Penalty proposal for Pelt: 9 years, 25 million. Grant’s Case Heads To The Finish Line

Lawyer Ondřej Trčka read his closing speech for two hours. The defendants of the defendants laughed several times on the bench opposite. However, when punishment suggestions were made, their customers got serious.

The proposals are relatively sharp. Non-suspended sentences, without exception, for natural persons, ranging from five to ten years. In addition, a uniform ban on activity for five years. And for everyone, including legal entities, fines in millions of crowns – from two to twenty-five for Pelt.

Miroslav Pelta listened to the proposal without much emotion, later he refused to comment on it in any way. He didn’t say a word when asked for a brief comment.

“You noticed that we laughed at the closing speech of the public prosecutor. This is complete nonsense. Absurdity. Chucpe. The public prosecutor completely neglected the evidence that was expressed, “Petr Slepička, the public prosecutor general of the defense of ČUS Jan Boháč, got angry during the break.

Proposed sanctions for defendants in the event of sports subsidies:

name Imprisonment (in years) Penalty (in millions of CZK) Prohibition of activities (in years)
Simona Kratochvilova ten 6 5
Zdenek Břiza 6 2 5
Miroslav Pelta 9 25 5
Jan Bohac 5 2 5
Miroslav Jansta 5 2 5
FACR 5
HI 2.5

He and other lawyers basically blamed Trček for taking – with exaggeration – his more than a year-old indictment, which he made at the start of the whole trial, and re-reading it. , confirming the course of his statement.

The prosecutor insists on his. “The reasons why the indictment was filed were confirmed by the evidence. In other words, I insisted that the defendants be found guilty within the meaning of the indictment and I have proposed sentences that correspond to the gravity of the crimes that have been committed,” Trčka told Sport at the time.

ČUS lawyer: There is no methodology, no formula

He vehemently denies that the evidence against his claim was wavered. “It just came to our knowledge at that time. Those have to be assessed in their interrelationship, which I tried, and I certainly took everyone into account. But of course, everyone world highlights others. The lawyer omits wiretapping and surveillance results, which are not important to him, but are important to the prosecution in relation to others. This is then the assessment of the same evidence, we each see it differently, and for obvious reasons,” Trčka explained.

The indictment in brief

All defendants are charged with attempting to abuse the authority of a public official, breaching the duty to manage the property of others, and obtaining an advantage when awarding a public market. In addition, Miroslav Pelta is accused of bribing former Deputy Minister of Education Simona Kratochvílová, who then accepts a bribe.

Prokop Beneš, a representative of the Czech Sports Union, also gave a lengthy closing speech. “The court did an unprecedented job. Unfortunately, we did not learn from the public prosecutor’s speech what his position was on the fundamental evidence that was expressed, ”he said. And himself reminded those who testify in favor of his client (ČUS) in the context.

That there was no methodology at the department to quantify the amount of the subsidy, which the witnesses explicitly confirmed.

So it makes no sense for the prosecutor’s claim that his clients deviated from the methodology.

That if there is no methodology, there is no formula by which the resulting figure can be determined.

That in such a framework, everyone can be assigned an amount, because it does not come up against any methodology.

That while something can be attributed to everyone, the damage cannot be calculated.

That in principle, it was not – and the court proved it – a public tender.

That the Czech Sports Union, supplemented by criterion e), which the prosecution considers a manifestation of illegal conduct, reacted in favor of the Czech Olympic Committee and was subsequently sanctioned by the ministry itself.

That if the public prosecutor is embarrassed by the intervention of ČUS in the matter of small grants, he should make the same complaint to other people who have acted in the same way in favor of the treatment plant. “And (STEP president) Mr. Kejval himself negotiated an extraordinary grant to the ministry, when he had not received one before.”

That it is not true that Miroslav Jansta (and also Miroslav Pelta), as members of the National Sports Council, had no jurisdiction to talk about subsidies, because the court proved that the basic documents of the ministry prove the opposite.

That the sentence of former Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka is worth mentioning. “If it were up to me, I’d call (in the case of a cut short grant) much sooner.”

Beneš concluded at the end. “I don’t think the majority of the actions have been proven. The charge shouldn’t have been filed at all. The situation of the evidence did not support the factual allegations in the indictment, as they contradict and should not have been filed. It is reasonable for the defense to propose an acquittal of the client.”

He added as a good word. “There’s such a mess here: wiretapping,” referring to the fact that the case was based on wiretapping some people, while others weren’t spying.

FACR lawyer: Even if Pelta was guilty…

Then Filip Seifert and Hana Riedlová, defenders of the FACR, delivered their closing remarks. The association, as a legal organization, faces charges based on the actions of its then president, Miroslav Pelta. The lawyers tried to prove that for several reasons, there is no reason for the association to suffer the consequences of the actions of its boss.

Why?

Because Pelt’s actions were meant to be aimed at consolidating his influence, the association was not affected.

Because every decision of the association must be signed by the president and one of the vice-presidents, which in this context (apartment or good for the deputy Kratochvílová) has never happened and it has not been proved that the FACR knew about it.

Because Pelta expressed his personal opinion on the distribution of grants as a guarantor of the V grant program, mostly in private, it was not the opinion of the association.

Because Pelta had – and the recorded quote from Kateřina Valachová confirmed this – the mandate of the minister at the time to resolve the grant case, even though Valachová denied it in court.

In summary: “If Mr. Pelta acted illegally, which we do not believe, there is no imputability of this behavior to the football association. It has not committed any crime, any violation of the law. »

We already know that Ondřej Trčka sees just the opposite. What counts is the decision of the Municipal Court of Prague, presided over by Lenka Cihlářová.

However, this is not yet on the agenda. On Wednesday, there will be a closing speech for the defense of natural persons. Simon Kratochvílová’s lawyer should be the first to speak. It is uncertain whether he will join Bronislav Šerák, who represents Pelt.

It is likely that the verdict will fall at the next hearing, that is to say at the earliest in a month.

Miroslav Jansta, President of ČUS:

“The Crown’s assessment of the state of the evidence is completely out of touch with reality. We have tried for years to explain that our steps in the grant processes were absolutely justified and legitimate, and were intended only to correct the distortions in the ongoing grant procedure without rules. We will comment on the rest in our closing remarks.”

Pelt trial: debacle of a senior official.  No one understood, he said

Leave a Comment