Miklós Hagyó Responds to Defendant IV Zsolt Balogh's Testimony on October 16, 2012

Observations for Zsolt Balogh, IV. accused's confession




1.) First I’d like to stress the following: the attached written and oral testimony, and my remarks in connection with the confessions of II. and III. accused I maintain unchanged, and most emphatically declare that in Zsolt Balogh's investigative testimony any statement that is contrary to, does not correspond to reality. It also urges attention to the fact that in my testimony, facts adduced by me, a considerable part of myself became aware of the investigative documents which were at my disposal, so if any claim in the minutes - and greatly there is so - is contrary to my testimony, then it is also against the document. I add, that my testimony is supported by both II. and III. accused's testimony at the hearing.


2.) Here I refer to the fact, that my testimonies (I emphasize) under coercive measures during the investigation did not differ in any respect from my testimony at the hearing, as is clearly shown by that the Honourable Tribunal did not have to expound my investigative testimony. This means: that all the questions asked from me, since 2010 14th of May I have been consistently in the same way declare, which can summarize it in one sentence: I committed no crime, and I'm not guilty.


In contrast, however, over the past minutes of the hearings as described in the testimony, there are often more consecutive contradictions in such a degree, which the evidential value of these confessions I am convinced that are strongly questioned.


In my written testimony, and since then, I phrased a number of questions concerning the indictment to the prosecuting authority, which, of course, I know that at this stage of the proceedings I can not get a response. However, given the fact that the prosecution in the indictment crimes imposed to my burden, particularly the contained evidence of the II. counts, almost exclusively were based on as described in protocols, I need to ask one further question:


What is the reason that the prosecution as a result of the conducted investigation the evidence gathered when assessing, the testimony of that person who were standing under coercive measures, consistently, without any contradiction, supporting with documentary evidence his statement was not accepted? But instead considered that testimony as the indictment fundamentum, which some of were changed during the interrogations, and itself forms fundamental, and mutually exclusive contradictions?


As I have just said I accept that for this question I can't get an answer now.


3.) In the meantime, however, Zsolt Balogh's testimony at the hearing revealed what were the circumstances that resulted in his investigative testimonies essentially considered as a thesaurus of continuous contradictions.

Although of course, I can not accept in any way, but having regard also to my personal  experiences, I can understand why he felt that "if he wants to go home to his family, then he should tell more and more anomalies about the management of BKV."


After the nine months spent in pre-trial detention, it is also clearly understandable for me, that for him uncovering the truth why was it only important to avoid arrest, and does not entails, as he also said, "like some of his colleagues."


If, however, the proceeding authorities treated him as the "object of investigation", than I can say confidently that I was treated as the "target plate".


As a result of the foregoing based on the investigative testimonies, they held me under coercive measures, and suspected me with crimes, that the objective, also supported by documentary evidences and my testimony containing the truth, no one was interested.


4.) Turning now to Zsolt Balogh person and my relationship with him: with IV. accused, - as I have said many times - prior to his employment at BKV I didn't know, we met sometimes in the end of 2007. However, given that the deputy mayor has connections only with the heads of the companies, during his position at the time, as with neither his colleagues, I got no meaningful contact with him. I also emphasize, that I had no direct relationship,with the deputy CTOs, the predecessor of Zsolt Balogh with Zoltán Donáth, and his successor with Péter Takács since I, the so-called "command channels" have always respected, and never stepped directly in contact with persons whose supervisor belonged to the Cabinet supervisory power, and this is true of all the Metropolitan Municipality-owned public company.


I only got in direct working relationship with Zsolt Balogh, from the second half of February in 2008 from the sickness leave of Attila Antal, that is, at the same time of his CEO mandate. From then on we were in a working relationship, besides that we had minimal contact, our relationship with each other did not have either acquaintances or amicable nature. However, of course we knew each other's cell phone numbers, and having regard to the situation of BKV arising from the intense working relationship many times we called each other, so it was no stiffness between us.


I would like to say that I got to know Zsolt Balogh, as a ready for action workforce, who always wanted to show that he is capable to lead such a company like the BKV, which he has also sought to express that in a difficult period - compared with Attila Antal and István Kocsis - several times he was looking for the opportunity to inform me personally, which on occasion always took place in my office in the building of the Metropolitan Municipality at a pre-arranged time with me, with the presence of the relevant issue's competent representatives of the department, the Cabinet desk officers and other relevant members of the Cabinet.



Here I would like to repeat that, I as the Deputy Mayor of Urban and Asset Management, never practiced over his person neither decision or instruction, or the employer's rights, over Zsolt Balogh not even the Metropolitan Municipality or any of its committees did not have such power. The reason for this is that until his mandate as CEO, his employer was Attila Antal, at the time as Acting CEO. The Board of Directors of BKV exercised the rights of the employer, and after when István Kocsis has been appointed as the new CEO, he became his employer.


I think, moreover, that in both of our investigative testimonies the exclusive parity is the fact that in 2008 19th of February at the time when Zsolt Balogh has been appointed as the new CEO and the subsequent period, BKV was in a very difficult situation.


Without repeating myself but only at a listing level:  it was the used bus purchasing, and the AAM Office-related scandals, the BKV restructuring was still pending, which due to redundancies there was an ongoing threat of strike, the parameter book was under transformation, and then in April 2008 were administered to the Government, and through it, to Brussels, that is, to the European Union 350 billion metro 4 project proposals, which since the accession of Hungary to the EU was the largest EU project.

I think no special explanation is needed to the above mentioned, for both the Capital and the BKV were outstanding of importance tasks, which are moreover - I note understandable manner - were continuously in the focus of the media interests - only with maximum of professional dedication, and often at the cost of physically superhuman performance could be performed. The responsibilities and expectations pressed on all of our shoulders, which for Attila Antal the loss of control of the situation of  the professionals then became even more worse.


The deadlines, however, did not stop, so the Acting CEO, who - as the investigative file shows - as a transport civil engineer had acted solely on technical matters, practically from one day to another had to learn into the most complex acting community governance.


That is why, in my opinion, as described in the investigative testimony in terms of as a whole has importance, and it is to be evaluated and considered in the light of, in what is the Volume 64. 3rd paragraph of page 41.847 fixedly been said: "As a deputy CTO I had insight to a quite a large area, but the economic, HR, transportation and communication areas did not know."


In this situation, as the Deputy Mayor of Urban and Asset Management stuck between two fires, on the one hand I and the Cabinet also tried to provide all the assistance to the Acting CEO, which itself was partly understandable, and partly a number of cases the Acting CEO himself requested, on the other hand, however, the owner of BKV, the Metropolitan Municipality and the residents of the Capital in order to meet our obligations we had to do everything.




In such circumstances, when we all continuously worked 6-7 days, daily 10-12 hours, I think it is only natural that the tension and because the pressure on us sometimes in order to meet certain deadlines, I have acted with more emphasis, and I raised my voice, or that about some discussions I expected that about once we have discussed, accordingly, as soon as possible should happen, and that the competent specialist to take the necessary measures, because there was no place for an unjustified expectation and hesitation.


That assertion, therefore, what Zsolt Balogh at the hearing said about me in his testimony, I quote: "Miklós Hagyó many times ordered me to appear, shouted at me, kept me under constant pressure," is solely correct to the extent, that the above-mentioned of the legislation and the Organisational and Operational Regulations, and the Mayor, the Mayor's Cabinet and as defined by the Municipal Assembly, important and urgent tasks to be carried out on the same terms as the other competent professional, Zsolt Balogh was also required to fulfill his tasks by providing the best of his knowledge. Thus, if many times we held a professional consultation, if I raised my voice, if I urged the completion of each task, then this pressure was done solely to meet the expectations  of, and comply with the respective deadline what the Municipality, and also the Capital city residents expected from us.


As an example, I refer to Volume 64. on pages 42.035. and 42.037. numbered 47. e-mail and its Annex, to the submission of EU tender, and in Volume 60. on page 38.467. letter wrote by me to Zsolt Balogh on the 23rd of April in 2008. From the e-mail it is clearly visible the tightness of certain deadlines, and the importance of compliance, as it was hundreds of billions of forints. However, from the latter one it can also be concluded, that when regarding to the EU-funded projects, Zsolt Balogh, in his letter dated on the 2nd of April in 2008 he turned to me and asked my help and asked me to intervene at government agencies, having regard to this I wrote a letter to the Minister of Municipal and Regional Development, to the Minister of the National Development Agency, and the Head of the Managing Authority.


Our working relationship of all these circumstances, in my opinion, was characterized by courtesy and mutual respect for each other, which presented as an excellent example of a letter in Volume 60. on page 38.461., in which I asked for Zsolt Balogh's professional help according to the content of my speech for the opening ceremony of the Principal Counsellor of Capital Construction Regulatory Framework Conference, and in which I also apologize, for only in possession of this additonal information I can answer the request of BKV.


I must emphasize that by me several times, given the fact that according to the Organisational and Operational Rules, my office and I had merely preparatory, co-ordinating tasks, that we were involved in the preparation of proposals to be submitted to the Mayor's Cabinet and to the General Assembly, and to cooperate with designatory departments and agencies. For the performance of our targeted tasks relies exclusively on exploratory talks, professional coordination, and had the tools of negotiation.




Consequently, I did not give any operative instructions to the asset management of BKV executive officers with powers, so neither to Zsolt Balogh,  and never had no effect on his or her colleagues' decisions. The Organizational Operational Regulations and by the powers vested in me has never been exceeded, and gave no one instructions to act on my behalf.


The Internal Organizational and Operational Rules and the Companies Act, the provisions of the daily operational decisions related to Executive Directors and the Managing Director shall be formed in respect of which the company's Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board had power to control.


I never instructed, but respectfully requested, asked, and never has anyone reported to me, just asked for clarification and information.


Thorough examination of the protocols I observed, that sometimes Zsolt Balogh’s slip of the tongue, such as in the Volume 64. the 3rd paragraph on page 41.839. at first he expresses himself as: "Hagyó called me in to the town hall, and asked if it's possible to solve", then about correcting the wrong terminology already begins with the following sentence: "precisely instructed me to solve it this way."


Those requests that actually come from me, were solely related to the tasks, of which I was indicated as the person in charge, ie the Commission, the Cabinet of the Mayor or the Municipal Assembly, with reports to be submitted to, or referrals to, and the date of its purpose, or were related to a specific task.


The fact that I  have never interfered in professional issues, from the myriad of available documentary evidence, in Volume 60. on page 38.483. a letter written by me to Zsolt Balogh on the 27th of May in 2008, s a good example of, where the journalist who was asking me about professional issues I directed Zsolt Balogh and also asked him to give a professional and prudent respond to the press.


5.) Of course, I also know that a person's feelings for another person, especially if they are in working relation a number of conditions can affect, may be entirely subjective and objective as well. If I wasn't sympathetic to a colleague of mine humanly or in personality, - just like with anybody else, it could happened with me too - then, obviously, no matter how harmonious I tried to make the relationship work, it was known in advance that it did not go successfully.







The described protocols shows, that Zsolt Balogh’s relationship to certain persons in a number of cases reported to the interrogating authorities, so in Volume 64. the 3rd paragraph of page 41.807. the following was said, "Mr. Somodi might not be able to speak without bias", in Volume 64. the 2nd paragraph of page 41.883.  after the prosecutor asked about the employment of Zoltán Donáth, the following answer can be read: "I can not be objective about him. We did not like each other." For the question he didn't answer anything else.

The opposite however also can be read in the investigative document, although I note the only exception in Volume 64. the last paragraph of page 41.817., in connection with Norbert Tóth: "I can talk about him biased, I think he is a very good economic professional."


In this context, I'm asking myself, I wonder which category I belonged  to, and the very detailed testimony concerning me, include whether without bias or biased statements, considering that the statements in relation with me are faced with obvious facts.


It also illustrates the absurdity of the Protocol about our confrontation dated in 2010 14th of September in Volume 68. on 2nd page 2nd paragraph from the bottom, and compared to the 3rd page 1st paragraph. First to the investigation question concerning his relation with me, Zsolt Balogh said, that he's not in wrath with me, he's not a relative of mine, and that he will be first-name me during the confrontation. Then, when I also answered this question, Zsolt Balogh has suddenly told me in the eye, that our previous relationship, the consequence of our working relationship, he lives in fear of death, he's afraid of me.


I would add, that this was the first time I've seen him since August 2009, unlike him, who arrived from his home, I was in pre-trial detention for 4 months, the previous day for the full day I participated the judicial medical experts investigations, where the medical examiner as his personal result of an investigation said, that at any time, I could be even be in a life-threatening condition, and the next day they took me to a hospital treatment with handcuffs on my hands.


I also clearly remember that the confrontation would have been a week earlier, but while I waited for hours on the set day dressed in the prison, ready to go take me to the police station, where my attorney awaited my arrival, reasons unknown to me, the confrontation then did not take place. The psychological impact of vain expectancy in captivity, I don't think I have to explain, although really only one can understand who has been in custody even for only 24 hours.


I refer also to the fact that Zsolt Balogh as a witness at the time, on the 8th of February 2008 that is to say, when I was a Member of Parliament and possessed immunity, and I was at large, for the question of the investigating authority if he requires personal protection for his physical integrity of or freedom of personal protection, he replied that: "I do not require to provide me personal protection."


On the 14th of September in 2010 however, while he said himself, - denied our meeting in August 2009 - that it was already more than a year since we last met, while I according to his own claim, (in Protocol the 8th paragraph on page 15.) either directly or indirectly, I was not looking for him,  I have not done anything against him, which would have given rise to fear, he released a statement saying that: he is scared of me. From me, who was for several months in captivity, whom he has seen tormented, handcuffed, in infinite defencelessness, surrounded by the authorities.

6.) After considering the relevant part of the investigative file, however, it is also revealed to me, that not only some individuals, but some events also can be assessed subjectively or objectively, even so, that some of their interpretations of reality are completely in a different light.


I felt this, when I read the interpretation of the investigative documents in Volume 64. from page 41.901. to 42.043. 47 e-mails attached by Zsolt Balogh, and also the interpretation of the attached pages ranging from 41.871. to 41.899.


Primarily, though, I'm not a jurist, but I think that not in only I that raise concerns as to whether we are not aware, that to obtain these e-mails how and in what circumstances, a formal or informal way, documented or undocumented way had been made, and what the basis of their selection, and if we have the chance to get to know the whole correspondence.


Given that the source is a substantially interested person, we couldn't even know, if the selected ones are reflecting the reality, or is this done purposefully? If any of these e-mails, which I emphasize a specific point of view and interpreted very subjectively, to strengthen the Protocols, then I wonder if there are such e-mails which are weaken or even contradict them?


Although answers to the questions will also not be given in this case, but in any case a matter of fact, that these e-mails are used as an objective documentary evidence alone is doubtful.


Secondly, the fact that certain events were subjectively evaluated and how they were recorded in the minutes of the actual text of the e-mails and the e-mails explanatory interpretations are clearly established. Other e-mails are from the literal sense, that is, the actual content, the notes thereto and other interpretations.


I premise, that of each e-mails I would like to respond in detail in the future, however, in order to illustrate to what I am talking about, let me give you an example:

In Volume 64. on page 41.949. the No.12th e-mail can be read with subject: informing the BKV,  written by Éva Horváth dated on the 23th of July 2009 addressed to the relevant municipal and BKV leaders, also including Mr. Zsolt Balogh, inter alia, András Berger who provided the coordination tasks of the community and the entire metropolitan transportation system, , as well as helped the Metropolitan Municipality and the Cabinet's work. The email reads as follows:



"Dear Recipients!


Interested to know that from the BKV the current maximum of the expected deadline of 2008 parameter book expenses and efficiency / etc. detailed technical information in relation to the material, as well as the one door take-off measured actual mains utilization numbers has arrived to the Town Hall (transport department)?


Thank you: 




The interpretation appended to this, indicated the date of the 13th of July 2009, in Volume 64. on page 41.879. in point 12th the following:


"Significance: the e-mail of Éva Horváth, which she is expecting a response for strictly technical questions in connection with the 2008. BKV Parameter Book. The e-mail was sent to the Hagyó Cabinet's office manager and to Miklós Hagyó's BKV rapporteur too. This e-mail confirms that at Hagyó Cabinet horn in to all the technical issues, and determined what to think about it. "


Well, in my opinion, the e-mail’s literal content, by contrast, is the only thing that happened which Éva Horváth asked, if the BKV sent two partially daily deadline information material to the relevant specialist department of the Municipality.


7.) Having said in anticipation, I could say for what I have referred in my written testimony, ie, to me, not a word is true what was recorded in the Protocol, however as I couldn't do it then I can't do it now not to explore the documents against, and thereby false factual contradictions to the Honourable Tribunal.


My detailed observations for these however, only in the future I would like to do.