated to notify and ask for a decision of the founder.


The 6.3.10 point (investigative file Volume 14th page 9.133.) also mentions, that the Supervisory Board is obliged to Urban Management Committee on a quarterly basis, to the Shareholder Committee every six months on the management of the company's financial position and performance of the tasks of the business policy of the Board of Directors report, and the decisions related report is to be sent.


I miss that those reports were not included.


Why are these bodies important?


The BKV business plan preparation was the management’s responsibility. Thereafter, the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board discussed the business plans, and only then could be presented the competent committee of the Capital.

In the business plan specified use of cost was regulted by the BKV-Organizational and Operational Rules, in which the formation of also belonged to the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board.


Therefore all this means, that decisions related to the BKV management in all cases went through five bodies: the management, the Board of Directors, the Supervisory Board, the competent department, as well as the City Operational and Economic Committee.


Again, and I stress the fact that the Mayor's March 2007 - often referred investigative file Volume 67. found on pages 44.019-44.031 - according to the letter defining my duties, the Metropolitan Municipality management issues relating to public companies belonged to the deputy mayor Imre Ikvai-Szabó, and not to me.

The question may arise in the Honourable Tribunal, is that why my signature appeared on the business plan submissions?


The answer to this is as follows: Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky of the said letter of the 67th Volume of the investigative file pages 44.029. V. point has made a provision, that BKV the 2007, prevented the growth of the debt-focused business plan that was proposed.  I should then act in cooperation with deputy mayor Imre Ikvai-Szabó. I may add, that for the signatures in all cases the signing protocol has been used, which is regulated by the Office.


VI.3. The economic situation of BKV


For the indictment contained related findings of BKV economic situation, I wish to make the following comments:


In 2003, the Hungarian government decided to restore BKV normative support.


This is important because in most European countries, the state, region or province and the city are co-financing the loss of the public transport, ie costs not paid by passengers, however in Hungary, the state after the regime, gradually withdrew from the financing of public transport, with the result that after 1997, the aid amount dropped to zero.


After 2002, the government returned to the funding, but the aid amount per capita for three years did not change significantly. Furthermore, while in 2006 the BKV operating expenditure 30% of State normative was covered, In 2008, the same amount was only enough for the 25% of the operating expenditure.


In 2007, that is, after my appointment as Deputy Mayor, I introduced restructuring measures that brought a significant savings for BKV, along with that of course, that the previously accumulated huge financing gap could not be fully replaced. The increased controls and surcharge recoveries have significantly increased the revenue, and costs of the operational efficiency improving projects are reduced. Without these measures, the BKV operating loss in 2008, of 11.5 billion would have been less favorable. This is evidenced by the prosecutor's indictment of the 5th page of 3rd paragraph of the provided data, which according to the 2007 balance sheet profit of HUF 16.8 billion, while the 2008. balance of the year "only" 5.7 billion showed a loss. I attach the above verification, together with Imre Ikvai-Szabó deputy mayor subscribed, "for the Mayor's Cabinet, Information booklet of the BKV current financial position and its medium-term sustainable manner of solving". (Appendix 8)



I believe the fact that the amount of the loss has been reduced to about one third in one year, is a circumstance that has been completely ignored by the Municipal Prosecutor's Office, which is a key indicator of effectiveness of our work, and although I am not an economist, I think, it may only be assessed positively.


I like to emphasize, that I never gave instruction for the BKV executive officers with powers of asset management, and never influenced their decisions, conclude contracts of the BKV, at the best of my knowledge, the imposed contracting system was carried out. The Corporate Operational Regulations and by the powers vested in me has not been exceeded, and no one gave instructions to act on my behalf.




About the indictment in general


VII.1. The indictment general statements


I firmly declare: I was not the creator of any criminal organization, nor the leader of, nor I have initiated the creation of a criminal organization. At all times I carried out my work with observance of the law.


According to the fifth indictment page, fourth paragraph, second sentence "All contracts defining characteristic was that they did not conclude the BKV's economic interests in mind, but the accused and familiar circle of friends with the aim of income allowance has been made​​."


I strongly reject this claim. Neither the AAM Co. related, nor with C.C.Soft Ltd. reported accusations related with me, no facts in the indictment has not been marked with any friend of mine, who through the conclusion of the contract, would have had income. The reason for this is clearly, that such persons were did not actually exist, and because neither the prosecutor of indictment naming them, I did not even know to whom does this finding applies to.


After my election, and throughout, I acted in the best economic interest in mind with the Metropolitan Municipality belonging to the BKV. In all those cases, where at the BKV abuse is suspected, as soon as it came to my attention, I requested immediate action from the supervisory committee to investigate what happened.



This does not correspond to reality the fifth indictment Page first point of the first paragraph claim that it includes, because of my political role, the BKV even in absence of managerial statutory authorization, or on my behalf daily functioning of the BKV instructions were accepted by me. "


I expressly declare, that during my mandate, I acted according to the law, and the prosecution at no time relied on by political influence that I did not abuse to the BKV and its managerial direction.


I emphasize that the as a result of the outbreak of the "BKV scandal" the Hungarian Socialist Party Capital Bureau ordered me, to give up my individual candidacy, furthermore, from both, the capital city list and the metropolitan local government representatives titles. All this, while in the MSZP, in the competent body, in the Ethics and Reconciliation Committee was there no case against me, according to the statutes of the competent body such a decision has not been taken, furthermore, the National Assembly did not receive any request with such contant from the prosecutor General's Office, which for any criminal offense requested the suspension of the immunity.


In light of this fact, the obvious question arises: if this could happened, how can anyone talk about my political role or weight?


I would like to briefly elaborate my real situation within the Hungarian Socialist Party:


In the Capital the main representative and decision-making body of the Hungarian Socialist Party is the Metropolitan Assembly, which had 220 to 230 members. Here the 23 capital districts were sent a delegate, I was one in this body from the 220-230 members.


Between two delegate assemblies with decision-making competence, the 40-45 membered Metropolitan Party Council had, of which, however, I was not a member. This body after my appointment as deputy mayor, invited me on several occasions, when the Capital affecting under in control of my areas of expertise reported the most important issues, which is a fact by confirmed records.


I was also not a member of the otherwise 12-14 membered Municipal Bureau of MSZP.


In the Municipal Assembly of the MSZP it was represented by 24 membered faction led by Dr. Pál Steiner parliamentary group. I did not participate in the leadership of the group, I was only one of the 24 members.


It is also a question of fact, that I wasn't there at the deputy officer-related coalition negotiations, the Hungarian Socialist Party was represented by Dr. Pál Steiner parliamentary group and Gyula Molnár, and the agreement was made there, subsequently approved by the Presidency. In fact I was only the president of the MSZP XII. district's organization, but still in my capacity as President, I was only one of the 23 districts.


So for me it is uninterpretable, the prosecutor's indictment relied naturaly and solely on political influence.


The indictment 6th Page 4 of paragraph records the following:

With his own example, he created an environment, in which his confidential colleagues - V. and VI. accused, and other members of his Cabinet, remained unknown, as well as his personal attorney VII. accused - whom without  the direct involvement of Miklós Hagyó I. accused, have been able to make decisions, represented the interest of Miklós Hagyó I. accused, to give orders, and those to convey to the leaders of BKV."


In this connection, I refer again to the Corporate Operational Regulations and the provisions of either me or my colleagues had no powers. I observed, and abiding by all laws and external standards. Each propositions I have signed only if it went through the appropriate professional and legal coordination. My colleagues were also required to comply with the law, and that the Mayor's Office of Organizational and Operational Rules is followed.


So I can't think of anything else other than the 'own examples "refers to the prosecution obviously thinking when, for example immediately after my appointment, I have initiated an investigations in the case of  xxxx former CEO of BKV regarding his advance payment of premium, or in the event that when the new severance scandal was revealed, and I immediately turned to the Supervisory Board, asking that the case be investigated.


I may add, to my knowledge, any suspicion of irregularity could reach me in three possible ways:

  1. personally visited me and brought the my knowledge,
  2. based on newspaper articles, or other means of mass media,
  3. from letters.


As for all the cases, what each had in common is that I always immediately arranged for the investigation of the problem, and depending on the outcome I made the necessary further steps toward them.


For the better understanding of my own examples allow me, Honourable Tribunal, to quote from the four letters I wrote:


The investigation file Volume 60. pages 38.381. found, already mentioned in connection with advance bonuses, a letter written to the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the BKV, Dr Gábor Székely, which includes the following:


Honourable Mr. President,


I initiate, that the Honourable Supervisory Board to review as soon as possible the justification of the paid advance premium to xxxx BKV's former Chief Executive Officer, based on the implementation of premium tasks of the year 2006.

According to my findings, xxxx did not have the approved and signed management contracts by the owners, and the board was aware of this when the decision has been made.

I ask Mr. President, that in regards to the importance of the matter -help with the urgent sending of the examination results.

Thank you for your understanding, for which I am expecting your immediate action which I appreciate. "


In the same volume of investigation file (60.) in relation of the Index.hu "Prank suspicion around the construction of the metro" titled published article I wrote a letter which I've sent to III. accused xxxx BKV CEO (pages 38.393.), to xxxx Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Budapest Transport Company (pages 38.397.) and to xxxx DBR Metro Project Director (pages 38.401.).


The letter contains the following:

"Today, on Index web portal "Prank suspicion around the construction of the metro" titled published an article about that BAMCO consortium despite their contractual commitments didn't establish the wastewater treatment plant on Etele Square construction site, there isn't a passenger lift at the station which can be used to rescue anyone in the event of a possible accident, and that by the company, the excavated soil is not delivered to the the prescribed site.

As the supervisory Deputy Mayor of the metro line 4 investment and environmental protection, I strongly condemn any kind of environmental pollution and breach of contract. Therefore, with respect I ask the prompt investigation of each case! I expect both the contractor and all the sub-contractors involved in the city's largest investment, and the law abiding behavior during the work. "


Also in Volume 60. on pages 38.443., in a letter to Chairman of the Supervisory Board of BKV, Dr. Gábor Székely after the scandal of used bus procurement I wrote:



"Honourable Mr. President,


Regarding the purchase of buses, there are various guesses to wing its flight, which from the press, obviously you may have heard.

I hereby ask you, as the Chairman of the Supervisory Board for BKV to provide information on the outcome of the findings based on that the legislation provided by the Supervisory Board with the opportunities - how it has always been - with intensified circumspection to check the purchase of used buses in order for the procedure to be undertaken by legal compliance.

I look forward to your detailed and meaningful information as soon as possible. "


This conclusion is supported by the Volume 60. investigative file on pages 38.409-38.411. found letter, wherein to III. accused BKV CEO partly I said that, I quote:

"untenable and unacceptable situation, that public opinion through the press, based on of the leaked semi-information (not once has already rejected ideas) trying to get the image of community transport expected changes, thus affecting almost every citizen of Budapest.

On the other hand, I pointed out that "BKV is one of the most important companies of the Municipality...at his election he was tasked, that after screening the company, immediately begin to transform the company and to make proposals to the company's medium-and long-term strategy. "


In addition, I have explained in the letters the parameter book and concerning the travel fees for tariff concept proposal, that since their discussion of the business plan and the investment plan is not only the process of adoption of BKV, but all the utilities company, so "I think that it is technically well founded and I consider necessary to coordinate these steps and processes. It's time for an open discourse! Everyone should be aware of the fact that which decisions, what consequences entails. I also asked, to this end to "immediately make accessible both of these documents on more channels ...immediately to begin the capital city, the district social, interest representation, and with professional organizations the essential consultation! "


I mention here - as I have previously referred to this - that the Municipality has worked within a so-called Internal Department of auditors, which has repeatedly checked my cabinet, and never once set a major irregularity.


The last paragraph of the the indictment 6th page dated the existence of a criminal organization between the period of January 2007 and August 2008. It is known that I've been elected in mid-December of 2006, which after for two months I was working as the only Deputy Mayor instead of the previous five, and in the beginning of 2007, after the holidays I just started to get to know the official rules.

I think it's not necessary to explain in detail the fact that: as the newly elected Deputy Mayor of the Capital what a task it was to meet to the enormous new challenge, moreover in a way, that right away I had to take over the two former deputy mayors responsibilities, with urgent problems that required immediate action.

Therefore, the finding of this indictment, that is, that after my appointment I was spending my office time with the creation of a criminal organization, I find absolutely unrealistic and unworkable.


The 7th page I/A indictment point of the first paragraph finds that: "I regarded the BKV as a government-owned company, that as paying for my personal and political expenses, which from parliamentary or municipal budgets I could not finance" does not correspond to reality.


I didn't regard BKV as my payments office, and in my belief to support this claim nor the count of the indictment affecting me did not contain any specific statement, nor the entire investigation file did not find evidence for this.


The Honourable Tribunal was in a position to get to know my financial status, given that, as I indicated, already in the beginnig of the investigation, I attached a 192-page detailed statement.

I went from business to politics, my assets had already been arranged, with several properties, and with adequate income. I note, despite the fact, that these extensive, contracts and bank statements containing material were in two places, the Pest Central District Court and the Central Investigating Chief Prosecutor's Office was also presented, unfortunately, it was not handed over to the Honourable Tribunal, which deficiency for request of the Honourable Tribunal, my attorney had to reinstate.


That conclusion, according to which the concluded contracts took place in the aspect of political, friends, or with economic favors, all I can add, is that of my knowledge, that the contracts entered into by the BKV were created by the contract imposed system. That fact, what BKV leaders have done on their own volition, neither I had insight, nor influence. I'd like to add, that from the Organisational and Operational Rules of BKV can be stated, that for both the business plan and the preparation of financial statements the management was responsible.


The indictment 7th page 2nd paragraph reads as follows:

"Later detailed contracts - which primarily is difficult to check the delivery terms of an objective means to measure communications, marketing, advertising and consulting area embraced – the conclusion made under typically political, friendship, economic favors, and the reasonable management of each contract and for BKV aspects of usefulness being ignored were created:

BKV Budapest in the field of public transportation is a monopolistic company, its services known by the target audience, for the users of the capital's public transport in the field of services have no opportunity to choose, BKV doesn't have competitors."


As it is well known, the monopoly means that in a given area, the particular service-providing company has no competition, or, in other words, is nothing more than being in an unrivaled market position.

In such an actual monopoly is for instance similar to BKV also is the Gambling Inc., one hundred percent publicly owned, which in Hungary has the exclusive right to sell lottery and pool coupons.


In contrast, the monopoly position of the indictment BKV findings do not correspond to reality. BKV has a competitor!


However before I'll go into explanations, I’ll make a short digression related to the topic.


Naturally I'm not a transportation or communications expert, but I can definitely state that: there are some legal questions to answer in those with resolutions, and findings that are specific where legal expertise is needed, the same way which is specific but completely a different area of ​​expertise that should determine whether the contract is useful for the BKV, which contract is concluded conducive to the rational management of BKV, and that there is competition in the capital of public transport or not.


Legitimately the question arises, that among my accusers who has in traffic engineering, organization of urban public transport, logistics and communications, and marketing expertise, which is inevitable necessary for a statement with such weight and content. I would like to know, that in the Prosecution Body, who are those in the subject area with special expertise, in this vital matter to me, who can clearly take a on these positions.


Simplify the question: those who have made these serious allegations, are aware of the seriousness of this statement - do they have in this particular field the expertise, which are necessary to assess the problem?


For me, during the period as appointed Deputy Mayor, I had the pleasure to meet a number of experienced travel professionals, thanks to which by my knowledge of these fields also increased with some basic technical skills, from which a few thoughts I would like to share with the Honourable Tribunal:


I would like to emphasize here two concepts, which knowledge is absolutely necessary to understand and judge the statements referred in the indictment.


These two terms are the level of motorization and the modal split ratio.


There are two basic concepts, such as in the area of criminal law the deliberateness, and the concept of negligence, ie, without the knowledge of these, with the metropolitan community transport, and public transport issues can not be judged. Thus, without knowing the meaning of these terms, no one can make statements with such content.


Honorable Tribunal! Although I know exactly that I can't ask questions to the accusing Honourable Prosecutors, but if I could, then it would fill me with reassurance, if here and now I could get the answer to the question, do you know what the two terms mean, which is otherwise the foundation of the metropolitan public transport and for understanding it is essential?


I emphasize again the BKV, according to the prosecuting authority monopoly situation - as I said before, the BKV has competitors!


The MÁV, which is an irrespective business entity, has a 120 km long railway line within the boundaries of the city, which is about the size of the BKV local train and tram and metro lines in total length. So considering all means of the public transport with the Budapest rail, all railroad tracks are the same length, and the MAV is actively involved within the administrative boundaries of the city's main public transport organizing. This is well illustrated by the fact that in the XVII. district, which is a outer districts, a number of MÁV stops are located there. It can also be reported without a doubt, that from the outer districts in many cases more easily, faster and larger crowds travel by MÁV to the city center, as with BKV public transport.

If we move on from the role of the railway transport, there is still the six or seven VOLÁN companies, which by their routes within the administrative boundaries of Budapest, and are also actively involved in public transport. Here, the most important is Budapest Volán, but from Nógrád Volántól, to Alba VOLÁN to Vértes VOLÁN, there are a number of  provincial Volán companies, which are participants of the public transport in the capital. What does this mean? For example, the Budapest VOLÁN from only the north-western region, has more than 10 routes, which doesn't stop at the administrative boundaries of Budapest, but it is also involved in public transport in Budapest as the Budapest Transport Company bus service, in fact, in most cases, there is a common stop with the BKV.


Thus, the finding that BKV has no competition has no truth in it.


Also this plays a role here, which I referred to earlier the concept of modal split and motorization ratio:

The level of motorization means, that in a big city of a thousands people, how many has a motor vehicle? From the west, in Munich, or say Vienna, for example, it turns out that from 1,000 people approx. 450-500-550 people have cars, in fact the ratio may even exceed that number. In Budapest currently from 1,000 people 350 have cars, which, I must add that this number before the regime was less than 300. The increase is due to, that with 20,000 more cars are in Budapest annually, ie, every year the number of cars are increasing with the number of a small town population, as a result, the level of motorization is increasing each year and currently has more than 600,000 vehicles in Budapest. Moreover 400,000 of those vehicles, which per day from the agglomeration, from the region and from all over the country, arrives to the capital.


Altogether, it may be said, nearly one million cars per day actively involved in the transport of the capital city, which is a real competitor to BKV, and which also shows, that the purpose of public transport and the role of it is not other, than to provide a competitive alternative against private transport!


According to the logic of the prosecuting authority, promotion of the service in general is totally unnecessary, because the company does not make substantial profits and expenditures for this purpose. However, all over the world major cities are promoting public transport's devices and services.  They do this because the primary purpose of a city is to provide a competitive alternative, and could show to the arriving ones, including the agglomeration living and its inhabitants as well.


Here comes the modal split ratio. This term means, that the capital, or of the visitors on a daily basis, shows how many of them go by public transport, and how with many individual modes of transport, especially by car. This number does not only determined decisively the transport, but the cities liveability, environmental damage, noise, and air contamination. Thus all factors, which the quality of life of urban people are substantially affected.


Why? That's because the number is 60-40 in Budapest, ie 60% ​​of residents of Budapest involved in public transport, and 40% of them has chosen individual transport.


If the modal split ratio (60-40%) persistently breaks, and say, it changes to only 50-50%, this doesn't mean that 10% more people travel by car, but that with 25% more people are taking part in the daily drive, and in a way, many times increases the load of enviromental damages creating much longer queues of motor vehicles in traffic jams, increasing noise pollution, and so much more pollutant emissions. The unfavorable changes of modal split ratio causes immeasurable damage to the capital.

So in order that BKV provides a favorable alternative against private transport, it is necessary that BKV draws attention to the services and benefits of public transport.


The fact that in what form this occurs, is a question, which can be answered by another field representative. I consider it important to say, that for such communications, marketing, and advertising purposes previously had been also spent, and for this purpose all the world's major cities are spending a lot.


In summary, when the prosecution says that this expenditure was not necessary, then the statement is completely false in the professional point of view!

Here I would like to compare the Gambling Inc. with BKV Co. As we know, both are a public service company. One is profitable, the other one is not. The latter, the BKV, is unprofitable because it is managed poorly.


This is due to the fact that BKV can't make the passangers pay for the true value of their services, because then it won't be able to provide alternatives against private transport.

This is the same everywhere in the world.

In this context, however, we must pay attention not only the BKV generated profits, but to the so-called. benefits to society, because the 40% of the GDP is formed in Budapest. In this respect, therefore, a decisive importance is that in the Capital and its surroundings, the community transport needs to be up to date and well-organized, because in case of strikes by employees of the BKV, a 10 billion HUF in losses could happen for the Hungarian economy.


In addition, the operating costs of the BKV would cost more than 50% of it is wages and wage-related, which is also a big problem.


The profit means that the use of public transport doesn't reduce the volume on the BKV, but to those living in Budapest, the level of national economy and also the capital-based companies.


Here we must look at the public interest, which among other things is that the BKV services evolve with the times and represents an attractive alternative as opposed to private transport.


I would add that the justification for any contract that was required or not, it was not my job. The management of BKV was there, the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board was there to set the framework for how much is spent on marketing, and how the priorities are being used. They regulated, they designed, they carried the work out, and also they controlled it.


The process looks like, that at first they draw up a business plan, in which they define, how much they plan to spend on what, what are the most important objectives. This can be found in the investigation document on pages 44.253-44.283. Volume 67th, the 2008 business plan contains, which was signed by IV. accused, registered by him, and he presented to the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board.


I quote from the investigative file 67th Volume on page 44.271.:

"According to the preliminary plans in 2008, the programs will continue and commence from previous years and carried forward from year to year, the ticket and pass campaign, a series of actions aimed at reducing bilk, and to improve the travel culture campaign, such as:

  • the employer's contribution of the change in law in order to obtain additional revenue campaign,
  • duties related to the frequent passenger,
  • events planned for the year of 2008: Transport Day, Car Free Day,
  • versatile passenger information, the website extension, ".

The Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board saw the frames, saw the goals and priorities, which by definition was a professional task.


Furthermore, I would like to refer to the 6.3.1. point of the BKV Organisational and Operational Rules, according to which the Supervisory Board checks the company management for the Founder, and the company's executive management, business policy decisions constantly must be monitored and checked.


I emphasize, therefore, that the control was the responsibility of the Supervisory Board.


According to the 6.3.10 point of the Organisational and Operational Rules, furthermore  the Supervisory Board is required on a quarterly basis to the City Operating Committee, in every six months to the Committee of Ownership send a report about the management, to which I would add that not only the business plan, but also the annual report which was adopted by the Supervisory Board and the Board of Directors, so all operational decisions were in their hands.


I also call attention to that the prosecution is trying to set the years of 2007 and 2008 as if in previous years there would not have been any ommunication and marketing costs, and as if it has remained the same.





Finally, I would like to ask the following question: what is more important regarding public interest, that the Gaming Inc. advertising to buy its  lottery and pools, or that BKV - even if at a loss - as a company advertise its services, in other words, to get tickets and passes, and more and more people make use of the field of public transport services?


The lottery purchase has no social benefits, in contrast, BKV has the direct and indirect social goals in spite of its purchase that the company itself is unprofitable. The fact is that public interest is to be served better by all means, that the modal split ratio does not get worse, and attracting people to public transport, such as to buy a lotto ticket.


BKV has the benefit of itself not as a business association, but to those living in Budapest, in the business, and through businesses tax revenues. It condenses on the level of the national economy.  So BKV should be judged of other indicators. In such indicators could be, in per capita passenger kilometers, or coverage, of which Budapest is among the world leaders, even in Vienna, these indicators are higher. And yes, of this the public can not afford this burden.  But this doesn't mean that there is no need to spend on marketing, but rather, as previously stated, on the contrary, it is a very crucial component of the company's operations.


It does not correspond to the reality of the indictment 7th page the fifth paragraph of the findings, that BKV leaders at my request "required on a daily basis," were to appear in the Mayor's Office.


It is important to tell, that with the deputy mayors, such as with the predecessor of IV. accused, and with his successor, I never held a direct connection, and with IV. accused solely from his appointment as Acting CEO I never got in actual contact with him.


I have never asked or instructed anyone for an appearance. It was not required to appear at the Cabinet; whoever claims that, states were untruthful. I have already sketched how many functions I had, furthermore, the amount of any other major municipal government-owned company professional supervision belonged to us together with Imre Ikvai-Szabó, thus I would not have time to meet with management on a daily basis.


I refer to the fact that the General Assembly, the Cabinet meetings, as well as consultation with the Department took place at the Municipality building, so the leaders during the preparation of submissions actually had to go to the Municipality, but in most cases they didn't meet me, but with the committees, or members of the Cabinet. During preparations of greater proposals, naturally it was several rounds of negotiation.


On behalf of BKV, the company's affairs and in relation to the metro line 4 in 2007 and 2008, nearly 100 reports, submissions, information and interpellation was presented to the Mayor's Cabinet, the Mayor's Office, Committees and the Municipal Assembly. On negotiation of these proposals in accordance with the provisions of Organization and Operational Regulations, as the referring person I had to attend.


In relation with one proposal those involved had to come to the Town Hall at least 2-5 times, because due to the office policy, in each case I had to consult with the following forums:

  1. with professional and legal department,
  2. with the referring deputy mayors,
  3. with Mayor's Cabinet - if it was a BKV-related question in front of the Cabinet, of those the BKVmanagement always attended, which once a week, or maybe meant two occasions -,
  4. with Committees - the Committee meetings were held several times a month -,
  5. with the Municipal Assembly - General Meeting was held once a month -,
  6. civic forums, professional consultations.


Therefore, if the persons concerned themselves in relation to a submission in which they had to appear only twice, then in of itself this meant two hundred occasions, and in this process my office was just one of the many. So the managers did not come to me for a daily raport, but in accordance with the provisions of the Organisational and Operational Regulations of the competent body and person.

I would like to show an example of this support: of the Mayor's Office investigative file documents Annex Volume 3 of the Mayor's Office that can be found from page 316., the 2008 Mayor's Cabinet meeting records.

From these it can be stated that a meeting was held five times because of BKV-related discussion of the 2008 Annual Parameters Book, on which the BKV's top-level management attended: on the 7th of January 2008, on 21st of February, on the 25th of March and on the 4th of April. Incidentally, IV. accused, for example, in each of the last four meetings were held there.

In addition, there were a various professional and public consultations, on which the leaders of the BKV also had to appear, such as the revision of the Budapest's system development plan, orin respect of the Metro Line 4 held forums, they had to participated several times.


They had to appear at the Cabinet meetings and general meetings, the latter was held once a month.


I reaffirm that, with the exception of the CEOs, that I did not have contact with one public utility or public service company by neither private nor telephone with the lower-level managers that I met on major consultation at most.

The discussions were always in the presence of a member of the cabinet, desk officers of the affected area, my office manager or vice office manager, or the colleagues of the professional departments handling the case which had taken place.


I am convinced that the investigation material does not contain any evidence to support the indictment’s 7th page of the fifth paragraph or fits the statement that, "entered into contracts and other subject matters with instructions performed as a request was given, and that they had been accountable of their implementation."


The opposite is true; I have always observed and enforced the law, and if I impeach someone, I did that because of the possibly of irregularities and I always took immediate actions to make an investigation.

The indictment the sixth paragraph of the 7th page deals with the role of VI. accused, which re-emphasizes that under the Rules of Organization. neither me or a single member of the Cabinet had the right to give instruction to any public utility or to public service company employees.


 VII.2. Familiarizing the defendants named in the indictment, and my actual relationship with them


II. accused: With II. accused I met following the elections in 2006, and I never had neither cousinly nor amity relations with him. He wasn't a member of my Cabinet.


According to the first point of the second paragraph, first sentence, on page five, of the indictment, however my „activities were related to II. accused activities".


This statement, however, previously itself contradicts the indictment since the second paragraph of page 4 correctly records, that II. accused „was the political supporter of Dr. Gábor Demszky former Mayor of Budapest, his personal confidant, and since 2004 his political advisor." I emphasize that with II. accused I had no illicit contact.


III. accused: III. accused, pursuant to the 3rd paragraph of the 4th page of the indictment, is indeed based on my suggestion that he was elected, however, this was based only on professional suggestion. Neither amity nor a business relationship did not exist with III. accused, and I was not looking for either direct or an indirect relationship with him.


The background of his election was on the one hand, as it was well known by the end of 2006, that Dr. Gábor Demszky’s relationship deteriorated with xxxx former CEO of BKV, and on the other hand BKV was in a very difficult economic situation. Therefore, it was agreed, that at BKV the change of leadership was needed.

A fellow member of parliament called my attention to III. accused. From him I found out that III. accused made ​​a successful reorganization at Nógrád Volán, which was one of the contractors of BKV. Prior to this position III. accused led Főtaxi, and since 1997.  he served as president of the Budapest Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Department of Transport. So III. accused for many decades gained leadership experiences in these companies, which are owned by state or local government. So he was familiar with the organizational structure, the distribution of powers and responsibilities to be performed as well.


This brought to my attention an impeccable professional life made suitable for III. accused in the BKV CEO position. I would add that I just made a suggestion. The election was actually not done by me, since the General Assembly has the final decision.


III. accused election took place on the 22nd of December in 2006, from the 67 members of the General Assembly, 56 endorsed the appointment. With the appointment of the MDF, the SZDSZ, and even more FIDESZ representatives, including István Tarlós parliamentary group leader, they all agreed. Before the election of III. accused, during the introductory interview in the office of István Tarlós, I was a witness to István Tarlós assurance that with any difficulties or problems I was free to contact him if needed. In this context, I would like to quote from the page 38.063B Volume 59th of the investigative file, a portion of an interview given by István Tarlós on the 19th of December 2006 for Magyar Nemzet, which he gave following this meeting:


„ The capital fraction of FIDESZ supports the BKV CEO candidate. The political group of FIDESZ said to the telegraphic office after a discussion with the position reversioner III. accused: „in the election campaign, he also pointed to the company's strong need to be reformed. An external expert is better suited to such a task, such as an internal-added. "


IV. accused: I met IV. accused on the occassion of his appointment as acting CEO, and as such an ambitious, eager workforce. Given that the Deputy Mayor had a connection only with the leaders of the companies, during his previous positions as well as with his colleagues, I didn't have contact with him in any meaningful way. This fact IV. accused himself confirmed in his testimony during the investigation, when he said that while with my Cabinet members he met ten times, with me it was only once. We were in a working relationship, and outside that we had minimal connection. The acquainted or amity relationship between us are not in character. Regarding more details about him, I wish to comment on those counts according to the indictment where I am charged.




V. accused: I've got to know V. accused around the year 2000, when I became Co-Chair of the Hungarian Motor Sports Federation, where V. accused worked as their press person, followed by several organizations, including the Hungarian Socialist Party Charity Branch we had worked together. Seeing his professionalism, after my appointment as deputy Mayor I asked him to help the Cabinet's work with his knowledge. As a result, V. accused has entered an agency relationship with the Mayor's Office, and within the Cabinet he became responsible for communication and management of sports-related matters, and the preparation of my speeches, and the full-background of my support.

Our relationship with V. accused started as a working relationship, and only by 2009 has transformed into friendship, due to that in August 2008 we were hiking together on St. Stephen's Walkabout, then in 2009 on Hunyadi Hike in Transylvania. Here I refer to the fact that their first joint tour, that is, the St Stephen's Walkabout ended on the 20st of August in 2008, so the beginning of our friendship with V. accused falls into this period, which according to the 6th page last paragraph of the indictment, is the end of the duration of the criminal organization August of 2008.


VI. accused: VI. accused, as the colleague of DBR Metro, I've gotten to know him as a very agile person  and I was sufficiently convinced of his effective work on events, and it was soon revealed that he had good relations with the media.

Thus when the Cabinet's media- related colleague became pregnant, and had to look for new employees, I've turned to VI. accused because of the previous and very positive professional experiences.


If I remember correctly, VI. accused started in the office on the 1st of February in 2008, and as it was already indicated the physical reasons of the former colleague, he occupied her position and office.


VI. accused has been employed with an agency contract. Within the Cabinet he was in charge of the external media, and keeping in touch with the press of the Mayor's Office, as well as the preparation of interviews and background materials.


Regarding his conditions of his employment I will detail later.


However, it is important to point out here that the indictment's 4th page 4th paragraph referred to a statement, that VI. accused, „Kept in touch with the BKV, checking the company's communication, with the interest to suit Miklós Hagyó I. accused" does not correspond to reality. The cabinet, - as I have repeatedly mentioned - according to the Organisational and Operational Rules, not a single public service company nor BKV had any power, and in itself is inconceivable of that assumption, that an employee of the BKV had instructed the leadership.

IV. accused, to which I have already referred on the 6th and 7th of March 2010 had given a declaration (investigative documents, Volume 1, 279-285 page) to Magyar Nemzet and to HírTV, described VI. accused, as a "gendarme's hat," who mediated the instructions of his superiors to the leaders of BKV.


These false allegations are well illustrated by that attachment provided by IV. accused, and on pages 41.943. in Volume 64 of the investigative file 9B marked letter, which, moreover, it also shows that in relation with each of the proposals to be submitted to the Cabinet, how active the communication and correspondence was between the Mayor's Office and the staff of BKV.


IV. accused from this letter, without outlining the environment, highlights a momentum with which he wished to support his own "truth", and in which the original message is completely distorted by him, and those who solely reads that is mislead.


On the 16th of July, VI. accused in the referenced letter wrote as follows:

"Respected Recipients,

Since there is no reference, therefore my definite request is, that materials of BKV can                not be presented as proposals to the Cabinet, but as the BKV's informational inter-working materials.



IV. accused, for this letter on page 41.879. Volume 64. adds the following:

"Significance: VI. accused joins in the e-ticketing correspondence, who formulates "definite request" to the participants, namely to the Cabinet of Dr. Demszky and Hagyó, as well as to the BKV."

On the page 42.053. in Volume 64. he declares that:

"Rarely readable sentence. VI. accused writes to xxxx, to me, xxxx and to xxxx, that his definite request, that materials of BKV can not be presented as proposals to the Cabinet. VI. accused quasi also given instruction in a writtem form, that some BKV material in what form should be presented to the Mayor's Cabinet."


Beyond that IV. accused obviously conferred VI. accused's request with untrue content, it is also worth checking out: what was the real reason?


The answer is simple. I spent my vacation from the 10th of July 2008, during which between the 11th of July and 20th of August of 2008, I participated on St. Stephen's Walkabout.



Consequently, the period in question, I didn't abstained in the Mayor's office, and so, in the light of my absence from Budapest I couldn't have been the one referring for any material arriving from BKV. So VI. accused merely therefore drafting that request in his letter, that the proposal in question was not a submission, but to be only as an interim information.

VI. accused, "most powerful' request was too little for this to really happen this way, notwithstanding the foregoing, in my absence, I was still indicate as the referring and liability person. (memos of the Mayor's Cabinet of the 21st of July 2008, investigative document Mayor's Office Annex 1. Volume 623. page)


It can be concluded that although IV. accused believed to catch one of the instructions of VI. accused, they are also very far from the truth and that the Honourable Tribunal will see in many other cases as well.


Emphasized also is the phrase of my "political interests". I can not interpret, because as a member of the MSZP, representing the Party, I was given the position of Deputy Mayor as a result of the coalition negotiations, and so I didn't have any individual "interest".


The communication of BKV had to be met, solely by the owner, the Municipality, and the economic company itself, while the Cabinet's point of view is that BKV was only one of the many, among more than two dozen companies owned by the Municipality, which belonged to Imre Ikvai-Szabó and I. Furthermore I stress that to the best of my knowledge the BKV related all communication, in all cases with the cooperation of the Mayor's Press Office so namely with the involvement of xxxx and xxxx .


VIII. accused: VII. accused, as I said in the testimony of investigation, I knew the accused from the business life about 12-13 years ago. Other than a attorney-client relationship with him I did not have any other relationship. I turned to him for advice of corporate matters, or other private legal matters. After being appointed as Deputy Mayor, towards anybody I never determined any request or instruction in connection with VII. accused. I can verify with invoices that I have paid several hundred thousand forints in legal fees. I am convinced that this is confirmed by his diary data which were found among the investigation files, since during those two years, we had only 4-5 appointments, and there is not a single entry in it, that I with the CEO of BKV, so even with III. accused, or with IV. accused together have we met. Despite the fact that according to the indictment I was the leader of the criminal organization, to perform legal duties of my Cabinet, I didn't ask one of the members of my " criminal organization", but xxxx, recommended by Dr. Zsolt Tiba’s chief notary. The question is raised by the fact that if - at least according to the indictment alleged - VII. accused was a member of my criminal organization, then in our private relationship why did I pay for his legal services?


VIII. accused: About VIII. accused all I know is that he worked for BKV, and III. accused had chosen him for the position. I had neither a cousinly nor amity relationship with him, that we had minimal contact between us, we've met during the preparation of next year's tariff consultation, and press conferences, events, or when it was the BKV strike crisis, then at the request of III. accused, negotiations during the night he called me and informed me of the situation.


IX. accused:  About him all I know is that he worked for BKV. I had neither cousinly nor amity or any other kind of relationship with him.


X. accused:  About him also all I know is that he worked for BKV. I had neither cousinly nor amity or any other kind of relationship with him.


XI. accused: About him all I know is that he worked for BKV. I had neither cousinly nor amity or any other kind of relationship with him.


XII. accused: With XII. accused, the husband of VI. accused, before the beginning of this criminal procedure in my life I've met a total of two times. One occasion was when his wife came to the municipalities, the other time was when we met at the Opera Ball. I had no relations with him.


XIII. accused: About XIII. accused all I know is that he is one of the nearly 500 members of the XII. district organization of MSZP. I had neither cousinly nor amity or business relationship with him not in the past and not even now.


XIV. accused: With XIV. accused, as BKV employees, I solely met with him at the emergence of a strike situation. Outside of that we didn't even talk on the phone. I stress that in the summer of 2009 when the so-called "severance scandal" erupted, then I, - as stated in the investigative document letter found on page 38.259. in Volume 60.) - immediately arranged the necessary steps toward an investigation.


XV. accused: I don't know XV. accused. I have neither cousinly nor amity or any other kind of relationship with the accused. Prior to this criminal proceedings we never met.










The counts of the indictment, which are only affecting me indirectly


VIII.1. I/A. The count and its subsections


The I/A. count listed in each sub-context, according of the distinction to the indictment, I can tell the following:

The 8th paragraph of the indictment contains the following statements:

"At the Metropolitan municipality, besides of former Deputy Mayor Miklós Hagyó I. accused, with an agency contract in communications management position, to the following instruction of V. accused, unnecessary contracts for the BKV were concluded, which could have been performed also by the staff of BKV:"


1./a: According to the first of these, X. accused and XI. accused on the 1st of March in 2006 concluded an agency contract with Well Advertising and PR Agency Ltd, which under the contract a total of 28 times, nearly a 60 million HUF was paid.


My observations are, that the municipal elections were in October 2006, I been elected as Deputy Mayor on the 14th of December in 2006, and V. accused only from the beginning of 2007 helped the cabinet's work as a consultant. The creation of the criminal organization started in January 2007, by which I am alleged incriminating, the indictment itself identifies it on that date.


The referenced time of the contract concluding on the 1st of March in 2006, the municipal electoral list of the Hungarian Socialist Party were not even accepted yet, in fact has not even begun to discuss, thus, at this time it was not certain that I will be included in the list at all. As we could not know it then, that more than half a year later, we will win the elections, thanks to which the representative of the Metropolitan Municipality, and as a result of the coalition negotiations, I will be Deputy Mayor. For this reason, we could not have any idea, that V. accused will work in the Cabinet, having regard to the latter find it particularly interesting, for the indictment claims quoted above, that on the 1st of March in 2006 V. accused instructed X. accused and XI. accused to conclude the contract.


I think this is a good example of the contradictions of the indictment’s unfoundedness, as well as the intention to that in order to maintain the appearance of the criminal organization, my person, regardless of the content of reality associated with to me otherwise unknown to all kinds of transactions.

 I hope that, in the light of the foregoing, however, does not remain in doubt about that in the conclusion of this contract nor I, nor V. accused did not have any role.


With the managers and members of Well Advertising and Public Relations Agency Ltd. I have neither a cousinly. amity nor business relationship, I've never asked them for anything, or had any kind of agreement with them nor in the past, nor in the present.


As I said in my investigative testimony, unfortunately I can't recall the names of all of the employees of the company, I've met only one time, at an event in the BKV museum. This meeting had the apropos, that at the beginning of 2007 Well Advertising and PR Agency Ltd. was presented a short film of Combino tram in the BKV Museum, which if I remembered correctly, in Paris on an international advertising film competition which won an award. Unfortunately Combino trams reputation in this period was very torn, so I was very pleased with this international success, which also enhanced the capital's good reputation. I took part in this event, because I wanted to honor the creators of the short film and, of course, such an event will receive greater impact if the Deputy Mayor also appears. So although, in the absence of the actual knowledge, I can't make a statement of the specific mandate and effectiveness of the company's work, but I can state as a fact that their actions have received international recognition.


About the a.) point's second subsection I can also say the same thing. Concerning the the "Fabulous Santa" and the "Tale of the tram" concluded contracts took place on the 1st of December in 2006, in which connection I re-emphasize: I've been elected on the 14th of December, V. accused employment at the Metropolitan Municipality started from 2007, and the prosecution of the alleged establishment of the criminal organization dated in early January 2007.

In the a.) point third, fourth and the fifth subsections marked conclusion of the contracts which has been considered in 2007, I did not know of, and the necessity of those should be declared by the competent persons.

About the contracts of communication in general, I wish to say, that Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky, after the election of III. accused, through the press as well, specifically requested that the BKV pursue a more active communication. The primary reason was because of the Combino trams scandal the company's judgment unfortunately, at this time was very bad, so we considered it important, that the image of the BKV in the eyes of the metropolitan residents to be a little more positive.



Again I stress, that the communication of the BKV didn't belong to the Cabinet, that was BKV's own affair, and in relation to reconciliation, my colleagues only had consulting powers. The significance of this was that all inquiries and questions about the public companies arrived to the Municipality, to the cabinet, and has been transmitted to my colleagues, who naturally didn't have all the up to date information concerning all the areas, so to ensure, that to the press questions the most correct answers can be given, have consulted with the department and with the relevant company. To the unified communications of the Municipality, we attached great importance to that everybody declares similar of the same issues, to which also must have known, that previously on the subject who said what.


The Cabinet's related other function of communication, all of the General Assembly, related commission presentation was in context with a communication plan, for example, as part of which at the Mayor's Cabinet meetings there was always a staff member responsible for communication, usually xxxx. I would add, that when it was a long-winded presentation, I have also collated with my colleagues of the most important aspects of communication, of what to pay attention, because by the time of the general assemblies both, me and my colleagues we had to be aware of the fact, that of which question what response we will give.


The third function were the press conferences, in which coordination, if the subject matter affected BKV, which my colleagues certainly took part of the discussion with the staff of BKV, because the goal has always been that everything should be in accordance with professionalism in the greatest possible degree.

Finally, there were so-called background conversations, when we sat together with representatives of the press and about some topics such as the underpasses camera installation, and if I remember correctly we conciliated in the BKV Museum. I tried to fulfill the requests and invitations of this nature, whenever I could go back to Well Advertising and PR Agency Ltd., I didn't know that V. accused worked for this company too. I would add, that the the Metropolitan Municipality employed him with an agency contract, with flexible working hours, with specific terms of reference, which he always performed with outstanding professionalism.


1./b: About the first subsection of point b.) I can only say the same what I've said about point a.).  According to the indictment, the conclusion of the contract took place on the 28th of September in 2006, ie, during the tenure of the previous city administration, when we couldn't have known that we won the election, that I will be appointed as deputy Mayor, that which areas will belong to the Cabinet and that V. accused will work beside me.

In light of the above, I explicitly declare, that of the conclusion of the contract could not have been to my knowledge, and nor I, nor V. accused could have not given instructions.


Notwithstanding the above, there are two things I would also like to discuss. The indictment's 9th page under b) point the first paragraph, included a statement, that

„the work contained in the contract of the purposes of the self-evident nature, it was completely unnecessary. "


This statement, as explained in the general part of the indictment serves as a reinforcement, and once again gives the impression as if the indictment prior to completion of forensic experts have examined the need for contracts, and such conclusions have been deducted. In fact, however, this did not happen, nor an expert or consultant has not examined this issue, but this is just only the prosecution's statement, which in my belief is entirely unfounded, and simultaneously incomprehensible as well.


In addition, according to the indictment the first paragraph on page 10th, for further concluded contracts were done because „this is the need of Miklós Hagyó I. accused and his circle towards to the state-municipal companies."


The prosecutor here again was using an inapprehensible phrase, because I didn't have any "circle" or "need", which I think is also evidenced by that the indictment itself does not define this term specifically whom or what he covers.


Again, I emphasize that I solely - taking place completely independently of me - as a result of the coalition negotiations I could have become Deputy Mayor, and during my position, in compliance with the legislation in force at all times I acted on behalf of the MSZP.


In addition, in b.) point second and third subsection, the concluded contracts with Pont Ez Ltd. was also not to my knowledge. I don't know the company, only the manager xxxx I do, but only nodding acquaintance, and I had no information about any of his business relations. I have not given instruction to anyone to conclude these contracts. This statement is also unrealistic because even prior to my appointment, the BKV concluded communication contracts, as it can be seen, inter alia with Pont Ez Ltd. as well.


And finally, about the Hócipő (snow shoes) newspaper, like everybody else I know, however I can't tell more about it.

1./c: xxxx, the manager of Kacu Ltd. was my parliamentary secretary during my mandate as a parliamentary representative. The contract concluded by him was not linked to my knowledge, during the conclusion of it I did not cooperate, and I didn't give instruction to its conclusion. For me, the suburban rail traffic on State aid, case study, analysis was not performed. I would add, if any travel-themed professional issues have arisen, then I turned for help to the Cabinet's transport affairs desk officer, xxxx. Furthermore I didn't ask V. accused that connection with this issue to formulate requests or instructions toward the BKV.


xxxx, moreover, as my parliamentary secretary worked in a flexible working time, and were engaged in a dual task, on one hand, his task was to assist me in legislative relating matters, so he followed the changes in the law, and for my request where applicable made a summary. Among the substances there could have been some, which has affected the legislative side of the BKV as well. On the other hand, his task was also the compilation of parliamentary material, and to facilitate my preparations for presentations and public forums.


Naturally, as parliamentary secretary he was perambulate to the Town Hall where he also had a desk, and the reason for that was, that besides the parliamentary work he helped me a lot, including the preparation of my tours, but for lack of time too we could only consult during breaks of the parliamentary seats.



1./d: About the contract concluded between Citynet Ltd. and BKV this was not to my knowledge. I know the company from the National MSZP campaign of 2006, in which they have participated. I do not know the details, because, as to those who are contributing to the campaign of the MSZP, it was determined centrally. Such matters been arranged by V. accused as the campaign staff member of XII. district, and however, he did not report the details to me, and acted independently. I didn't know that V. accused was an employee of this company. I did not ask anyone, and gave no one instructions that BKV may contract with this company, and I didn't know about this contract.


1./e: The contracts concluded with Relative Advertising Agency Ltd. was not to my knowledge. With the company's executives, owners, I have neither cousinly nor amity or business relationship, not in the past and nor at the present. Never, to anyone, any instruction or request I have formulated in order to contract with the company.


1./f: With Honeymood Ltd. the contract was signed without my knowledge. I don't know either the company nor any of its leaders.

1./g: In relation with Csapó Lp. I can say the following: I met xxxx through one of my neighbors in Rege street, and later we were related in a sport vocation. For this reason occasionally he came to the Metropolitan Municipality, whereas usually we held the meetings in my office in the Town Hall. I heard from the newspapers that Csapó Lp. had a contract with the BKV. I didn't give instruction to conclude such contract, neither I gave instruction to any of my colleagues to arrange it.


2. The preamble of the 2. count on the indictment's 13th page reads as follows: "At the Metropolitan Local Government working besides former Deputy Mayor Miklós Hagyó I. accused, with an agency contract VI. accused in position as communication manager, instruction of the accused, the following contracts were concluded: "


In view of the above, before I get into each contract, once again it is important to point out the following facts: VI. accused from the beginning of 2008,  if I remember correctly, from the 1st of February became a member of the Cabinet, with the exception until the events of BKV, I had no meaningful relationship with him.


2./a: According to the indictment's on the 13th page 2./a count subsection i, acting on behalf of BKV X. accused and XI. accused concluded a entrepreneurial contract with  F.F.V.D. Pt. on the 27th of April 2007, for the event held for the Central Children's Day on the 27th of May 2007. Deployment of "smile inspectors" on the vehicles, events have been held, but for the the loss BKV incurred, those were unnecessary.

The indictment's 2./a count, ii subsection on page 14. also reported a treaty, which was „concluded by VIII accused of the instruction of VI. accused with F.F.V.D. Pt. on the 23rd of August 2007, for the various events called "School Starting" held between the 3rd and 7th of September in 2007, which are actually implemented, but for BKV they were unnecessary.


For the third, also in the indictment's 2./a count, ii subsection on page 14. specifies a concluded contract by a CEO III. accused, for the Christmas program held on the 14th of November in 2007, for which according to the indictment, also VI. accused gave instruction „through VIII. accused."


Based on these it can undoubtedly be stated, that all three relevant contract conclusions of the indictment, even so, the performance took place at a time, when VI. accused was not a member of the Cabinet, but "simple" as an employee, was employed only at BKV,  and therefore, he wasn't in a position by no means, that the BKV Sales and Chief Operating Officer of Communications, that could have instruct VIII. accused for anything at all. Therefore it can be fixed as a fact, that the preamble of the the indictment in 2./a count, does not correspond to reality.

However, the contract with F.F.V.D. Pt., was not to my knowledge. I didn't know that VI. accused's husband XII. accused, was working for this company.

What I know of XII. accused, I have already said.

However I would point out another circumstance in connection with this count: indeed, while the prosecution claimed that previously that those charged performed a contract conclusion or that a counseling request took place but in reality there were no performances, and despite this their compensation has been made while in the indictment alleges that in the 13th page last paragraph, the 14th page first paragraph, and the14th page fifth paragraph against the accused persons, I quote, "although the events were held, they are operating at a loss of normal functioning of BKV which were unnecessary."


My conviction is, however, that this is also a professional issue, which to answer specific expertise is needed. Not one of the Metropolitan Municipality owned economic companies, especially the largest public company intended  to provide public transport service, could not be a contract solely based on the "normal operation" point of view, because in order to participate in the economy, itself, is not enough. On the other hand, in my opinion, this duality is also shown by the prosecution concept, which key element regardless of the fact is: for this or that but somehow anyway, the accused persons must be impeached, including myself.


2./b: About 2./b count, I can say the same like in connection with 2./a count, that since the conclusion of the relevant contract dated on the 1st of January 2008, the fact can be stated again, that it took place before VI. accused became a member of the Cabinet, when he was solely an employee of BKV. In this view it does not correspond to the reality that he was in a position which he could have an opportunity to instruct or requests either CEO IV. accused, either the manager of PR department IX. accused of anything.


Apart from this, the contract with Vision Consulting Ltd. was also not to my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders. Here I would also refer to what was stated above, ie, that opposed to the indictment 14th page of the last paragraph, the necessity and appropriateness of a contract can not be solely in terms of the normal operation subjected rationally.


2./c: According to the indictment associated with VI. accused, the contained facts of the third subparagraph concluded contract with Symsytem Ltd. was also not to my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.

However, I'd like to draw attention to something: I am convinced that having regard to the my previously statements, it is no coincidence that the facts of the indictment on this point does not include the date of conclusion of the contract.


3.: The S.T.Plussz Ltd. treaty was signed without my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders. A few times I was invited to the Sunrise show, but I had no direct or on friendly terms any relationship with xxxx or with any other employees of Sunrise. There is a single professional sport related point between me and xxxx, which is dated much later on the referred contract conclusion. In regards to our positions in 2009.  he asked us to jointly be the main organizers and patrons of the 2010 Swimming and Water Polo Championship, what we both accepted,  and by organizing this we have actually collaborated together.


In addition I note, that the conclusion contracts in the 3rd count took place on the 1st of January in 2007, on the day when III. accused started to work as the CEO. With this connection I wish to call the attention of the Honourable Tribunal to my letter sent to III. accused, as to the newly elected CEO of BKV, on the 17th of January 2007, which can be found on the 38.371. page in the 60th Volume of the investigative document. In this letter I asked III. accused, to take into account: that the company's

2007th business and investment plan of the Municipal Assembly's Economic Committee has not yet been adopted, and to refrain from any commitment, for which the company involves a significant financial commitment.


4.: The contract with ICG Infora Consulting Group Ltd. was signed without my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders. Subject to the contractual date was on the 10th of January 2007, according to indictment, I also refer on this connection to my letter addressed to III. accused.


5.: The contract with GPS Capital Consulting and Service Ltd. was signed without my knowledge. I don't know the leaders of the company, I have never requested or instructed to enter into a contract with this company, and I had no information of its ownership.


I would refer to the statement of the first sentence of the count of III. accused,  „ that VIII. accused acted based on the request of Miklós Hagyó I. accused and other politicians appropriate invitation and preparation", on one hand does not correspond to reality, since I've never asked or directed anyone to conclude that contract, and on the other hand the "other politicians" wording in the absence of specific persons name I can not interpret.


6.: The contract concluded with Siteflex Ltd. was not to my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.


7./a,b: The contract concluded with Suvera Market Research, Media and Social Research Ltd. was not to my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.


8.: The contract concluded with BÁL-NA Production Ltd. was not to my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.


9.: The contract concluded with Média Magnet Ltd. was not to my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders. I emphasize, however that the first sentence of the count on page 17th in the indictment finding, that by calling one of the members of Hagyó Cabinet - remained unknown individual" took place the referred contract conclusion, on one hand to me is totally incomprehensible, on the other hand it is untrue. The Cabinet members whom I listed above, are all decent, honest people, who are at all times have acted according to the appropriate laws, and the internal organizational and operational rules. Neither of my instructions, nor to my knowledge never have they requested by their own choice no one to conclude any unlawful contract.


10.: The contract with Piatnik Budapest Ltd. was signed without my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.

11.: The contract with Marionett Actor Agency Ltd. was signed without my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.


12.: The contract with Európa Npc. was signed without my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.


13.: The contract with K.L. Communication and Service Provider Pt. was signed without my knowledge.  I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.


15.: The contract with Montana Co. was signed without my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders. I note that the factual circumstances of those contained in the count, the prosecution itself had confirmed the indictment’s fourth page statement in the second paragraph, that II. accused has acted together with Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky.


16./a,b: The contract with ANOVA Education and Services Ltd. was signed without my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.

17.: The contract with DAM Pt. was signed without my knowledge. .I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders. I didn't know, that XIII. accused, - from who I previously said - is the limited partner of DAM Pt. Again, I refer to what I've said in connection with 9th point about the Cabinet, and simultaneously firmly declare that no member of the cabinet under my instructions, not to my knowledge, has never requested by their own choice no one to conclude any kind of contract. Considering, however, that after the completion of the investigation, I had the opportunity to consult the records of the case in this context which indicates that that BKV 2008th Annual Business Plan in the investigative documents Volume 67th page 44.271. in point III/10. of the BKV marketing and communications made ​​in relation to the purposes of: "According to the preliminary plans in the year of 2008 continued in previous years commenced programs carried over from year to year, the ticket and pass campaign, a series of actions aimed at reducing skulking, and the campaign to improve the travel culture, such as:

- the employer's contribution to the change in law in order to obtain additional revenue campaigns,

- the frequent passenger system tasks,

- events planned for the year of 2008: Transport Day, Car Free Day,

- versatile passenger information, the website extension, ".


I have to say that for me it seems logical that the contract with this company, as well as a study made by the order which it was made because the BKV management, the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board according to the above have set, have targets in the business plan skulking to be rolled back.


18.: The Soda Advertising Consulting and Services Ltd. contract was signed without my knowledge.  I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders. The indictment’s 22nd page of the second paragraph of the contract on the basis of the performance concerning the classification statement in connection however repeatedly I would refer that I am convinced that to judge that is an issue, which assessment of specific expertise was needed.


19.: The contract with Civertan Pl. was signed without my knowledge.  I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.


20.: The contract with ACCORD Group Consulting and Services Ltd. was signed without my knowledge. I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.




VIII.2. Count I/B.


In connection with count I/B. I can tell, that Optimismo Ltd. treaty was signed without my knowledge.  I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders. As I said earlier, with VII. accused I solely had attorney-client relationship. In regards to the legal professional privilege at the time of the contract in question I could not have knowledge of that he was with the BKV in any working relationship. In the indictment’s 24th page of the first paragraph, the conclusion of the contract is justified by the fact that „this way the Mayor's Office intends to finance the former CEO unofficial" severance ".  I can not interpret, but again I would refer that after my appointment I have initiated an investigation immediately in the case of the advanced paid premium of xxxx (the written letter by me in this subject located on page 38.381. in Volume 60. of the  investigative document).


VIII.3. Count I/C.


In connection with count I/C. I can tell, that as a result of the procurement process that of a consortium formed by PQS Plural Ltd. and Renomé Ltd. concluded consortium contract, as well as from its background I didn't have knowledge of.  I do not know either the Company nor any of its leaders.


VIII.4. Count I/D.


In connection with count I/D: As I said earlier, I've met VI. accused as a colleague of BKV, and with the knowledge that he is an employee of BKV, I offered him a mandate at the Metropolitan Municipality. I did this, because during our discussion with discussion VI. accused, he has informed me that he will consult with his employer on this issue, ie whether there is an obstacle of the attendance of the two parallel functions. The next time we met, VI. accused, reported to me that everything is fine, there are no complaints in this regard from BKV's part, so we signed the contract. I did not wish to have a say to the settlement agreement between the worker and the employer, so I was not looking for anyone from BKV's part in this matter.


I note here too that in the Mayor's Office the work on a daily basis was not time limited, but rather terms of reference, which meant: it was left to the employee, how to allocate his/her time, the only matter was that the entrusted task is completed properly within a specified time. That is why I thought, if the employer and the employee can agree with each other in this light, then there is no obstacle to a company owned by the Municipality employee and also work for the Cabinet of the Deputy Mayor.

Taking into account that the vast majority of requests to my cabinet was about the BKV and Metro 4 line, it was very useful to have a communications professional, who is familiar with the subject and was able to help our work effectively.


VIII. 5. Count III.-IV.


In the indictment named the BKV so-called management contracts entered into acting in its sole scope, as well as modified, as the employer's rights at the BKV was exercised by the prevailing CEO.


In the beginning of 2008, I turned to the leadership of BKV, and asked the Board President to review the BKV manager contracts, in particular, the remuneration practices of BKV (investigative documents Volume 60. pages 38.425.-38.427.) From the most famous incident, the severance of XIV.accused, and his re-employment which I heard from the newspaper, bearing in mind that at the time of the scandal I spent my vacation, and my deputy office manager xxxx, who conveyed to the Supervisory Board that request of mine, (located on page 38.259. in Volume 60. of the investigative file in a letter which I have already referred to) to investigate what happened. As I recall furthermore, the auditor's report already in February 2008 dealt with in a separate section with the issue of XIV. accused severance.





AAM Co. or the count I/21.


IX. 1. The prosecution


The indictment on the beginning of page 22 count I/21.) reads as follows:

„In the beginning of the year 2007, Miklós Hagyó I. accused, in connection with the separate budget of the Metro 4 investment had to prepare a report to the Committee on Budgets. Miklós Hagyó I. accused, at the end of December 2006, beginning of January 2007 ordered III. accused, as the CEO, that this analytical work for him to be carried out by AAM Co.


III. accused, for this purpose on the date of 24th of January 2007 with a frame amount of 50 million HUF concluded an agency contract with AAM Co. " for the Metro 4 project coordination functions support, project management, project administration tasks, as well as for quality assurance activities". The company with a short deadline, completed the work in eight days, what Miklós Hagyó I. accused has used during his activities as Deputy Mayor.


The fee of the unnecessary services rendered for the BKV, a total of 50.093.400 HUF BKV compensated, in such a way, that on the 5th of March 2007, from 5.997.600 HUF, on the 6th of March , from 5.995.800 HUF, on the 12th of April, from  19.665.000 HUF, on the 3rd of May, from  8.913.000 and on the 6th of June from 9.522.000 HUF invoices against the value was transferred between the 5th of April 2007 and the 5th of July 2007."


On the 14th of May in 2010, the investigating authority communicated to me the abovementioned proposal differently from the accusations chided to my burden, that the contract is concluded and I quote verbatim: "for the BKV it was an unnecessary and unjustified expenditure, because the payment of it should have happened from the Mayor's Office own available budget."

The former accusations and having regard to the deviation statement of fact in the indictment, as it raises a question to me, that substantially what is that the prosecution imposes to my burden? Is it that the otherwise unnecessary quid pro quo of the contract should have been paid from other sources, or the contract itself was unnecessary?


However, I firmly declare that, personally, from none of the reasons, I'm not encumbered with any criminal or other nature of any other legal liability.


IX. 2. Basic assumptions


Concerning the concluded contract with AAM Co. my testimony during the investigation, my vindication is unchanged.


After cognition the investigative files and other documents are related to the subject. However, many of the new information had come to my knowledge, which are the previously facts mentioned by me which undoubtedly confirm and complement, and which I would like to share with the Honourable Tribunal with my present testimony.


I state at the preliminary point that the concluded contract with AMM Co. affecting accusations and indictment facts are based on entirely erroneous factual findings, therefore:

1.  it does not correspond to the reality that to the Budget Committee on this subject I had to prepare a report, so that the resulting material I used during my deputy mayor activities,


2.  it does not correspond to the reality that I was instructed III. accused to conclude the contract,


3.  it does not correspond to the reality that the contract for the BKV was unnecessary and unjustified,


4.  it does not correspond to the reality that the material prepared by AAM Co. should have been paid from them to me assured by the Mayor's Office budget,


It also demonstrates that in most cases it corresponds to the opposite of these claims that are true.


I emphasize: during my whole operation as deputy mayor I endeavored with all my strength, that BKV - the largest public service company owned by the Metropolitan Municipality - to consolidate its financial position, that the company is to operate in much more transparent way and on a sustainable fiscal path. This confirms my intention, to mention just one example: the implemented stabilization program in 2007, which as a result, is approximately with 1300 people decreasing the headcount of BKV, and which without this action, - as has been already referred - the company's operating loss in 2008 with 11.5 billion HUF would have been less favorable.


 I asked the Board and Supervisory Board (The BKV leaders) in all cases for legal compliance, for rational management, and to investigate the affairs of any dubious reason, which statement of mine is fully supported by the BKV related seized documents and letters from me and from V. accused, which can be found in the investigation file on page 38.037. of Volume 59., and on page 38.369. of Volume 60.


Allow me Honourable Tribunal to quote from one of these, on the subject with a previously cited letter written to III. accused as to the CEO of BKV, which can be read on page 38.371. in Volume 60. of the the investigation file.


On the 11th of January in 2007, 13 days prior to the contract conclusion with AAM Co., - attributed to me - I drew III. accused attention to the following: "Your company's 2007th year the business and investment plan to the relevant committees of the capital has not yet been approved. Therefore, I ask that until the Committee's decision is pending, refrain from taking such commitment, which could be a significant financial commitment for the company."


IX. 3. About the Metro report and proposal


During my investigative testimonies I was trying to identify what kind of proposals may be involved, but there and then I could not say exactly when it was made, only that the Mayor's Cabinet discussed on the day of 19th of March in 2007. A written reminder can be found in the Mayor's Office investigative file Annex of the Mayor's Office 1. Volume on the 600. page.

I would also add what I told to the investigating authority that during my mandate as deputy mayor, hundreds of BKV and the metro line 4 affected proposals, information, reports and interpellation was presented to the Metropolitan Assembly, the Mayor's Cabinet and the Mayor's Office of Professional Committee. Obviously due to the tense moments of interrogation, I could not comprehensively talk about of the subject of accusation proposal.


In this testimony first I would like to clarify in detail the events of the period prior to submission: The Municipal Assembly elected me as Deputy Mayor on the 14th of December in 2006, when a number of related articles to the investment of Metro Line 4 have been published in the media, thereby placing enormous pressure on the leadership of the Capital.


Essentially Dr. Gábor Demszky fulfilled this real social and professional need, when in the first days of January 2007, has appointed Dr. László Becker as Metro Commissioner.

Among the tasks of the Metro Commissioner is that all relevant actors should give a complete picture of the project status, also draw up a plan, which clarifies the true cost of the project, and which will also serve as the raw material for submission to EU sources. (http://nol.hu/archivum/archiv-430032)  

A professional study of this kind certainly could not be made without involving DBR Metro Project Directorate, because all of the available information was held by the Project Directorate. The preparation of proposal and its financing primarily was not defined by practical or logical criteria, but the current legislation, and the system of the the Hungarian State, the Municipality of Budapest-BKV metro contracts, so contained therein contradicts the clear regulations, who claims that the preparation of proposal was a task of the Urban and Asset Management Cabinet.


I would add that the referenced contracts likely had been crucial to the prosecution representatives, as Prosecutor Dr. György Győri on the day of 22nd of October in 2010 given effect to my continuous interrogation as suspect and during this called me upon - as it can be read on page 44.143. in Volume 67. of investigative files - to mark those points in the contracts (otherwise acquired by the proposition of my attorney) between the Hungarian State, the Municipality of Budapest and the BKV, which justify my statements.

It is of course another matter that the Prosecutor carrying out the interrogation put me in a position, that it couldn't fulfill this request, indeed, in the more than 100 page contracts with handcuffed hands it was completely impossible to find and point out the specific provisions governing the matter.





Well, because since then I had the opportunity to read through these in calm conditions, and not incidentally scroll through the contracts with free hands, in this testimony I would like to reveal those provisions of the contracts, which absolutely unequivocally substantiates, that neither the preparation of proposal, nor the content of the agency contract of AMM Co. did not belong among the Urban and Asset Management Deputy Mayor tasks, as well as the costs which was not to be financed from the deputy mayor's budget.


IX.4. Who was responsible?


The concluded contract (can be found on pages 769.-791. in company file Annex in the investigative file Volume 34.) on the 24th of January 2007 between the AAM Co. and BKV calls as follows:


"Assignment Agreement, which was created to support of the METRÓ4 Project coordination tasks, expert, advisory functions. "


The contract subject is:

"The support coordination tasks of METRO4 Project, project management, project quality assurance activities and administrative tasks."


Therefore it is clear, that the agency contractually determined tasks typically fall within the scope of duties and responsibilities of project management board.

The investigative file Volume 14th of the 9101. page contains the BKV Organization and Operational Rules, which at the presentation of the organizational structure of the BKV in addition to the provision referred to DBR Metro Project Director responsibilities and tasks are also defined.


Recorded in October 2000, Organisational and Operational Rules of the deputy CEOs executive powers regulation of the 9.4 point Subsections (investigative file Volume 14. page 9.149.) stating that: DBR Metro Project Manager of executive power is responsible for:

  • "DBR project technical and financial conditions, as well as the deadlines for proper realization of the plans,
  • of the financing agreements related to the preparation and implementation,
  • within the Company for conducting professional negotiations,
  • Tasks are:
  • tendering procedures, construction, contracting and supply preparation and management,
  • DBR Project implementation supervision,
  • implementation of the project on monitoring the implementation of contracts,
  • liaising with organizations involved in project implementation,
  • representation of Project in front of authorities and third-party,
  • Project-related assets and liabilities register,
  • Project-related proposals, contracts and any amendments thereto to prepare (underlining by me)
  • tenders, conducting inquiries,
  • with the Project, such as investment associated documents related to the preparation tasks. "


Subsequently, during the Organisational and Operational Regulations that was amended 11 times, until the 18th of March 2009, DBR Metro Project Director’s responsibilities and duties in substance remained unchanged, and only of their location in the rules are changes, - in amendment 3rd and 4th the investigative file 14th Volume on pages 9.187.-9.189 and 9.215-9.217. under the heading "Directors' power" in points it was regulated - and the position of DBR Metro Project Director and promoted to deputy CEO position, his responsibilities of the Organisational and Operational Regulations 2007th April 17 in force date of the sixth modification of additional tasks have been added: so again under the description of executive powers of the deputy CEOs point contains the following additional tasks:


  • "DBR Metro Line investment related corporate policy development, technical preparation of the investment, implementation transaction,
  • DBR Metro line investment plans required under the coordination of their respective owners associations, public authorities, under the authority of the Chief Executive Officer,
  • DBR Metro Line investment related purchasing and procurement management functional activities,
  • the CEO first place substitution of the Metro project related corporate terms of representation. "


Based on the foregoing what took place was the Metro Line 4 construction-related basic treaties formulation, which was measured in full accordance with the Organisational and Operational Rules and Procedures in terms of the organizational hierarchy and task definition.







IX. 5. The system of the Metro Treaties


During the examined period, we need to look at two basic treaty (investors and finance), and their amendments:


1.  Investors contract Budapest Municipality-BKV (investigative file Volume 67. page 44.395.-44.429.): The contract dated on the 19th of January in 2004 to perform investor tasks of the Budapest Metro Line 4 between the section of Budapest Kelenföld Railway Station and Budapest Keleti Railway Station, and the amending agreement dated on the 17th of August in 2005 (67th Volume investigative file pages 44.431.-44447.).


2. Financers contract Hungarian State-Budapest Municipality (67th Volume of investigative file pages 44.321.-44.361.): Also on the 19th of January in 2004 dated contract of the joint financing of Budapest Metro Line 4 between the section of Budapest Kelenföld Railway Station and Budapest Keleti Railway Station, and the amending agreement dated on the 18th of July in 2005 (67th Volume investigative file pages 44.363.-44.393.).


The basic investors treaty within the meaning of point 10.1.1. "Tasks related to the organization and management of implementation of the investment, provided by the Project Directorate led by the Project Director."


The 10.2. Point as the tasks of the Project Board of Directors, determined by the following:


"The Project Directorate is responsible for investments in technical and financial terms and conditions, as well as the deadlines for the systematic implementation.

To this end, the task related to the investment full administration, to prepare and initiate the necessary decisions, division of responsibilities within specified tasks between the Project Board and other units of BKV.


The Project Directorate - among others - in particular:


b) oversee the implementation of the Project, the implementation of all related contracts, in particular the realization of the expected costs and maintain contact with the organizations involved in Project management,

d) keeps track of investment-related assets and liabilities, in particular contracts, expenses and assets,

e) prepare the invitation related to the investment, propositions to the Municipal Assembly,

i) prepare reports related to the investment,

j) meet the information requirements of the contract. "


Clearly identifiable that not only generally it is considered by the AAM Zrt of contracts that are recorded in the Project Directorate the scope of tasks activity, but the Hungarian State, the Municipality of Budapest, BKV Budapest Metro 4 Treaties drawing up of reports, and the preparation of submissions to the General Assembly in particular to the BKV DBR Metro Project Directorate, headed by the Project Director, who above the employer's right is exercised by the BKV CEO.


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


The 10.4.1. point lays down that the Project Manager is responsible for BKV investment activities and is responsible for compliance with the Project Board's budget as well.


The 10.4.2. section also specifically points out that the Project Manager is also responsible for informing the Capital, including:

"From the Project Director the Capital is entitled to collect any information in connection with the investment, to ask information directly, to which the Project Manager is required to give a truthful complete answer and at the same time inform the Chief Executive Officer. "


IX. 6. Whose budget had to pay for it?


It is also a serious factual error to say that the value of the work performed should have been payed from its granted budget by the Mayor's Office of the Urban and Asset Management Cabinet.

IX. 6.1. Budgeting-of year 2007


On public finances of the 1992. Act. XXXVIII. (hereinafter referred to as PFA.) according to 70. §, in the election year, the following year's budget concept no later than the 15th of December must be submitted to the representative body, and failure to do so, it is possible to create a temporary management regulation (PFA. § 76 (1) of Art.). This had importance at the determination of the deputy mayor's budget, having regard that prior to the election of 2006, the Capital had not only one, but five deputy mayors.  Accordingly, during the first half of 2007 of the capital budget, and also the limits opening on the 1st of January 2007, it was determined by two regulations:




1.  the interim financing regulator: from the transitional financing and budget management of the 2007th year, from the January 1st 2007 until March 14th 2007  Municipal Assembly in force Regulation 81/2006. (XII. 29.), and

2.  of the final budget: The Municipality of Budapest 2007th Budget 11/2007. (III. 14.) Municipal Assembly Decree.


To the institutional and municipality investments, municipal grants related to reconstruction in connection with a reference both to the regulation include:


The 27th § (4) Art. "in connection with the investment of the No.4 Metro Line construction, the contracts between the Municipality of Budapest, the Hungarian State and the Hungarian State Treasury, as well as the Budapest Transport Company are the governed. "


From the above it follows that the investment-related expenditures and the metro contracts accounted contained complex interrelations and rules related, and without a doubt the amounts specified in the contract for this purpose already from the1st of January also during the financing transition, was available for the BKV, and for the DBR Metro Project Directorate.


IX. 6.2. Budget proposals


All this is supported by the 2007th year, 10-350/99/07. registration number of Municipal Assembly presentation, which covers: "Proposal for the adoption of the DBR Metro Project Directorate 2006th Annual administrative costs of the use of accounting", as well as by the 2008th year, 10-1701/3/2008. registration number of Municipal Assembly presentation, which covers:


"Proposal for the adoption of the BKV DBR Metro Project Directorate 2007th Annual administrative costs and the budget of the year 2008", and furthermore, the related parts of the Municipal Assembly 2007th June 28 daily and 2008th March 27 daily Minutes of meeting, and the Municipal Assembly 398/2008 (03.27.), 399/2008. (03.27.), and 400/2008. (03.27.) numbers of decisions.

(http://infoszab.budapest.hu:8080/akl/tva/Tir.aspx?scope=kozgyules&sessio..., http://infoszab.budapest.hu:8080/akl/tva/Tir.aspx?scope=kozgyules&sessionid=5049,  the 2007th June 28. daily meeting 62nd item on the agenda, and pages and 216 to 219  of Minutes, and the 2008th March 27. daily meeting 7th item on the agenda, and the Protocol 44 to the 60th page)





I should note that as a little bypass, that despite the fact that it does not include my reference, and in the present proceedings in terms of indispensable significant propositions of Municipal Assembly, Minutes of the meetings, and the Municipal Assembly resolutions, that the investigative files are not only findings by the Municipality may have been obtained, but also found on the Internet http://infoszab.budapest.hu:8080 website - which I have referred above to the source documents -and as for me, the prosecutor and the investigating authority is also easily accessible.


Both of these proposals are signed by me, and that those have been endorsed by Dr. Zsolt Tiba chief notary, an official reason being the deputy mayor of the urban and asset management. It is also stated that the proposals were sent to the Permanent Committees of the Municipal Assembly and the Council member's for consultation, and the DBR Metro Project Directorate on the use of administrative expenses of accounting was approved by the Municipal Assembly.


The 2007th year, 10-350/99 / 07th registration number of the Municipal Assembly proposal reads as follows:


"To the joint funding of the Budapest Metro Line 4 section between Budapest Kelenföld Railway Station-Keleti Railway Station, the Hungarian State and the The Municipality of Budapest concluded a contract on the 19th of January 2004, and has been modified on the 18th of July 2005. The modified funding agreement covers the sections of Metro Line 4 between Budapest Kelenföld Railway Station-Bosnyák square. According to this contract, at administrative costs those project costs classified as personnel and material expenses be understood, which are with the organization of investment implementation, administration and relation to management arise during the activities of the BKV DBR Metro Project Directorate. The modified agreement according to point 3:49, the administrative costs general turnover tax-free amount annually shall not exceed the 2002th annual rates of 200 million HUF, and from 2006, can not exceed the 2002th year prices within 300 million HUF. The Municipal Assembly at its meeting on the 23rd of February 2006, approved the annual administrative budget of DBR Metro Project Directorate in the amount of HUF 264,990,000.

The concluded contract between the BKV and the Municipality of Budapest accordance with point 10.5.2, the Project Board use of administrative costs during the year, annually in arrears are accounted. Approval of the accounts of the capital is then competent. Given that the Project Board's annual budget approved by the Municipal Assembly, on the implementation of the budget accounts shall be the responsibility of the General Assembly.




..... The DBR Metro Project Directorate 2006th budget plan for the fulfillment of the accounts contain:..... The data indicate that for 2006. approved that the 264.990.000 HUF compared to budget is significantly lower, 192.099.732 HUF was used, which in aggregate represent 72.5% performance. Within this, two dominant items were significantly lower in the case of consumption, the financial performance of approximately 60% of expenses, personnel expenses were 77.7% of the performance. "


It can be seen therefore that from the 2006. year's budget more than 72 million HUF was unused.


From the 2008th year 10-701/3/2008. registration number submissions, the following is worth highlighting:


"The current proposal aims to BKV DBR Metro Project Directorate 2007th Annual administrative spending of 2008 adoption of the budget. The Project Board is an independent department of BKV, directed by the Project Manager. The sole responsibility of the project manager is the Metro Line 4 project implementation arrangements, management and directing. The Hungarian State and The Municipality of Budapest of the current Budapest Metro Line 4 Kelenföld Railway Station and between Bosnyát Square section joint funding contract 4.8.4. point requires, the DBR Metro Project Directorate approval of the administrative costs the Metropolitan Municipality authorized and approved by annual budget carrying out financing Hungarian State Treasury shall be sent.


The Municipal Assembly’s extraordinary general meeting of March 1st 2007, 307.980.000 HUF has been approved to the Project Board 2007th year operational financing. The BKV, of the administrative costs exclusively can be used for the operation of the Project Board. The Project Manager has power to dispose over the administrative costs.


The performance of the the Project Board 2007th year approved budget:

During the year, the approved 307.980.000 HUF 85.73% of it, 264.041.350 HUF was used…


It can be stated that 2007th year's budget, also has not been fully used, and about 44 million HUF were still available.


The DBR Metro Project Directorate 2008th Annual budget:

The Project Directorate according to the original intention so far with a small number of employees, primarily building on the consultancy circle services performed its duties. The Project Directorate closing headcount in December 31st 2007 were 19 people.


In 2008, the project received a qualitatively new phase in which the project implementing organization must be prepared. Within the organization, it has become necessary to strengthen the capacity of project management competences to ensure that tasks can be provided to the appropriate level whether not current or having the expected quality in project management. The Metro Line 4 project gets a new task as a large number of coordination between the contractor and the EU support for the involvement of additional activities are generated.


The audit reports completed in the summer of 2007 found that the Metro Line 4 project management organization, the DBR Metro Project Directorate, relative to the scale of the project did not have sufficient competence and staff to effectively manage the project.  The issues raised in project management has begun to reduce the Metro Line 4 project management organization transformation, however, the DBR Metro Project Directorate’s question of strengthening requires attention of other priority financiers.


The EU funding ranging from the involvement of Metro Line 4 project, DBR tasks can be divided into two main groups. Besides the performed project management tasks, - The Transport Operational Programme (TOP) from the date of grant usage must fulfill the role. The grant usage is a requirement laid down in the EU project implementation tasks to be performed, in the so-called Project Implementation Unit (hereinafter referred to as PIU).


For this reason, the DBR Metro Project Directorate organizational structure requires reconsideration, which is recommended given the size of the task. The project management within the organization of the tasks and responsibilities of the PIU are to implement two separate organizational units. For the tasks and of their necessary performance range of competencies can easily be defined....


The reorganization of financial resources:

In the funding agreement's 4.2.3. point determined that according to the method the DBR Metro Project Directorate administrative costs in 2008 can be the maximum of 386.400.000 HUF. This amount covers approximately the DBR Metro Project Directorate of its current staff of the operation, as well as personnel-related expenses. The reinforced body project management costs are significantly higher.


The DBR Metro Project Directorate will perform its duties by increasing the number of 19 persons to 40 persons - assuming that the organization with stepwise scheduled enrollment until the end of July 2008, but no later than the end of the year with total number of employees- and the administrative expenses in 2008 will increase to 678.152.000 HUF.


According to the construction contract between The Municipality of Budapest and the BKV accordance with Section 4.4 "The investment BKV which only from the grant and from and investment-related revenues can be accomplished, and are not required to use other sources in order to achieve the Project. "For this reason, until the opening of EU aid advancing costs of project management is required.


From the administrative costs in 2008, the financing contract contained an upper limit of the amount exceeding 291.752.000 HUF, advanced by the Metropolitan Municipality, and in the budget of 2008 on a separate line is "No.4 Metro Line Advance administrative expenses"shall include the title of appropriation. The appropriation of the source for the BKV 2008th planned additional amortization provided by reductions of the appropriation for financial support. If the additional administrative costs come after the involvement of the subsidization of TOP, it will be paid out to the Capital, and the Capital undertakes the replenishment of the amount for BKV. The use of the cost management accounting process remains as in the Financing Agreement 4.8 point prescribed that is determined, with the addition that by the Metropolitan Municipality of the anticipate amount transfer to BKV's account at the Hungarian State Treasury, arranged by the the Department of Transportation of the Mayor Office in accordance with the timetable as it is in Financing Agreement."


From the 2008th March 27 daily Metropolitan Assembly Minutes of the meeting it can be stated, that as rapporteur Imre Ikvai-Szabó has been indicated, who is in connection with the proposal to the questions at the meeting answered together with Dr. László Becker Chief Engineer/Metro commissioner, from witch I would like to call attention to the following:


„Dr. László Becker Chief Engineer/Metro commissioner:


The first question is, that the metro related AAM contract is in the budget of BKV, or it isn't.

Yesterday at the committee meeting the AAM contracts were blurred again. It started with the framework contract, and the framework contract of course is not included in the budget of the metro. I received assistance from the metro commissioner, within the framework of the first AAM service contract, and in that project's budget the amount is included.(the results of which you can see quarterly, namely the metro commissioner report) ....






…when we started the development of the project management, the project management structure solved in the first half of the year, then came the second half of the year to strengthen the project management, in which it helped the internal and external audits, audits results, and on this basis came forward during the preparation of this year's budget in November with a well founded proposal, what we now are just implementing, and then the project management will be strong enough."


It clearly shows that from 2006 to 2007 more than 72 million HUF remained and from 2007 to 2008 there was about 44 million HUF in the DBR Metro administrative budget, which indicates that abundant resources were possessed within its competence of the Metro 4 line related consultancy contracts for payment of compensation.


It also can be stated that during the time of the basis of the report prepared by AAM Co., using what therein contained and taken into account, compare to the year of 2007 a planned 307.980.000 HUF, to the year of 2008 in 678.152.000 HUF with more than 370 million HUF, larger amounts were determined by the budgetary allocation. On the one hand there is also an indication that the AAM Co. report on project implementation had a significant impact, that was necessary and justified, on the other hand shows that if any of the projects needed to achieve the necessary cost that incurred, the Capital has always found an appropriate source to fund it. For this, I think the conclusion may be drawn that more than 370 million HUF increase in the budget allocation was not a problem. The years of 2006 and 2007 with regard to the savings could mean there was no difficulty, and that on the 24th of January 2007 the Metro Line 4 project was concluded and further progress is needed for framework contracts amounting to HUF 50 million against the value to pay out.


IX. 7. The offer of AAM Co.


The offer on the 3rd page (which is located on page 30.583. in the 44th Volume of the investigative file) among the antecedents includes the following "A higher-quality and more efficient operation of the project on behalf of BKV xxxx Deputy Commissioner asked the AAM Management Information Consulting Co., to give a quote to the support of DBR Metro4 Project coordination tasks. Our Offer applies to fulfill this request."


From the above mentioned offer by AAM Co. shows that the compensation of the Budapest Metro 4 lines the necessary tasks related costs, the so-called project cost constitutes, which is in accordance with the metro bacis treaties, unequivocally, shall be borne by the Project Directorate.



IX. 8. The investment costs


Financing of the investment in terms of two fundamental concepts need to be clarified:


The cost of the project financiers basic treaty amending treaty in accordance with point 3.16., inter alia: "the basis of management contracts incurred expenditures, costs and fees, to facilitate the preparation and in order to proceed the investment the incurred expenditure, insurance costs and other related expenses, professional and consulting fees. "


The support, according to the 1st point of the basic investor treaty reads as follows: "The total investment required to implement, by the Capital implementation of investments in order to finance for the BKV granted financial assistance. " This kind of concept the amending treaty's point 3.5, signed on the 17th of August 2005, partially changed, and determined that: "At the BKV incurred or arising Project cost to cover by the capital granted for the BKV financial assistance. "


The basic investor treaty 3.1. and 4.1 points says: the capital committed to cover the Project cost and the necessary funds with conditions set out in the Contract and in the Financing Agreement, release it available for BKV. and BKV "undertakes to that from the grant to implement that part of the investment, which is not a capital investment. "


In point 8. of the Treaty details the investor obligations of the BKV, and in this context it clearly settles the provided BKV resource management issues:

"The BKV alone, on his own responsibility, the prepared investor performs due diligence on the promoter activity, binds to the investment required to implement treaties, has the amounts of the payments."


The point 10.5.1 provides that, in connection with the Project Directorate operation of financing: "The expenditure incurred in the operation of Project Directorate is covered by the administrative costs. The planned amount of administrative expenses which including connection with the operation of the Project Directorate is expected to incur all personnel and material related costs, from the proposal of the Project Director, approved by the Capital. The BKV of administrative costs solely can be used for the operation of the Project Directorate. The Project Director has the power to dispose over the Administrative Costs."


Within the meaning of the 1st point of the financing contract the Administrative Expense represents: "those of the Project costs are classified as personnel and material costs, which by organizing the implementation of the investment, administration and management in connection with the activities carried out by the BKV is incurred. "


Finally, the basic investor treaty point 10.6.4. of the secured investment commitments taken during the applicable jurisdictional rules, provides as follows:


„c.) in case of the value limit is between five hundred million (500,000,000) and fifty million (50,000,000) HUF, the Project Director and the Investment and Public Procurement Deputy jointly

d.) in case if the value limit is not exceeding the fifty million (50,000,000) HUF, furthermore,   in case of commitments related administrative costs fall within the Project Director responsibility for decisions about the commitment. "


Based on these, undoubtedly it can be concluded, that the preparation of financial statements was not included in my responsibilities, and its value was to be paid from the Cabinet of the urban and asset management deputy mayor.

We can also state that the report had to be presented, not to the Committee on Budgets, but to Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky, requested from the fulfillment of the task by then appointed Dr. László Becker Metro Commissioner.


I emphasize, in this context I only received requests verbally or later in writing that the material prepared by Dr. László Becker Metro Commissioner, and after its completion, to present as referring to the Municipality General Assembly, during which the same way I had power only with the appropriate department to monitor, coordinate, and consult like in any other case. So I only was a referring person of this material according to the official rules of procedure, which, however, did not mean in any way, that I should have prepared the report.


Mayor Dr. Gábor Demszky has defined for me - to which I have referred in the context of defining responsibilities of the Deputy Mayor - letter dated in March 2007, which is part of the investigative file and located on pages 44.021-44.023. in Volume 67., many of the tasks equal with Dr. László Becker's tasks, as well as the light of the Metro report which is feasible, the community transport potential roles. Thus "the Metro 4 investment-related tasks:

  • further progress and a timetable preparation

Deadline: 2007. March 15

  • Monitor the implementation of the project establish a Management Body

Deadline: 2007. March 31

  • In cooperation with The National Development Agency transformation of the financing of the investment, the financing contract modification.

Deadline: 2007. March 15

  • The transformation of project organization, tasks, and responsibilities, as well as the precise definition of responsibilities, including the DBR Metro Project Directorate status  settlement of.

Deadline: 2007. March 15

  • Proposal preparation and submission of General Assembly in points a-d, designated tasks in context. (emphasis by me)

Deadline: The General Meeting on 29 March 2007. "


Regarding the Metro Line 4 project, the Mayor's Cabinet held a meeting on the 19th of March in 2007, which of the following persons participated: CEO of BKV III. accused, head of the DBR Metro Project Directorate xxxx, head of the Transport Department Mihály Csordás, transport councilor Dr. Gábor Dancs, coordinator of the Metro Line 4 Dr. László Becker (see investigative documents, the Mayor's Office documents, Volume 1, 600th page).


The Cabinet agenda item was as follows: "The Metro 4 project status presentation and the necessary measure proposals to ensure the success of the project. " At this meeting, I was designated to be in charge of the proposal , as Deputy Mayor of Urban and Asset Management, in No.67/2007 decision of the Cabinet (which is the investigative file documents called the Mayor's Office Annex Volume 1st, located on the pages 600.-601.) as a result of the meeting decided that the proposal may be submitted to the General Assembly.


The Municipal Assembly discussed by referral 10 days later on the 29th of March 2007, and according to the procedures of the office, I was named as its rapporteur. The text of the proposal can be stated that the report preparation was the task of Dr. László Becker upon the request of the Mayor, and that was prepared after consulting the appropriate management and coordination bodies.




In this round, the following should be pointed out. According to the accusation, the involvement of AAMCo., use of its expert involvement, the ongoing work of the leading IT consulting firm, the creation and compilation of number of reports were unnecessary services. When I had the opportunity get to know investigating documentary material in all its fullness, naturally I read everything I could, and from the company in question, I found a lot of documents (offers, contracts, status reports, compliance certifications, etc). And while I searched frantically, among the more than one hundred thousand pages of documents, after the prepared extensive evaluation reports by AAM Co. I didn't find these compilations naturally based on these submissions, even though that the Municipal Assembly in 2007 made its strategic decisions.


The explanation of the shortage however, is not that such materials do not exist, have not been made, but it's probably that neither the police nor the prosecutor's office did not consider their purchase important. It is therefore necessary to see, that the prosecution took position in an issue what requires special skill (whether it was necessary for a leading IT consulting firm involvement of professional material utilization and to take into account the Metro Line 4 project evaluating current situation or not), that the subject of the investigation, the relevant reports to obtain did not consider it necessary. Here again the question arises in my mind: at the police station or the prosecutor's office who are the specialists with specific expertise, to whom to determine of the unnecessity of the service or its evaluation, not even the involvment of independent expertise, but also for the knowledge of the subject of the investigation material they don't need.?!


IX. 9. Who used the prepared material?


According to the indictment I have used up work prepared under the contract during my activities as Deputy Mayor. In contrast, I wish to stress again that I, Miklós Hagyó prepared by this report, my role was only sufficient, and just as much interest in it than in any other Capital residents, or any other of my representative partners. And that I didn't use for my own purpose, but as the Mayor instructed. The work served such a public purpose, that all the inhabitants of the city, and the Mayor's Cabinet and Committees of the city, department, or the Municipal Assembly in the widest possible range obtain information of the Capital's biggest investment since the regime change.


In this context, the General Assembly decided on the progress report taking note that at the same time they invited the mayor therein to the successful implementation of certain measures to be taken, as well as measures about the status of Metro Line 4 project, and quarterly inform the General Assembly in a written form. The above is supported by the Municipal Assembly, 433, 434, 435/2007. (III. 29) decisions.



In summary, therefore referring to the preparation of submissions it was not my job to be given the burden of the cost of preparing a report. The Cabinet of Deputy Mayor did not have to bear, and the report was not to go to the Committee on Budgets, but to the Metropolitan Cabinet and the meeting of the Municipal Assembly.






IX.10. Was the service unnecessary?


According to the indictment this report for the BKV was unnecessary. I, however, in my investigation testimony stated, that the investment is inherently meaningful for both the summary report for BKV and the Municipal Assembly is very useful and at the same time was essential. In support of this, let me quote from the General Meeting held on March 29 2007, the minutes of the relevant proposals made ​​during negotiations opposition and pro-government comments:

(http://infoszab.budapest.hu:8080/akl/tva/Tir.aspx?scope=kozgyules&sessionid=4759, the Municipal Assembly, 2007th March 29 day meeting of the 5th Protocol speeches relation to agenda item 22, 25, 27, and 28 pages)


"The opinion of the MDF fraction is that it is a very fair, well-prepared report - otherwise it also shows from the comments that we got a lot of information. "- Kálmán Katona (MDF, former Minister of Transport)

"A few words I'd like to say to my previously spoken colleague Kálmán Katona, who declared this submission that this is a fair proposal. I would like to confirm that it is actually a correct proposal, as it describes step by step that how large shortcomings are at the preparations of the underground construction, that it fairly summarizes it, that what are the deficiencies that make it difficult or paralyzing the whole investment. However, I think that the creators of this submission, if anyone is liable to the metro construction, based on this presentation, that they don't have peaceful nights.

I think that in this respect it is a fair deal. "- Zoltán Hock (MDF)

"In my opinion, we can thank both the referring Deputy Mayor and László Becker, that this material was prepared, we are fully informed, and based on this we can start working on a more specific project implementation. "- Dr. Gábor Dancs (SZDSZ)

"The prospectus also shows that which I otherwise find it detailed and good - I note that, in fact, we had an impatience to see how the metro investment consists - I think that this information will satisfy this need, since it presents in detail the current status of the Metro Project."- Dr. Pál Balogh (MSZP)


From the above it can clearly be stated that, while the prosecution claims that the contract with AAM Co. was unnecessary and unreasonable, until the results in a report to the specific issues are relevant to the Municipal Assembly considered necessary and appropriate, it was voted and approved.


It is regrettable, but I must repeat my earlier question: what are the professional  facts based on from that argument by the prosecution, especially given that the prosecution’s  investigative records or reports are in question, either by judicial experts on the subject of expert opinion not included?


IX.11. The relevant persons


Neither at the end of 2006, nor the beginning of 2007, I did not instruct anyone in connection with this contract, and I didn'tdefine requests in this respect to anyone.


With AAM Co. before the contract conclusion, I had no relationship of any kind, I didn't know its owners or employees, with its leaders and members I never had neither a business, cousinly or amicable relationship. As I recall, after the contract was concluded on behalf of the company I've only met with xxxx. The apropos of this was, that on the Municipality reconciliations xxxx continuously appeared accompanied by III. accused, even so it happened that she as the representative of AAM Co. attended the Mayor's Cabinet meetings.

Thus in this way I found out that fact that BKV links with this company, but that the contracts between them contained in them I had no information, or of the period of the agreement, and in this respect I have never asked or instructed anyone for anything.


Of III, accused earlier I've already had my statement in detail, to which I would like to add the following: Prior to the appointment with III. accused I met all together about 2-3 times, we weren't friends or relatives, not even as acquaintances. However, after taking his job, a close working relationship has been established between us, as he was the leader of the largest public company where the greatest conversions were carried out, and unfortunately is still going on to this day.


We elected III. accused for the position of CEO of BKV on the Metropolitan Assembly on the 22nd of December in 2006. The fact that, and under what circumstances I instructed him to sign the contract on January 24th, not from the matter of facts, neither can not be determined from the entire investigative document, furthermore this question hasn't been ask from III. accused neither by the investigating authority or the prosecutor during the entire proceedings of the investigative stage.


However, the claim that I have instructed III. accused of concluding a contract with AAM Co., doesn't correspond with reality. My election only 8 days earlier took place on the day of 14th of December, and as a newly elected Deputy Mayor I alone carried out the previous five deputy mayor's tasks, thanks to which more than two dozen public companies belonged to the cabinet. I ask: what would have been my reason to instruct the newly elected CEO of BKV to enter into a contract with a company to me unknown in every aspect?




I would add, that in conjunction with a contract concluded with AAM Co. not even III. accused but no one else I have instructed to do anything. I will go further: in connection with this company, I have never defined any request to anybody. In this circle, it cannot be overlooked that another person xxxx, was the Deputy CTO of BKV until the 11th of September 2007.


xxxx employment contract was dated in 2005. On December 1st and in January 2007 it was still in force (the 39th volume of the investigative file page 25779.) and among his duties records the following:


  1. "With featured projects, such as investment-related documents related to the preparation tasks
  2. monitoring of DBR project implementation."


xxxx was the one, who because of his scope of work, by AAM Co. subsequently issued completion certificates, containing the description of work performed under the contract, as well as related fees and hours of work, - the investigative documents show that they are signed. 


xxxx claims the following in his testimony the 39th volume of the investigative file page 25757.):


"Within my department, direct instruction has not been made ​​on such a basis of my knowledge, no request or instruction had any explanation that the request was coming from Hagyó or other politicians. "


In addition, the indictment in the 21st count, facts contained in the second part, III. accused's testimony was given by the following in connection with the concluded consultancy contracts with AAM Co. dated on 22nd of December 2007, of investigation documents 65th Volume page 37675/B:


"Then I thought that BKV is also in need of an associated featured project management, project administration, decision-making, quality system development operation. By December 2007, it was apparent to me that I can only control so much a priority task. To my own initiative, I have not received instructions from anyone, simply I admitted, that one person cannot control so many projects."





IX.12. The relationship of AAM Co.-BKV


In the indictment to my burden imposed period, I didn't know the market conditions of the 1994 established AAM business association. But then I investigated, and for example on the internet I found out, that AAM Co. at that time was the country's largest public services firm, which was itself dominated by 50% of the market. As a result, from 1996 through to the present case led to the erupted media scandals that continuously worked for both the Metropolitan Municipality and for the BKV. With the Prime Minister's Office in 1998-1999, he was possessed with an annual 1 billion HUF framework contract, and among other things also worked for the Ministry of Environment. I would add, that Dr. László Becker, the Metro Commissioner, formerly was the head of this Ministry's International Aid Department. Among the AAM Co. for BKV there was a 5-10-15 million frame amount per year of continuous contractual work,  I'd like to highlight, that this company developed the BKV SAP system in 1998, furthermore, the introduction of electronic ticketing system in 2006, won a tender for 200 million HUF which based on the E-ticketing, participated in two preparatory projects.


In view of the above, since 2005 AAM Co. already was pre-certified at the BKV even prior to my Deputy Mayor election, which facts I found out, when IV.accused, as the BKV's appointed Deputy CEO on the 2008. February 28 daily General Assembly reported on the Metro Line 4 project 2007th year progress, while also informing the General Assembly about this.

(http://infoszab.budapest.hu:8080/akl/tva/Tir.aspx?scope=kozgyules&sessionid=5044, 2008. February 28 Municipal Assembly 33rd daily Agenda: Summary Report of the metro project 2007th Annual progress of the minutes: 83-105. page)


It is not true therefore, that the AAM's Co. at the BKV appearance in any way can be related to my person. This is further supported by the AAM Co. represented by xxxx testimony, who is in the investigating documents Volume 44 on page 30.301. declares as follows:

"To my knowledge, the AAM has been for a very long time, since 1998 has a business relationship with BKV, continuously, typically, specific IT-related tasks. Before 2007, I took part in three projects related to BKV. In 2004, it was a project for a few months, which concerned the BKV and a settlement between the Municipality compensation system audit. The second contract could be in 2005, in connection with audits of medium-term IT strategy of BKV. In 2006, Elektra, or electronic chip card entry system selection phase contributed as an expert. In the beginning of 2007, AAM received an invitation from Dr. László Becker, who was recently appointed as CTO at the Metropolitan Municipality. He asked us to screen the organizational structure and operation of Metro Line 4. With László Becker we worked together previously, therefore he asked us."



IX. 13. The afterlife of AAM contracts


I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony, that in each case I supported, and in many cases I myself have initiated a review of the doubtful transactions.


In this case, in 2008 27th of February appeared on Index news portal an article entitled "BKV spends billions for advices"(http://index.hu/belfold/budapest/0226aam/). In the day after publishing the article, on the 28th of February 2008, I was referring to that decision proposal which the General Assembly subsidized without votes against, and which stated that the Municipal Assembly occasionally distracted the Economic Commission’s responsibility and acting under the authority of ownership invites the BKV Supervisory Committee, that with attention of practicality, professional, economic and legality aspects, fully investigate all the contracts concluded between AAM Co. and BKV, and submit the examination report to the General Assembly.

(http://infoszab.budapest.hu:8080/akl/tva/Tir.aspx?scope=kozgyules&sessionid=5044, 2008. February 28 Municipal Assembly 33rd daily Agenda: Summary Report of the metro project 2007th Annual progress of the minutes: 83-105. page)


According to the Protocol I commented as follows: "The question incurred by Mr. representative, as well as more of these ideas has been said, who directs the BKV, who sees it, and who does not have insight into the contracts. The BKV is an independent legal entity operating, at BKV the owner's representation of the Board of Directors or the Supervisory Board carries out according to the economic law, and they are the ones who control and supervise the management.  I think that it would be wrong if anyone here from the Town Hall - I repeat, anyone - with any contract, related with any tender would have an insight into any of the metropolitan utility companies, and public service company's contracts. I think that this is the Board of Directors, management control, the Committee's task, and once again emphasizing the representatives of the press, on all capital factions represented in these monitoring committees. "


Finally Dr. Gábor Székely as the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of BKV of the investigative document Mayor's Office Annex 1st Volume located on page 674., informed the Mayor by letter dated on the 2nd of October 2008, that having regard to the content of the General Assembly Resolution 262/2008 (II.28.), that the Supervisory Board of the BKV expediency, professional, economic and legality aspects comprehensively examined all the contracts between AAM Co. and BKV. According to the information, the internal audit apparatus, and the Economic Competition Authority has also taken a position on, but there was no finding what would justify a competition supervision proceeding.


In light of these factors, I ask, who among the representatives of the prosecutor, on the given issue has such professional competence, that has overridden the Municipal Assembly and the Economic Competition Authority's decision, that the concluded contracts with AAM Co. classified as unnecessary and not justified.





Counts incriminating me in connection with IV. accused


IV accused, as I found out from this investigative document, the accused has been employed by the BKV since the 18th of April 2007, when he became the foreman of the Investment Department, his job position was office manager of conducting investments, the investigative file shows the following:


  • From late summer of 2007, manager of the the newly created Technical Directorate General Investment Department,
  • from the 24th of September 2007, deputy CTO of BKV,
  • from the 19th of February 2008, - resulting of an one-off extension - twice for a 30-day periods the acting CEO of BKV, then
  • after the 1st of September 2008, until the end of his employment, ie until the 31st of July 2009, the General Chief Technical Officer next to István Kocsics CEO.


Here I would like to point out that I as the deputy mayor of Urban and Asset Management during  his job position, in neither case did I practice  neither decision-making, nor instructional nor employer's rights over IV. accused, and had no such power even over the Metropolitan Municipality or any of its committees. Until his mandate as CEO his employer was III. accused, during the time of his mandate as acting CEO the Board of Directors had employer's right over him, then after the appointment of István Kocsis, the new CEO became his employer.


Furthermore I emphasize, that with the CTO deputies, therefore not only with IV. accused, but with his predecessor xxxx and with xxxx, had no direct relationship, since the so-called "command channel" I have always observed, and I never contacted directly such persons, whose supervisor belonged to the supervisory power of the Cabinet, and this is true for all the Metropolitan Municipality-owned public companies.


Regarding IV. accused working relation, - as I have been reported previously - only after his appointment as acting CEO, ie after the 19th of February 2008 I came in contact.

Then the largest public service company owned by the Metropolitan Municipality, falling within its competence as the interim head, their tasks which naturally brought the need for personal contact, is the object of which in all cases is related to the professional coordination. The supply of the Capital's public services in a sufficient level for all and the problems that arose to be solved indeed required a structured working relationship system from both parts the Metropolitan Municipality and the BKV, because the effective operation of infrastructure was a common interest.


Following his appointment, due to the above, my work relationship with IV. accused became intense, the framework of which reports were in progress, and because of the proposals, generally we met weekly, and there was a time when we talked on the phone every day. Our meeting mainly during working hours took place at my office in the building of the Metropolitan Municipality, in the presence of the relevant topic professional representatives, Cabinet's desk officers and other relevant members of the Cabinet. Only one or two times it occurred, that we had to meet after working hours, such occasion for instance in March 2008 in Gödöllő.





C.C.Soft Ltd. or count I/14.


X. 1.1. The prosecution


The count I/14. located on the 19th page in the indictment, by the BKV "between the stations of Szentendre- Batthyány Square suburban railway (HÉV) building of visual passenger information" with C.C.Soft Ltd. on the 12th of July 2007 concluded then later modified on the 3rd of October 2007 contract, imposes of my burden the following:


"In 2007 late November-early December, Miklós Hagyó I. accused, called in IV. accused to the Mayor's office, wherein he instructed him to arrange the payment before Christmas, BKV thus suffered a pecuniary disadvantage of a total of 118,800 000, - HUF." 


In contrast, on the 14th of May 2010, when my interrogation of the suspect went into effect, the investigating authority, unlike the above section, much less imposed of my burden, that on my "pressure, IV. accused deputy CTO verified the fulfillment, so that the C.C.Soft Ltd. to unduly obtain the amount of the final invoice of 39.6 million HUF + VAT value. "




Between the two facts, reasons of substantial differences, such as: specifically instructed IV. accused, or he just felt that I pressure him, the financial loss amount what BKV had suffered is 118.800.000 HUF or 39.6 million HUF, I did not get information from the prosecuting authority. So once again I am forced in that position: substantive defense to be present in the accusations made against me, that I do not know its exact contents.


Nevertheless I explicitly state that in the project, ie.concerning the construction of the HÉV visual passenger information system, neither the preparation of nor the tender, not the process of contract did not come to conclusion with C.C.Soft Ltd. I did not participate in, just as I didn't coordinate with anyone during its implementation phase, or even asked for any information on this subject from BKV. Consequently, I didn't know anything about the contained facts, and as I recall, a proposal was not made neither to the Mayor's Cabinet, nor the Municipal Assembly or to the Committees. I don't know C.C. Soft Ltd. or its leader members, with their name, just as the with whole matter, I met for the first time from the press. The company's owner which came to my knowledge in this way, xxxx, I don't know him and I'm not in business, nor family or amicable relationship with him.


I didn't ask or instruct, or put pressure on IV. accused or any other employee of the BKV related with this matter, neither to contract C.C.Soft Ltd., nor to validate the work done by C.C.Soft Ltd. The company's performance from the BKV in order to compensate, I never threatened any violent or intimidating behavior neither towards IV. accused or anybody else.


X.1.2 The leader of C.C.Soft Ltd.


As it is known to everyone - and as I alluded to earlier - in March 2010. IV. accused, to the Hungarian Nation newspaper (investigative documents, Volume 1st pages 279.-285.), and to Hír TV (see Annex 5) has given detailed world by storm interviews, a result of which I have become the number one public enemy of Hungary. Because of the false and defamatory nature of the statements made in the interviews,- as I stated previously - against IV. accused, for villainous reasons in front of the public, causing considerable injury of interest, continuously committed offenses of libel accusation pressed charges.  IV. accused spoke in contradictory of facts about what happened after the contract conclusion between the BKV and C.C.Soft Ltd.in his media statements, as well his testimonies during the investigation, not only to himself, but also on the basis of the investigative documents unambiguously, so also, that I, or any other person wanted to persuade him when, and to do what: additional work clearance or sign a certificate of completion.



1.)  On the 6th of March 2006. IV. accused said in the interview given to the Hungarian Nation newspaper. In November 2007, he was informed by telephone, that "the winning company will significantly increase the price, and will push the deadline", and after that he did not want to acknowledge it, he had to come to me to the Town Hall, that I, while I got him by the neck, walking in the hallway outside of my office, told him that, "the contract changes has to be made, and the overplus money's full amount must be paid before Christmas, that is, within a few days. "


2.)  So the next day on the 7th of March 2010., in the interview given to Hír TV unlike the previous IV. accused has been talked about, that end by of fall, they contacted him with that fact, that "there is a particular job, and in carrying out this work additional performances needs to be accounted for". He added that the actual negotiation in connection with all involved companies indicated, that "overplus needs, and additional technical performance must be achieved. These claims seemed believable, I could accept." Unlike the previous ones, he also reported, that „at BKV the contract modification has a process, and after the technical justification of the amendment of contract it is added to a system. " About me however, he claimed that after we left my office to the corridor, I clung to his neck, which for him was an "unpleasent body grasp, because actually I let him decide with who he goes arm in arm, or who he enclasps", which made the walking in the corridor city hall workers to see, "that we stroll down the corridor in sweet harmony", and then told him, that "this Szentendre additional cost must be recognized."


3.)  Notwithstanding the above, IV. accused in 2010. February 24th, - namely before the release of the article in a Hungarian Nation newspaper - claimed in his testimony that after he was appointed as Deputy Chief Technical Officer (2007. 24th of September), I invited him to the Town Hall, and I told him, "confirm C.C.Sokt Ltd. performance". Then he has  told me, that "the work is already completed by C.C.Soft Ltd. ", and he could see that it works, but since the test run did not elapse yet, the performance can not be verified.  After this I asked him to come out to the corridor and I "forcefully" put my arms around his neck,  and said that since "Christmas is coming ... forthwith certify the performance."


4.)  In 2006. March 16th, - namely after the release of the interviews - in his testimony of suspects, has been described not identical to his other statements by way of derogation, again he talked about following the conclusion of the contract xxxx contacted him, who - as I afterwards found out about it, the representative of C.C.Soft Ltd. - told him that "they have technical problems, and additional work should build, in order to meet the fulfillment. " He also said, that „the needs of additional work of C.C.Soft Ltd. could be drafted into the contract, that they modified the previous tender conditions”. After that he made ​​that statement, that at the end of November, early December of 2007, I invited him to the Town Hall, and ordered him that "he must pay the final invoice of C.C.Soft Ltd." 

Comparing IV. accused statements, the time of the events and their sequence, on my alleged instructions content and subject matter, within the framework of the investigation and the various statements to the media, without the detailed analysis striking contradictions exists. As I have always denied IV. accused's statements existence, because what he said about me in this context are simply not true, the investigating authorities and the prosecutor's office obviously should have taken further additional investigative steps in order to clarify the facts. However, the competent bodies of the investigation for more than two years never saw the need for the particular project on economical and legal significant circumstances, precisely according to the relevant prosecution claims, without appropriate service, earning a significant component managing director of the company, auscultate in any procedural quality.


In this connection, I would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Tribunal to the published articles on origo.hu website on the 24th of March 2010, "Suspiciously launched in the BKV scandal of hundreds of millions dropped out of order" on the 8th of April 2010, "With the speed of light deadline BKV bought an extremely expensive software from a party support company ", as well as on the 30th of August 2010 published article "In Hagyó's extortion case also appears the mysterious party support company", which are dealing with the relationship of C.C.Soft Ltd.  and the BKV, and indictment also concerned, passenger information systems construction errand. These articles are quoting about xxxx the managing director of C.C.Soft Ltd., of which I would point out the following sentences (Annex 9):


From the article published on the 24th of March in 2010: "According to xxxx, they have been consulted with BKV at all stages of the work, whose technical inspectors also examined the system prior to the handover, affecting the screens there was no objection. The former executive also pointed out that beside the development of software system, the preparation of two dispatching centers, and the building of audio passenger information were also part of their work."


From the published article on the 8th of April in 2010: "The former head of C.C.Soft Ltd. however states, that everything was done in conformity with the contract, and professionals of the transport company, after several controls have taken over the latter declared faulty passenger information system.  xxxx said to [origo], that the police did not look for him, and when it occurred at them to show his truth with documentary evidence, then they said to him, that "according to the case at that time, there is no need of my statement." So xxxx, for the time being the police didn't question him in connection with those allegations, of which in the BKV case suspected with misappropriation treatment IV. accused formulated to cause quite a stir, in an interview in early March....xxxx claims, that they didn't give money to anyone."


From the article published on the 30th of August in 2010: "The company's former owner and manager, xxxx, which is currently under liquidation, however now said to [origo], that he doesn't know about the certificates were issued irregularly, and that he also doesn't have information about the document has been made for the instruction of Hagyó. According to xxxx, the certificate of completion was preceded by a detailed technical delivery and acceptance procedure, and previously another employee of the Ltd. requesting anonymity has said, that the BKV heavily requested accountability from them of all the deadlines, and has carefully examined everything." "xxxx said to  [origo], that he has not been approached by detectives in the case, and the preparation of one of our earlier articles he also said, that in person he had only seen Hagyó once, at the funeral of the Mayor of Pécs xxxx, in February of 2009."


Although the declaration didn't take place under the burden of truth-telling obligations, I believe the contained therein, if possible makes the following question much more sharp-edged: For the full investigation of facts, why wasn't it necessary to interview specifically the affected persons? How is it that the indictment can contain that allegation on page 19. the third, in particular count second paragraph, that IV. accused, in the certificate of completion, "despite the threats made by the head of the Ltd. verbally and by sms", he didn't want to sign, thus, the incriminated leader ie xxxx, in this aspect was not heard in any capacity?


X.1.3. The contract concluded between the BKV and C.C.Soft Ltd on the 12th of July 2007


To the content of the  I/14. count of the statement of facts, I would like to reflect in more detail, as opposed to the prosecution's position, facts stated in the investigative  document, - at least according to the investigative material what was available to me - the procedure once again not only denies everything, but in the matter of the investigation and prosecution it is an unresolvable conflict with each other.


The statement of fact's first sentence of the conclusion of the contract, and its modification's data set as follows:


The permission and to the instruction of III. accused, of the crime non-participating xxxx Deputy CEO, and xxxx Head of Division, were contracted on the 12 of July 2007, what has been modified 3rd of October in 2007 - which on behalf of the BKV was signed by III. accused - with C.C.Soft Ltd. "for the construction of visual passenger information system between Szentendre-Batthiány Square suburban stations."


In the 64th Volume of the investigative documents from page 41.861. those letters can be found, which have been attached by IV. accused, in connection with the activities carried out at BKV, and unfortunately, several of which are, in my opinion, missed a very important message.


However, in the investigative file called Company documents Annex Volume Company39, not only these missing letters can be found, but from page 4. but by the BKV internal control Directorate between the 2010. 19th of January-1st of February conducted inquiry report, which covers the contract of C.C.Soft Ltd. and the comprehensive and detailed analysis of its payments.


According to the 2nd page of the referred report:

"The officer and owner of the conduct project (application of the need, competitive tendering, contracts and contract amendments, the authorization of invoices payments) was IV. accused, who was the office manager of investment implementation, (who later became Head of Department of Investment and deputy CTO, respectively General Deputy CTO)."


The contractual process, as for me later in the investigative files revealed what happened in the following manner:


On the 1st of June in 2007, IV. accused investment implementation office manager, emailed to xxxx Deputy CTO, in which he proposed the urgent establishment of a public address system. The content of the email message can be found on page 23th in Volume Company39. of the the investigative file Company Annex, even though the book does not include a specific letter. The fact is that after the letter xxxx in his response ordered the immediate market research.


Here I would refer once again to, that xxxx, until the 11th of September 2007, the day of the termination of his employment by mutual agreement, was the deputy CTO, (his employment officially ended on the 31st of December in 2007) he states the following in his testimony on page 25.757. Volume 39. in investigative file:


"Within my Department, to my knowledge there was no direct instruction, any request or instruction wasn't provided with such explanation, that it was requested by Hagyó or any other politician."


On the 12th of June 2007. responding to the request, IV. accused, on registration number 622/405/2007., by letter the market research was initiated. Finally, a request for quotations are sent to five companies: To C.C.Soft Ltd, to Delta Electronics Ltd., to FreeSoft Plc.,.to Autocom Ltd. and to Török Trade Ltd., and can be found in the Company documents of investigative file, Annex Company39. on page 197., and it can clearly be stated, that it has been signed by IV. accused as the office manager.


However, on the page 41.759. of Volume 64. in the investigative file IV. accused, makes the following statement:


"xxxx was the administrator of this tender, who was working in the technical department in the group which was directed by me. For the invitation of tender, xxxx was the manager who was responsible. I, as a team leader supervised the work of xxxx. For your request, I tell, that the tender was an invitational tender. I didn't tell to xxxx, that who should be invited, because it was at the beginning of my mandate, and I didn't know the BKV internal administrative procedures yet. Responding to your question, I can't even tell, that xxxx with who he cross-checked in connection with the invitees of the tender.


xxxx witness, however in contrast, on page 32.055. of Volume 46. in the investigative file of the above mentioned said the following:


"The selection of the companies invited to tender I can tell, 3-3 companies we suggested..... For the construction of passenger information system announced the tender of the other two companies, C.C.Soft Ltd. and Freesoft Plc., IV. accused, as the investment manager suggested to us. For the data transmission tender, as invitees, IV. accused, recommended two other companies, Diamond Ltd. and an other one which name I can't recall."


So I'd refer to the obvious facts, and supporting further concrete evidences, such as the contradicted testimony of IV. accused, which denies his participation in the contract  conclusion between the BKV and C.C.Soft Ltd.


The tender deadline ended on the 15th of June 2007. The evaluation committee included the following members: xxxx, professional services manager of HÉV infrastructure, xxxx, Head of Logistics Department, xxxx, Head of Investment Department, xxxx, investment officer and IV. accused. The tender was finally won by C.C.Soft Ltd.


I didn't find the tender evaluation documents in the investigative files, but here again, I refer to xxxx witness testimony, who is in connection with this declares on page 32.057A. of Volume 46. in investigative file, that:




"The breakdown of tenders, evaluation was carried out jointly…. The jury wished to exclude this in the absence of reference C.C.Soft Ltd., Freesoft Plc., Diamond Ltd., and recommended by IV. accused, fourth company. From the judges, only IV. accused insisted that these companies should not be excluded. Later we got knowledge that IV. accused contacted by e-mail  xxxx deputy CTO, to proclaim the offer of C.C.Soft Ltd. as winner, since it's the cheapest.  The conclusion of the contract took place without a commission's evaluation Minutes, because the jury repeatedly did not hold a meeting, so we didn't sign any Minutes. The conclusion of contract was permitted for the request of IV. accused, by xxxx."


Thus, the available evidences, including the testimony of the above can be stated:

IV. accused had a role in excluding C.C.Soft Ltd. from the tender even that allegedly didn't have professional references, in fact, also the signed offer of C.C.Soft Ltd. in according to the official procedure, without the recording of authentic assessment Minutes, as the cheapest tender, announced as the winner, in a way, as outlined in the investigative documents, that its indicated venture fee, with not much eclipsed on the second place Autocom Ltd. offer.  Furthermore, despite the fact that the on behalf of BKV the contract hasn't been signed by IV. accused, his signatury also can be found on it.


This is supported by the witness testimony of xxxx and xxxx, and by the provided documentary evidences.


xxxx. as the representative of Autocom Ltd., after he has been notified of the rejection of their application, he addressed a letter directly to IV. accused in which he requires information about the reason of their rejection. (investigative file Volume 48. Page 30.387.)


xxxx. as the representative of xxxx Plc., in paralel with the above mentioned BKV tender, received a request for quotations from BKV to "the construction of integrated emergency communications dispatch console between the stations of Szentendre HÉV Batthyány Square-Békásmegyer" which has been signed by IV. accused, as the office manager. (investigative file Volume 40. on page 27.251.) In his testimony he also reported (investigative file Volume 40. page 27.243.), that of the rejection of their application submitted in this regard, - as shown in the investigative file Volume 41. page 27.301.) - dated on the 27th of July 2007, and they were informed from a letter signed by IV. accused.


Of course I can not declare that the facts in the first sentence of the indictment:

If III. accused instructed afterwards xxxx Deputy CTO and xxxx Head of the Department to conclude the contract.


However, I have previously referred, the second inspection report prepared by the Internal Control Directorate, the investigative file Company documents Annex Volume Company39. on page 15. records, that xxxx approved the proposal evaluation, and promulgated C.C.Soft Ltd. as the winner, and then in his letter dated on the 9th or 10th of July 2007, registration number 622/507/2007. - because of formatted error it can not be accurately ascertained - in which IV. accused was marked as the administrator, applied for admission from CEO III. accused, to conclude the contract with C.C.Soft Ltd., which permission he got on the 12th of July 2007, and the contract has been signed.


Again, I stress that this was when I did not have any information about this conclusion of the incriminating contract.


X. 1.4 Additional work and / or certificate of completion


In the meantime, however, the content of the contract based on the investigative documents, as well as the implementation of the fulfillment and the proof of payment, I found out the following:


Subject of contract:  it was to build a visual passenger information system (with LCD display) between the station of Szentendre HÉV Batthyány Square-Békásmegyer, which work C.C.Soft Ltd. undertook for 85.000.000,- HUF + VAT (20%) venture fee,  as outlined in the investigative file Company Annex Volume Company39. from page 57. to 65. contract, can be stated.


According to the contract, the invoice of the 40% of the venture fee may be submitted after the 30-day test run issued certificate of completion. The compensation from BKV, based on the written invoice and receipt of the invoice within 60 days, was wired by bank transfer.


The date of completion of the work was dated the 9th of September 2007.


According to the records, the project’s implementation and performance had begun in the summer of 2007, however, the contract on the 3rd of October 2007 had already been modified. (investigative file Company documents Annex Company39. page 67.-69.)


According to the indictment facts, the contract amendment was necessary (the indictments second paragraph on page 19., the first paragraph of count  I/14.) because with the ensuring equipment operator Austrian Thales Company, they failed to agree on the purchase of the necessary software, so a "home-made ensuring equipment unit had to be made. "


IV. accused in connection with this in the investigation file on page 41.759. of Volume 64. declares as follows:

"Following the conclusion of the contract xxxx contacted me with saying that they have technical problems, and that should build extra work in order to meet the fulfillment. xxxx argued that the BVK tender wasn't correct and that he wasn't informed that there is no connection with the control equipment....the amount of the additional work shall be paid to Miklós Hagyó."


On page 42.131. of Volume 64. furthermore he says, that the security system was "linked to a thread on C.C.Soft system, to get the information from. For this it was necessary to write a separate program, this caused the price rise and the modification of the contract.”


IV. accused, as described above, fends off the position of responsibility, as in the investigative documents contains, once again are fully refuted:


In the investigative documents Company file Annex  Volume, Company39. on page 285. located that fax sent by C.C.Soft Ltd. dated on the 1st of September 2007. to IV. accused, as to the head of the investment department, (copy sent to: VIII. accused, sales and communication Deputy CEO) in which they offer the colored, large screen display applications in reference to the presentation on the 23rd of August 2007, and also indicates that with 14.5 million HUF + VAT would increase the original contract amount.


On the day of the 13th of September 2007, IV. accused, in his letter (investigative file Annex Company documents Volume Company39. on page 289.) as a response informs xxxx project manager of C.C.Soft Ltd., that "different of the tender, the technical solution’s only alternative is the LCD TV....if it is proved, that the LCD monitors operating hours service life is at least 70,000 operating hours. "


I draw attention to the following: on one hand IV. accused, against his investigative testimony which I have referred to, in the interview he gave to Hungarian Nation newspaper on the 6th of March in 2010, he states, (investigative file, Volume 1. on pages 279-281.) that in 2007 November he was told: in connection with the IT investment the winning company will increase its price significantly, and will also extend the undertaken deadline, and as well added: "This is standard procedure. Maybe this kind of tender formally wins with the best offer, but afterwards there are always changes, juggling with the price increases and with extended deadlines."



On the other hand, IV. accused in his letter to C.C.Sofft Ltd. in August 2007, has been informed by the company, "that he arranges the contractual settlement of additional work", so even then he was aware that additional costs will arise. (source: the published article on origo.hu on the 24th of March 2010. "Suspiciously launched in the BKV scandal of hundreds of millions dropped out of order", see Appendix 10.)

I emphasize: with IV. accused solely after his CEO appointment, from the 19th of February 2008 came into direct contact, and on the above mentioned date, namely August of 2007 and mid September I didn't know him in person. The referred documentary evidence unequivocally stated, that  IV. accused, against even to himself has repeatedly contradictory confessions, he didn't act on instructions from others to make amendments on the contract that is the increase of additional work expense, but prior to my cognition, IV. accused, not only to know about the C.C. Soft Ltd. resulting surplus work, and the associated cost increases, but in its sole discretion, acted independently and made consequential decisions.


In the investigative file Company Annex Volume Company39. the second investigation report of BKV Internal Control Directorate on pages 21.-23., xxxx after the above antecedents, addressed to IV. accused on the 17th of September 2007. requested contract amendment from BKV, which concerns the main point of the contract, so the completion time indicated in the tender instead of 2007 of September 10. changed to the 22nd of October 2007., and the original venture fee of 85 million HUF + VAT  asked to change to 99.5 million + VAT. In response  IV. accused, in his fax registration number: 144/161/2007. dated on the 20th of September 2007., told to xxxx, that his requirements of the contract amendment will be presented for decision to CEO III. accused.


Accordingly, IV. accused, in his letter registration number: 14/127/2007. dated on the 25th ofSeptember 2007, actually sent the request for amendment to III. accused, who approved it.


The amendment of the contract on behalf of BKV III. accused, Chief Executive Officer, on behalf of C.C.Soft Lt. xxxx signed, however, in the light of history, not surprisingly, IV. accused signature together with xxxx Lawyer of BKV are on the contract. In fact, however the technical content of the modified contract, in the investigative testimony of IV. accused, I've relied on assertions not changed, in fact quite the opposite. Left out of the construction of the linked software, the due amount to C.C.Soft Ltd according to the contract as a result did not decrease, but increased by 14 million HUF + VAT, so that in addition to the above, even the default deadline has been pushed to the 22nd of October, 2007.


In the investigative file Company Annex Volume Company39. it can also be found xxxx forensic IT expert reviews, of which in relation with the contract amendment, on page 503. h.), i.) and j.) points I'd like to highlight:

"h.) CCSoft Ltd. prior to the modified tender, in technical content corresponding to the technical specification, and could have been functioning. The undertaken price reality depends on the first industrial version of AEG outdoor displays, and on the purchase price it can be obtained. The close to reality solution is supported by that the second candidate was also close to the 85 million HUF net.

i).  Prior to the version of the amendment contract, in my opinion, would have been feasible for about 85 million HUF, but seeing the second candidate references, the 92.5 million HUF could be considered as a realistic final figure. After the contract modification the 99.000.000. HUF it can not be justified, because the change did not meet the technical conditions. The reason given in the amendment, that the new displays constitute additional costs, I do not consider substantiated, (even if the displays are weaker) are cheaper than a commodity item indoor LCD TV.


j.) After the modification of the contract, during implementation used LG 42LC41 LCD TV display capability (color depth, resolution) is better than the original implementation plan specified in AEG matrix LCD displays. It could have been provided to have any color, graphical display, but not suitable for external operation, which in this case is not an omitted parameter."


It can be concluded that before the IV. accused requested, and submitted to CEO III. accused contract modification, the quality of service and its price, according to the experts, was considered realistic, however after the contract modification, the technical content decreased, the contract purchase price increased unjustifiably.


X.1.5. To my burden imposed perpetration behavior


As a preliminary point I would like to point out, that those fundamental contradictions, which the various investigative testimonies of IV. accused, and among the availability of investigative document contained persist beyond compliance with the rules of procedure, I wish to express only after the hearing of IV. accused. However, to his statement about I/14. count, having regard to the fact of the behavior imposed to my burden it is based solely and exclusively of the testimony of IV. accused - other supporting evidence, at least I have not found in the investigative document - already now I would like to reflect on.


IV. accused, at the time of the contract signing between the BKV and C.C.Soft Ltd. on the 12th of July 2007, he was only working as a group leader, however, during the performance of the contract, in September 2007, he was appointed as the Deputy CTO of BKV. Then, according to the indictment contained facts of I/14. count on page 19th, the following occurred:

"The technical handover procedure in 2007 30th of November was conducted, however, a successful trial run has still not been completed. IV. accused of in this absence - despite the threats he received verbally and by sms from the head of the Ltd. - did not want to sign a certificate of completion.

In late November-early December 2007 Miklós Hagyó I. accused summoned IV. accused to the Mayor's office, where he instructed him to arrange the payment before Christmas.

IV. accused, by the fulfillment of the payroll sheet 2007, 6th of December and 10th confirmed with his signature, thus C.C.Soft Ltd. issued No.CCSOOOO86/2007. 59.4 million HUF + VAT invoice on the day of 2007 13th of December, while the No.CCS000101/2007. 39.6 million HUF + VAT invoice 2008 February 12th has been paid. The BKV thereby suffered an asset disadvantage with a total of 118.800.000. -HUF."


I emphasize that I didn't instruct neither IV. accused, nor anybody else to take over the work carried out by C.C.Soft Ltd., or to sign the certificate of completion, or to arrange the payment of it.


A few days after the signed contract modification on the 3rd of October 2007, on the 15th of October 2007 the first certificate of completion has been issued of 71,280,000 gross,-HUF. The signatories on behalf of the ordering party was IV. accused Deputy CTO, while on behalf of the C.C.Soft Ltd. xxxx project manager. The investigative file Company documents Annex, Volume Company40. on page 1.095. of the certificate of completion is also clearly visible, that on the document on behalf of the BKV xxxx name is shown, but the actual signing is IV. accused's, while the signature of xxxx written only on the seal of BKV is barely visible.


An interesting fact is, that the basis of the certificate of completion issuing an invoice to - which invoice can be found on page 1211. of the investigation Company documents Annex in Volume Company40. - on the same day, on the 15th of October 2007 that took place, which I believe that for an economic company with such a bureaucratic payment system like the Municipality owned BKV, is quite strange. Also not a coincidence is that on the invoice IV. accused the signature appears.


Compared to those of the indictment, therefore, IV. accused, in fact, not only in the second, on the 6th of December the certificate of completion has been signed, but he signed the first certificate and invoice too, the basis of which the 60% of the venture fee was paid.





A relevant fact is that while the original contract’s 60% of the entrepreneurship fee payment was bound to the successful technical handover process, until according to the 2.1. point of the amendment, (which is part of the investigative file in Annex Company documents Volume Company39. on page 69.), the contractor for the amendment after the entry went into force, automatically entitled. So then no longer was there a condition from the previously prescribed technical handover, which finally, after the submission of the partial invoice took place on the 30th of November 2007.


I stress that, unlike me, who never met a single occasion with the leader of C.C.Soft Ltd., otherwise to me was unknown xxxx, until IV. accused had met him several times outside the buildings of the BKV, or even knew each other's phone number.


IV. accused's claim, that because Christmas is approaching I would have asked him to  the signing of the certificate of completion, with regard to the facts does not correspond to reality:


The first certificate of completion and invoice after the issue on 2007 15th of October, which the payment deadline would have been on the 14th of december 2007, C.C.Soft Ltd., according to the Annex Company documents of investigative file Volume Company44. on page 4.259. payroll sheet, which was signed by IV. accused certifying the fulfillment, its existing receivables towards the BKV has factored, and on the 18th of October in 2007, concluded a factoring agreement with MKB Bank Co. Of this fact, namely, that BKV’s debt was owed to C.C.Soft Ltd. as the result of the subrogation, now only to be satisfied by the account of MKB Bank Co., C.C.Soft Ltd., in the investigative file Annex Company documents Volume Company44. on page 4347. with the factoring notice emphatically called BKV's attention.


Then, the first installment of entrepreneurial fee, ie 60% of the total amount, 71,280,000, - HUF, C.C.Soft Ltd. already received on the 26th of October 2007, based on the issued by MKB Bank factor accounting on the 9th of December 2007. (found in Annex of Company documents of investigative file Volume Company40. on page 1.131.)


Factoring as a consequence, C.C.Soft Ltd. received a substantial part of the entrepreneurship fee, one month before the my alleged pressure.






I draw attention to the investigative file Company documents Annex, Volume Company44. on page 4.195. by the Central Investigation Chief Prosecutor's contacting recipient MKB Bank Co. on the 26th of April 2011, in which the prosecutor contacted the financial institution, that "MKB Bank Co. has acquired by way of assignment the consideration of the work done by C.C.Soft Ltd. issued serial number:CCS000086/2007 and CCS000101/2007, 71,280,000,-HUF and 47,520,000,-HUF invoices in respect of - outstanding debts and their contributions with BKV."


The referred documentary evidences also established beyond reasonable doubt, that C.C.Soft Ltd. towards BKV both of the issued, facts in the indictment on page 19th fourth paragraph the invoice claims has been factored to MKB Bank Co., result of which BKV in neither case to C.C.Soft Ltd., but solely to MKB Bank could be performed.


I think in the light of the above, in not only me that I raise the question, what is the reason for representatives of the prosecutor that the indictment, despite the fact it has not been fixed, that from this, based on the available documentary evidence that they not only knew about, but have they taken action in connection to obtain the formed documents? I would add, if the banks were to respond, to me it did not contain  the handed files. I point out the facts, but won't search its reasons, the conclusions I leave to the Honourable Tribunal.


X.1.6. The unfounded fears of IV. accused


V. accused also claimed in his testimony during the investigation that he signed the certificate of completions, because he feared his job.


As I have already said, IV. accused, worked at the BKV from March of 2007, in the beginning at the Investment Department, then since the 24th of September 2007. already as the Deputy CTO. The instructions and employer's rights as on all other workers, in his case too, the CEO was entitled to exercise, who at this time was III. accused . When IV. acused, after the illness of II. accused fom February 2008 worked as the Acting CEO, the Board of Directors exercised the employer's rights over him, whose president, as I have already said in my investigative testimonies, was xxxx (SZDSZ). After the appointment of xxxx as CEO, IV. accused, worked as the general deputy CTO, and xxxx became his employer.


I wish to emphasize: it can't be substantiated by any document, that any significant influence had been any of the Deputy Mayors of the appointment or dismissal of the heads of BKV, and non of the deputy Mayors had any instructional right.

Given that the Municipality is the owner, over the BKV the ownership rights could practice the Municipal Assembly and its committees.


My question is: how could I influence IV. accused's  employment relationship, given that neither I nor the Cabinet, not the Metropolitan Municipality, or any committee had no power to decide?


IV. accused, on the 24th of February 2010. on the day of when given effect to his interrogations of suspects (in the investigation file of Volume 64. on page 41.737.) he claims that: "this was the only performance", which he confirmed.


His testimony contradicted itself when less than a month later, in 2010. March 16th during his interrogation of suspects (the investigating authority's investigative file Volume 64. according to page 41.763.) revealed 2007 15th of October, 2007 6th of December, 2008 17th of March, 2008 31st of March, ie four different payroll sheets, invoice and certificate of completion, as well as on the 18th of October 2007, October 18th, March 17th 2008 and in March 31st 2008 the factoring contract between BKV- C.C.Soft Ltd.- MKB Bank as the signatory designates his own person.


Importantly, the basis of the factoring contract dated on the 17th of March 2008, formed a new contract with C.C.Soft Ltd. for software development and installation.


How is it possible that, while the second certificate of completion was signed, according to IV. accused, I induced him? Until before and after not only doesn’t that give more rights,  but also aren’t they signed documents of commitment, and entering into a new contract with C.C.Soft Ltd.? I would add that the investigating authority revealed, listed documents just a small fraction of those documents that C.C.Soft Ltd.- related transactions conducted that can originate from IV. accused, and which are all signed by him.


In fact, on the contrary, I have never summoned IV.accused, in order to validate the performance carried out by C.C.Soft Ltd., because, as I said, until the appearance of the news media, I had no knowledge of the conclusion of the contract. Again, I stress that neither the owner of C.C.Soft Ltd., or managing director or other members of the company or employees I did not know, therefore I didn't ask, why it would have been in my best interest to promote the certificate of completion for a company, which is unknown to me, and for me, completely uninteresting.




As I have already spoken, the conclusion of such contracts by BKV is within its own remit, which the creation of a specific contract in this case is supported by previous processes. So by no means did the contract of compliance issues belonged to the Deputy Mayor's of Urban and Asset Management’s jurisdiction. So I claim, that I didn't have these kind of friendly discussions with IV. accused, and particularly not in such violent tone what he claims.


The technical handover took place on the 30th of November in 2007. At the time recorded Minute was annexed to an attendance sheet, according to which on behalf of the BKV nine people participated in the handover. Also they prepared a detailed list of the deficiency, which correction C.C.Soft Ltd. undertook until the date of 2007, 17th of December. The rectification of irregularities have been started, but the documents show that they could not be complete the error-free 30-day trial run.


Regarding the second part of the contract amount has been paid before the test run, IV. accused in the investigative file Volume 64. on page 42129. stated that, "the payment of the contract before the completion of the trial run has happened, because Miklós Hagyó Deputy Mayor instructed me. This he did personally, this was the first time that between him and I were in the Mayor's Office at the end of 2007, that walk at the corridor took place and he told me, as well as commanded it. I told him that the trial run is not yet completed, but he didn't care. He had a single argument, that I must understand that Christmas is coming up, so we have to take over and must pay for the job. Anyway I asked the technical experts who have dealt with this and they told me that the system is okay. "


Again, I emphasize that neither before Christmas, nor any other time I did not instruct IV. accused for the certificate of completion. As during the investigation hearing of suspects I have told, I didn't come into contact with this contract in any way, and about it with IV. accused, neither on the corridor of the Mayor's Office, nor anywhere else I've cross-checked.


The investigative document of Volume 64. on page 41.737., the occasion of the continuous interrogations of suspects IV. accused said, that since C.C.Soft Ltd. until the spring of 2009 has failed to solve the correction of errors in spring of 2009, they ordered the Directorate of Legal Affairs to initiate the compensation proceeding. The evidences disprove this claim. In the investigative file Company documents Annex in Volume Company39. the BKV Internal Control Directorate second Test Report on page 33 records that on the day of November 3rd 2008. xxxx on behalf of the legal directorate, sent a legal resolution to IV.accused in which he explains that the 30 days of continuous, trouble-free operation the system can not perform, subject to this consideration suggests the announcement of withdrawal. Despite the legal resolution IV. accused fails to take the necessary steps, in this case nothing happens. According to IV. accused, I have instructed him to verify the performance, and he made this step because he was afraid.

Although I did not instruct him to do anything, if that - unlike the truth - I would have done, it would not have given grounds for him to wake fears in him. The role of IV. accused in the preparation of the contract, the conduct of the corporate total increase, just as so many knew about and also that he signed the confirmation of completions. It is a circle of professionalism with a common knowledge fact disclosure, that a healthy minded person can hardly be threatened.


This is confirmed by the investigative file Company documents Annex of Volume Company39. the BKV Internal Control Directorate second number of test report, which second page on the 7th page of the Annex reads as follows:

"The officer and owner of the conduct project (application of the need, competitive tendering, contracts and contract amendments, the authorization of invoices payments) was IV. accused, who was the office manager of investment implementation, (who later became Head of Department of Investment and deputy CTO, respectively General Deputy CTO)."


I consider it essential in this regard xxxx witness statement, who said the following on the page 32929. in the investigative documents of Volume 48.:

"....I came to the purchasing area in July 2007, where this particular passenger information and emergency call system project was already in progress, the tendering has been completed and the work was ongoing at the site. Then I became in charge of the project, the earlier responsible person xxxx stayed in my group, but not dealt with this project. Shortly after my entry into to the position, the winning company of the two tenders contacted me, and proposed the contract modification, which preparation I began, via e-mail and I informed my leaders about my proposals, then compared to the usual rules of procedure of BKV, and soon enough the prepared contract amendments were on my desk.....,which to the extent reflected my previously sent e-mail suggestions, that I previously suggested to extend the compliance deadline with the technical content remaining intact. Thus, in the contract amendments from this, so much was realized, that the period of performance increased, and as I have mentioned the fee also, and in case of C.C.Soft Ltd. the technical content decreased.


Signature of the certificate of completion has been in competence of IV. accused, and I do not have background information about this, my boss xxxx, to whom I indicated, that the certificate of completion has been signed before the end of the test run, said that "The system is operational."






... I know from hearsay that IV. accused did not trust xxxx.


...to my project manager’s position appointment, I, as a relative newcomer, could also have happened, because on one hand I was considered manageable as a beginner, and on the other hand a so-called ignorant. "


X.1.7. The committal modus


In connection with the work carried out by C.C.Soft Ltd, I never had any request, and I never instructed IV. accused. I did not put a perspective that if C.C.Soft Ltd. certificate of completion  will not be signed, I would undermine him, or remove from work. I did not put any psychological or physical pressure on IV. accused, I didn't even had such action, which could make IV. accused to fear. I did not threaten him, blackmail, or force him. I would add, I would not have any option, because, as I said, over IV. accused, neither I nor the Metropolitan Municipality did not have employer's rights in any way, IV. accused employers are the CEOs, firstly III. accused, then later xxxx, and at the time when he was the Acting CEO, was the Board of Directors, so it was not the slightest chance for me to obstruct IV. accused.


X.1.8. The committal location


It can also be concluded that according to IV. accused, the incident took place in the corridor in front of my office at the the Mayor's Office.

But where is this corridor? The Office itself is a "U" shaped building, and my office was at that U wing of the building, which is the nearest to Deák Square metro station and to the transport hub. This latter I would like to emphasize, because the busiest entrance of the building leads through here, which means that if somebody approached the building by pubic transport, the vast of majority, here, next to my office door could enter the building. If that's not enough, on this 25-30 meter stretch was Csaba Horváth Deputy Mayor's office and its Secretariat, me and my colleagues offices and the Secretariats, Haszonicsné deputy chief notary's office, and also Dr. Zsolt Tiba chief notary's office, and here was the passage towards the Transport Department, which is one of the most case conducting, the biggest intraday traffic department. So it's certainly the busiest corridor phase in the building.


Well, according to IV. accused, coming out of my office which door is of course lockable, this was that corridor where I acted violently against him.


Another question I raise, that if even the prosecution did not accept the cited above claim of IV. accused, - because in the indictment facts it was not recorded -, then on what basis did they raise an accusation against me, based on IV. accused other details of his testimony.



The II. Count


X.2.1 The prosecution


According to the indictment on page 25. II. Count: as the Deputy Mayor of Urban and Asset Management "abusing my official position in March 2008, I instructed IV. accused, as the Acting CEO of BKV, to annually give me 15 million HUF. In order to underline my receivable, I also envisaged, that if IV. accused doesn't handover the requested amount, then I will make him impossible with the improperly issued certificate of performance to C.C.Soft Ltd. which he has signed for my instruction in 2007 December. With this threat and violence that I constantly showed, and with my peremptory behavior, scared IV. accused, who as a result, as an unlawful advantage handed me in 2008 and 2009, 15-15 million HUF."


If II. count for my defense, in accordance with reality but succinctly I would summarize, I have to say four short words: it is not true.


But I know well enough that to uncover the truth, it needs more help. For the truth comes to light and I am forced to not in four short words, but at length explain why it is not true, which can be read in the II. point of the indictment.

I didn't order IV. accused, to give me annually 15 Million HUF, not in March 2008, nor at any other time. I didn't get not one forint as "unlawful advantage" neither from IV. accused, nor from anybody else.


Here I am referring in relation to my personal circumstances submitted documentary evidence by me supported by detailed fact, that before my position as Deputy Mayor, I already had adequate financial and existential background, from which both myself and my family decent standard of living has been ensured.


X.2.2. The background of my relationship with IV. accused


With IV. accused,- as I have said many times - prior to his employment at BKV, I didn't have any kind of relation with him, I met him sometimes at the end of 2007. We got in direct working and personal contact only from the second half of February 2008, since III. accused was on sick leave.




Let's stop for a moment here and think about it! Representing the full range of the Capital's largest public utility company CEO, from one moment to another, to perform his additional tasks because of his incapable sanitary state, thus substitution of his person, required immediate solutions. Had to find a man who use to lead such a large company, and in whom there is sufficient motivation and willingness to perform such coordination, which could fill the void of the leadership. In my opinion, among the then Deputy CEOs, basis of the endowments of  IV.accused was the one who was fit to be qualified to fill management positions.


The BKV Board of Directors decided IV. accused appointed as the Acting CEO, whose members consisted of SZDSZ and MSZP delegates. Best to my knowledge, 11 members of the Board, including the CEO, and 4 people MSZP, 4 people SZDSZ, and 2 members were appointed by the Government, so we can say unequivocally that IV. accused the order of appointment was the outcome of collective decisions.


After IV. accused appointment in 2008 19th of February, on the 21st of February already in his new position, as the Acting CEO participated in the subject of the BKV 2008th annual parameter-book, in the presence of the competent managers and professionals held Mayor's Cabinet meeting. (What is indicated in the investigative documents Volume 59. on page 38.071B, and the Mayor's Office investigative documents Annex Mayor's Office Volume 1. on page 611. readable Minutes of the Cabinet meeting is also supported by that the given, and following protocols that IV. accused, likely due to an administrative error, yet incorrect, was indicated as Deputy CEO.)


This which I referred, on the 21st of  February 2008. Mayor's Cabinet meeting he participated as an invitee:


IV. accused; xxxx BKV Deputy CEO; xxxx Chairman of the Supervisory Board of BKV; xxxx Head of the Department of the Technical University of Budapest; xxxx Head of the Department of the Technical University of Budapest; xxxx the leader of Transport Ltd.; xxxx Community Transport Councillor; xxxx associate professor at the Budapest University of Technology; xxxx managing director of the Metropolitan Research Ltd.; xxxx the expert of Transman Ltd.; József Gábor, Chairman of the City Operations and Environmental Management Committee; Sándor László Kerényi, Head of the Transport Department; xxxx Chairman of BKV IT.


I'd like to emphasize once again: this was the first Cabinet meeting at which IV. accused participated as Acting CEO. What did he see?


That in this meeting, the entire city administration, the entire leadership of BKV attended, and the relevant committees and chairs of departments, and related to the parameter-book to perform the assignments, which were then treated with the highest priority, I was indicated as the responsible person.


The question may arise that in March 2008, why was it important and urgent for me to meet with IV. accused on weekends, after working hours and outside of the office in my personal living space?


Well, in the life of BKV this was a cumulatively difficult period.


It was during this time the purchase of used buses and the AAM Co.-related scandal began. The BKV was already in a difficult situation, and these two negative events seriously affected me and my workload had increased significantly. This is what I have referred in connection with AAm Co. in 2008. 28th of February investigative documents in Annex Mayor's Office documents of Volume 2. on pages 395.-451. Minutes from the Municipal Assembly confirms. Here I would like to refer to the General Meeting held on the 28th of February 2008, where the Municipal Assembly based on my proposal discussed the progress of Metro Line 4 project, and the contracts they have concluded with AAM Co.


In addition, the restructuring of BKV was still in progress, of which it is perhaps one of the most critical issues as I would emphasize, that under the rationalization program, in several steps the cutback of nearly 1300 workers took place, and if I remember correctly, in February 2008, the next wave of downsizing, there was an additional prepared list of 300-350 people. This is supported by the investigative documents Volume 17. from page up to 11.077-11.268 docket. Due to the drastic step of March 2008, there was a constant threat of strikes, of which one of the aims inter alia was, that to this another cutback won't happen.


Then what took place was also the transformation of the parameter- book, what the Mayor's Cabinet on February 21st, March 25th and 31st and then on the 4th of April discussed, and on which meetings, on behalf of BKV, IV. accused Acting CEO represented. In this issue with the districts and also with the civilians negotiations without a pause took place, so we consulted about it in two rounds with all 23 district mayors, and with the representatives of the mayor's offices. The officially named and its responsible person of the parameter-book related changes submitting - as it's also supported by the investigative documents Volume 59. on page 38.071B Minutes of the meeting of the Mayor's Cabinet on the 21st of February 2008 - was me. Its preparation, however, as always in every other case, was carried out by the departments and the BKV. This, I mean the transformation of the parameters-book in practise is one adopted in the capital for 15 years, and the usual structure of transport transformation meant, which in both the BKV and the city life was a huge change in scale. According to the case of the parameter-book, in my letter to IV. accused, dated on the 3rd of March 2008, I called for immediate action. (investigative documents Volume 60, on page 38.449.):


"Honourable Deputy Chief Executive Officer,


Please send immediately to my office the actual schedule for the adoption of the Parameter-book, detailing for each stations, and the reconciliation theme. Remains expected, that in the widest range conduct the series of consultations, of which in some sections I would like to get involved actively.


While ensuring the comments twice for the districts, it is also very important that to professionals or professional policy organizations are also given the opportunity to display their opinions.


Previously, the Mayor expressed its expectation that the adoption of the new Parameter-book should happen by the1st of April. This assumes a tight tempo, therefore I ask, that on behalf of the BKV, make a comment about if the company is able to keep the pace of the planned adoption of the Parameter-Book, according to which the 19th of March City Operations and Environmental Management Committee would discuss the twice concerted districts submission.


If there is uncertainty in the schedule, then please immediately report to me, also clearly define what conditions are necessary for corresponding expectation of the Parameter- Book timely presentation. In case of slippage, forthwith forward a detailed, updated schedule. "

I note here - as the events show a few days later - this letter could also play an important role in that IV. accused asked a meeting from me in Gödöllő.


In April 2008, the Government was administered, and through Brussels, the European Union, the 350 billion Metro Line 4 project tender, which since the accession of Hungary to the EU was the largest EU tender, and which preparation was finished during this period. This issue was discussed by the Mayor's Cabinet on the 4th of April 2008, as outlined in the investigative documents in Annex Mayor's Office on page 618. This meant that with both the Government and the National Development Agency continuous negotiations took place, and the preparation of tender the BKV and the departments also participated. In Hungary, this tender’s first lap won a nearly 1 billion EUR, which was about 260 to 270 billion forints at that time. Unfortunately, however, this amount is subsequently reduced. Note that, later due to this successful tender, that close to 110-120 billion HUF remained in the central budget, which indicates that the tender had a major national economic importance.


X.2.2.1. What role did IV. accused have?


Between the Hungarian State - the Metropolitan Municipality - BKV, in subject of the Metro Line 4 concluded contract - investigative documents Volume 67. pages 44.321.-44.447. - charge of this project, the current BKV CEO was marked, so then the Acting CEO IV. accused was burdened, and at the same time another 3-4 EU Project Preparation was also ongoing.


Regarding the EU-funded projects, IV. accused, in his letter dated on the 2nd of April 2008. turned to me and asked for my help, as well as my intervention at government agencies. Of course, we consulted this issue several weeks before, as these projects are taking a long time to prepare, and these issues belonged to BKV for a long time.

In this regard, I wrote a letter to the Municipality and to the Minister for Regional Development, Chairman of the National Development Agency and the Head of the Managing Authority. In my response to IV. accused's letter, which is readable in the investigation documents Volume 60. on page 38.467., the European Union and others can simultaneously be found, and the BKV from its own resources to implement listed planned projects. These are the following:


  1. Passenger information and traffic management systems
  2. Create the Buda interwoven electric transport I. and II. schedule
  3. Havana and Gloriett block of flats rail connection establishment
  4. Connecting tram line 2 and 30
  5. Creating Grand Boulevard Buda trams and ring of directional transport


To determine which weight issues were then on the agenda, it well demonstrates the Mayor's Cabinet No.103./2008. decision on the 7th of February 2008, which required for the head of the BKV to propose a person of the Metro Line 4 person Project Director position as soon as possible. (investigative documents Mayor's Office files in Annex Mayor's Office Volume 1. page 612.)


These cardinal questions and possible solutions awaited the Capital and BKV management, so that these issues are not just on the Mayor's Cabinet meetings, the Municipal Assembly included in the agenda, but of course the press also "ranged" from these.


Thus in these circumstances they took place, that IV. accused had been appointed as Acting CEO by the Board of Directors on the 19th of February in 2008, and it happened in such circumstances, that the referred, after my letter was handed which was dated on the 3rd of March 2008, in the begining of March 2008. IV. accused asked for a consultation opportunity from me.

X.2.3. Why did he want to meet me?


IV. accused asked consultation from me in reference to the high profile issues BKV is facing, and also at the same time he asked me not to meet at my office, because there is a large crowd and for a longer period we won't be able to talk to each other in a relaxed environment.

I might add, since - as already mentioned - as the responsible person of the parameter-book I became indicated, and if the head of BKV in that subject required consultation, then it is obvious that it was not from someone else, but requests from the deputy mayor who is the designated person of this task.


The tasks that awaited him, despite the listed difficulties, IV. accused seemed to be a ready for action type, who has always wanted to show that he is suitable for the leadership of BKV, which he also tried to express, that in this difficult time compared to III. accused and to xxxx, several times he was looking for the opportunity to inform me personally, which occasions always took place at pre-arranged times, in my office in the building of the Municipality, in the presence of the competent representatives of departments, the Cabinet's desk officers and other Cabinet members. We knew each other's mobile phone numbers, having regard to our intensive working relationship we called each other a number of times, we didn't have a stiff relationship between us. Our meetings, however, generally were not conducted in private, but with the competent members of the Cabinet, desk officers, and representatives of departments.


Since my days were very busy, at the request of IV. accused I offered  - to the best of my knowledge - the date of the first weekend in March, because I knew that in this heightened mood, threat of a strike, a leader's request who had been elected only 18 days ago, I can't refuse.


X.2.4. Gödöllő


However, for me, this period was not only an increased liability and burdensome on me, but my health wasn't in perfect condition. I told IV. accused, that at the weekend I'll be in Gödöllő, where I went not only because of my girlfriend at the time, but also because I was under treatment there, and I added, if despite this he comes to Gödöllő, then there we can sit somewhere and talk.


As I recall on the 8th of March, IV. accused came to Gödöllő for the arranged appointment. However, since that day I also took part in medical treatment, which after I wasn't feeling well, so I didn't want to go to a public place, I suggested to IV. accused to come up to my girlfriend's apartment.

The kinesiologist who had been treating me, in his/her testimony confirmed (investigative documents Volume 46. on page 31.439.), that usually I slept through the treatments, which also shows that due to extremely high workload I was very tired. I needed continuous treatment, but despite this, I was forced to renounce sometimes, and we tried to catch up on the weekends. I can tell that apart from this exceptional situation occasion at the BKV, other than IV. accused, I didn't invite any other of my staff members to my home, because I have always tried to protect my privacy, and I tried to spend my weekends with rest. In the case of IV. accused, I repeatedly emphasize, that the only reason for the meeting was that fact, that since 3 weeks being elected as Acting CEO, enormous tasks awaited to be solved.


With IV. accused, we agreed upon a specific place and time of our meeting by phone, and then, if I remember correctly, it went down in front of the gate and I accompanied him up to my girlfriend's apartment. The apartment wasn't big, just a bedroom, kitchen, and living room. In the corner stood a dining table and a sofa. xxxx made us a cup of tea, and then sitting on the sofa in the middle of the apartment having our tea, with IV. accused we talked about the special affairs of BKV approx. for an hour. This was a perfectly normal tone of conversation, which is a crucial part according to my memories that the IV. accused spoke.


The situation of BKV, as I have just said, demanded, to coordinate with the Acting CEO, but after this conversation I felt, that main reason of this meeting was, that IV. accused once again prove suitability. I explicitly state that I wasn't happy, that the very little free time I had, which I would have spend with my girlfriend, I spent with work, but under the circumstances I had no other chance.


Furthermore, I wish to emphasize that with IV. accused, I only cross-checked such proposals, agenda items and topics, in which I had a license from the Mayor's Cabin and from the General Assembly for carrying out coordination tasks.


I thought that BKV’s prominent role, function, and exceptional situation requires a different treatment from the average. Despite the fact that I was not in good health condition, despite the fact that broke off my little resting time, and despite that I sacrificed a part of my weekend, I met IV. accused request. Again and again I want to stress, that IV. accused asked this meeting. During this meeting I didn't instruct him, or request anything from him, in fact, the articles of association were not even mentioned, and as my girlfriend at the time said, (investigative documents, in Volume 68. between IV. accused and her taken confrontation Protocol on page 9.) there was a completely "normal" tone of good-humored conversation between us.


The most categorically I declare, that I never had a request towards IV. accused, to annualy provide me 15 million HUF.

X.2.5. Hévíz


IV. accused alleged that the first 15 million take over the summer of 2008 organized St. Stephen's trek occasion that I verified to him in a way, that after he took part in the tour section of Zalaszántó-Hévíz, I asked him to come with me to swim in the lake and then in the middle of the lake I told him that yes, I got it.


I would like to emphasize, that assertion of IV. accused, itself many times conflicting his investigative testimony, even outside of it, according to over one hundred thousand pages of investigative documents, no other evidence is there to support it. The prosecutor, however, despite this found sufficient IV. accused's statement to his submission, that in 2008 with the transferred 15 million HUF by me that I demanded and to be transferred to me, indict me.


I might add, that according to the untrue statement of IV. accused, I received 15 million HUF from a person, whom I don't know, with whom I had no relation, and about whom no one ever asked me any question, and who - to my knowledge - never have listened.


By IV. accused referred St. Stephen's trek, which lasted 41 days, took place between 2008 11th of July and 20th of August. The tour started from Velem and Hollóháza was the final destination. Details of the tour to this day can be found on www.szentistvanvandorlas.hu


IV. accused, if I remember correctly joined us on the 7th day of the trek, the section between Zalaszántó and Keszthely. Here I would refer to that it does not correspond to reality IV. accused's claim that, all the leaders of Capital public companies had to join the tour, because that fact, that IV. accused was the only reigning company manager who joined this tour, the tour participants can testify as well. The fact that the where, when and why he joined the tour was his personal decision, we didn't change a single word about it.

I note, that he joined two days of the tour, however on the second day I didn't participate. According to my companions the latter was a rainy day, but despite the rain, he lasted with members of the tour. To explain my absenteeism, I got sick, and if I remember I stayed at home for 3 days to recover.


Returning to the tour, being an open tour, anyone could join, and there were some whom we met only for the first time on the 11th of July. No one was obligated to take part in the tour. IV. accused questioned the purpose and significance of the tour by saying that would have been bound to appear. I mention that III. accused - who of course, was not longer the BKV CEO - lasted with us, and if I remember correctly twice in four days he hiked with us.


On the 7th day, IV. accused joined us at the Zalaszántó camp site, and he lasted with us in that stretch. The daily destination was Keszthely, but when we set off, it was not planned that on the way there we will stop at lake Hévízi and take a bath, we decided only during the day, before or after lunch.


Bearing in mind that in 2007 I also hiked in Spain, then in 2009 in Transylvania, and three tours all together took more than a 100 days, events of a given day tour the smallest details are not sure that I can recall, but fortunately, ​​photographs and videos have been made and I can rely on the memories of my tour companions too. It is sure, that during the day we met other hikers, then around noon we had lunch in an inn, and after lunch to shorten the route, we cut through a corn field. I know that here in the cornfield IV. accused still lasted with us, but I don't remember if he was with us in Hévíz too.


At the thermal bath, if I remember correctly, from buying a ticket until leaving the spa, we didn't stay more than an hour. I also remember that I was very, very tired, as I had already walked nearly 200 kilometers, so I sat down on the stairs at the bottom of the warm water, and talked at length with two French high school girls who were there on a class trip. I didn't paddle or swim behind the water lilies with IV. accused, I was sitting in one spot in the hot water, bearing in mind also that the day's final destination is not Heviz but Keszthely, therefore a more tiring journey was yet to come. Note that neither within my family or my friends can not be found a person who has ever seen me swimming in natural water, because when I was just a young boy exactly in lake Hévíz I suffered a traumatic experience, which ever since I don't swim in natural waters, in fact, only go up to the knees or waist-high water.


The exact events of the day, after the negotiation hearing of IV. accused I wish to comment in detail.


X.2.6. Synergon Plc.


As a preliminary point, I refer again to that IV. accused of certain investigative testimony about what happened, contain internal contradictions, furthermore, in addition, therein not only to my submissions, but in the available investigative documents found indubitable facts are clearly refuted. Detailed information, in their entirety, subsequently after the hearing of IV. accused I wish to comment, and in my present testimony I shall briefly mention only the factual inconsistencies.


Firmly I declare that I was not in Heviz, or elsewhere, neither to IV. accused nor anybody else, I did not say anything like from Synergon Plc. or from any other company I would have received a single forint, as this had never happened.


The Head of Synergon Plc. from whom in 2008 allegedly I took over money, and later as I found out from the investigative documents, called xxxx, I don't know him. With him I never had neither business, nor cousinly or amicable relation, and to this day it's the same. The relationship between BKV and Synergon Plc. in relation with this shipping contract, it was not to my knowledge, in connection with that I have never requested or recieved any information, furthermore in the preparation of the incriminating contract, in the conclusion of, conduct of, verification of performance and payment for the work I was not involved in any way.


1.)  IV. accused about the relationship between the BKV and Synergon Plc. on the 24th of February 2010 taken during the interrogation of suspects (investigative documents Volume 64. on page 41.739.) said the following:


"BKV with Synergon Plc. concluded a contract in the spring or summer of 2008. On the so-called central procurement (state) this company won the transportation of Microsoft softwares, so with this company was possible to conclude a contract directly."


2.)  In the same, 2010. February 24th daily testimony, (investigative documents Volume 64. of the page 41.739. fourth paragraph) the following sentence states that:


"I concluded the Synergon contract for the instruction of Hagyó."

3.)  At the same time in 2010. August 23rd during the continued interrogation of suspects IV. accused, (investigative documents Volume 64. on pages 41.851.-41.853.) unlike the previous two versions, have stated the following:


"I can tell, that the reason I signed the contract was because it was in the signatory array, and the necessary preparing signatures were on it. As I can recall, xxxx was running around with the contract urging a signature. I think he said that he already wanted to have it signed by III. accused, but due to his illness that didn't take place. I think that if xxxx did not leave BKV, then I wouldn't be aware of this sum."


Again, from the investigative document it can be concluded, that the BKV did not conduct this procurement procedure, but it was a central government procurement contract, which in itself precludes that with the contract-winning company anyone should have been instructed to conclude a contract, because with the economic company, anyway as the procurement winner the contract had been concluded. Given also to the central public procurement, an examination was also needed, that except of BKV, which other State-owned companies,  local governments, and other Municipality owned companies concluded a contract with Synergon Plc.!?!

In view of its ability, that the contract was related for the essential operation of companies of Microsoft softwares transportation, also in need of an examination, what would have happened to the IT network of BKV in case of the absence of a contract?


The investigative document states, however, these questions unfortunately not be answered because, although the actual position on a full investigation of this is strictly necessary to the referenced public procurement tender for the preparation and conduct, as well as follow-up to the relevant documents are not found in the investigation material.


In light of the apparent factual inconsistencies, I think rightly again, the question arises: what is the reason that the investigating authority or the prosecuting authority to such an extent has justified IV. accused continuously self-contradiction and also the timing of certain acts differently decisive testimonies,  that without the facts contained in relation to any other evidence, such as the Head of Synergon witness's testimony was obtained? I was not only the accused, but against me an accusation is raised. I would add xxxx not only until the remand of my pre-trial detention, but later until the end of August 2010. that is, until facts contained in this position to disclose the suspicion of a crime, even down to the file description could have interrogated him, however, during the two and a half years of investigation it did not happen.


All this means, that they suspected and accused me of a crime, that that man, with whom he sent the money with, and from IV. accused allegedly personally took the money, was not questioned. Such a weight, since the democratic regime change in the utmost priority, so-called. corruption case, is not considered important to listen to the man from whom he claimed the money comes from.


However, I missed that was not revealed by IV. accused and what occured referred to as an element of the underlying transactions contractual background, that between BKV and Synergon Plc. what business relationship existed, and that at all could it be of my knowledge, that BKV with Synergon Plc. has concluded the contract in question, so in summary, they did not explore the real facts, and such matters in general the interest motivation.


Finally, it is also incomprehensible to me, that the investigating authority or in the present case the prosecution, why didn't they try to find the answers to the fundamental questions of criminal law, that who, when, where, why, and how handed me in 2008-2009 that amount according to the indictment, and what happened with it later.



The investigating authority never addressed questions to me in connection with Synergon Plc, nor with its leader xxxx. The fact that IV. accused identified this company as the source of the first 15 million allegedly handed over to me, for me, of his given interview to Hungarian Nation on the 6th of March 2010 (investigative documents, Volume 1. pages 279-285.)  except the readable information, after the document description revealed, and while IV. accused, with xxxx the Head of the company met several times according to his own testimony, therefore outside the BKV too, until I had nothing to do with xxxx. Also I would have done the same in relation to the particular contract, having regard to what IV. accused allegedly forwarded me the money. However neither from the company from which the alleged money comes from, nor of the person who allegedly sent the money to me asked me anything during the investigation.


I draw attention to a further contradiction, in relation with the source that allegedly to me transferred a total of 30 million HUF:


IV. accused in 2010. February 24th during the interrogation of a suspect (investigative documents Volume 64. on page 41.739.) he said the following:


"This request of Hagyó, which observance IV. accused regularly reminded me, I was able to perform, that when with the leader of the central procurement winner Synergon I concluded the BKV contract, and Mr. xxxx offered that for the contract conclusion he would like to give me 15 million, then I said, "Don't give it to me, but to Miklós Hagyó."


Subsequently, in 2010. August 23rd, continued questioning of suspects in addition to the previous ones, partly in contrast he said (investigative documents Volume 64. on page 41851.) that:


"Previously, xxxx discussed the Synergon Plc. for 300 million HUF license purchase contract details .... the leader of Synergon xxxx, for an appointed time came to BKV to my office. This meeting took place after signing the 300-million contract, sometime in the summer of 2008. xxxx in my office told me that related to the 300 million HUF contract, previously with xxxx negotiated, that 10% of business acquisition commission he will pay to xxxx. xxxx told me, that since xxxx has gone from BKV, they don't want to pay him this amount, and offered, that this 10% he will pay in two installments for me. xxxx said, that this is a multi-year contract and BKV will pay annually, and thus after the financial performance in two installments he would like to hand over the money. xxxx said that it is a centralized procurement contract, they deliver the software at the reached tender price of the central procurement, thus they did not have to compete. I did not need to know the preparation of the contract, because xxxx took care of it."


Absolutely contrary to the above, that I have often referred to the published interview in Hungarin Nation on the 6th of March 2010, (investigative documents, Volume 1. pages 279.-285.), on the fourth page however IV. accused to the question of where did he pick up the amount allegedly forwarded or handed to me, he didn't say this:


"It was added up at the BKV, and leaders close to Hagyó already knew that I will deliver..... from the BKV-around firms" that was acquired.


Then, a day later, which I also often referred, in 2010 7th of March, in Hír TV it had been said in an interview, IV. accused in response to the same question has already been sounded out as follows:


"The fortune or misfortune in this case played at my hand. This means that in connection with one of the IT contracts, a previous leader had a deal, the background of a bargaining the IT company wants to pay a business acquisition commission to the Director, who ... "


The prosecuting authority, to prove this count, specifies three witnesses which are without exception dealing with what happened in Gödöllő in March 2008. In fact, those two are even related to my medical care. One of the persons interviewed as a witness of my continued health treatment was the agency owner, not with IV. accused, but even with me we haven't met, and the person who carried out the treatment is only able to confirm the fact of the treatment. The third person interviewed did not support the accusation, but also expressly confirms that between me and IV. accused flowed a normal tone of conversation. Thus nothing else is left, as IV. accused's assertion against my statement and supporting evidences.



X.2.7. 2009. The second 15 million handover


IV. accused alleged that, as it is clear from his press statements, the handover of the second 15 million took place in 2009 in the room of V. accused at the Mayor's Office, when the money was often cited, the ominous "Nokias box".


I strongly declare that to me IV. accused, neither in V. accused's room, nor elsewhere, either in a "Nokia box" or in anything else never gave me any money, and even this amount or any other money resulting from an offense I did not take from him. Because, I have never told anyone, not IV. prime defendant, or anyone else, either in Gödöllő or elsewhere, or in the spring of 2008, or ever, I did not give any instruction to hand over money for me. All of these related claims are false, which are not the facts, nor available means of proofs, therefore are not supported by testimonies, and only IV. accused of false, self-contradictory statements seem to be justified.

I would add that there was a large meeting room at the Mayor's Office which was also used by Csaba Horváth Chief Engineer and by the Deputy Mayor as well. It was almost constantly busy. For this reason, many times negotiations were in my room too, because I had a large table, where 10 to 12 people could sit down at a time. In general, a lot of people were waiting for me, so I do not rule out the possibility of a situation that could be an occasion when we were reconciling in V. accused's room, but specifically I can not remember such a meeting with IV. accused.


With my official situation I never in no way misused its decision-making mechanism, neither with IV. accused, nor with anyone else, and again I emphasize that  I could not have in any manner or possibility because in  the light of the BKV and Capital Organizational and Operational Rules, to the BKV Directorate, the Supervisory Board and the Economic Committee of the Capital, the Municipal Assembly and its composition, in respect of the public companies I didn't have decisional or instructional power, so I didn't mean a threaten IV. accused, and his position.


Unrealistic furthermore was the extortion, that indicated subject by IV. accused, that I was blackmailing him with the signed certification of completion of C.C.Soft Ltd. in 2007 6th of December, on one hand because this fact before the competent BKV departments and proper administration and persons were well known, and this by various documents and records prove beyond any doubt. On the other hand, if according to what he said, if I would have enticed him to sign that, than by exploring this, I would have brought myself into multiple disadvantage positions.


X.2.8. Nokia Box


IV. accused ominous, "Nokias box" statement, the first time appeared in a published  interview on the 6th of March 2010. in Hungarian Nation newspaper,  (investigative documents, Volume 1. on pages 279.-285.) which, "I gave money to Hagyó in a "Nokia box...."titled  "Conversation with IV. accused, former appointed Acting CEO of BKV " had appeared.


Each date associated with interesting additions, that same year, on April 11th took place the first round of parliamentary elections.


IV. accused, about five weeks prior to the election, accused me in front of the entire Hungarian media as a socialist politician, in such a way, that he only gave declaration to media with right-wing interest.


 In my opinion, this fact, ie that IV. accused,  turned to the widest range of media publicity, clearly demonstrates that he had nothing to fear from me, which at the same time it is also justified, that the last time I met with IV. accused was in August 2009, and thereafter, that despite the referrence to the interviews and in the overall extent of false allegations, the next time only on the 14th of September 2010, we faced each other during the confrontation. I note, to this, three weeks prior to the local government the elections took place, and its contents were then immediately leaked out, in the Hungarian National newspaper 2010 September 20th published issue, in which it gave exact details about the confrontation.


The above IV. accused, in Volume 68. from the Minutes of the confrontation on page 15. himself confirmed when he said that since August 2009, neither I nor in my name, nobody looked for him. I would add, IV.accused had nothing to fear of, so if he wanted to, much earlier, either one or two years before he could have turned to publicity and the authorities, the police-prosecutor, even he would have contacted the Mayor, and faction leaders of opposition parties as well, but however, he only did this five weeks prior to the election.


Factual contradictions: IV. accused, on the 6th of March 2008 in the published interview in Hungarian Nation newspaper, (investigative documents, Volume 1. pages 279.-285.) at first he said, that the money I have asked, was added together within the BKV, by leader close to Hagyó, and from companies around the BKV.


In this context, I would like to point out that in May 2010, prior to my arrest, during my first interrogation of a suspect, despite the fact that in March, the country already had the world's knowledge of the alleged Nokia boxed story, in this II. factual count they did not suspect me. This suspicion only took place on the 28th of August in 2010, five weeks prior to the 2010 3rd of October local government elections.


Also it can be concluded that before IV. accused made ​​statements to the media, during the interrogation in 2010. February 24th, the investigative document Volume 64. on page 41.739. have reported that, the money came from an IT purchase, which was concluded between the BKV and Synergon Plc.


Then in 2010. September 14th taken on the day of the confrontation during which the Minutes of the 68th Volume of the investigative documents contained therein, IV. accused, refused to answer for a single question of my pleader, which he has referred  concerning the origin of the 15 million, or has been related in any way.



Furthermore highlights the importance that from where did IV. accused get the "Nokia box" idea:

In 2009 September 25th in a weekly paper called 168 hours, with the title "What does Miklós Hagyó know?" a writing appeared, in which the journalist  half year before the appearance of the ominous statement, he mentioned IV. accused, as  "Nokias Balogh". (Literally, he writes that "he" - I mean I, Miklós Hagyó - wanted to see "Nokia" Balogh as the head of the BKV.)


Also draw attention of the Honourable Court that during the statements of the IV. accused, the dates and locations of certain acts continuously marked differently, or untrue. So while previously he reported twice, that he met with the leader of Synergon in the parking lot of the Mayor's Office, until in his testimony in 2010. August 23rd (investigative documents Volume 64 on page 41.855.) he said, that they met somewhere in a downtown coffee shop, in relation to contradictions in Volume 64 on pages 41.855-41.857. said the followings:

"I keep my today's testimony, and in doing so, I would like to modify my previous statements. Since then, I thought it over several times a day what happened, and therefore confidently and firmly I can say that this is the case. I am sure, that I took over the money in xxxx's car. I am also sure that, in V. accused's room, Hagyó opened the Nokia box. The occasion of my earlier testimony likely I remembered that xxxx accompanied me to the City Hall, with his A8 Audi, because in my life I only met two persons who had an A8 Audi, one of them is xxxx, and the other is xxxx. xxxx after his appointment was driving his own Audi A8, but for a while with his own car's licence plate he couldn't tuck in to the Town Hall, so someone he always drove in front of him, and only then he could enter. Earlier I must have mixed up the story of Mr. xxxx.”

In this respect, in my present testimony, before the hearing of IV. accused, I would represent only a small part of it: the access into the Mayor's Office parking lot. The Mayor's Office from two directions, the Fire Department and the entrance between Merlin Theatre, as well as through the main entrance can be approached, and although it was really an admittance card system, both vehicle entrances had continuous reception service, on working days from morning to late night. For those occupants of the room who was ever in the Office by car, needs to know this exactly.

The fact that xxxx, as the CEO of BKV, or his driver couldn't ask the porter to open the gate for him, because he was on official business and would like to get in, I doubt in the same way as I doubt, that the head of one of the largest utility companies, needed to be accompanied by the General Actig CEO in order to get in the parking lot of the Mayor’s Office.


It can be concluded that such claims of IV.accused, even the smallest detail is obviously contrary to the facts.







When I think back from March of 2010, since the outburst of the BKV media scandal, the period of the trial, a great Hungarian poet's words come to my mind:


"They believe the truth in the least, which is obvious. Being such fantastic, sometimes - the most incredible. What no imagination can figure out."


Why does this quote has a place here? Well, that is the question to which the answer is - as opposed to in connection with the indictment asked questions of mine - clearly, in fact I think that based on the past few days, unequivocally can be specified:



Fact, that in the case the first official request addressed to me, the 23 questions posed by the BKV Inspection Committee, in 2010 March 19th, I fully answered, with supporting documents.



Fact, that prior of my first interrogation of suspects was taken in 2010 May 14th, with my pleader in writing we have indicated to the case handling investigating authority, that I am available at any time, to which all our contact details were given.



Fact, that despite, in 2010 May 14th, the Budapest Police Headquarters, Department of Defense Economics had taken me into custody, then in 2010 May 17th, to the initiative of  the Municipal Prosecutor's Office, the Central District Court of Buda ordered my pre-trial detention.



Fact, that according to the law applicable to the most severe coercive measure of the acting prosecutor had newer and newer initiative, the Courts, after this against me a total of nine months until 2011 February 23rd were extended, and thereafter until 2011 June 8th, I was under a house arrest.





Fact, that in spite of these circumstances, already on the day of my arrest, at my police interrogation held in 2010 May 14th, I have given my detailed documentary evidence-based testimony, during which the investigating authority in all questions addressed to me, I replied.



Fact, that in the same way then by the Central Investigative Prosecutor's Office has been taken interrogations I also, thus in each occasion, I have given an extensive testimony, and to the questions of the prosecution, thoroughly at my best knowledge I have answered. I did this, while my health drastically deteriorated, and the prosecution for non-real reasons, with my close kin, so my partner in life and my daughter, they were deprived contacts.



Fact, besides all that, - the prosecution resolutions of coercive measures also in terms of significance - about my financial situation, already in 2010 September 13th we attached a detailed and very lengthy compilation, which included my detailed bank statement of the questioned period, and that in the meantime, for some unknown reason, have been removed from the investigative documents.



Fact, furthermore that, the present procedure obviously did not independently launch two criminal proceedings against me, one of the procedure with legally binding judgment of acquittal, the court closed, while the other, the investigating authority launched an investigation against me - not legally binding - in the absence of offense which ended.



Fact, finally that to the Honourable Tribunal of Kecskemét, - as heard - to the indictment each points of I'm accused with, I gave a comprehensive and detailed testimony.



Therefore it's clearly visible, that from the beginning of the procedure I have only strived, and strive even today, to reveal the truth for the police handling the case, public prosecution and for the Courts. Namely that in contrast with the alleged false and unsubstantiated accusations against me, that my activity as the Deputy Mayor of Urban and Asset Management, was characterized by the most complete lawfulness.


It is, however, that the prosecution why didn't they take into account my testimony, which is beyond the contect of a number of documentary evidence and witness statement in the investigative document, it is also supported by the current legislation, beside of the quoted words of our poet, I could not find any other explanation.


I ask the Honourable Tribunal that opposed to the "imaginary fictions" considered from the first moment of the procedure, my consistent testimonies, and the contained supporting evidences, thus the facts of which I believe only one conclusion can be drawn: During the term of my mandate as Deputy Mayor, I did everything in my power to ensure, to benefit the Country and the Capital, with integrity and honor, with dignified manner to perform my entrusted tasks.


Honourable Tribunal, I did not commit a crime, I'm not guilty.




                                                                                                                      Miklós Hagyó