Motion for revision no. JOG/61/2024

In its decision no. 09000/155-12/2024.bü, the Department of Economic Protection of the Criminal Directorate at the Hajdú-Bihar County Police Headquarters dismissed the complaint filed on the suspicion of misappropriation of funds resulting in particularly substantial financial loss and other criminal offences due to the lack of suspicion of a criminal offence.

The Integrity Authority has filed a motion for revision against the investigating authority’s decision dismissing the complaint, proposing the abrogation of the investigating authority’s decision and the initiation of an investigation.

According to the complaint forming the basis of the procedure, a municipality submitted a tender in a project in June 2016.

An extraordinary on-the-spot inspection conducted by the Intermediate Body in March 2023 revealed that, unlike before, the municipality no longer has 100% ownership of one of the implementation sites referenced in the valid Grant Agreement, with setbacks observed in both the physical and financial development of the project.

Subsequently, the municipality passed a decision to provide the stadium part of a property to a company owned entirely by the municipality as a contribution in kind for the purpose of capital repayment. Later on, this company faced liquidation proceedings, during which a football club acquired 34/100 shares of the aforementioned property, leading to the municipality no longer having 100% ownership of the project’s implementation site. As a result, the municipality submitted an amendment to the grant agreement to ensure that the project is completed at least with diminished technical content, a measure that the complainant interpreted as a move that will result in property loss.

According to the Authority’s motion for revision filed on 3 July 2024, the decision dismissing the complaint and the published, anonymised file register indicate that the investigating authority did not carry out substantial investigative actions in the case, the decision to dismiss the complaint is based solely on the contents of the complaint as well as publicly available documents titled “company and property registry inquires and data disclosed by the public procurement authority”, which were obtained in the course of supplementing the complaint.  

Considering also the significant amount of national wealth involved in the case, the Authority finds it essential to order an investigation to uncover how the municipally owned company came to be in a financial situation that made it necessary to transfer 34% of the property in question to it as a contribution in kind, what was the justification behind the municipality’s decision, and what type of management led eventually, despite the disbursement of additional government subsidies, to the liquidation of this company. Since the municipality was also in a difficult financial situation at the time, it could not exercise its pre-emptive right, leading to the property in question ending up in the ownership of a football club led by a local Member of Parliament at a significantly reduced price compared to its actual value. The Integrity Authority believes all of this is crucial because it was this process that ultimately led to the beneficiary no longer having 100% ownership of the implementation site and the irregularity procedure being conducted later on.

The competent public prosecutor’s office has found the Authority’s motion for revision well-substantiated, abrogated the decision dismissing the complaint, and ordered an investigation.