The Magical Nokia-box - part 22.

What decision was given at first instance?

After the prosecution admitted that they had committed mistakes and the charges related to the Nokia-box had been dropped, Hagyó was imposed two-year suspended sentence. However, he was not found guilty in connection with the Nokia-box and the metro line 4, furthermore the charge of being involved in criminal organization was also dropped. Since the ex Deputy Lord Mayor is still pleading his innocence the responsible defence lawyers have appealed the decision and the case goes to the court of second instance.

What were the antecedents of the decision?

The last witness was heard in September, 2015 in the BKV case. However, even after the case took more unexpected turns. In the last moment the prosecution amended the indictment again basically eliminating the count related to the Nokia-box.

Hagyó case: according to a former AAM coworker the analyses for the BKV were necessary- HVG article

A witness considered the analytical and the subway investment screening materials made by AAM Ltd. to BKV – who were associates during that time - useful and necessary on the Thursday hearing of the case against Miklós Hagyó former socialist deputy lord mayor and his associates at the Kecskemét Tribunal.





The AAM signed 3 contracts in 2007, during the time of the accusation with the BKV. In these contracts they undertook the assignment of screening the subway investment, supporting the coordinating tasks of the Subway line 4 project, and also the expert support of the highlighted projects of the transportation company. The witness - who was the leading consultant of the AAM Ltd. during the time of the accusation - firmly traversed those statements of the indictment which says that the company performed unnecessary services for the BKV Ltd.

Hagyó case - The number 31 witness called two contracts useful

The Hagyó case’s number 31 witness considered two BKV contracts important and useful on the Tuesday hearing at the Kecskemét Tribunal. They questioned the witness in connection to the accusations of the AAM Zrt. and the Montana Zrt.
The witness was brought to BKV Zrt. by the recommendation of Gábor Demszky, former lord mayor of the SZDSZ and he worked as deputy chief executive officer at BKV from April 2007 to December 2008 then left the transportation company with a several 10 million forints “step-down fee”.

They projected the electronic mails - which were sent by Montana to BKV - on the wall of the courtroom, but no substantial information connected to the project could’ve been found.

BKV case: the prosecution investigated on a public page

The prosecution discovered a connection between one of the defendants and one of the witnesses of the BKV case on a famous public page, but because the concerned didn’t deny their professional connection the exposure became „pointless”.


On the Kecskemét Tribune on the Tuesday’s hearing of the Hagyó case which is called after Hagyó Miklós, the former MSZP politician who were the deputy lord mayor and the defendant I in the case, it turned out: they changed the basis of a few accusation so then the prosecution can verify their concept.

János Homonnai

On the hearing, the court heard BKV’s subcontractor. The prosecution questions for the leaders of the companies’ trend to prove that a few of the communicational and marketing contracts were unneeded, but the standpoint of the prosecution didn’t have any confirmation. One of the witness said, that the BKV’S own apparatus would be unable to do the ordered graphic and other creative works.

The Prosecution Defends the Bigotry and Corruption

source: muttown.com

Tuesday’s hearing in the trial of the 15 associates of the Budapest Transit Company (BKV) saw an attack from the prosecution on a defendant’s testimony from the previous week.  Eva Horváth, the former BKV press officer, told the court in Kecskemét, Hungary last week that she was subjected to bigotry, threats of physical violence, and other controversial living conditions while spending three months in a Hungarian jail.  Horváth asserted that she was singled out by the guards because she never satisfied the interrogators, who allegedly attempted to coerce her into accusing Miklós Hagyó as the main perpetrator of financial crimes at BKV.

According to the prosecutor, János Homonnai, the prison guards never treated Horváth differently because she is Jewish.  Likewise, he claimed that she was never forced to consume Rivotril, a drug which is effective against epilepsy but can be used as a sedative, of which Horváth accused the prison guards.

Later in the hearing Ottó Lelovics, the fifth defendant and former communication consultant to Miklós Hagyó, presented a new calendar which was produced by BKK, the parent organization of BKV.  Although it was a bit futile, the effort was obviously an attempt to show the court that public funds are still being spent on various types of marketing strategies.  This, of course, is an attack on the prosecutions claim that BKV should not have spent on marketing and advertising campaigns because of their monopolistic position in public transportation. 

At the end of the day’s session, Prosecutor Homonnai gave a lengthy observation about the defendants’ testimonies.  According to him, the defendants have slanderously accused the interrogators of unethical coercion in addition to insulting the judicial system was claiming the trial is a show trial – a legal process that from the outset has already determined the guilt or innocence of the suspect(s).

On top of that, Homonnai defended Judge Mária Szívós, who has been under constant attack from the supporters of Miklós Hagyó and his associates.  Szívós was the signatory judge who had the final say on many of the defendants’ pretrial treatment.  That is to say, she determined if they would be placed in jail, under house arrest, etc.  Then, shortly after the current Fidesz government passed the new constitution, she was appointed to the Hungarian Constitutional Court – the supreme legal body.  Speculators have accused Fidesz and Szívós of working hand-in-hand on the BKV case, and the promotion, it has been presumed, was a reward for her track record of keeping the defendants in jail. 

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

BKV case: The prosecution took on (in a rejected way) the „Jewish sayings”

BKV case: The prosecution and the "ungroovies" defendants

After the hearings of the BKV’s defendants the prosecution rejected the statements which were about the coercions and that this is a concept trial. Homonnai János prosecutor defended long against the „Jewish sayings” (in Hungarian we have a word „zsidózás” which means that they used the Jewish word as a bad word, as a discrimination) and against the drugging of H. Éva, but these charges weren’t against them, they were against the guards in the jail.

The hearing started with the reading of the – partly renounced – testimony of H. Éva. The former press person of Hagyó partly renounced her testimony in Kecskemét, which she said after her arrest. The reason of that is because H. Éva said, for that testimony she said those things because she was separated from her family, they asked questions which were directed and it was under coercion.

H. Éva spent half a year in pretrial detention, during this time according to her report the investigators continually and directly told her to make confessions against Hagyó Miklós and Puch László, but she couldn’t satisfied their request in an „established and proved (with evidences) way”, ever so she wanted to see her family so much.

After the reading of H. Éva’s investigation testimony a few defendant observed that. They said that from H. Éva’s testimony in court and her not renounced testimony it’s clear that the press person did her job in the reality at the BKV and she didn’t give any order in the name of Hagyó Miklós to the leaders of the BKV. Lelovics Ottó the former professional communication person of Hagyó Miklós showed to the court a BKK’s calendar of 2013 with he wanted to prove that these kinds of outlays are attendant for the normal functioning during this day and it doesn’t counts as a crime.

                          

(Source: stand-up-hirek.blog.hu)

In the end of the hearing the prosecution made an unusual long, a before wrote observation in general for the defendants testimonies about the coercions. Homonnai János prosecution said that they just cannot say anything of the accusations about the coercions, concept process, and humiliation and against the investigation. He noted that the defendants has right to tell them the penalty what they had in the process but there is no connection in the proof what they lived through. Homonnai János in wondrously mentioned the part of H. Éva’s testimony where she is talking about that they drugged her, they refused from her the breakfast because of her religion and also they told her to „clean it Jewish!” when they throw her personal stuff mixed with trash. However these charges in every count were against the employees in the jail from the part of H. Éva, the prosecution rejected in their own name the accusations of the „reminiscent of the 50’s”. The prosecution also rejected that they made coercions, however Homonnai added that because a process like this is kind of coercion than the people can live it like this without routine.

The prosecutor in his speech defended Szívós Mária, Constitutional Judge. He said that in the case of the defendants, 30 judges decided about coercion provision, so to say that because of this Szívós Mária was elected as a Constitutional Judge is absurd. Homonnai didn’t say anything that Szívós Mária was the one who (in the case of a few defendants) aggravation and uphold the coercion provisions, moreover, she brought a few defendants back to jail after months of their testimonies.

Source: http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=616184

Original:

BKV-per: az ügyészség és a "rutintalan" vádlottak

A BKV-vádlottak meghallgatásának végeztével az ügyészség visszautasította a nyomozást ért, kényszervallatást és koncepciós eljárást emlegető vallomásokban foglaltakat. Homonnai János ügyész elsősorban a zsidózás és H. Éva begyógyszerezése miatt védekezett hosszan, ám ezen vádak nem nekik, hanem a börtönőröknek szóltak.

A tárgyalás H. Éva – részben visszavont – nyomozati vallomásainak felolvasásával kezdődött. Hagyó egykori sajtósa azon vallomásait vonta vissza Kecskeméten, amelyek megtételére már letartóztatása után került sor. Ennek okát H. Éva több vádlotthoz hasonlóan úgy indokolta, hogy azok megtételére családjától elszakítva, irányított kérdések feltételével, kényszervallatás során került sor.

H. Éva fél évet töltött előzetes letartóztatásban, ez idő alatt saját beszámolója szerint a nyomozók folyamatosan, irányítottan kértek terhelő vallomást Hagyó Miklósra és Puch Lászlóra, de kérésüknek „megalapozottan és bizonyítékokkal alátámasztható módon” nem tudott eleget tenni, bármennyire is szerette volna viszontlátni családját.

H. Éva nyomozati vallomásainak felolvasása után több vádlott észrevételezte az elhangzottakat. Jelezték, H. Éva bíróság előtt tett, ill. vissza nem vont nyomozati vallomásaiból is kitűnik, hogy a sajtós ténylegesen elvégezte munkáját a BKV-nál, és nem adott utasítást Hagyó Miklós nevében a közlekedési cég vezetőinek. Lelovics Ottó, Hagyó Miklós egykori kommunikációs szakembere bemutatott a bíróságnak egy 2013-as BKK-s naptárat is, amellyel azt kívánta bizonyítani, hogy ezek a jellegű kiadások a mai napig a normális működés velejárói, nem bűncselekmények.

                              

(Forrás: stand-up-hirek.blog.hu)

A tárgyalás végén az ügyészség szokatlanul hosszú, előre megírt, általános észrevételt tett a vádlottak kényszervallatásokról szóló, egybehangzó beszámolóira. Homonnai János ügyész elmondta, hogy a koncepciós eljárást, kényszervallatást, megaláztatásokat emlegető, nyomozást illető vádakat nem hagyhatják szó nélkül. Megjegyezte, hogy a vádlottaknak joguk van beszámolni az őket ért, az eljárásból fakadó hátrányokról, de annak a bizonyításhoz nincs köze, hogy mit éltek át. Homonnai János meglepő módon többször felemlegette H. Éva vallomásának azon részét, amelyben arról beszélt, hogy a börtönben tudtán kívül begyógyszerezték, vallása miatt megtagadták tőle a reggelit, ill. azt mondták neki, hogy „takaríts zsidó”, mikor személyes tárgyait szeméttel összekeverve elé szórták. Bár ezek a vádak minden esetben a börtönben dolgozókat érték H. Éva részéről, az ügyészség saját nevében utasította vissza az „50-es éveket idéző” vádakat. A vádhatóság azt is visszautasította, hogy kényszervallattak volna, bár azt Homonnai hozzátette, mivel egy ilyen eljárás kényszerítő jellegű, rutintalanul így is meg lehet élni azt.

Az ügyész beszédében védelmébe vette Szívós Mária alkotmánybírót is. Elmondta, hogy a vádlottak esetében közel 30 bíró hozott döntést kényszerintézkedésekről, így azt állítani, hogy emiatt nevezték ki alkotmánybírónak Szívóst, abszurd dolog. Homonnai arra nem tért ki, hogy Szívós Mária volt az, aki több vádlott esetében szigorította és tartotta fenn a szigorúbb kényszerintézkedést, sőt, több vádlottat a nyomozás későbbi szakaszában, hónapokkal a vallomástételük után vitetett vissza a börtönbe.