Zsolt Bayer threatens to name Hungarian OLAF employees responsible for Elios report

March 5, 2018

Zsolt Bayer threatens to name Hungarian OLAF employees responsible for Elios report
Photo: YouTube/ECHO TV

Fidesz publicist Zsolt Bayer has threatened to release the names of three European Union Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) employees allegedly responsible for authoring the OLAF report revealing how a company tied to Prime Minister Orbán’s son-in-law conspired with third parties to defraud EU funds through lucrative public lighting modernization programs across Hungary.

Although the OLAF report has yet to be made public, online daily 24.hu has apparently obtained a copy and has dutifully released parts piece by piece over the past few weeks. Eager to downplay the significance of the report, state and pro-government media have recently taken to defending Orbán’s son-in-law, István Tiborcz, former owner of Elios Zrt.lauding him as a great businessman.

During the March 4th broadcast of Bayer’s prime-time talk show, which often features mainstays of the Fidesz intellectual establishment, including renowned conspiracy theorist István Lovas, the Fidesz publicist threatened to name the Hungarian authors of the OLAF report. Claiming the report is biased and full of errors, Bayer suggested he knows the names of its authors but will not announce them at this time.

Update!

We reached out to OLAF and asked them to comment on this story. They wrote:

“OLAF’s investigators carry out investigations under the authority and direction of the Director-General. OLAF investigative teams comprise staff of different nationalities, with usually at least one staff member being completely fluent in the language of the country where investigative activities are carried out. A system of checks and balances ensures that any investigation is carried out in an impartial and objective manner and that the procedural guarantees of all the persons concerned by the investigation are observed.

“OLAF does not usually issue comments on any investigative activities it carries out, including on the names of its investigators. This is in order to protect the confidentiality of investigations and of possible ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights.”