Babish’s lawyers only told half the truth, but Nagyoba pointed out the vulnerable part of the prosecution.cz

On Monday morning, the ANO chairman took three lawyers to the largest courtroom of the Prague City Court. the two talked. Michael Bartonczyk was the first to speak as lead counsel, followed by Eduardo Bruna. Co-defendant her Jana Nagyová (ex-Mayerová) is defended by her Josef Bartončík, a former colleague of Babiš and brother of Babiš’s principal attorney.

The appointed legal representatives spoke together for two hours. They built three main lines of defense around their client, who were supposed to refute the indictment of prosecutor Yaroslav Shaloty. They used strong arguments to do so. They repeated phrases like “absolute logical blunder”, “fundamental crack” and “flagrant error”.

According to them, it does not make sense for Sharokh to bring Babish to court for the second time. In their opinion, the former prime minister was also not supposed to sit on the docks because he was illegally handed over for prosecution. They argued that the law at the time did not include entitlement for the conduct Sarochi prosecuted.

Did Sarochi deny himself?

In August 2019, Yaroslav Shaloty actually stayed the prosecution of Andrei Babis, Yana Nagyova, and five others accused at the time. His conclusions from the law were reviewed by then chief prosecutor Pavel Zeman, at the end of which a decision was made to renew the charges against Babis and Nagyova. Zeman is clear that their case has not been properly clarified.

“At the time, prosecutor Sarochi made the correct decision to drop the prosecution, but by filing the indictment, he denied himself,” Babis’ attorney Michael Bartonczyk declared. But he didn’t mention something important. Since Zeman’s intervention, the evidence landscape has changed. A witness who wanted to change the original statement turned himself in to the police. This time they testified against Babis.

The testimony of one of Chapi Hunizd’s former managers, noted by. Message listAccording to him, Babis was the main driving force behind the project and was supported by his Aggrofelt holdings. At the same time, a subsidy of 50 million crowns was aimed at small and medium enterprises. A banker at British bank HSBC, who lent his 375 million crowns to the farm, spoke in a similar fashion.

Issued by the House of Commons under the Law

“My client should be exempt from the jurisdiction of law enforcement authorities and his criminal prosecution is unacceptable,” Bartonczyk continued. Babis appeared in court this year thanks to the fact that he was handed over to criminal investigators and prosecutors by the House of Commons in March. She made the decision at the request of the police, who really wanted Babis to indict him for acts other than those for which he was charged.

Additionally, the description of the crimes Babis had allegedly committed was based on the initial extradition request approved by the House of Representatives in September 2017. At that time, 11 people were indicted. From Bartončík’s point of view, the person responsible for ANO has no job as a defendant in court because he is on trial for conduct that the House of Representatives did not approve of prosecuting.

However, Bartončík objected to the issue being resolved after May. At the time, the Supreme Court was processing his identical petition. He acknowledged that the description of conduct in the attorney’s decision differed from the indictment, and that the Chamber decided according to old demands. But for the rest, he refused to submit Bartoncheek. Justice Jan Šott did the same at the opening of the referee on Monday.

“The House’s decision was preceded by a lengthy debate of the House members present, from which criminal files were provided by prosecutors for study and House members had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the state. The Supreme Court said there was “no doubt” about the legality of the matter.

Blackmailed Babis for a second crime

“In the case of my client, his actions were not criminal under the laws of the time, so they would violate the retroactive principle. He could have committed a crime that did not exist in the legal system at the time. No,” Babis’ attorney Eduardo Bruna declared. According to the indictment, Babis committed the crimes between October 2007 and February 2008. At that time, he was to give orders that Chapi Hunizd should not be considered part of Aggrofeld.

Bruna complied with Judge Shotta’s warning, according to which during the trial Babis could also be found responsible for helping to undermine the financial interests of the European Union. The Criminal Code did not recognize the above qualifications. He finally became part of it in his 2010. But that’s only half the picture.

Already in good time the entitlement to prejudice the economic interests of the European Community was essentially the same and part of the criminal law. They differ only in how strictly they approach such crimes. He was originally sentenced to up to 12 years in prison, but according to new rules he could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

According to Bruna, there is another reason to prosecute Babis for helping to undermine the financial interests of the European Union. He must have submitted a false grant application himself. And the person responsible for ANO did not participate in this process. However, some of the eligibility is also the use of fraudulently obtained subsidies. And subsidies fell on the construction of sparrow nests.

small business dispute

In response, Yana Nagyova, who has been charged with subsidy fraud and harming the financial interests of the European Union, pointed out the weaknesses of the prosecution in her presentation. He will be the subject of the most bitter controversy in this trial. The question is whether Farma Čapí hnízdo is considered a small business. The indictment alleges that she was not alone, thanks to her connection to Aggrofelt.

“Shareholders were natural persons who were not entrepreneurs, ensuring that the company was not financially linked to another company,” Nagyová said. It was she who submitted the sparrow’s nest grant application in February 2008. At the time, the majority of the company was owned by Babish’s brother-in-law, Martín Herodes, with the remainder owned by his wife Monica and her two children. Sarochi also deduces a connection to Aggrofelt from this.

At that time, the issue of SMEs related to European subsidies was a relatively new issue and a unified interpretation was forming. In addition, Nagyova drew attention to the fact that the police themselves resolved this issue only late in the investigation.

“I don’t understand why they want me. What the police and the public prosecutor’s office have been arguing about for the past five years, and what I should know about the 34,766 criminal files they have collected.” was,” said Nagyová. , according to who, Chapi was a nest of conditions met by small businesses.

The main makeup continues until the weekend. Babisch’s wife Monica, an economics expert, and Jaroslav Faltynek, a former head of the ANO, are also due to appear as witnesses. Prosecutor Thurrock stayed his prosecution in the spring of 2018.