Home » News » The Central Chief Prosecution Office of Investigation interrogates President of the Integrity Authority as a suspect

The Pres­ident of the Integ­rity Aut­ho­rity has been inter­ro­gat­ed as a suspect by the Cent­ral Chief Offi­ce of Investiga­ti­on during the ongo­ing investiga­ti­on into misapp­rop­ri­a­ti­on of funds caus­ing sig­ni­fi­cant pecu­niary loss and abuse of offi­ce. The investiga­ti­on had been ope­ned upon repor­ted infor­ma­ti­on. The suspect is defend­ing himself wit­ho­ut being arres­ted.

 Today, the Cent­ral Chief Offi­ce of Investiga­ti­on has car­ried out coor­di­na­ted investiga­tive mea­sures in the case, which invol­ved con­duc­ting succ­ess­ful sear­ches and sei­zu­res at seve­ral pre­mi­ses, inc­lu­ding the buil­ding of the Integ­rity Aut­ho­rity.

After­wards, the Cent­ral Chief Offi­ce of Investiga­ti­on inter­ro­gat­ed the Pres­ident of the Integ­rity Aut­ho­rity as a suspect.

Pur­su­ant to the rele­vant provi­sions of law, the Integ­rity Aut­ho­rity is a cent­ral bud­ge­tary body, whose pres­ident is entit­led to the same allo­wan­ces as a minis­ter. Accord­ingly, he is entit­led, inter alia, to the per­so­nal use of an offi­ce vehic­le. The Integ­rity Aut­ho­rity has ren­ted the Pres­ident a car of sup­re­me qua­lity for this pur­po­se.

There is rea­son­ab­le sus­pi­ci­on to beli­eve that the Pres­ident had anot­her vehic­le ren­ted at the expen­ses of the Integ­rity Aut­ho­rity.

That car was also of sup­re­me qua­lity and was mostly used for pri­vate pur­pos­es by the President’s wife, who was not an emp­loyee of the aut­ho­rity and was the­re­fo­re not entit­led to use the vehic­le.

Accord­ing to the cont­ract conc­lu­ded in Novem­ber 2022, the ren­tal fee for this second car was 475,285 HUF + VAT.

By bre­a­ch­ing the asset manag­ement rules, the Pres­ident cau­s­ed a pecu­niary loss of nearly 14 mil­li­on HUF to the Integ­rity Aut­ho­rity.

In addi­ti­on, in order to pre­vent the other two mem­bers of the board (the vice pres­idents, who were selec­ted by a call for app­li­ca­ti­on and were appoin­ted by the Pres­ident of the Repub­lic) from exerc­i­sing their legal rights, the Pres­ident of the Integ­rity Aut­ho­rity unlaw­fully rest­ric­ted some of their powers and simul­ta­ne­o­usly exerci­sed his pub­lic aut­ho­rity arbit­ra­rily.