portalb · united states district court southern district of new york...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

____________________________________ : U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE : COMMISSION, : : Plaintiff, : -v- : No. 11 Civ. 9645 (RJS) : ELEK STRAUB, : ANDRÁS BALOGH, and : FILED UNDER SEAL TAMÁS MORVAI, : : Defendants. : ____________________________________:

DECLARATION OF LISA J. FRIED

I, Lisa J. Fried, declare as follows:

1. I am a member of the bar of this Court and a partner of the firm Hogan

Lovells US LLP, counsel for Defendant Elek Straub. I am fully familiar with the facts set forth

herein. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion to Strike the Statements of Slobodan

Bogoeski (the “Witness”), made jointly by Mr. Straub, András Balogh and Tamás Morvai

(together, the “Defendants”).

2. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the English-

language transcript, provided to the Defendants by Plaintiff the SEC, of a December 28, 2014

interview of the Witness conducted by Robert Dodge, counsel for the SEC.

3. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the transcript of

the January 15, 2015 deposition of the Witness in this action.

4. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the transcript of

the January 28, 2015 continued deposition of the Witness in this action.

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 of 166

2

5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the transcript of

the February 19, 2015 continued deposition of the Witness in this action.

6. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the transcript of

the March 20, 2015 pre-motion conference in this action.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

United States of America and the State of New York that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in New York, New York on April 10, 2015.

____ /s/ Lisa J. Fried______ Lisa J. Fried


EXHIBIT A


1 Slobodan Bogoeski ___________________

Date: 28.12.2014

Transcript of audio recording

Today is December 28, 2014. We are in Skopje, Macedonia, at the Law Office of PANOVA Law Firm, the address is

Vladimir 1a. I am Robert DODGE (RD) Attorney with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; we will be

interviewing today Slobodan Bogoeski (SB). Also in the room will be Aleksandra Vidova, who will serve as interpreter

today, also Biljana Panova will be in the room, Mihail Panev will be operating the video camera and a separate tape-

recording. Before we begin, we have a Notary Public (N); Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski will be placed under oath. I’d like to do

that now please.

N: My name is Notary Public Sasho Klisaroski from Skopje. According to Article 68 of the Law on Notarial Practice, the

Notary Public is in position and obliged to take deposition under oath. I will now read the oath and the witness can repeat

after me: “I swear on my honor that I will tell the truth about everything that I will be asked, and I will withhold nothing I

know of this matter”.

(The witness repeats after the Notary Public)

Thank you.

RD: Good morning Mr. Bogoeski. We met for the first time this morning, right?

SB: Good morning, yes that’s right.

RD: As we get started I would like for the record to give you full name and spelling of your last name?

RD: My name is Slobodan Bogoeski. I was born in 1951; I am former Deputy Secretary for State Security, and former

advisor of the Prime Minister on such issues, until the year 2000. In short this is my biography.

RD: Ok, I’m going to hand you a document that’s been marked as exhibit 229, it is a one page document with the word

“Biography” at the top, and it is dated December 27, 2014, it has your signature. Is this the document that you prepared?

SB: Yes. This is my document, I prepared it, and it is a very short biography from my very lucrative career.

RD: (To the interpreter) Lucrative, is that the word he used?

Interpreter: Very rich.



RD: In exhibit 229, it says that from 1975 you were employed in the Ministry of Interior, the State Security Service. Can

you describe in general what your responsibilities were in the MoI?

SB: In short, for the first 8 years I was employed as inspector, I finished as chief inspector, during the events in Kosovo,

afterwards I was appointed as Head of the Department for Analytics, and afterwards I was promoted Head of the entire

department of Analytics in the entire ministry. In 1991, I was appointed as Vice-Secretary in the Service for State

Security. The State Security Service covers intelligence service and counter-intelligence in the Republic of Macedonia. I

held this position until February, 1997, when I submitted my resignation due to health reasons and I started to work as

advisor of the Prime Minister in security issues, in the area of state security, legislation and administration.

RD: Who was the Prime Minister at that time?

SB: At that time the Prime Minister was Branko Crvenkovski, and from the end of 1998 until my leave in 2000 it was

Ljubco Gjeorgjievski. In 2000 I submitted my resignation and left the government.

RD: So, during the time period of 2004, 2005, and 2006, where were you employed?

SB: I was retired in the summer 2000, after submitting my resignation. But I stopped my retirement, I postponed it,

because I was relatively of young age and I was employed in the private sector in a company owned by my family.

RD: Are you familiar with the name “Dimitris Kondominas”?

SB: Yes, in Greek it is Dimitris Kontominas, it is spelled with “nt”, but it is pronounced with “nd”. That’s the

pronunciation. I have known Dimitris Kontominas since 1993, because by decision of the Security of Council of the

Republic of Macedonia, held by the President of the Republic of Macedonia, I was commissioned to conduct all secret

negotiations with the Greek party, in an attempt to find a solution with the Greek party regarding the problem with the

blockage of the Republic of Macedonia by the Greeks. I’m guessing you remember that Greece put an economic block on

Macedonia in 1992, and the political problem that arose with the name of the Republic of Macedonia. Considering my

function, I was obliged to work on that issue. In this sense, we prepared two packages for negotiations with the Greek

party, which I proposed to the representatives of the Greek government. One of them was so called “small package”, it

was referring to continuing with economic, cultural and other cooperation between the two nations. And the “big

package” was the political problem, which was to be left for resolution some time later, to give it some time for resolution

of some smaller issues and improve relations. This is when I met Dimitris Kontominas. He was one among the people



who was in the vicinity of the then Greek Prime Minister Dimitris Mitsotakis, who was a prime minister until December

1993. He was followed by Andreas Papandreou.

RD: Was there a time in 2004 when Mr. Kontominas asked you for help?

SB: We had contacts with him on regular basis even before that, because with the privatisation of Makedonski Telekom,

which started in 2000, I organized his contacts with our President and our Prime Minister.

RD: When you say ‘his contacts’, do you mean Mr. Kontominas?

SB: I organized contacts of Mr. Kontominas with our Prime Minister Ljubco Gjeorgjievski, and the then President, the

late Boris Trajkovski. In this manner he participated in the negotiations for purchasing certain percent of the shares, and

he was the main intermediary in the sale of Makedonski Telekom to the company Stonebridge.

RD: Kontominas?

SB: Kontominas. He was the key intermediary. Thanks to this intermediation, the company Stonebridge gave him 5% of

the shares.

RD: And what was your involvement in that transaction?

SB: I was still advisor of the Prime Minister at that time, I organized his meetings with our Prime Minister Ljubco

Gjeorgjievski, and the then President, the late Boris Trajkovski. And after that, since I withdrew from my post, they

continued with their negotiations. It was all finished with success, with the sale of 51% of the shares in Makedonski

Telekom to Stonebridge. He was very grateful that I made this possible for him.

RD: Are you talking about Kontominas?

SB: Yes.

RD: It is helpful instead of saying ‘he’ or ‘him’ to give proper names for the record to be clear.

SB: It was for these reasons that Kontominas contacted me from time to time, on some issues regarding the negotiations,

and since I am familiar with the law, I am legal connoisseur, I gave my opinion on the questions that Kontominas had.

RD: Are you a licensed lawyer in Macedonia?

SB: I passed the Bar Exam but I never practiced law, since my health condition did not allow me to practice law as an

attorney at that time, it is very demanding profession.

RD: In 2004, late 2004, tell me about your communication with Mr. Kontominas.



SB: Somewhere in the middle of December 2004, Kontominas called me to ask me to organize a meeting of his team,

consisting of Nikos Stavridis, Michalis Kefaloyannis, the two were the first people in Cosmoline, company of Kontominas

in Athens, and at the same time Michalis Kefaloyannis was a member of the Steering Board in Makedonski Telekom,

representing the capital of Kontominas in Stonebridge. Over the phone he did not say what was the purpose of the meeting

he requested, he only stressed that it was very important and urgent, …

RD: Is this Kontominas?

SB: Yes, Kontominas said that it was very important and very urgent that I make possible to provide a meeting for this

team with the Prime Minister Buckovski, and if possible, during the same visit to meet the head people of the political

party DUI, the Albanian party in Tetovo. I told Kontominas that I will try and ask and I will confirm the very next day,

because it was just before the New Year’s holiday, I was not sure if I would be able to find everyone. Luckily, both the

prime minister and the head people of the political party DUI were all present and available the next day. I remember, this

was immediately before the Catholic Christmas, between the 23 – 25 December, they arrived with the private plane of

Kontominas, the team from Athens that I referred to, and the Prime Minister Buckovski met them the same day, this team

from Athens that I mentioned. Immediately after meeting with the Prime Minister Buckovski, while still in the

Government, they met also the Vice President Musa Xhaferi, who was also Vice President of the political party. After this

meeting, I met them, and immediately they continued and travelled to a meeting in Tetovo. In Tetovo, they met Ali

Ahmeti, and with Abdilhalim Kasami, Secretary General or Director of the political party. It was after they came back

from the meeting in Tetovo that we met in the restaurant ‘Nostalgija’, located in the street Rade Koncar, in the center of

Skopje, and they informed me in details of everything they discussed in the meetings during the day.

RD: When you say ‘they informed’ you, who was ‘they’?

SB: It refers to the team led by Michalis Kefaloyannis and Nikos Stavridis; these are the first people in Cosmoline.

RD: And what did they tell you about the meetings?

SB: From the first meeting there was nothing that indicated the later development of events. I was told during out talks

during dinner, that with Buckovski, Musa Xhaferi, Ahmeti and Kasami, they discussed about their plan how to overcome

all problems in regards with compensation of frequency fees, for which there was dispute during 2003, and 2004, for the

problem of possible redundancy and laying off of three hundred employees from Makedonski Telekom, which was a



problem that the Government was very concerned with; and third question was the delay of payment of the dividend from

operating of the Makedonski Telekom for the Government, and that, in order to find a solution, they offered the Prime

Minister Buckovski, that immediately after the New Year’s holidays they would come with written proposal, on their

points of view of overcoming these problems, and at the same time they would offer business plan of how to broaden

activities of Makedonski Telekom in the market in Kosovo. At the beginning it all seemed normal and legal until the

second meeting.

RD: Tell me about the second meeting.

SB: It was held in the middle of January, after our orthodox Christmas holidays, I cannot remember exactly when,

somewhere around January 15. With the private plane of Kontominas, this same team arrived in Skopje again. But this

time with them they carried Memorandum of Understanding which in essence, as a working body of text, as draft text, it

is almost identical to the Protocol they signed later. And it was them for the first time, after the same round of

negotiations, with the Prime Minister Buckovski, Musa Xhaferi, Ahmeti and Kasami, again in Tetovo, and again they

stayed for the night in Skopje. It is then that I saw the working text of the Memorandum for the first time.

RD: Who showed you the text of the document?

SB: Michalis Kefaloyannis had the text with him; he was in essence the main negotiator in the talks with Buckovski,

Xhaferi, Ahmeti and Kasami.

RD: Do you have any understanding why Mr. Kefaloyannis showed you the document?

SB: It was upon order of Kontominas; Kontominas asked him to show me the document so that I review it and see if I

have any comments on this platform of negotiations.

RD: And did you have any comments?

RD: There was nothing serious that I remarked since if you have a look at the Protocol you cannot have any serious

comments. However, in the oral negotiations, which they had with Buckovski, conducted by Stavridis and Kefaloyannis,

orally they proposed that this Memorandum of Understanding will bring a lot of profit for all of them if the Macedonian

Government agrees to postpone the adoption of the new Law on Telecommunications, or otherwise, the Go to postpone

the adoption of the bylaws, this in order for the Makedonski Telekom to keep the monopoly position on the Macedonian

market. And second, in return, that they are prepared and willing to make payment of the dividend, which was to be paid



any way in accordance with the law, and the compensation for frequency fee, which is legal obligation and obligation

from the agreement. And third and most important issue stressed by Kefaloyannis, that fro Deutsche Telekom, the most

important issue of all these is to change the decision of the government, not to sell the entire package of shares owned by

the Republic of Macedonia in Makedonski Telekom, and to adopt the decision for sale of 9.9% of the shares, because,

they were supposed to pay approximately 200 million Euros for the entire package of shares. And this way, with the

purchase of 9.9 % of share they would acquire more than 2/3 (two thirds) of ownership in the company, and this in

accordance with our legislation will provide them with uninterrupted management of the company, including sale of

assets of the company. In this way, they would minimize the interference of the GoM in the management of the

Makedonski Telekom. On several occasions Stavridis and Kefaloyannis would stress that the rest of the issues were not

that important, as much as it was important to them for the Government to agree to the sale of 9.9% of the shares and

rebranding of the Company.

RD: You are describing meetings that took place in January 2005, is that right?

SB: Yes. In the middle of January, 2005.

RD: Do you know whether any executives from MakTel or Magyar Telekom participated in these meetings?

SB: ON these meetings in Skopje, there were no representatives of Magyar Telekom, from security reasons, because,

previously, it had already been agreed by Kontominas and Elek Straub, and that he authorized Balogh to talk to Michalis

Kefaloyannis and Nikos Stavridis regarding the resolution of these issues, and they informed me that they were authorized

by Deutsche Telekom to proceed with it.

RD: Who informed you?

SB: Both Michalis Kefaloyannis and Nikos Stavridis, that it had already been resolved with the Magyar Telekom before

they came for meeting in Skopje. I said ‘It is all ok, but please be careful’, because Kontominas told me all acts, that were

to be signed to be previously provided to me, in order for me to be able to give my opinion on these acts. This was

particular referring to the Protocol of Cooperation. When they left, the next day, shortly after, I cannot remember what

day, the same team, Nikos Stavridis, Michalis Kefaloyannis, Israclis Sifakakis, now joined by the financial advisor of

Kontominas, Iraklis Fidetzis, financial advisor, they came again to visit the same people in Skopje, in the government of

the Republic of Macedonia and in Tetovo.



RD: When was this?

SB: I cannot remember exactly, but I know that a couple of weeks went by between the two meetings. Then they

presented the second version, which version was closer to the current version of the Protocol. At that point nobody signed

the Memorandum, but it was subject of negotiations, platform of negotiations between the two parties.

RD: Who was there for the government?

SB: On all of the meetings representative of the Government were the Prime Minister Buckovski, his advisor Bekim

Zemoski, and of course Musa Xhaferi the Vice President of the Government. They represented the Government of the

Republic of Macedonia. On this meeting I was told for the first time, that it was necessary for meeting to be organized for

them, Nikos Stavridis and Michalis Kefaloyannis, with Ekrem Lluka from Kosovo, owner of Mobikos, who had already

acquired the license for mobile operator in Kosovo, and who also had an agreement for mutual investing with Slovenian

Telekom. Considering the fact that they did not have a lot of time that day, because, they told me they had to go back to

Athens immediately, because the next day they were to travel to Budapest, to meet the management of Magyar Telekom. I

am talking about Nikos Stavridis and Mihail Kefaloyannis. They invited the advisor of Buckovski to be present as well.

RD: Was that Bekim Zemoski?

SB: Yes, who travelled from Skopje to Vienna and from Vienna to Budapest by a commercial flight. I called Ekrem Lluka

the next day, and I asked him for a meeting. Over the telephone, in short, I explained who the people were, who wanted to

meet him and who were interested in business cooperation with them. Ekrem Lluka immediately accepted to meet them,

because, at that time, there was chaos in Kosovo. They were still not constituted as a state, it was very difficult for the

Slovenian Telekom to establish themselves on the Kosovo market with Ekrem Lluka, and for these reasons, the accepted

to meet them immediately. I informed Michalis Kefaloyannis and Nikos Stavridis that Ekrem Lluka was prepared at any

time to meet them whenever they wanted in Kosovo or in Skopje, but that he preferred that we went to Kosovo, in order to

present everything that Mobikos Kosovo had worked on. Approximately two weeks after this conversation, the team

composed of these same persons, Nikos Stavridis, Michalis Kefaloyannis, and Iraklis Sifakakis, they arrived in Skopje,

and from here we went to Pec in Kosovo, where Ekrem Lluka lived and was located.

RD: So, what period are we talking about, would this be February or March?



SB: At the beginning of March, I cannot remember the date exactly; it was approximately two weeks after the meeting in

Skopje was held.

RD: So, approximately March, 2005?

SB: It was at the beginning of March 2005, as far as I remember it was still very cold at that time and there was still snow

on the mountain near Pec in Kosovo. During the general conversation that we had which lasted for over four hours, at

which took part Ekrem Lluka, in his home, and his general manager whose name I cannot remember, he was the general

manager of Mobikos Kosovo, who also served as interpreter of Ekrem Lluka. On the other part, I was present, Nikos

Stavridis, Michalis Kefaloyannis, and Iraklis Sifakakis. There it was proposed for him the financial and technical and

technological support in order for him to be able to put into operation Mobikos Kosovo, using the logistics of the

Macedonian Mobimak, to develop something they called Mobile Virtual Operator (MVO). I did not understand how this

formula functions, but it seemed normal as Kosovo at that time was not established as a state, it was still a part of the

Former Social Republic of Yugoslavia, or Serbia. There was no independence in communication as well, and it was not

unusual to propose such option as this. He was happy to accept the proposal..

RD: Was this Mr. Ekrem Lluka?

SB: Yes, Ekrem Lluka was happy, they presented themselves as the representatives of Deutsche Telekom, not just

Makedonski Telekom, and that they were mandated by Elek Straub to discuss on this meeting..

RD: Are you talking about Kefaloyannis now?

SB: Yes, Kefaloyannis, it was Kefaloyannis who held the meetings with Elek Straub. Ekrem Lluka was so happy, that he

took out the original license, which has a unique happy, and without signing anything, he handed it over to Kefaloyannis,

to serve them on forming the new joint company. It never happened eventually, it was more than a year later that I

realized that it was just a simple fraud because, as it is evident from the Letter of Intention from August, there was

chronology and dynamics of activities, which was not held to by the Greek representatives Michalis Kefaloyannis and

Nikos Stavridis, and Ekrem Lluka, because I was the one who took them there to him, he started calling me every day

asking why there was no proposal. It was for these reasons that I told them that, when Kontominas comes to Skopje to

sign the Protocol in May 2005, for them to plan time to meet Ekrem Lluka, to explain to him what was going on. It

happened on 27th May, 2005, when the Protocol was signed, immediately after the meeting in the Government of



Macedonia, where there were present Dimitris Kontominas, Michalis Kefaloyannis, and Iraklis Fidetzis. After signing the

Protocol and the small celebration in the premises of the Government, the entire team came to the Hotel Holiday Inn, in

the meeting room, where I and Ekrem Lluka were waiting for them to start with the negotiations with Ekrem Lluka. Then,

Kontominas started explaining to Ekrem Lluka why there was postponing in the development of the events regarding

Mobikos, they were trying to explain to Ekrem Lluka that it was a very big deal, bargain, that it required his patience, that

they would sing the Letter of Intention with him, and he literally drew on a piece of paper that a piece of that pie would

belong to Ekrem Lluka.

RD: Who did this?

SB: Dimitris Kontominas, he was present and he was leading the conversation. Ekrem Lluka left the meeting happy,

however, later it turned out that nothing of what was said happened. In order not to pressure them, they scheduled a

meeting with him in New York.

RD: Who scheduled the meeting?

SB: Nikos Stavridis and Mihail Kefaloyannis. That allegedly, the headquarters, the main location of this business activity

was in New York, and that allegedly the final decision was to be reached in NY.

However, Ekrem Lluka’s 1—year visa had already expired, which he had previously acquired through a normal

procedure, Nikos Stavridis made interventions in the American Embassy in Skopje, through the Head of Consular Issues,

he was some Albanian whose name I do not remember, to refuse the visa application, in order for Michalis Kefaloyannis

and Nikos Stavridis to have an excuse towards Ekrem Lluka why the meeting was postponed, because Ekrem Lluka had

visa issues. In essence they never had the intention to meet him. When later I asked Stavridis Why they acted in such

unfair manner towards Ekrem Lluka, and why you put me in such uncomfortable position, when I cannot explain the

situation to Ekrem Lluka, both Nikos Stavridis and Michalis Kefaloyannis, said ‘Slobodan, please do not be upset, such

activities are normal in the business. All we required was his license, fictively for Elek Straub to be able to show big

business plan, and to acquire the decisions for realization of all other topics, and they had no intention of spreading

activities in Kosovo, and that it was all part of a game. I called Ekrem Lluka and told him not to hope for anything that

there had been certain problems with Stavridis and Kefaloyannis, and that they were not in position to accomplish what

they had promised him. This is how the whole fraud with the Protocol of Cooperation, the first item of which is the



spreading of business in Kosovo, started to come to light. There were no real obstacles for spreading the business in

Kosovo, if they really had any intention. With the Memorandum, when I say ‘Memorandum’ I refer to the working

version of the protocol of cooperation, in March, it was decided regarding the money, by the end of March it had been

decided who was to get and what amount by performing the activities, from realization of activities conditionally listed in

the Protocol of Cooperation.

RD: I’m going to hand you a document that has been marked as exhibit 230, this is a two page document, it says on the

first page ‘Protocol of Cooperation’ and the second page has signature line for Vlado Buckovski and somebody else, the

name is not readable, it is unsigned, and it has a date ‘May 2005’, can you look at it and tell me if you’ve seen it before?

SB: This Protocol previously was called Memorandum, this is the first version because the counselors of Buckovski,

commissioned for this area of cooperation in the Government, Jovan Pejkovski, Ljupco Farmakovski, and there was one

more whose name I cannot remember, he was a professor, they advised him that the Memorandum would not incur legal

validity, and that the body of text in the Memorandum should be in the form of Protocol of Cooperation. Everyone

accepted it, and it made no difference for them whether the document was called memorandum or Protocol of Cooperation

as long as it was signed by all authorities.

RD: Exhibit 230, have you seen it before?

SB: Yes, I have seen it, just like I have seen the working text of the Non-paper, the Memorandum, the Letter of Intention

and the Letter of Buckovski addressed to Elek Straub regarding the sale of the shares and the rebranding.

RD: Did you give that document to Biljana Panova?

SB: Yes, this is a copy, I gave this to Biljana Panova.

RD: And where did you get that document?

SB: For the Memorandum and the Protocol, by order of Kontominas, I was given these documents for revision in all

phases, including this version signed officially on the 27th may. As the negotiations went on, the body of text was

adjusted.

RD: Exhibit 230, is that a draft version of the Protocol of Cooperation?

SB: That’s right, the working version later officialized on 27th May, with notice that previously the Protocol was called

memorandum. It was proposed by the Greeks, they brought the documents, and they prepared and brought them as final.



RD: Did you receive exhibit 230 from Kefaloyannis or any of the Greeks.

SB: Yes, from Kefaloyannis.

RD: And did you keep it in your files?

SB: I kept various versions, copies, originals of these documents for a very long time.

RD: Since 2005?

SB: I kept them until 2008 when I handed over the documents to the Prime Minister Gruevski. There were a lot of copies

of these documents, in various phases of the negotiations.

RD: But this document, exhibit 230, which you gave to Ms. Panova this week, have you had it in your files since 2005?

SB: Yes, that is correct.

RD: OK, I am going to hand you a document that has been marked ad exhibit 231, one page document that says Non-

Paper at the top, at the bottom are signature lines for Vlado Buckovski and Elek Straub, it is unsigned, with date of May,

2005. Have you seen this document before?

SB: The Non-Paper, was the hidden picture of the Protocol. It regulated the distribution of money to all the shareholders

in this transaction. Otherwise, it contained the obligations of Kontominas and Deutsche Telekom towards the Prime

Minister Vlado Buckovski, and the Albanians, or the representatives in the Government Musa Xhaferi, Ali Ahmeti, and

Abdilhalim Kasami.

RD: Everything that was orally discussed in the meetings between them, before signing the Protocol in May, it was

decided in this manner. Since there was bargaining between us and the Albanians. Who was to give how much money,

who was to get how much money, and Kontominas had the obligation to provide all these money in cash, since all actors

asked to be paid for their activities in cash. It was the practice of Kontominas, he has signed a lot of Non-papers like this,

and it is for unofficial personal use, between the subjects he made agreement with. For example, even though this

document lists the name of Elek Straub, this document was signed in two copies by Dimitris Kontominas and Vlado

Buckovski, and everyone gets to keep one copy of the document for themselves. This same non-paper was signed by

Dimitris Kontominas and Elek Straub, in order to serve them as proof of what they had agreed between themselves.

RD: you said the Non-paper was signed by Kontominas and Straub, did you mean Kontominas and Buckovski?



SB: There are two copies of this document with the same text, the same is also signed by Kontominas and Elek Straub.

Since the whole thing has three parties, the key players were Elek Straub, Kontominas and Vlad Buckovski. The

Albanians simply sought money and they had no real authority in these issues, because the Minister of Transport and

Communications Xhemail Mehazi, who I think was also present at the meetings in Vienna and Budapest, in 2005 he lost

the authority in this area of operating, because at that time the Agency for Telecommunications was established as an

independent regulatory body, which previously was only a division in the Ministry of Transport and Communications. In

that way the representatives of the Albanian party had no practical assignment to do any activity apart from not to prevent

this agreement, and in the end to take the money as reward.

RD: Let me ask you about this document, exhibit 231, where you got it.

SB: This document, even though I’ve seen it in working version, one original version was given to me by Bekim Zemoski.

RD: Was that a signed version?

SB: Signed version between Buckovski and Kontominas. Why? Because Buckovski was scared to keep all these things in

his safe, and he asked him to dislocate these documents in Germany…

RD: Who asked whom?

SB: Buckovski asked Bekim Zemoski, the man who took the money for Buckovski, to dislocate the original counter

copies in Germany, and to keep all these documents in a safe, because Buckovski was not sure and he was scared to keep

these documents in his treasury because he was scared that they might be lost, or someone may take them. Because Bekim

was scared to travel with such documents, he presented me with this Non-Paper and the Protocol, and later with the Letter

that Buckovski addressed to Elek Straub regarding the sale of the shares on the stock exchange market and the rebranding

of Mobimak.

RD: So, the signed version of the Non-Paper, exhibit 231, did Bekim give you a signed version of that document?

SB: He gave me original version of it,

RD: Was it signed?

SB: Signed by Buckovski and Kontominas, and the other version between Kontominas and Elek Straub, I haven’t seen it

personally, but I know that it was signed with the same text. Through the three representatives who we contacted with at

that time, Stavridis, Kefaloyannis and Sifakakis, that it was a usual practice of Kontominas, in order to keep the Prime



Minister under Control, in case the Prime Minister would breach the agreement, it was meant for blackmail. In case he

started to breach what they had agreed, he would have something to blackmail the Prime Minister with.

RD: So, in case Buckovski breached the agreement, Kontominas would have something to blackmail him with?

SB: Yes, absolutely, that was a regular practice of Kontominas, also in Romania, Bulgaria and Montenegro, however his

practice was to keep only one copy of it, because it has only personal function, for blackmailing prime ministers.

RD: When you got the signed version from Bekim Zemoski, what did you do with it?

SB: Bekim was scared to travel with such documents, and he left this copy with me to keep it, he asked me what to do

with it, I advised him not to travel with such documents, because in the event such document was found with him it would

be very dangerous. I advised him to make a copy of it and leave the original here. He had a lot of offices in Skopje which

he used where he may have made any copies of it, or scanned it, …

RD: Bekim you mean?

SB: Bekim Zemoski often went to the representative office of KfV German bank, which is in the vicinity where I live, and

here is also the representative office of Konrad Adenauer located, and a lot of services were performed through those

offices.

RD: What did you do with the signed document?

SB: I put it in a folder with the remaining document, and I put it in a safe in my house.

RD: Did you also have this unsigned version of the Non-Paper, exhibit 231?

SB: This is the last non signed version.

RD: Where did you get it?

SB: From the Greeks, from Kefaloyannis, that this is what they had agreed, and that they were starting with the

realization. Later, this was the condition, prerequisite for signing of the Protocol.

RD: First, I would like to talk about the actual documents for a moment. So, this on, without signatures, did you get it in

2005?

SB: In 2005, I had the previous version as well, which was adjusted into final version, and this is the final version of the

Non-Paper, when everything was agreed between the shareholders in the transaction.

RD: Ok, and you got it in 2005?



SB: Yes, in 2005, before signing of the Protocol.

RD: And did you get it from Kefaloyannis?

SB: From Michalis Kefaloyannis, because, even though Nikos Stavridis was the first director, evidently he was more

experienced in such matters, he only made oral contacts, and the entire documentation communication with the

Hungarians and the Germans was performed by Michalis Kefaloyannis.

RD: Ok, so when you received the unsigned Non-Paper in 2005, did you keep it up until the present?

SB: I kept both the previous and the final version, and the signed version, and the remaining supporting documents, the

Memorandum, the Protocol, in a folder in my safe in my house. No one had access to it apart from me, not even someone

from my immediate family, because my apartment is secured strong safety precauson measures. I kept these documents

until the autumn in 2008.

RD: And what happened in 2008?

SB: In 2008, the media in Macedonia was already publishing about the ongoing investigation. The representatives of

White Case along with our authorities,

RD: White and Case do you mean?

SB: The American company. The media was publishing about this great crime in Makedonski Telekom, certain

representatives from the Ministry of Interior, who were included in the verification, in the investigation, they contacted

me as their former boss. They told me that there were certain telephone calls where they recognized my voice. I told them

that it was correct, and when they would finish with the entire proceeding, they can call me any time, and that I would

assist in any way I can. Nobody pressured me in the sense that I had to do it, but I was asked if I could, to assist. Knowing

the extent to which the MoI is criminalized, because the cousin of the Prime Minister Gruevski was the Head of the

Security Administration, I did not trust him at all, knowing that he was drug trafficking basically his entire life. Because at

the time when I was in charge, he had been taken in for detention on several occasions. For these reasons, when such

requests for assistance were becoming more frequent, in a conversation with the former Minister of Interior Pavle

Trajanov, now a Member of Parliament, and coalition partner of Gruevski, I asked him to hand over to Gruevski the entire

folder that I had, and that it would help them in conducting the investigation.



RD: So, let me pause there, did you offer to turn over the documents to Gruevski or did somebody ask you to give the

documents?

SB: I volunteered to give the documents, I was not pressured into it, even though there were previous contacts in which I

was told that it would be a good thing for me to assist them. Being scared for any consequences for me personally, I

figured that it would be best for me to hand over these documents personally to the Prime Minister..

RD: What consequences were you scared of?

SB: Because the MoI was already professionalized, and I believed that none of them would keep the secret, and that there

may be any possible consequences to my life, especially in regards with the Albanians. When Pavle and I discussed it, I

told him that precautionary measures should be taken, in regards with who would have contact with these documents, and

I proposed that it would be best when he would hand over these documents to the Prime Minister Gruevski, these

documents to be presented to the Public Prosecutor as well, the Investigative judge who conducted the investigation, to

compose minutes that such documents were presented to them, to make copies as separate writs in the proceeding, and to

have the original given back to me. And that in future, should there be any need, I am prepared to discuss only with the

Prime Minister only if he needs additional clarification regarding these documents. When Pavle Trajanov gave the

documents to the Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, the Prime Minister promised that the entire proceeding would see the

end, that it would be finished, but it never happened. On the contrary, shortly after, through an intermediary employee of

Kontominas, Emanuel Malelis a.k.a. Manoli, I am not sure I am guessing he had been previously informed that they had

the original copy, a meeting was organized between the meeting between the cousin of the Prime Minister, Sasho

Mijalkov, Head of the Administration for Security and Counter-intelligence, Emanuel Malelis and Dimitris Kontominas,

in the hotel Kempinski in Thessaloniki. It was the first meeting of Kontominas with Sasho Mijalkov. From this meeting,

the following was established. That our government representatives would stop the criminal investigation against the

directors of the Makedonski Telekom, especially against Dimitris Sigalos and Atila Szendrei, Dimitris Sigalos was the

Director of Netphone,…

RD: I think you said the executives of MakTel, did you mean to stop the investigation against the executives of

Cosmoline, or MakTel?



SB: When Kontominas discussed with Sasho Mijalkov to stop the investigation procedure and withdrawal of the

international warrants established through the Interpol, he discussed about everybody, not just his representatives because

he was concerned with everybody. But especially he requested, the withdrawal of the international warrant against

Michalis Kefaloyannis, because, he was psychologically very weak, he cried all the time, he was scared, and threatened

Kontominas, that if he didn’t help him immediately, that he would volunteer to witness.

RD: Who told you all these things? How did you know all these things?

SB: Both Kontominas and Kefaloyannis, because, later on several occasions I met both Kontominas and Kefaloyannis,

both in Athens and in Thessaloniki.

RD: And this is in 2008, right?

SB: In 2008. Immediately after this meeting in Kempinski, because Mijalkov requested to be given 2 million Euros fir

withdrawing the warrants, and 500 000 Euros for the law office Cukic and Markov, for legal services, Kontominas at first

did not believe that he had such powers. He presented himself, ‘I am even greater than the Prime Minister, I made him

Prime Minister, there’s no need for you to discuss with them, everything you know you can discuss with me’. Because

Kontominas noticed that he was a drug addict, he is addicted to cocaine, he was scared and he called me to tell me of the

proposal of Mijalkov, in that sense that whether he could really trust this young man. I told him it was true, that the Prime

Minister can do nothing without him, and that if he had any intention to discuss with them, that he was at the right

address. Then he told me that the money he requested was not a problem, as much as it was a problem whether they would

really withdraw the international warrants, and stop the investigation. For this purpose, they proposed to him additional

business plans in Macedonia, I am guessing you remember the sale and purchase of the buildings of the Makedonski

Telekom, where three buildings were given for one building still in construction at the square of the city, and plus

Makedonski Telekom to pay additional 16.5 million Euros, which is non sense. But it was done any way. They made a lot

of common companies with Kontominas, in the area of real estate, in the heating system, in the business with

telecommunications, and the cooperation that Kontominas had with Buckovski was now continued with the current Prime

Minister Gruevski and his cousin..

RD: Can I bring you back in time a little bit? So, you said in 2008, you gave the signed version of the Non-Paper to the

Prime Minister of Macedonia, is that right?



SB: I gave it to Pavle Trajanov, for him to hand it over to the Prime Minister.

RD: Are you aware of any connection between giving the signed Non-Paper to Mr. Trajanov and the charges against Mr.

Kefaloyannis, are those two things related?

SB: Absolutely, all charges came from these activities. I trusted these documents to Pavle Trajanov because I trust him,

because he spent his entire life in the Ministry of Interior, he is a legal expert by profession he was Vice Secretary for

State Security, and Minister of Interior as well, and he is very credible person professionally, and knows how to handle

confidential documents. He also pointed out to Gruevski how to keep these documents. This was the reason why these

documents were given through Pavle Trajanov.

RD: Now in 2008, there was an article in the newspaper "Vecer", that reproduced a copy of the Non-Paper, I am handing

you a copy of the document that has been marked exhibit 91, which is a three-page document, it is a copy of an article in

Vecer, with a date June 20, 2008. Have you seen that before?

SB: Not immediately, when it was published, but later one journalist told me that it was published in the Vecer, and I read

the text of the article. It is a matter of the same documents we are now discussing…

RD: Is the copy of the Non-Paper of Exhibit 91, is that the same Non-Paper as in Exhibit 231?

SB: It is identical with this one.

RD: Did you provide the Non-Paper to Vecer?

SB: No, I have never had any contacts with journalists.

RD: Did the article in Vecer come out before or after you gave the signed Non-Paper to Trajanov?

SB: I cannot remember the dates exactly, but I think that it was published before I gave the documents to Pavle Trajanov,

because, Vecer was a medium of the Government, and literally all info coming from the Government the Vecer found out

first. Probably it had been provided by the team working on these documents, because, as I said several unsigned copies of

this were circulating. This is a third final version that was signed. My guess is in the case they has, they had a lot of

documents, and I think that the only possibility for Vecer to get such document was for it to be provided by somebody

from the team that was working on these documents.

RD: In the Government?



SB: From the team in the Government that was working on this case. Even today the Editor of this newspaper is the first

to publish all confidential information from the Government, even information that is not supposed to be published. He is

a man of trust.

RD: It is now 12:20 and we’ve been going for almost two hours, I wonder if we might take a short break, if you could use

a break? So, we’ll take a break now, we go off the record at 12:20.

Part Two

Off the Record

….

(Colloquial conversation)

Off the Record

RD: also I wanted to ask you about some more of these documents. So where it says “Party A”, so that A correspond to

this ‘A”?

SB: Yes, to the Prime Minister.

RD: Ok, and “Party B”, is that also referring to that B?

SB: Yes.

RD: And were these written together to refer in that way?

SB: There was parallel work on both of these documents. They were conditioned one with the other.



RD: So then, all the payments were done by June 2006. And, this one also on 30th June, 2006. There was an election on

July 5th, 2006.

SB: Yes, the election was in July.

RD: Was that the reason why they picked June 30th as the last date?

SB: To avoid any matching and connection with the elections. Even though there was no real obstacle for it at that time, if

we are talking about the black money. If we are talking of the sale of the shares, they were literally sold at the last minute

before starting the elections, because at that time there was a valid Law on anticorruption, according to which at a time of

election it was forbidden to make sale of assets, shares, of right to property during election period. That is why these dates

were in such manner coordinated. Notice was taken care of the Law on anticorruption.

RD: Ok, so what about the black money payments, why would they pick June 30th, was that related to the election?

SB: The last payment was connected to the election; the previous payments were not connected to the election. The first

two installments were carried out without any obstacles.

RD: I just want to know what the connection is between the last payment, why did it have to happen before the elections.

SB: Because Buckovski in a way was convinced that he would lose the election, which is what he told me as well because

there was a conflict in the governing party, and at that time, the President of the State was the former president of the

party Branko Crvenkovski, who apparently had info of these business and he pressured Buckovski to give part of the

money to the party. Buckovski did not want to do so, and there was a conflict in the governing party.

RD: Who told you this?

SB: From several sources, and from Buckovski himself. The conflict was going on publicly as well, in sense of statements

of the President whereby he attacked the policies of the Government, which was very unusual because they originated

from the same political party. And there were a lot of indications that pointed to the fact that Buckovski might lose. And



that is why he was in a hurry to finish everything until June 30th, because it was not certain what would happen after the

elections, or otherwise he was more certain that he would lose the post.

RD: Was it Buckovski who wanted to make sure that the black money is paid before the election?

SB: Yes. He was the most aggressive of them all, even more than the Albanians.

RD: Before we get on, these payments are for 7.5 million Euros?

SB: Yes.

RD: I have seen other documents at MakTel or at Magyar Telekom, where Magyar Telekom had to pay Kontominas or

Kefaloyannis 10 million Euros on these same dates. Do you know whether Kontominas was taking a cut of that?

SB: I do not know, I haven’t seen these documents but from Kontominas I know that the request for payment of 12

million Euros for this matter was not in the make that payment, that he could only pay 10 million Euros. And that is why

he sought understanding from Buckovski and the Albanians, that he could not pay 12 million that he could only pay 10

million, and not be pressured to make that payment, that was the amount he could withdraw in cash.

RD: I was thinking about just this first paragraph, and I have seen an email from Balogh to Straub, and Balogh says ‘we

have to pay 10 million Euros, on these same dates, when the Protocol is signed, in December 2005, and June 2006. What I

am wondering is why one document says 10 million, and this one here says 7.5 million. And I am wondering maybe

Kontominas took 2.5 million?

SB: I think so too.

RD: Do you have any knowledge of that?

SB: Not directly, apart from what he said ‘I cannot provide more than 10 million Euros’ and later he complained about

Stavridis and Fidetzis, that allegedly both stole some money from Kontominas in these operations. Later they parted ways,

Stavridis and …. It was money issue as well.



RD: Let me make sure I understand that. Did Kontominas say that he was concerned that Kefaloyannis and Stavridis took

money from him?

SB: Stavridis and Fidetzis, because Fidetzis was his financial advisor, and Stavridis was the main player in all these

communications, in spite the fact that it was Kefaloyannis who prepared all documents. And when I asked him why they

were no longer present in the company, he said that they stole a lot of money from him.

RD: Did he say whether or not he thought it was MakTel money?

SB: The conversation was referring only to this. But he did not specify whether it was this issue or whether there was any

other money involved, apart from the fact that they stole a lot of money from him, which is why he was forced to remove

them from the company. And allegedly they fled. And ever since, they are not in good relations. (Colloquial conversation)

Back on record

RD: We are back on the record now at 12:58. First, I would like to ask you some more questions about exhibit 230 and

231, this is the Non-Paper and the Protocol of Cooperation. If you look at the Non-Paper, exhibit 231, on the signature

line it refers to ‘Party A’ and “Party B’, and then if you look at the Protocol of cooperation, exhibit 230, the first two

paragraphs are labeled ‘A’ and ‘B’. Do you see that? And does the ‘Party A’ in the Non-Paper refer to paragraph A in the

Protocol of Cooperation?

SB: Yes, it refers to the Prime Minister of the Government.

RD: And does the ‘Party B’ in the Non-Paper refer to paragraph B in the Protocol of Cooperation, exhibit 230?

SB: Yes, it refers to Matav Magyar Telekom, but it covers also the people of Kontominas.

RD: So, looking at the Non-Paper, exhibit 231, in the first paragraph, in the first sentence, it talks about the obligations

from the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the Protocol, does that sentence refer to the paragraphs labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4 in

exhibit 230?



SB: Yes. As it is written down, the obligations they need to fulfill.

RD: Ok, in the first paragraph of exhibit 231, the Non-Paper, it says that ‘the Party B will pay 7.5 million Euros, of which

2.5 million to the representative of the Party A, and 5 million Euros to the ‘friends from Tetovo (A.A. and M.G.)’, do you

see that?

SB: Yes.

RD: Do you know who A.A. refers to?

SB: Ali Ahmeti.

RD: Do you know who M.G. refers to?

SB: Musa Xhaferi.

RD: and the payment of 7.5. million Euros, do you understand that to be bribe payment?

SB: Absolutely.

RD: And then, that paragraph continues ‘the dynamics of the payment will be as previously agreed, 2.5 million Euros on

the day of signing of the Protocol’, do you see that?

SB: Yes, I do.

RD: And does the Protocol refer to the Protocol of Cooperation, exhibit 230?

SB: Yes, it does.

RD: And then it says ‘2.5 million Euros until 30th December, 2005 and 2.5 million Euros in June 2006’.

SB: That is correct. Let me just clarify why these dates were set as such. These documents are conditioned one with the

other. In order for the signing of the Protocol of Cooperation to happen, the first installment had to be paid, that was

agreed. The second installment, it is again connected with the obligations from the Protocol of cooperation, and they refer



to payment of dividend for 2004, in the amount of 95 million Euros as far as I remember; the Government to withdraw

lawsuit against Telekom for failing to pay compensation for frequency fees, and that is why this date was chosen, in order

to have everything finished by the end of the year, and for the second installment to be paid in the amount of 2.5 million

Euros. The last installment, dated in the first paragraph in June 2006, but it is actually June 30th 2006, because shortly

after that the parliamentary elections were coming up, and Buckovski and the rest could only give warranty for the period

during which they held position. And they were insisting to finish everything until they held office, to get the money. That

is why the following obligations are connected with the last date, 30th June, 2006, and they arise from the estimate that

everything that could be done until before the elections is certain to happen, and after the elections, no one could give the

warranty what will happen. That is why the last date is set as June 30th.

RD: Do you know the date of the elections in 2006?

SB: It was in July, the end, but I cannot remember, the second week of July, we can check. I’m talking about the first

round of voting.

RD: If I suggest to you that the election was on July 5th, 2006, would that sound about right?

SB: Maybe, I cannot remember exactly.

RD: Ok. The payments in the first paragraph of the Non-Paper, do you know whether these payments were made?

SB: For the first two installments, I can confirm it with certainty, from May and December 2005, as I already described, it

was carried out through Bekim Zemoski and the teams in the logistics. I do not know what happened in June, I do not

know the details.

RD: Ok, let’s talk about this one piece at the time. I think you have not said anything on the record about the payments.

For the first two payments, in May 2005 and December 2005, how do you know what happened?

SB: Because I was familiar with all activities going on, the day they arrived in Skopje for signing of the Protocol….

RD: Who’s ‘they’?



SB: Kontominas, Stavridis, Kefaloyannis, Sifakakis. Then, Sifakakis informed me, because he was responsible for the

security of the companies of Kontominas, and for the personal security of Kontominas himself, that he was present in

person at the handing over of the money in Athens to Bekim Zemoski, that people from the company followed him to the

border, …

RD: Let me back you up a little bit, start from the beginning, where did the money come from who paid the money?

SB: the money was paid personally by Dimitris Kontominas, in his villa, located near the new airport in Athens. This is

where the money which came to Skopje was raised from.

RD: Walk me through the flow of money, where did it start, and where did it end?

SB: The cash as agreed, was taken from the home, or from the villa of Dimitris Kontominas. The person responsible for

treasury in his home, it was a lady, I do not remember the name, and the Director for personal security Iraklis Sifakakis,

who was with him all the time, he was literally sleeping in the villa together with Kontominas, and Iraklis Fidetzis, he was

responsible for finances, who prepared all documents for financial transactions were the people present on the two

meetings when money was paid for Macedonia. Once they counted the money, the team from the security of Kontominas

together with Bekim Zemoski, with their own vehicles would continue to the border crossing ‘Bogorodica’ on the border

with Macedonia. Once they would cross the Greek border, in the free zone between the two border crossings, there they

would meet the team of Buckovski, the bodyguard, the driver, and with escort, without being controlled, they would cross

the Macedonian border.

RD: How did they avoid control at the border?

SB: The vehicles that they used were government vehicles, and they could be recognized at the border crossing from the

car plates.

RD: Were they using Macedonian government vehicles?

SB: Yes.



RD: And what sort of passport did Bekim Zemoski have?

SB: In the first phase, Buckovski issued him an official passport, and later diplomatic passport. Initially, there was

problem for issuing diplomatic passport because he was not employed in the government. He was later employed by

means of agreement on deed as advisor of the Prime Minister. But most importantly, at the border crossing they would

announce their arrival, that they were meeting someone very important for the Prime Minister and that no one was

allowed to witness it. And of course the officers were obedient, and they saw with their own eyes the vehicles of the

government. It is a usual practice, no one makes control. Persons who possess diplomatic passport and plus they are

persons close to the Prime Minister, no one ever controlled them.

RD: And how do you know this?

SB: I know it from Iraklis Sifakakis, who accompanied them in the first transaction all the way to the border, and from

Bekim Zemoski himself, when he arrived he called me late in the evening to meet me and to tell me that everything had

been completed as it should. And he described how the whole procedure went on. The most important thing of all was that

the entire operation finished without problems.

RD: And what happened after they left the border?

SB: Once they left the border, they went straight to the government premises, to the cabinet of the Prime Minister. There

is garage underneath the building, they would park the park in the garage, the driver and the bodyguard went straight up to

the Prime Minister, and Bekim Zemoski would take the official entrance to avoid all of them being seen together. Once

the part for Buckovski would be paid, the remaining part for Tetovo, the same team would continue to Tetovo.

RD: So the team at this point was Bekim Zemoski, and who were the other two?

SB: Bekim Zemoski, the personal bodyguard of Buckovski, I cannot remember the name, and the official driver of

Buckovski.

RD: The bodyguard was whose bodyguard?



SB: It was the body guard of the Prime Minister, Toni, the surname I cannot remember. But we can check.

RD: You said after a portion was delivered to Buckovski the Prime Minister, what happened to the reminder of the

payment?

SB: The remainder of the money intended for Tetovo, the same team, would continue and travel to Tetovo. Straight to the

house of Kasami. Because this house was some sort of secret headquarters where they would all meet, Kasami, Ahmeti

and Xhaferi, they did not go to the party because there were a lot of people there on daily basis. To avoid being seen there,

the money was handed over in the house of Kasami.

RD: I don’t know if we’ve covered this before, but who exactly was Kasami?

SB: Abdilhalim Kasami, originates from Turkey, he is not Albanian, he is a descendent of an old, famous (* with heritage

– note of the interpreter) Turkish family, however just like many Turkish people in Macedonia, for the Islamic religion, in

the western region of Macedonia, they declare themselves as Albanians. It is a usual practice, especially in the last

decades. Kasami, Xhaferi and Ahmeti have known each other since 1981. At that time there was a lot of disturbance, riots

in the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, demonstrations of Albanians in Kosovo, especially radical were the

student demonstrations in Pristina, in the mine Trepca, it was a massive movement of Albanians at that time, and it was

normal that the services at that time would undertake some radical activities in order to make these movements die down.

At that time Ali Ahmeti was in first year of studies, he was a freshman, and was brought un for detention in Macedonia

where he was tried in misdemeanor proceeding for participating in enemy demonstrations. He got a misdemeanor

sentence of 60-day detention. As at that time detention was not obligatory, when he was released from the police station,

he fled for Switzerland. There he met the rest, where Kasami would go very often to visit his relatives and friends even

though he lived and worked in Denmark, as one of the leaders in the freedom movement in Kosovo, he accepts Ali

Ahmeti in the organization and starts to give Ali Ahmeti some assignments, money as well, employment for means of

existence; he also got a job for Musa Xhaferi in Belgium. He was some sort of a father figure to them. That is how they

called him, ‘adzo’, it means an older uncle, but symbolically it means ‘father’. They respected him a lot. This is where

their connection originates, between Kasami, Ahmeti and Xhaferi. When the war conflict started in Macedonia in March



2001, at the proposal of Kasami, for the leader of the freedom fighting army of the Albanians in Macedonia was chosen

Ali Ahmeti. And he led the war movement on the Albanian party. However, with the intermediation of the international

organization and the NATO, the war was stopped and in August happened the signing of the Framework Agreement,

when the militant freedom-fighting army was registered as political party in Macedonia. At that time Kasami came back

to Tetovo from Denmark, to help them in organizing the political party and in preparing for the upcoming elections in the

next 2002, when they got the majority of votes of the Albanians and won the elections. In a way, he was the initiator of

the movement in the political party..

RD: Is this Kasami?

SB: Yes, I am talking about him all the time. And this is why his house was some sort of spiritual headquarter of the party.

He invested a lot in technical and physical security of the building, there were cameras all over, there was no possibility

for someone to get near the building in the range of 70-80 meters and not to get noticed by the cameras… there was strong

physical security as well.

RD: Are these things you saw yourself?

SB: Yes, because I have been to his house both before the assassination, and because I knew how it was, I asked him to

turn off the cameras, at the time when I would arrive. I explained that it was bad for them to be seen and to have evidence

that they have contacts with me, because I was head of the secret service. On the other hand, it was very strange when the

assassination happened, it was really strange, after having so much security, for the cameras to be turned off before that,

for all the video recordings to disappear from the house, all CDs, everything… and for someone to get in his garage and

shoot him in his car so easily. It all pointed out to the fact that it was all organized from the inside. Otherwise it is

impossible for someone to get in, who does not belong to the inner circles.

RD: When you talk about the assassination, who are you talking about, who was attacked?

SB: Abdilhalim Kasami was under attack, after misunderstanding over the money. It was uncertain whether he would

survive at all. However he did survive and when he got better, he sent his nephew, current ambassador of Macedonia in



Denmark, to come to my house, to ask me to go for a meeting because he could not travel. Most importantly, he wanted to

ask me to provide information if I had any of who shot him. He claimed that the executors were from Kosovo, and he

counted on me knowing Hashin Taci the Prime Minister of Kosovo, former leader of UCK, freedom fighting army of

Kosovo, and that if I asked that they might provide information about the assassinators. In any case he was convinced that

the order for assassination was originally from Musa Xhaferi, that he was the organizer and the person who ordered it. He

was personally convinced.

RD: Who was convinced of this?

SB: Kasami was convinced that his friend and colleague from the party Musa Xhaferi was the person who gave the order

for the assassination, and the executors were from Kosovo.

RD: Let me just get few facts down, when was Kasami shot?

SB: I cannot remember the exact date.

RD: In 2006?

SB: Yes, but I cannot tell for certain, I can check and give you additional information. It was somewhere near the date of

the last payment, when there was all this tension between the shareholders in the transaction. It was announced publicly,

we can check.

RD: If I suggest to you that newspaper coverage says that the shooting was on June 27th 2006 would that seem right to

you?

SB: Maybe, I cannot remember, it is likely, it corresponded the dynamics of payment it was summer, it was very hot, I

was out with a friend for a drink, Stavridis called me and said ‘Slobodan do you know that Kasami has been shot?’ I told

him I had no idea, that I was out. Then I called his wife who was visiting to ask, and she said yes, it is correct.

RD: Kasami’s wife?



SB: Yes. And that is what I remember. When I checked at what time the shooting happened, I established that Stavridis

called me 15 minutes after the assassination. And later when I asked him ‘how come you found out so quickly of the

shooting, of the assassination of Kasami, when you were in Athens, and I am in Skopje and I don’t know’, he said he had

confidential information from the Albanians. I was very surprised when he called me 15 minutes after the assassination

when not even the police knew what and how it happened. Maybe Kasami was right that they ordered the assassination. It

was never cleared out.

RD: Let’s get back to the timeline, we talked about the first two payments in May and December 2005. And you described

how the payments were delivered to Buckovski and to Tetovo. Were there any documents recording how much money

was paid?

SB: The procedure, even though I was not present during the payment was carried out in the manner already e explained

plus, once the money was taken from Athens, on a simple piece of paper Kontominas would only write the date, the hour

and the amount of money they handed over, and they would give it to Bekim Zemoski, that once he went to Buckovski,

Buckovski would write the date and hour, nothing more; and again, the recipient in Tetovo to sign in the same way and

that paper was to be taken back to Kontominas. It was a confirmation that their team had completed the assignment,

without any problems from the regular procedure.

RD: And did you see any of these papers?

SB: I was not personally present to see the documents, but Iraklis Sifakakis, who was regularly present at those meetings

and Bekim Zemoski himself, they told me that nothing happened in particular, that they only signed a plain piece of paper

and they returned it back to Kontominas. The essence of it was to avoid somebody from the team to steal any money, and

to confirm the date and hour of handing over. It was informal and they were required to telephone him, now we are in

base one, it is received, the money is received…’ and that was it.

RD: And this was described to you by Bekim Zemoski?



SB: Both Bekim Zemoski and Iraklis Sifakakis who was personally present at the handing over of the money in both

cases.

RD: Now, you described the payments starting with cash in Athens. Do you have any information as to how the cash got

to Athens, where it came from before that?

SB: Kontominas had a lot of off-shore companies all over Europe, all over the world, it was a chain of off-shore

companies. For example, one would be in Luxembourg and it would establish another off-shore company in Cyprus, and

this one would appear in third location this in order to avoid tracking of the money. From these agreements, from

Netphone, which I think it was a matter of 4 – 4.6 million, by order of the National Bank, once the money would be paid

by Makedonski Telekom to Netphone, for bogus consulting services, then they would address the central – the national

bank for the bank to adopt a decision for transfer to Chaptex in Cyprus, and to transfer Macedonian Denar currency into

Euros or Dollars, depending on their wish. Because the governor of the central bank was in the circle of ‘friends’, it all

flew without any problems.

RD: Is the central bank in Macedonia?

SB: Yes, the central bank in the Republic of Macedonia. Every governor of ours was cooperating with the Government of

Macedonia.

RD: Once the money was in Cyprus then what happened to it?

SB: Once they would get to Cyprus, a team of Kontominas would go, since two persons from his family were most often

authorized to withdraw the money, it was never Kontominas in person. They were Dionisios Alexandros, and the other

Andreas Habiaris, both of them are his nephews from his brother.

RD: Kontominas’ nephews?

SB: Yes. They are sons of Kontominas’ brothers. They were authorized managers of most of the companies. And by

means of special authorization they would withdraw the money from Cyprus, the private jet of Kontominas would go to



Cyprus, they would be brought to the airport, the villa of Kontominas is near to the airport in Athens, and this is how

much I know of this operation.

RD: And how do you know this?

SB: This information I have from Iraklis Fidetzis and Iraklis Sifakakis, and in one occasion Dionision Alexandros told me

that he had no real role in the company Cosmoline, but he received salary from the company and all he did was go to

Cyprus to get the money, and that he did nothing else. I have no other details. I was neither authorized nor did I request to

know anything about it. This is everything from what I’ve heard in casual conversation. I said it is not easy, how will you

take on such difficult task, it is not easy to do it. For them it wasn’t really a problem.

RD: We talked about the two payments in May and December 2005. Tell me what happened in June 2006?

SB: In 2006 it was agreed for a block transaction to be carried out at the stock exchange market, whereby the Macedonian

Government would sell 9.99% of the shares. At the same time there was scheduled the rebranding of Mobimak into T-

Mobile Macedonia. And before that, Kontominas and Soros, who had 5% and 6% respectively in Stonebridge, that they

would make these shares available and give the shares to Magyar Telekom. In what manner the payment was made to

Kontominas I do not know, but I know that for the 5% he owned, somewhere outside of Macedonia he got 65 million

Euros.

RD: Who did?

SB: Kontominas got 65 million Euros. But I do not know where the operation was carried out, it did not happen in

Macedonia, since it is a matter of off-shore company. The legal transaction in Macedonia was transfer of 9.99% of the

shares of the Macedonian Government.

RD: The question I was asking was more about the payment in June 2006, about the Non-Paper.

SB: This was a short introduction to get to that point. Because it was the time before the elections, everyone was in a

hurry to finish everything, even at the time there was this event to celebrate the rebranding at the city square, and

Buckovski was the first and most eager about the rebranding. But I was totally excluded from this operation because all



the persons we mentioned so far, they built strong relations between themselves, I know that Vebi Velija was included in

the operation and the transfer, along with Bekim Zemoski, since Vebi Velija was one of the main financers of the political

party DUI and the Minister of Transport and Communications Xhemail Mehazi was his nephew, from the immediate

family. I don’t know any other reasons but he was very influential in DUI. I was almost completely excluded and the only

thing I know from Vebi Velija and Bekim Zemoski, that his obligation was also completed with success, in a lesser

amount than it was originally agreed. But since they organized a private jet from a cargo company in Thessaloniki, I do

not know where the money came from, how it was transferred. I have no details in this part, but I know for certain from

Kontominas that 10 million Euros were paid.

RD: Do you know who these 10 million was paid to?

SB: I am guessing to the same persons, but personally I have no knowledge, unlike for the first two transactions, when I

was familiar with the details.

RD: What did Kontominas tell you?

SB: That everything was completed successfully, that 2 million Euros were short from the treasury of Magyar Telekom,

which is why he requested the payment to be reduced to 10 million Euros. Other than this I have no knowledge of other

details and I didn’t want to get involved. The reason for this is, when Kefaloyannis told me that Buckovski forbid him to

inform me that allegedly it was dangerous for him to do so, I was very happy to hear that and I gave them my blessing to

continue with the entire proceeding and not to involve me, because it was not my business really. His only obligation was

to give me the documents to read them, Kefaloyannis told me that Buckovski had asked him not to give me the documents

in order not to conspire the situation and that he was uncomfortable that I had any knowledge of it. And this is how the

whole story was finished.

RD: So, you said there was a request to reduce a 12 million Euro payment to 10 million Euros? Is that the 12 million

described in paragraph 2 of the Non – Paper?



SB: Yes, it is a matter of the sale and purchase of shares and rebranding of the company. Because Magyar Telekom at that

time estimated that if they paid only for 9.99% of the shares they would get a lot of profit, instead of making payment of

the entire package of shares, and they would get the same effect in the management of the company, they would be able to

freely dispose the entire assets in its entirety, the assets of Makedonski Telekom. And based on this appraisal estimation

everyone was expecting a lot of money. However, where this money had been paid I do not know.

RD: Did you have any conversations about the last setoff payment with Kontominas or Kasami?

SB: We had a mutual meeting with Kasami in Athens, when all the problems occurred with the money, 1.250 million

Euros was paid by Kontominas to Kasami.

SB: Let’s get back a little bit, I am not sure everything has been described for the record yet. So what were the problems.

SB: When there were tensions between them at the time of the assassination, when Kasami got better, he told me that one

part of the money had not been paid to Kasami and Ahmeti, i.e. it had not been paid to the political party. Buckovski

assured them that everything he got he forwarded to them. When I called Kontominas to tell him there was a problem, he

himself requested an urgent meeting because he had been pressured by other Albanians regarding money. And as I

described the meeting, once Kasami got better we went to Athens and he made payment of 1.250 million Euros or one

half of the sum of 2.5 million Euros, even though Kontominas claimed that the entire amount had been handed over to

Buckovski. And that he had a signature that this amount had been handed over. But regardless of it, to avoid additional

problems, he made payment of additional 1.250 million Euros because he was scared for his life, he was scared of being

murdered. After that, I don’t know any details.

RD: So, the problems regarding the payments, when did you first become aware of problems.

SB: I became aware of the problems just before the assassination of Kasami.

RD: What did you become aware of at that time?

SB: Everyone was blaming one another, Stavridis and Kefaloyannis were blaming Magyar Telekom that they were being

late with the payment, with the realization of their obligations, that the Albanians also reacted because the obligation



towards them was also being delayed. Because I was not really aware of what was going on, I asked that meeting with

Kasami in Athens, to give him the opportunity to be convinced that Kontominas fulfilled all obligations.

RD: Was this in June 2006?

SB: It was later.

RD: And what happened at that meeting?

SB: At that meeting Iraklis Fidetzis and Kontominas presented Kasami with some papers to show him that all their

obligations had been fulfilled and that it is a matter of misunderstanding somewhere in the relations between him and

Buckovski, or maybe it was between Ahmeti and Buckovski, maybe Buckovski gave it to him, although it was agreed

originally Buckovski to take the money through the team straight to Kasami. And probably this is where the problem

arose. In the end Kasami didn’t even want to receive the additional 1.250 million Euros, but Kontominas insisted that

Kasami received the money, to avoid larger scale problem that would jeopardize greater interests.

RD: So, this time Kasami was saying that he didn’t receive 2.5 million Euros that he should have received, is that it?

SB: No, 1.250 million Euros, from the entire sum of 2.5 million, they had mutual agreement, from one installment of 2.5

million Euros, one part would be kept by Buckovski, and the other would continue to Tetovo, proportionally the agreed

dynamics. The last shipment had been agreed in the amount of 2.5 million to be divided 50-50, and this is where the

problem was, half of it did not get to Kasami, for him to register it once received.

RD: Was this before or after Kasami was shot?

SB: The money was paid after he got better. He got better relatively quickly, but he never fully recovered. I think the

cause of his death was consequences from the shooting, even though he died in the end of 2012.

RD: Are you aware of any connection between the shooting of Kasami in June 2006 and this dispute involving money?

SB: I think the assassination is a direct consequence from the dispute over money. Kasami also thought the same. He was

the victim of the entire game. There weren’t any other reasons why somebody would shoot the father of the party.



RD: What did Kasami tell you about that?

SB: He was convinced that Musa Xhaferi was the one who ordered and organized the assassination, that Ali Ahmeti must

have known about it, and he doubted that they want to eliminate him above all, and that after the meeting in Athens he

was convinced that Buckovski gave the money directly to Ahmeti, and they, in order to hide it from him, tried to convince

him that no money was received ever. Otherwise the man was very wealthy. I think there is direct connection, one with

the other. But there wasn’t really any thorough investigation, it was terminated at one point. I am talking about the police

investigation.

RD: Do you believe that Musa Xhaferi is the kind of person who is capable of doing an assassination?

SB: Personally I don’t think he is able to organize an assassination, but he can give order something like that to happen,

without problems. Because in the following period, it was show that, after the elimination of Kasami, the role of Musa

Xhaferi in the party was undisputable. Before that he did not have that great influence. Ever since then it is undisputable.

RD: Why don’t we take a short break, is that alright? Ok it is ten minutes after two, we’re going off the record now.

Part three

RD: We are back on the record at 14:42 pm. I’d like to ask you some questions about consulting agreements between

MakTel and Chaptex, and I want to ask you you’ve ever seen these agreements. First, have you ever seen any consultancy

agreements between MakTel and Chaptex involving work on the Labor Law in Macedonia?

SB: This agreement I have seen, it said that this company shall work on the new legislation and shall prepare the new Law

on Labor relations.

RD: My first question is where did you see this agreement, and when?

SB: This agreement, I saw with the Manager of Netphone Janis Janakopoulos, who shortly after was replaced by Iraklis

Sifakakis.



RD: Do you know when you saw this agreement?

SB: It was at the beginning of 2006 that I saw this agreement. I cannot remember the exact date when it had been

concluded. It was in copy, and he showed me in order for me to see what kind of agreements they concluded. Because, at

the same time with this agreement, other agreements had also been concluded with Netphone, of the same nature. The

money from Netphone were forwarded to the same company Chaptex in Cyprus. They were referring to market research,

agreements on frequencies, but I cannot remember the dates when these agreements had been concluded, I saw them

copies from Sifakakis. Then I asked him why Kefaloyannis never gave these agreements for me to have a look at. Because

it was known that Kontominas had ordered him to show me every document. He said he didn’t know, but once

Kefaloyannis came to Skopje we would discuss this. Then Kefaloyannis told me that regarding these documents, the

Prime Minister Buckovski asked him not to show these documents to me because I’m not authorized and because he was

not comfortable for somebody who is not authorized to read these documents. It is then that I told Kefaloyannis that it was

a big mistake to sign such agreement, and for it to be approved by the management board of the Telekom, and to pay

money for such matter when nobody of the persons involved has any contacts with legislation in the Republic of

Macedonia. Obviously these were bogus agreements that were only to provide flow of money from the Telekom to these

companies in Cyprus.

RD: Did you have any discussions about those concerns with Kefaloyannis?

SB: Yes, we discussed this with him. I told him he should have shown these documents to me, and I never would have let

such agreements to be signed. He said Buckovski asked him not to give me the documents, and as he is a professor at the

Faculty of Law he knew what he was doing. Because his in-law Dejan Mickovikj was also a President of the Board of

Directs of Telekom. he was a representative of the Government.

RD: What about Mickovikj?

SB: They are each other’s godfather.

RD: And did that have to do with the consulting contracts?



SB: The relation is that that was the circle of people who approved payments to be made. The Telekom approved the

payment of money.

RD: have you had any conversations with Mr. Mickovikj about these contracts?

SB: No, I have never had any contact with him. I only know he was the godfather of Buckovski, that they were related.

RD: Do you know what role, if any, Mr. Mickovikj had in the contracts?

SB: He had a very big role, he had close communications with both Kefaloyannis and the representatives of the Magyar

Telekom, with Atila Szendrei, they contacted on daily basis. He was very powerful, because he was related to Buckovski,

and he had such position, he represented the capital of the Government in the Telekom, he had a very powerful position.

RD: When you were discussing these contracts, did Mr. Kefaloyannis and you discuss the Labor Law contract?

SB: I commented this agreement. It is non sense for someone to even think to make such agreement. It points clearly to

the criminal background of the agreement.

RD: What did Mr. Kefaloyannis say about it?

SB: He sad that the Prime Minister insisted.

RD: Did Mr. Kefaloyannis say anything to make you think it was a legitimate contract?

SB: No, he was aware that this agreement was illegal, but it was not quite clear for him, whether in accordance with the

legislation of the Republic of Macedonia, such agreement would be valid, and able to be incorporated. When I asked him

‘where is the law?’ he said ‘there is no law’. A law is adopted by the Parliament, at the proposal of the Government. A

law is not adopted by an off shore company. It is non sense. But then at that time they did not pay much attention.

Everything was easy to be carried out.

RD: Were you aware of any connection between the Labor Law Contract and the Non-Paper we discussed, exhibit 231?



SB: They are immediately connected, because one part of the money in cash which came from Cyprus to Athens and from

Athens to Skopje, were based on agreements such as this. And there were a lot of agreements like this, even previously

money was paid from Netphone to Cyprian companies, and they considered this as normal. More precisely, it was a

matter of a sum of approximately 4.5 million Euros. He said ‘we made payments even before without any problems’. But

the problem arose with the realization of the agreements connected to the Non-Paper. In the meantime, there happened the

adoption of the amendments of the Law on Personal Income Tax. Kefaloyannis and the Director of Netpohone refused to

pay the tax, they said we’ve never paid tax before’ and refused to do so. This is regarding the transfer of Netphone to

Cyprus. And there was a sum of around 480 000 Euro which remained not transferred. Because, they expected some

benefits in relations to the Law on Personal Income Tax, because all of the transactions were taxed.

RD: Before we get too much into that, you said that the Labor Law agreement was connected to the Non-Paper, is that

right?

SB: The Non-Paper is immediately connected to these agreements as source of finance. As a form in itself.

RD: How do you know this?

SB: From immediate contacts with Kefaloyannis, the Director of Netphone, Sigalos, Sifakakis, I had insight into the

operating of Netphone, this is how I know this, because copies of the agreement were also kept in Netphone. Neither

MakTel nor any other company could make direct transfer to any off-shore company, they had to make payment first to a

domestic company, to Netphone, and then Netphone, by special order of the central bank, because all of payment

operations are made in the domestic currency, the Macedonian Denar, the central bank would then convert these money in

Euros or Dollars, and then on the basis of this decision of the central bank, the domestic company could transfer the

money to Cyprus. It was the obligatory procedure.

RD: Who told you that the Chaptex contract or the Netphone contracts were connected to the Non-Paper?

SB: It was Kontominas personally, and Kefaloyannis and Stavridis, because when I commented that it was very stupid to

create an agreement such as this, it was non sense, it was a criminal agreement, but they weren’t really worried about it.



They said that there was no way to provide money in cash if they had no inflow of money. Because that was the

agreement, the Cyprian companies would receive the money from somewhere and they would withdraw the cash. They

were less concerned with the form, it was more important for the Cyprian companies to get more inflow.

RD: In those agreements, you are referring to more than one agreement, right?

SB: I know and I have seen three agreements.

RD: Do you know what those three agreements are of?

SB: One was for internet coverage, internet market research, of polls; the other was research about cable television and

consulting serviced regarding development of cable services, which absolutely had no connection to the activity of

MakTel or Netphone.

RD: Did you see any agreements related to frequency fee?

SB: The agreement precisely for frequency fees I haven’t seen. But I know something very important related to this. One

of the reason for establishing contacts in the first place. Both Mobimak and Cosmofon refused to pay frequency fees

before signing of the Non-Paper or the Protocol, because they considered that frequency fee was not calculated in the

right way.

RD: My question on the frequency fee was, after the Protocol was signed, did you ever see a consulting contract relating

to the frequency fee between MakTel, Stonebridge and Chaptex?

SB: No, I haven’t seen it, but, based on this agreement and the Protocol, the Director of the Agency for

Telecommunications got an order form the Prime Minister to withdraw the lawsuits against Mobimak and Cosmofon in

regards with the compensation for frequency fees. Because the Agency submitted a lawsuit in front of the Court in Skopje

against Mobimak and Cosmofon. Then the Director of the Agency came to see me to tell me that he was in very

uncomfortable situation, he told me he submitted the lawsuit, and “the Prime Minister asked me, ordered me to withdraw

the lawsuit”, with the explanation that they allegedly reached an agreement and that it would be regulated later. He was

very scared. He came to see me as a friend and as person who knows the laws and to ask me whether it was ok to



withdraw the lawsuit. Knowing this matter, I advised him to submit a Request whereby the Agency would withdraw the

lawsuit, but not the lawsuit claim. This means that formally the entire act is withdrawn, but the lawsuit claim still remains

valid. And this is what he did. If he didn’t do it, he would have been discharged by the Prime Minister immediately. Later,

when he saw that this issue was being postponed, the Director of the Agency renewed the lawsuit, and in a court

preceding a legally valid verdict was adopted whereby the domestic operators were obliged to pay the compensation for

frequency fees for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. The court took the money by means of coercive enforcement from

their account.

RD: The Head of the Agency for electronic communications, who was that?

SB: His name is Kosta Trpkovski.

RD: and when did you have this conversation with Mr. Kosta Trpkovski?

SB: We would usually communicate two to three times a week.

RD: When he asked you to withdraw the lawsuit, do you remember when it was?

SB: it was immediately before signing of the Protocol. One of the conditions for Magyar Telekom to sign the Protocol

was for the Agency to withdraw the lawsuit. And several days before signing of the Protocol, the lawsuits were

withdrawn, I don’t remember the exact date.

RD: Was it in May 2005?

SB: Yes, May 2005.

RD: And in that month did Prime Minister Buckovski instruct Kosta Trpkovski to withdraw the lawsuits related to

frequency fee?

SB: He instructed them urgently to withdraw the lawsuit because they were in the process of signing the Protocol, and that

the partners would not sign the Protocol unless the lawsuits were withdrawn, and he had to act as instructed.



RD: When were the lawsuits reinstated?

SB: He activated the lawsuits in the summer 2006, immediately after the elections in 2006. Because the opposition party

came to rule the Government and he was scared of any consequences as to him, and that is why he activated the lawsuits.

And of course the proceeding was finished with legally valid verdict in favor of the Agency of Electronic

Communications.

RD: Going back to the consultancy contracts, did you see any consulting contracts involving Chaptex and an IPLC line?

SB: No, I have not seen such agreement.

RD: Did you see any agreements between MakTel and Netphone involving retail stores?

SB: That is correct. Netphone got the agreement for the first master dealer of Mobimak, and the sale of telephones,

services of Mobimak it all went through Netphone.

RD: And the Netphone master dealer contract, is that connected to the Non-Paper exhibit 231?

SB: It is somewhat connected because Netphone exists since 2000 in Skopje, and a lot of money have been transferred to

Cyprus through Netphone, not just these agreements we are discussing. It was the source of money in cash.

RD: My question is more specific, do you know whether the Netphone Master Dealer contract was used to process

payments called for under the Non-Paper?

SB: In one part yes. Why is this so? Because there was monopoly position, and it covered one part of the market in

Kosovo, and it made great profit. However, instead of having all this profit taxed here at the end of the year, in an illegal

manner, our authorities made possible for the entire profit to be transferred to Cyprus, and for there and in that manner,

they could get cash at all times. In that sense Netphone had an important role, as a source of money.

RD: Did anyone ever tell you that the Netphone Master Dealer contract was used to channel payments called for under the

Non-Paper?



SB: When Kefaloyannis, Stavridis and Kontominas discussed these agreements which I claimed as problematic, they were

very not disturbed, they were peaceful, they told me “don’t worry, there is no problem at all, because we’ve been

transferring money through NetPhone for years now, and there was never any problem. What’s important is the Decision

of the Management Board in Telekom, the money are paid through the bank and there is no problem here”. What I wanted

to say is they didn’t see any big problem in it, which points out to the fact that Netphone was originally established for the

purpose of laundering money. Of course it operated its normal activities at the same time. It is 100% in ownership of

Kontominas.

RD: Ok, I’d like to move to another subject. I’m going to hand you a documents that’s been marked before as exhibit 48,

and exhibit 48 is a two-page document, the writing is, on the first page, mostly in Hungarian and some English, and the

second page is an English language translation. And I will represent to you that exhibit 48 is a document that was created

by Andras Balogh in August 2005. On the first page of exhibit 48, on the top of the page, or the second page if you like, it

says Greek logistic; then it says “Meeting in Vienna”; “fix a date”, “participants: Mehazi, high ranking party official,

MVNO license holder, Kontominas”, “objectives: Sign the same Memo”, and “sign MVNO LoI”. And my question for

you is whether you know of any meetings around August 2005 that took place in Vienna dealing with these subjects?

SB: It is correct, I know of this meeting, apart from Mehazi, the Minister of Transport and Communications, from Kosovo

was also present the General Manager of Ekrem Lluka, Kontominas, Kefaloyannis, Stavridis, they travelled together with

their plane, and Bekim Zemoski was also there. I am not sure if it is the same meeting or a similar meeting at the same

time, where Buckovski was also present, because, at this same period, Buckovski also travelled for a meeting in Vienna.

RD: And how do you know about this meeting?

SB: I know from everyone, from the communications we had. Kefaloyannis told me and Kontominas told me, they were

going to Vienna, that they were not going to come to Skopje, they were going to Vienna for a meeting with the people

from Magyar Telekom and the representative from the MVO was also going to come to Vienna. From Bekim Zemoski I

know that Buckovski was also present there, and that after the meeting in Vienna they went together in Budapest.

RD: DO you know if anyone from Magyar Telekom was present?



SB: I know that Bekim contact Balogh regarding this meeting, and Kefaloyannis also. Balogh had the role of host at this

meeting, but whether he was personally present I don’t know. But, he was involved in the organization of this meeting in

Vienna.

RD: And what did you understand to be the purpose of the meeting?

SB: I knew the purpose of this meeting, it was money.

RD: Tell me more, explain this please.

SB: Everything that we’ve discussed so far, nothing else.

RD: What was to be accomplished at this meeting?

SB: formally, it was to be discussed regarding the obligations from the Protocol of Cooperation, as well as discussion of

the development of the VMO in Kosovo. However, all those meetings were held in Skopje and I think there is no other

subject to be discussed other than money, and the person from Kosovo who went there in order to lead him to believe that

something was going on. In the end it was seen that nothing happened with that.

RD: Ok, we need to change the batteries on the recorder; we’re going to take a break now at 15:21.

RD: Ok, we are back on the record at 15:27. And during the break I handed you a document that’s been marked as exhibit

166, it’s a one page document headed as Letter of Intent, dated August 30th 2005, and during the break Aleksandra

translated it the English into Macedonian. Have you seen exhibit 166 before?

SB: I have seen the draft before, but the original as signed I have not seen because, I am not sure whose signature is

below, whether it is Ekrem Lluka’s or somebody else’s, it really existed, it is also mentioned in the Protocol of

Cooperation, this is what was promised to the owner Ekrem Lluka that it would be done, but it was never realized. This is

what it resulted in, just the LoI. The joint company was not established, it was never invested in a network for the

necessities of Mobikos, and thus Mobimak was never able to provide service to Mobikos in Kosovo.

RD: And did you have any conversation with Mr. Kontominas or Mr. Kefaloyannis about the MVNO project?



SB: As you can see it is one of the first items in the Protocol of Cooperation, and it was discussed from the very beginning

with Kontominas, Kefaloyannis, and they asked me to get in touch with Ekrem Lluka for this purpose only. For this LoI it

was discussed also on the meeting in Skopje, in the Holiday Inn Hotel, when Ekrem Lluka was also here, he is the holder

of the license, and this same text was proposed to him, and then when it would pass the procedure in Magyar Telekom and

Deutsche Telekom, and only after will it be signed. This is a fictional document which caused no effect, legal or financial,

it remained unrealized. It was only meant to make the business plan stronger, to enhance it, the alleged spread in Kosovo,

but it never happened.

RD: and who told you that the project was fictional?

SB: Stavridis, Kontominas, and Kefaloyannis, but only after, when he started putting pressure into it, to find out what

happened. Ekrem Lluka started making pressure regarding this matter, and he asked them to return his license, the original

version which he handed over to Michalis Kefaloyannis.

RD: Was the license returned to Mr. Lluka?

SB: no, they never returned it to him. They were postponing it for some time, and then they told him they’d lost it

somewhere in New York. He was very upset, and it was then that he realized that this was a bogus discussion, for the

purpose of frauduling him. It was a fraud.

RD: Changing topic a little bit. During this time period, in 2005 or 2006, did you ever meet Elek Straub?

SB: We met twice.

RD: And when did you meet him?

SB: The first time it was before the signing of the Protocol of cooperation, I cannot remember the date, but it was before

signing of the Protocol when he came to see Buckovski, together with Stavridis, and Kefaloyannis who also had meeting

with Buckovski. At that time all negotiation was being brought to an end regarding the Protocol, the Non-Paper, and the

Letter of Intention. And also, Ekrem Lluka from Kosovo, who was keeping touch with me; Stavridis called me, to tell me

that Elek Straub was also going to come in Skopje, and that he heard a lot from Kontominas about me, and that he wanted



to meet me because I was never present at any of the held meetings. I said “no problem, we can meet anywhere you

want”, but I also said it was good for Ekrem Lluka to be invited to come, in the presence of Straub, Stavridis and

Kefaloyannis, “for all of you to be able to make hard and fast decision what your intentions are and what you were going

to do in Kosovo”. After having finished the meeting with the Prime Minister in the government, Straub together with

Bekim Zemoski, crossed the street across there is a restaurant “Krigla”, and we had joint lunch. This was the first time

that I actually seta down publicly with some of them. Mostly it was discussed with Ekrem Lluka, Straub tried to convince

him that all of the intentions were going to be realized in Kosovo. The meeting was about an hour and a half long, and

then the car of the Prime Minister arrived to take him to the airport. The meeting was not longer than an hour and a half.

And after that the second meeting,...

RD: Before we get to the second meeting, I am just trying to pin down the timing, would that have been in May 2005?

SB: I cannot remember the date when Ekrem Lluka came to Skopje for the second time. At the same time there was a visit

of Theo Waigel in the government. He also became advisor of the Prime Minister. And also the attorney came, they came

together.

RD: You are still talking about the first time you met Elek Straub?

SB: Yes, that it the first meeting. And the second was during the signing of the Protocol.

RD: Ok, before we get to the second meeting, you mentioned Theo Waigel. Did you meet him at the same time?

SB: No, because he was not present at the meeting with Elek Straub, but they came together. He is very experienced, very

cautious man, when all the meetings with the Greeks and Straub finished, he had a longer meeting with the Prime

Minister, he was the advisor of the Prime Minister, he was hired advisor, but they had close relations with the entire

group.

RD: You also mentioned an attorney for Theo Waigel, what was his name?

SB: His name is Hartmut Schilling.



RD: And you gave me a business card, for SCHILLING is that how’s its spelled?

(Commotion whether it is the correct business card)

RD: So, Mr. Schilling, did he participate in the meeting with Elek Straub?

SB: He came to the meeting for a short while, and he was represented as the attorney and friend of Theo Waigel. But he

didn’t stay longer than 15 minutes when he returned to Theo Waigel. He only came to greet Ekrem Lluka and me. This is

a man who is very close to Theo Waigel, they are related. He is an excellent attorney in Germany. A very respectable

attorney.

RD: Is that the same Theo Waigel the former Minister of Finance in Germany?

SB: Yes, that is the same person, Theo Waigel the former Minister of Finance in Germany.

RD: Do you recall anybody else participating in that meeting?

SB: With Buckovski?

RD: Yes.

SB: He was regularly accompanied by Bekim Zemoski. He did not want to contact with anyone else. But with

Kontominas, they had several meetings, and he went on a holiday in Greece with Kontominas, he was staying at his place.

RD: Who was?

SB: Theo Waigel. Along with his son who is also a lawyer.

RD: How do you know that?

SB: I was on Crete at the same time on a holiday, and I was told that Theo Waigel was there with his son with

Kontominas on some island. He engaged the son of Theo Waigel for some problem in Austria.

RD: Who retained the son of Theo Waigel?



SB: Kontominas.

RD: You mentioned a second meeting with Elek Straub.

SB: That was when all documents were signed.

RD: Was this late May 2005?

SB: Yes, 27th May 2005. After signing the Protocol in the Government, all of them were present, Musa Xhaferi, Dejan

Mickovikj as president of the management board, the Prime Minister, they came for lunch in Holiday Inn. First the group

of Kontominas arrived, Stavridis, Kefaloyannis, Fidetzis, Sifakakis, all of them came and we had a meeting with Ekrem

Lluka. After that Elek Straub also arrived and all of them had lunch together. Nobody from Magyar Telekom was present,

or from Mobimak here.

RD: Did you have any conversations with Elek Straub at that time?

SB: Yes, because I have a lot of friends in Germany from my communications, we had a pleasant conversation, nothing

more than that. But they discussed in details later, about the development of the program. He was the number one

authority.

RD: Whey you say “they discussed later”, who did?

SB: Kontominas Straub, Stavridis, Kefaloyannis, Ekrem Lluka, his general manager, he was present as well.

RD: And how do you know of this discussion.

SB: I was present at the lunch as well in Holiday Inn.

RD: Were there any other meetings you had with Elek Straub?

SB: Not me, but I know that Buckovski met him more often,. He travelled to Germany, Austria, Budapest, but I have no

knowledge when.

RD: And how do you know that?



SB: I know this because Bekim was accompanying him all the time, and when they were going for a meeting, he would

tell me not to call him because he was going to be away. Half of the meetings were for leisure, not always business. One

can only guess of the purpose of the meeting.

But Kontominas and he met very often in Paris; I know this from telephone conversations.

RD: From telephone conversations with Kontominas?

SB: Yes, I would call him and he would say “I am currently in Paris with Straub”, or maybe in London, that is how I got

the impression that they met on regular basis, I don’t know how many meetings they had.

RD: When you met Kefaloyannis, Kontominas, Stavridis, what language did you spoke?

SB: In Greek. Because I was obliged to learn the language for my service. But one of them, actually Stavridis, he speaks

German very well. He also speaks Serbo-Croatian. In that way there was no problem in the communication. With Kasami

he would speak Turkish, with Ekrem Lluka they would speak in Serbo-Croatian. He knew many languages and he could

communicate very easily.

RD: Did you have any occasion to meet Andras Balogh?

SB: No, never. On several occasions when they would come here, Kefaloyannis and Stavridis on a meeting with Balogh,

or when they had this one meeting in Budapest, they asked me to join them, “we would spend this weekend with Balogh,

we have no obligations, and we will just spend time there”. But I never went, nor have I met him here. The reason for this

is that I avoided public showing as much as I could. With Kontominas, I could not avoid meeting him. It was no secret

that I was meeting, but with Balogh there was no reason for me to meet him, as we did not have anything to discuss. He

was constantly communicating with Kefaloyannis and Stavridis. Actually, they were operating with this entire program.

RD: Did you ever meet Tamas Morvai?

SB: No, never.



RD: I’m handing you a document that’s been marked as exhibit 232, this is a one page letter addressed to Elek Straub with

the signature of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia. I want you to take a look if you’ve seen it and what it

is?

SB: Yes, I’m familiar with this document.

RD: Did you provide this document to Biljana earlier this week?

SB: Yes, this is the document. The original of it has been given to our Prime Minister. This document is very important,

even though from the first meeting you would not get such impression. You will get the impression that it is a normal

procedure for sale and purchase of shares. But this is where Buckovski informs Elek Straub that the process is in its final

phase, this is the process of reaching of decision by the Government for sale of 10% of the shares, more particularly

9.99%.

RD: The Letter, exhibit 2342, do you recognize the signature?

SB: This is the signature of Vlado Buckovski the Prime Minister, which I know very well I have seen it on other

documents as well.

RD: Can you tell me approximately when this letter was sent, there is no date on it.

SB: Shortly after this letter, the Decision for sale of shares of the Government was adopted. I think it was June,

immediately after this Letter the process for sale and purchase of share was completed. This document I got from Bekim.

RD: You got exhibit 232 from Bekim Zemoski?

SB: Yes, he gave it to me.

RD: Do you have any understanding why he would give it to you?

SB: Just like it was the case with the Protocol, he gave it to me, he asked me to keep the originals.

RD: You said that exhibit 232 was very important document, why was it important?



SB: Here’s why. If you carefully read it, you will see that Buckovski prepared the grounds for reaching new Decision of

the Government not to sell the entire package of shares but only 10% or 9.99% of the shares, and he personally informs

Straub of this. Second, he makes psychological pressure of Straub, to cause as effect faster realization of what they had

agreed before. In a way he informs him that there is interest from other investors as well that would purchase the package

of shares, this caused Straub to react expressly and that is how the realization of what they had agreed happened. It had

two objectives, the first one was ‘yes, I have finished with all my obligations in the government’, and second for Straub to

speed things up for sale and purchase of the shares. It is evidence of the close relations that these two people had. It is not

customary practice of a Prime Minister to address a letter to a business company.

RD: Did Bekim Zemoski give you the original or a copy of exhibit 232?

SB: he gave me both the original and a copy. When I gave the folder with the remaining originals one of the copies

remained with Pavle and Pavle gave it to me. Pavle Trajanov, the person who gave the originals to the Prime Minister.

RD: So that was in 2008, correct?

SB: Yes, it was in 2008.

RD: So do you know why, if the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Elek Straub, why wouldn’t Elek Straub have the original

of the Letter?

SB: It possible he may have original counter copy, because usually, as Bekim was the courier who handed these

documents, he had other letters of personal nature, letters he would give somebody to read and take it back, maybe Straub

scanned a copy of it. But, what Bekim did was get the Letter from Buckovski, take it to Straub, and the same letter, this is

a personal letter, and then Bekim would give it back to Buckovski, it was only for informative purposes. And the other

way around, then Straub had a message, Bekim would take it to Buckovski, and then return it back.

RD: How do you know that this was the way they communicated, who told you that?

SB: Bekim regularly informed me if everything.



RD: What did Bekim tell you about exhibit 232?

SB: That Buckovski was getting very anxious, because election time was coming up, and that he wanted to pressure Elek

Straub to speed up and acquire the decisions for purchase of the shares. He was trying to put a mild pressure on Straub to

speed the procedure up. That is the function of this letter.

RD: I’m giving you a document that has been marked exhibit 233. It is a five-page document, it is a draft with a date May

26th 2006, four page draft letter addressed to their Minister of Economy of RM, it’s a four page letter with one page

schedule, have you seen exhibit 233 before?

SB: Yes, this is the program.

RD: Is exhibit 233 a document that you provided to Biljana earlier this week?

SB: Yes, this is the document.

RD: Can you tell me what it is?

SB: This document resulted after the signing of the Protocol, it’s function is to put in operation everything that was

previously discussed in the Protocol of Cooperation. All of these short documents they refer to procedures in various

ministries, in the Agency for telecommunications, and other bodies that take part in this procedure. I have not seen a

signed copy of this document but I think it is a completed document.

RD: Where did you get exhibit 233?

SB: This document was also provided by Bekim. This is the period when Vebi Velija was also included in the activity,

and the minister from the Albanian party DUI would meet on daily basis in the office of Vebi Velija. This is a document

that arises from the Protocol, and it elicits activities towards the authorized bodies. And in the end the table shows the

dynamics of realization of the activities.

RD: Am I correct in understanding that the table contemplates that Magyar Telekom will eventually acquire 35% of

MakTel from the Government?



SB: But it never happened.

RD: Do you have any understanding why it never happened?

SB: Because there was previous decision of the Government those shares to be sold as entire package. After everything

was agreed until the signing of the Protocol, that is when the decision of the Government for the sale of the shares as

entire package was put to a stop. Contrary to that, it was decided for the sale of 9.99% of the shares. The Minister Mehazi,

who was not entirely familiar with the secret things going on, he was very fervent to insist on sale of the shares as entire

package. And he refused to sign some documents, but shortly after he was withdrawn from position.

RD: Did Bekim Zemoski tell you anything about why he was giving you this document exhibit 233?

SB: In this phase, Bekim Zemoski would give anything to me, and inform me of everything. He felt safer if he informed

of everything. If he kept some of the documents with me that he would be safe as well. But it did not last too long.

RD: When did you last spoke to Bekim Zemoski?

SB: The last time he was here was for New Year 2013. For the catholic Christmas in 2012. They had a holiday and he was

here in Macedonia.

RD: Did you speak to him?

SB: Yes I met him. He told me he had great problems in Germany, that the financial police raided his house and searched

his house, but that they found nothing because he kept all documents and all money at some other address. It was the

address of his former wife whom he divorced, and that’s why the police found nothing there. Obviously the police did not

have good information. He was happy they found noting on him during the search of his house.

RD: Do you know whether Bekim Zemoski is still doing work with Kontominas, the Government of Macedonia?

SB: From close friends, I have heard that they are still cooperating with the current government as well, but what they are

working on I cannot say for certain.



RD: Do you know whether Bekim Zemoski got any payments in connection with the Protocol of Cooperation, or anything

else we’ve been talking about?

SB: He was one of the actors, participants in the procedure, and not only did he get payment, for what he did, but he also

stole money from others. He told me that, for every transfer for Buckovski, Buckovski would give him 50 000 Euros. He

said “I would steal another 50 000 and he would never notice”.

RD: This is what Bekim Zemoski told you?

SB: Yes, I believe he did the same with the Albanians as well.

RD: Did you receive any payments I connection with any of these transactions.

SB: During this entire period, as I didn’t have any significant role, I only had to organize the meetings and revise the

documents if those were given to me. Everything else was in the sense of private engagement but with Kontominas. When

he asked me, because he was very satisfied with how everything was realized, he asked me to cover my expenses. I told

him that it was not necessary because I did not have any part in all of it. The only thing that I requested for this team that

worked on the tender for the WI-Max technology, to continue to work there, and I asked that my son was placed there as

second manager, as it was area that was of his interest, management of operations. I said if “you manage and do this, there

is nothing else to pay”. He was very happy to accept my request. But two years later the whole project went dead.

RD: You mentioned the Wi-Max technology, what is that?

SB: It means that the acquired license, after failing to start with operation, it would be terminated.

RD: I wanted to start with the more basic questions, what is the Wi-Max technology?

SB: I am not an engineer to be able to explain things in detail, of what I know, this technology was to provide high speed

internet with great capacity, TV signal, it was to replace Cable TV, the wireless transfer of all signals that could cover the

entire territory of the Republic of Macedonia, represented a direct competition to already established cable operators. The

interned that was offered by T-Mobile and the others which was pretty much expensive, ... in short, this is what the entire



package was all about, and there was great interest in the technology. On the presentation in the Agency for Electronic

Communications it was presented as top notch technology.

RD: What’s the name of the company that your son works for?

SB: Americom. He used to work there during those two years.

RD: What was the time period that your son was working there?

DB: From 2007 through 2009, almost two years. After that the license was lost because they never initiated operation.

RD: Was Americom connected to Mr. Kontominas?

SB: The Americom is 100% ownership of Cosmoline, which is owned by Kontominas.

RD: Changing subjects a little bit, are you familiar with a company called Analytic?

SB: Yes.

RD: And are you familiar with any consulting contracts involving MakTel and Analitico?

SB: My knowledge is only of informative nature, I have never seen such agreements. When Bekim Zemoski informed me

that they had made agreement with Analitico, for Analitico to sell various services of Mobimak in Macedonia, and from

the package of money that they would receive, 100 000 euros, without the knowledge of Buckovski, were given to

Analitico, “I handed over these money to Gordana who was there employed in Analitico, and is now a Minister of

Interior”. They gave them telephones, SIM cards, and various services for them to sell to Mobimak. When I asked him,

when I said “what you did was very risky, and if Buckovski ever found out about it, you would have big problems with

him”. He said “We did the same when Ljubco Gjeorgjievski was the Prime Minister, we financed Buckovski and the

others”. It was already established practice, to finance both the governing and the opposition party, especially when there

are parliamentary elections coming up. Bekim gave them the money. But, I forgot to say that it was upon order of Theo

Waigel and Schilling, because it was from the same money, but specifically under the order Buckovski not to find out



about it. And, because he was on the opposite side, and it was not really that big an amount that he would notice. It is a

regular practice in Macedonia.

RD: Did Bekim Zemoski say anything whether the agreement with Analitico was legitimate business contract or was a

sham contract?

SB: He never referred to the agreement. He said that “we will help Analitico to give them inflow of money, but we never

discussed the agreement.

RD: Are you aware of any connection between Analitico and a political party in Macedonia?

SB: It was a company of the current governing party VMRO DPMNE.

RD: I’m showing you a document, it’s in Macedonian, and I’ve been told this is a Certificate of Registration, for

Analitico. Marked as exhibit 234. Looking at the first page of exhibit 234, can you tell me what this line says?

SB: It says Company for analytical services Analitico export import Skopje.

RD: And then, on the second page, the first page, can you tell me what is says?

SB: IN the part owners, it says Alen Zekirov, he was employed in the security of Saso Mijalkov, who is the Head of the

State Service for Counter intelligence, I think he is in hail, or should go to jail for a car accident he caused, when a citizen

lost his life.

RD: The person listed as President of Analitico, what’s his name?

SB: Alen Zekirov. He is the founder of Analitico.

RD: And you explained what his family connection was.

SB: He is a longtime companion of Saso Mijalkov, the cousin of the Prime Minister, he is the Head of the State

Administration for Counter Intelligence, and he is one of the persons in his security. He is one of the most trusted persons.



After the car accident he was sentenced to imprisonment, I think with duration of two years and he was supposed to go to

jail, maybe you have read in the newspapers, there was a lot of writing of the car accident.

RD: Let me change subject a little bit, all of the subjects we’ve discussed today, and it’s been kind of a long day, what

made you decide to tell us these things?

SB: Let me explain. All the persons that were mentioned during this statement, I have known them for a very long time,

some I’ve met recently. And all of the help that I have provided in all of these communications, I never felt the need that

someone should thank me in any way. However, I never supposed that the Prime Minister would be able, who should

have finished this entire proceeding, until this day. And instead of seeing the end of the criminal proceeding today, we

have new forms of criminal with Kontominas. Obviously they continued with any criminal activities, and this is where it

comes from, this hard pressure that has been imposed on me, with permanent treats towards me and my immediate family,

probably they are scared of their own dirty past. They would be happy to see me gone as soon as possible. It is from this

reason, as well as from the fact that nobody asked me to give any statements so far, nobody from the government nor

anyone else, it was Biljana who addressed me for the first time. Even though it is commonly known that I am the friend of

Ahmeti, I organized the meetings, but no one ever asked me so far. No one ever contacted me. But this statement that I am

giving now, I am giving it under the constant feeling of fear. And hereby I ask you that it is only used in limited ways,

because I am scared of any eventual radical steps of the family that is in power, and they are known by such activities so

far in the past two years, as well as the Albanians.

RD: Is it correct that Musa Xhaferi is still in the Government?

SB: Yes, he is still the Vice President, and the head creator of the politics of the Albanians in Macedonia.

RD: Do you have any concerns of danger to yourself or your family that might come from Musa Xhaferi?

SB: Danger would exist if he only knew about my statement. Currently there is more danger coming from the family of

the Prime Minister. They are pressuring my family on daily basis, they are constantly threatening us.



RD: Do you jave any concerns that if the statements you gave today were made public, that it might create problems for

you with the Prime Minister and his family?

SB: Yes, I am sure it will. That is why I appeal to limited usage of it.

RD: you’ve recently been charged with committing crimes in Macedonia, is that right?

SB: Yes, it is correct, the family of the Prime Minister as I refer to it, anyone who would stand in their way, they would

stigmatize them as criminals in order to elimiate them from the public state. Even though everyone in Macedonia is well

aware of it, the greates criminal organozation in Macedonia is the family. They have charged me that allegedly for an

agreement with Merkator, and a joint company between me and Merkator, Stigma Slovenia, that allegedly, the attorney

Tomanovikj obused his official position, based on this alleged abuse of position, which is non existant, all other

agreements between natural and legal entities connected to it, were money laundering. It is non sence. But in Macedonia

we are powerless, there is no law, no court, nothing has power, the family can order whatever they want. The legislative

power is absolutely suspended wwhich is the bigest problem in our country. We have no warranty of the powers and

freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. You would not even dream of fair trial,

unfortunately we’ve become even worse than North Corea.

RD: The transactions that have been involved in your case, did they involve Mr. Kontominas in any way?

SB: Not directly, I am talking about the legal acts here. But indirectly, a company of Kontominas, in 2000, entered into

agreement for right to usage of a plot of land in Skopje. It is a rather great area of 2000 m2. This agreement was never

realized. In 2009, at the request of our Prime Minister, that I ask Kontominas to give upo his right in favor of merkator, he

did it, because he already had no interest. The problem was with the agreement from 2000, and the danger from sueing

Macedonia in front of the Arbitration court in Frankfurt, on the part of Kontominas. It was all finished in the period

between January – March 2009. Everything was done in a legal manner, because this agreement was concluded with the

Ministry of Transport and Communication, after previpus consent of the government and it was in favor of the bidget of

the Republic of Macedonia. And now all legal acts are legally valid, and all effecteed payments were done in a legal

manner, and four years later in 2014, the family found it necessary to charge the Lawyer who signed the agreement, that

allegedly, because he was auhtorized the agreement, but did not care for the interests of the off-shore company he

represented. The company he represented never made any objections, nor did it request anything, and the Publuic



Prosecutor for organozed crime was not officially authorized to undertake any activities. But the public prosecutor was in-

laws with the prime minister, and the court that proceeded with the trial was not authorized to deal with such proceedings.

Ot os not clear in what aspect of it al, they saw the illegal activities of the attorney. And on the basis of this indictment of

the attorney, all of the othert persons who entered into various agreement on consulting services, agreements who have

been signed and realized, and they are part of the legal order, allegedly all these agreements were money laundering. All

the banks made payments and the bank is the warrantor in the agreement on warranty. Nobody’s interests were harmed,

everyhting was done in a legal manner, which is forutnate for all the shareholders in the entire transaction. Clearly in all of

this I saw the intention of the family, to find a way how to vindicate me, or eliminate me. I am left with nothing else but to

fight with the situation.

RD: You said you were charged with money laundering is that right?

SB: Yes.

RD: And did you go trial, was there a trial?

SB: There was trial but it would have been the same if there wasn’t one.

RD: What was the result of the trial were you convicted?

SB: The result was that court only copied what the public prosecutor had already written, and they were quick to publish

their decision.

RD: Were you convicted?

SB: All indicted persons were pronounced guilty. The attorney was sentenced to three years imprisonment, the resto of us

are sentenced to twoo years imprisonment. And after submitted appeal to the Court of Alleals, the Court of Appeals

immediately confirmed their verdict. Before reaching the verdict the counsil of the court took vote and they were 5-0 in

favor of termination of the deicision of the first instance court. When the public prosecutor heard of this, he called all of

the judges in the couunsil of the court of appeals, one by one in his office and he threatened them if they reached such

decision that they would be arrested, each and every one of them, and he would put hand cuffs on them and walk them

around town for everyone to see. They changed the minutes immediately and the same day they submitted the verdict.

Unfortunately this is the reality in the Republic of Macedonia. Literally, they can do to you everything they wish.

RD: Have you served time in custody up until now on this charge?



SB: Yes, we were detained for seven and a half months. Without any legal grounds, without representation.

RD: Was that before the verdict or after?

SB: It was before the verdict.

RD: Have yopu been given a date when you need to begin the serving the sentence?

SB: I got anexpress date, there wasn’t even a verdict yet, and I am to report to prison tomorrow, which is non sense for

someone to do it. I have health problems and that is why I requested postponing of reporting to jail, because I need to go

to hspotal tomorrow. We will see if they are going o accept my request, and acknowledge it.

RD: As of this moment, am I correct in understanding that you have a court order to begin serving your sentence

tomorrow?

SB: Yes, that is correct, but tomorrow I have scheduled heart procedure at the clinic, and I have submitted a request for

postponing going to prison with a request not to enforce the verdict before having completed all my medical treatment,

and at the same time we submitted to the Supreme Court of Republic of Macedonia a Request for extraordinary revision

of a court verdict, and a request for determining temporary measure for stopping the enforcement of a court verdict.

Because one part of the judges, they are my friedns and colleagues from university, and everyone is in awe, they are all

saying the same that all it takes is a telephone call, and “we will convict him”.you can get a maximum sentence if there is

a call coming from the family. The laws are not applicable for them.

RD: Changing subject a little bit. Have you ever met me before today?

SB: No, I haven’t.

RD: Have you met me before?

SB: When was the first time you spoke to or even met Biljana Panova?

SB: I cannot remember exactly, it was several days ago, after the interview in the weekly magazine Fokus.

RD: Was it some time within the last week?

SB: Yes, yes it was.

RD: And did Ms.Panova, or did I or did anyone else offer any kind of benefit for speeking to us?

SB: She didn’t offer me any benefit, she did not pressure me at all.

RD: Did I offer you any benefit or put pressure on you?



SB: No, absolutely not, this has been an absolutely correct conversation.

RD: Have you asked any benefit either from Ms.Panova, or from me, or from anyone else connected to the American

Government for speaking today?

SB: No, I have not asked anything from anybody. As I said the first person to contact me is Biljana Panova. I didnt even

have the chance to talk to anyone else.

RD: Let me ask some more specific questions. Did anyone offer you any money to speak to us today?

SB: Absolutely not.

RD: Did you ask for any money to speak to us today?

SB: No. It was never an issue of money.

RD: Did anyone offer any help with ypur legal problems if you spoke to us today?

SB: No, noone offered me anything. Because I lead my legal battle myself as I practise law. I have my own attorney ony

because I have to. Othrwise I write my legal acts myself.

RD: Did you ask for any help with your legal problems if you spoke to us today?

SB: No, I have not asked any legal aid, i lead all my legal proceedings myself.

RD: Has anyone ever suggested to you that you might get a lower sentence if you spoke to us today?

SB: There was noone to suggest it, there is no logic in it. Because I know all the circumstances in the Republic of

Macedonia.

RD: Do you have any interest in emigrating to the United States or seeking asilym in the Unted States?

SB: I was only jocking, that “if you continue pressuring me and my family, you will force me to seek asilym”, referring to

any place. I have not sought asilym so far. I am of sensitive health, I am a person of age, I have a great family, and I

wouldnt want to spend time away from them, at any cost.

RD: Am I correct in understanding then that you have no interest in leaving Macedonia?

SB: It was only because of my family, if you have the circumstances in mind, I would leave tomorrow, but I havent

because of my family. It has become impossible to lead a normal life.

RD: You mentioned your sensitive health, are you taking any medication today?

SB: I took blood pressure medication, to prevent it from getting very high.



RD: Are you taking any medication that would have interferred to your ability to give truthful statements today?

SB: On principle, I avoid medication prescribed by the doctor even. I have never taken any sedatevis, analgetics, nothing.

RD: Have you had any alcohol today?

SB: No, just coffee.

RD: In the statements that you’ve given today, have you told the truth?

SB: Of what I know, I swear it is the truth. I can see that I am not aware of a lot of things, nor was there any reason for me

to know such things. But of the things I know of, you can rest assured that I spoke the entire truth.

RD: Thank you very much for your time, we are going off the record at 17:03.

Statement given by:

Slobodan Bogoeski

-----------------------------


EXHIBIT B


In The Matter Of:Securities and Exchange Commission v.

Elek Straub, et al.

Slobodan BogoeskiVol. 1

January 15, 2015

Behmke Reporting and Video Services, Inc.160 Spear Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, California 94103(415) 597-5600

Original File 25904BogoeskiV1.txt

Min-U-Script® with Word Index


Securities and Exchange Commission v.Elek Straub, et al.

Slobodan Bogoeski - Vol. 1January 15, 2015

Page 1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ) 6 COMMISSION ) 7 Plaintiff, ) 8 vs. ) Civil Action No. 9 ELEK STRAUB, ANDRAS BALOGH, ) 1:11cv09645 10 and TAMAS MORVAI, ) 11 Defendants. ) 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 14 15 DEPOSITION OF SLOBADAN BOGOESKI 16 THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2015 17 PAGES 1 - 114; VOLUME 1 18 19 20 21 BEHMKE REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICES, INC. 22 BY: STEVEN POULAKOS, RPR 23 160 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 300 24 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94015 25 (415) 597-5600

Page 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deposition of SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI, Volume 1, 9 taken on behalf of Plaintiff's, at the Law Offices of10 the Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E.,11 Washington, D.C., was held on Thursday, January 15, 2015,12 commencing at 6:13 a.m., before Certified Shorthand Reporter,13 pursuant to the Notice of Videotaped Deposition.14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 3

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: 3 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 4 Division of Enforcement 5 BY: ROBERT I. DODGE, ESQUIRE 6 THOMAS A. BEDNAR, ESQUIRE 7 ADAM EISNER, ESQUIRE 8 100 F. Street, N.E. 9 Washington, D.C. 20549 10 Telephone: (202) 551-4421 11 Email: [email protected] 12 13 FOR THE DEFENDANT, ANDRAS BALOGH: 14 PILLSBURY, WINTHROP, SHAW, PITTMAN, LLP 15 BY: THOMAS C. HILL, ESQUIRE 16 KRISTEN E. BAKER, ESQUIRE 17 2300 N Street, N.W. 18 Washington, D.C. 20037-1122 19 Telephone: (202) 663-8007 20 Email: @pillsburylaw.com 21 22 23 24 25

Page 4

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL - CONTINUED: 2 FOR THE DEFENDANT, TAMAS MORVAI: 3 HINCKLEY ALLEN 4 BY: MICHAEL KOENIG, ESQUIRE 5 VICTORIA P. LANE, ESQUIRE 6 30 South Pearl Street 7 Suite 901 8 Albany, New York 12207 9 Telephone: (518) 396-310010 Email: [email protected] 12 FOR THE DEFENDANT, ELEK STRAUB: 13 HOGAN LOVELLS14 BY: LISA J. FRIED, ESQUIRE15 GARIMA MALHOTRA, ESQUIRE16 875 Third Avenue17 New York, New York 1002218 Telephone: (212) 918-300019 Email: [email protected] 21 ALSO PRESENT: BETI ARSOESKA, THE INTERPRETER22 23 24 25

Min-U-Script® BEHMKE REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICES, INC.(415) 597-5600

(1) Pages 1 - 4




Page 5

1 INDEX 2 THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2015 3 SLOBADAN BOGOESKI - VOLUME 1 PAGE 4 Examination by Mr. Dodge 16 5 Examination by Ms. Fried 47 6 Examination by Mr. Hill 105 7 8 -o0o- 9 10 QUESTIONS WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER: 11 PAGE LINE 12 None. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 6

1 PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS - CONTINUED 2 SLOBADAN BOGOESKI - VOLUME 1 3 Exhibit Description Page 4 Joint Exhibit 1 Audio (Retained by the SEC) 113 5 6 Straub-Bogoeski 7 Exhibit 1 An English translation of a 8 document (Retained By Defendant) 52 9 10 Exhibit 48 An unidentified document - 2 pages 29 11 12 Exhibit 91 A letter from the Minister of 13 the Economy - 3 pages 29 14 15 Exhibit 166 Letter of intent - 1 page 30 16 17 Exhibit 229 A biography - 1 page 26 18 19 Exhibit 230 Protocol of Cooperation - 2 pages 27 20 21 Exhibit 231 A confidential Non Paper - 1 page 27 22 23 Exhibit 232 A one-page document - 1 page 28 24 25 Exhibit 233 Nonbinding provisions - 5 pages 28

Page 7

1 PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS - CONTINUED 2 SLOBADAN BOGOESKI - VOLUME 1 3 Exhibit Description Page 4 Exhibit 234 An unidentified document 5 - 3 pages 28 6 7 Exhibit 235 Protective Order - 3 pages 17 8 9 Exhibit 236 A transcript of an interview 10 written using the cyrillic 11 alphabet - 60 pages 22 12 13 Exhibit 237 A photograph - 1 page 39 14 15 Exhibit 238 A photograph - 1 page 40 16 17 Exhibit 239 A photograph - 1 page 41 18 19 Exhibit 240 A photograph - 1 page 42 20 21 Exhibit 241 A photograph - 1 page 42 22 23 Exhibit 242 A photograph - 1 page 43 24 25 Exhibit 243 A photograph - 1 page 44

Page 8

1 PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS - CONTINUED 2 SLOBADAN BOGOESKI - VOLUME 1 3 Exhibit Description Page 4 Exhibit 244 A photograph - 1 page 44 5 6 Exhibit 245 A photograph - 1 page 45 7 8 Exhibit 246 A photograph - 1 page 45 9 10 Exhibit 247 A photograph - 1 page 46 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


(2) Pages 5 - 8




Page 9

1 THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2015; 6:13 A.M. 2 3 MR. DODGE: We're on the record now. Today 4 is January 15th, 2015. It is 6:13 a.m. Eastern time. 5 We're proceeding by video conference from Skopje, 6 Macedonia. Where the time is six hours later. 7 Today we're conducting the deposition of 8 Slobadan Bogoeski in the matter of U.S. Securities and 9 Exchange Commission versus Elek Straub. That's Civil 10 Action Number 11-CV-9465 in the Southern District of 11 New York. 12 My name is Robert Dodge. I guess, as we 13 begin, why don't we first begin by identifying the 14 people who are here. 15 Robert Dodge is counsel for the Securities 16 and Exchange Commission, the Plaintiff in this action. 17 With me here in Washington, D.C. is Adam Eisner. I'd 18 ask the other attorneys here in Washington, D.C. to 19 identify themselves and who they represent please? 20 MR. HILL: Is everything being captured 21 audio-wise -- 22 MR. DODGE: Let me explain some of the 23 mechanics of how this is going to work. Everything is 24 being recorded. That includes the audio and the video 25 feed. The video feed, as I understand, the recording

Page 10

1 is going to capture whoever is speaking, and so the 2 video feed will move back and forth, depending on who 3 is speaking. The microphone captures all of the 4 discussion in the room. 5 So if you're having side discussions, I 6 would be very cautious about that, it would likely be 7 picked up on the record. 8 Also, given the fact that there is going to 9 be a slight delay, it's been explained to me, as the 10 feed switches from Washington, D.C. to Skopje, it would 11 be better if there's a slight pause between when one 12 person finishes speaking and the next person begins. 13 So pauses between questions and answers, also pauses 14 between questions and objections I think will help the 15 record stay more clean. 16 With that, any other questions on the 17 mechanics? 18 MR. HILL: Yes. Well, the only other 19 question I would have is: Does everything, including 20 what you just said, for example, need to be translated? 21 THE INTERPRETER: That's my question too. 22 MR. DODGE: I guess, yes, well, let's -- it 23 should be translated. So -- 24 THE INTERPRETER: If it's easier for you, 25 until we get -- if we can leave this procedure from the

Page 11

1 beginning until we get to the oath and then we can 2 translate that, I mean, interpret that; but the rest of 3 it I can do it in writing as a translation. Just a 4 suggestion, or, you know, the legal procedure how it's 5 supposed to be done. 6 MR. DODGE: Okay. Well, I think we 7 probably will begin the translations with the oath. I 8 think we can identify who's present without necessarily 9 translating that. 10 So can we identify who is present here in 11 Washington, D.C., please, and who you represent? 12 MR. KOENIG: Sure. Mike Koenig and I 13 represent Tamas Morvai. Victoria Lane, I also 14 represent Tamas Morvai. 15 MS. FRIED: I'm Lisa Fried from Hogan 16 Lovells. We represent Elek Straub, and I am 17 accompanied today by two of my associates, Garima 18 Malhotra and David Mitchell. 19 MR. HILL: Thomas Hill from the Pillsbury 20 law firm, representing Andras Balogh, and I'm 21 accompanied by my colleague Kristen Baker. 22 MR. POULAKOS: I am the court reporter, 23 Steven Poulakos. 24 THE INTERPRETER: My name is Beti Arsoeska, 25 and I'm going to be the interpreter today.

Page 12

1 MR. DODGE: And can we have an 2 identification, please, of everyone who is present in 3 Skopje? 4 MR. BURNSTEIN: I'm Greg Burnstein. I'm 5 the head of the consular section at the U.S. Embassy in 6 Skopje. 7 (Speaking in Hungarian) the notary from 8 Skopje. 9 MS. VAVISKI: The lawyer, Janapana Vaviski, 10 the local lawyer by the Security and Exchange 11 Commission. 12 (Inaudible) 13 MR. APOSTOLSKI: Yes, on behalf of 14 Pillsbury the Apostolski Firm, Antonio Apostolski, 15 Kiril Stojanovski, and Kiril Stojanovski attorneys at 16 law on behalf of Andras Balogh representing Andras 17 Balogh as local counsel. 18 MR. DODGE: So, thank you. I'd like now to 19 have the consular official in Skopje first administer 20 an oath to the witness, please. 21 MR. HILL: Bob, I've got one preliminary 22 thing. I don't know if you want to put it on the 23 record now or after the oath, I don't care, but I've 24 got have one -- 25 MR. DODGE: Let's do the oath first.


(3) Pages 9 - 12




Page 13

1 MR. HILL: Okay. 2 Whereupon, 3 SLOBADAN BOGOESKI, 4 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn to 5 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 6 truth, was examined and testified as follows: 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 MR. DODGE: We also have a notary public 9 from Macedonia who will administer an oath under10 Macedonian law.11 If we could do that now, please.12 THE INTERPRETER: According to the law of13 notary 68, I'm going to be taking a -- I'm going to be14 taking a oath and --15 (Clarifies).16 Okay. The witness -- the witness will --17 the witness will give -- okay. So the witness will18 give a oath and he is going to record the oath.19 THE INTERPRETER: I swear that everything I20 know for this work, for this job, I will tell the truth21 and I will not hide anything.22 MR. DODGE: Before we proceed Mr. Hill has23 said that he has a statement he would like to make on24 the record.25 MR. HILL: Thank you. First of all, I have

Page 14

1 a question: Does our interpreter need to be sworn? 2 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. 3 MR. DODGE: Can you administer an oath to 4 the interpreter, please? 5 (INTERPRETER SWORN) 6 MR. HILL: On behalf of Mr. Balogh, and I 7 suspect on behalf of all of the defendants, I just want 8 the record to reflect, first of all, that our 9 participation in this deposition in no way should be10 construed as our consent or our waiver with respect to11 any possible use of this deposition at trial.12 MR. DODGE: Okay, we need to break it up so13 that --14 THE INTERPRETER: We need to break it up in15 a couple of sentences because it's a little bit too16 fast.17 MR. HILL: I'm sorry.18 On behalf of Mr. Balogh, and I suspect all19 of the defendants, I want the record to reflect that20 our participation in this deposition should in no way21 be construed as our consent or a waiver of any22 positions with respect to the possible use of the23 deposition at trial.24 THE INTERPRETER: One more time.25 MR. HILL: Our participation in this

Page 15

1 deposition should not be construed as consent or a 2 waiver of the possible use of this deposition for any 3 purpose at trial. 4 And then I also have well probably a 5 question more for the SEC here, or perhaps for the 6 witness, and that is whether or not the prescriptions 7 of the U.S. Perjury Statute, the Perjury Statute in the 8 United States, the statute that -- the statute that 9 makes it a crime to lie under oath and the statute that10 makes it a crime to make a false statement, whether11 those statutes apply to this deposition and to any12 statement that may be made by the witness.13 MR. DODGE: Is that it?14 MR. HILL: Yes.15 MR. DODGE: This is Bob Dodge again. We'll16 proceed, subject to the objection raised by Mr. Hill.17 MR. HILL: Well, that wasn't --18 MR. DODGE: I'm speaking. Let the witness19 translate.20 MR. HILL: I thought you were finished.21 I'm sorry.22 THE INTERPRETER: Can you repeat?23 MR. DODGE: We will proceed today subject24 to the defense objection that's been made, questions25 about what the witness understands about the oath, the

Page 16

1 defense can ask the witness directly during their 2 cross-examination. 3 With that, I'm going to proceed with my 4 direct questioning. 5 MR. HILL: So is the SEC declining to take 6 a position with respect to whether or not the perjury 7 statutes and the 1001 apply to this proceeding? 8 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, Mr. Hill, 9 again?10 MR. HILL: Is the SEC declining to take a11 position whether or not the prohibitions of the Perjury12 Statute and 18 U.S.C. 1001, which is the False13 Statement Statute, apply to this deposition?14 MR. DODGE: The answer to that question is,15 no. This deposition is being taken under oath in the16 same manner as any other deposition subject to the17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the same rules18 apply.19 EXAMINATION BY MR. DODGE20 Q Mr. Bogoeski, will you state your full21 name?22 MR. KOENIG: Just -- this is Mike Koening23 on behalf of Tamas Morai. I just want to make clear24 Mr. Hill said he suspects that we agree about the25 circumstances of this, deposition and I do want to


(4) Pages 13 - 16




Page 17

1 affirmatively state that we do concur with what 2 Mr. Hill said about the use of this deposition. 3 MS. FRIED: And on behalf of Mr. Straub, we 4 join in that view. 5 MR. DODGE: Are there any other statements 6 that defense counsel would like to make before we 7 begin? 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q Mr. Bogoeski, will you state your full10 name, please?11 A My name is Slobadan Bogoeski.12 (Bogoeski Exhibit 235 marked for purposes13 of identification.)14 MR. DODGE: Today's deposition is being15 taken subject to a protective order. The protective16 order has been marked as Exhibit 235. Everyone present17 in Washington and -- I'm sorry, I'd ask that there not18 be conversations at the same time because it really19 obstructs the record.20 I'd ask that everyone present both this21 Washington, D.C. and in Skopje will sign -- will22 sign -- either has signed or will sign today an23 acknowledgment having received a protective order.24 Everyone present today, both in Washington25 and in Skopje, are bound by the protective order.

Page 18

1 BY MR. DODGE: 2 Q Mr. Bogoeski, did you meet with me on 3 December 28th, 2014? 4 A Yes, it's true, we met. 5 Q Where did we meet? 6 A In the office of the lawyer of Biana Panova 7 in Skopje. 8 Q How long did that meeting last? 9 A It lasted quite long, something about eight10 hours, close to eight hours.11 Q Who else was present at that meeting, that12 you recall?13 A On the meeting was also Biana Panova, who14 is the lawyer; also Alexandra, who is a lawyer also,15 was at the meeting and she was a translator, and Mihial16 who was the technical support.17 Q Was there also a notary public there?18 A Prior to that the notary took the oath that19 everything he says is going to be true.20 Q As part of our meeting on December 28th,21 did you give a statement by answering questions that I22 asked of you?23 A I answered all of the questions that I was24 asked.25 Q Before you gave that statement, you

Page 19

1 mentioned that a notary administered an oath; is that 2 right? 3 As part of that statement, a notary public 4 administered an oath; is that right? 5 A That's true, there was the notary, Sasho, 6 Pitatoski (ph) who is -- who was at the place today. 7 Q And did you take the same oath on 8 December 28th that you took today? 9 A The same -- the same oath because this is a10 oath from the law of notary.11 Q What did you understand the oath to require12 of you?13 A The oath required that whatever I know I14 will tell and whatever I tell it will be true.15 Q To your knowledge, are there penalties16 under Macedonian law for not telling the truth after17 giving an oath like that?18 MR. HILL: Objection.19 THE INTERPRETER: Do we want him to answer20 first or do you want the objection?21 MR. DODGE: Yes, I'd like him to answer.22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I know that there is --23 there is a law in Macedonian, in Macedonian law that if24 I say something that is not true, it's going to be25 punished.

Page 20

1 BY MR. DODGE: 2 Q When you gave your statement to me on 3 December 28th, 2014, did you tell the truth? 4 A Everything I gave answer to, it was 5 absolute true. 6 Q Did you tell the entire truth on 7 December 28th? 8 A Everything I knew, I told. 9 Q In your answers to my questions on10 December 28th, did you leave out any significant11 information about the subject we were discussing?12 MR. KOENIG: Objection.13 MS. FRIED: Objection.14 THE WITNESS: I didn't leave anything out15 because whatever I remembered at that point I told you.16 BY MR. DODGE: 17 Q On December 28th were you under the18 influence of any drugs or alcohol?19 A I have not been under influence on alcohol,20 drugs, or any kind of sedatives.21 Q On December 28th when you gave your22 statement to me, were you thinking clearly?23 MS. FRIED: Objection.24 THE WITNESS: I was thinking with clear25 mind for everything we talk at that moment.


(5) Pages 17 - 20




Page 21

1 MR. HILL: I just want the record to 2 reflect, we've said this in prior depositions, but 3 unless otherwise noted an objection by anyone of the 4 defendants is an objection on behalf of all. 5 MR. DODGE: Right. We'll stipulate to 6 that. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q When we spoke on December 28th, were you 9 under any pressure or duress that affected your10 testimony?11 MR. KOENIG: Objection to form.12 THE WITNESS: Yes. Even then I mentioned13 that I feel threatened by the whole situation because14 of the people who are involved in the case.15 BY MR. DODGE: 16 Q The pressure that you mentioned, did that17 affect your ability to tell the truth in your statement18 on December 28th?19 MR. HILL: Objection.20 THE INTERPRETER: He didn't feel that it21 will influence telling the truth, but he just mentioned22 to be a caution measures to be taken for protection of23 him and his family.24 BY MR. DODGE: 25 Q When we spoke on December 28th, were you

Page 22

1 offered or promised anything in connection with your 2 statement, the statement that you gave to me? 3 A Nobody offered anything to me, neither I 4 asked for anything. 5 Q Did anyone threaten or pressure you to give 6 a statement to me? 7 A Nobody pressured me neither had the 8 opportunity to pressure me for giving the statement to 9 Mr. Dodge.10 Q The statement that you gave on11 December 28th, was that videotaped?12 A Yes, it was taped from the beginning to the13 end.14 Q And at the time you gave the statement, did15 you know that it was being videotaped?16 A Yes, I absolutely knew, and I was seeing it17 in front of myself.18 Q I would ask you to take a look at Exhibit19 236, please.20 (Bogoeski Exhibit 236 marked for purposes21 of identification.)22 MR. DODGE: For the record, while this is23 being handed out, Exhibit 236 is a 60-page typed24 document in characters written in the cyrillic25 alphabet.

Page 23

1 THE INTERPRETER: Sixty-five? 2 MR. DODGE: Sixty pages. 3 BY MR. DODGE: 4 Q Mr. Bogoeski, do you have Exhibit 236 in 5 front of you? 6 A Yes, I have it. 7 Q Mr. Bogoeski, what is Exhibit 236? 8 A So this is the whole conversation we had on 9 the 28th, 2014, and my -- and my statement that I gave.10 Q Is Exhibit 236 a transcript of your11 interview with me on December 28th, 2014?12 A Yes, it is a transcript from the whole13 conversation.14 Q What language is this document written in?15 A The document is written in Macedonian16 language.17 Q Is Macedonian your native language?18 A Yes Macedonian is my native.19 Q Before today did you review Exhibit 236?20 A Yes, I did.21 Q On each page of Exhibit 236 and again at22 the very end there is a signature. Do you see that?23 A Yes, I personally signed it.24 Q So these -- that is your signature on each25 page; is that right?

Page 24

1 A It's true yes it's true and this is my 2 signature with the whole first name and last name. 3 Q And when you signed each page of Exhibit 4 236 what did you intend to mean by that? 5 MR. KOENIG: Objection to form. 6 THE WITNESS: That is this is this is the 7 truth I've said in the conversation and on the 8 December 28th. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q And did you review each page of Exhibit11 236?12 A All the pages are carefully written by --13 from the first one to the last one.14 Q Carefully read by you; is that right?15 A Yes, of course.16 Q Does the entire transcript there accurately17 state what you said to me during our meeting on18 December 28th, 2014?19 A The whole transcript is true whatever I20 said on the 28th.21 Q Are there any mistakes in the transcript?22 A There is no mistakes, but there is few23 technical mistakes which are not important. That I24 personally by hand corrected them.25 Q Okay. So the handwritten notations in


(6) Pages 21 - 24




Page 25

1 Exhibit 236 are those your notations? 2 A Yes, it's true. 3 Q And after having reviewed the transcript is 4 there anything that you would like to correct in the 5 transcript now? 6 A For now I don't have anything special that 7 I would like to correct. 8 Q If I ask you the same questions today that 9 I asked you on December 28th, would you give the same10 answers today?11 MR. KOENIG: Objection.12 THE WITNESS: Of course I will.13 BY MR. DODGE: 14 Q And would you agree to treat your15 videotaped statement on December 28th as part of your16 sworn testimony today?17 MS. FRIED: Objection.18 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry?19 BY MR. DODGE: 20 Q Will you agree to treat your videotaped21 statement on December 28th as part of your sworn22 testimony today?23 A Yes.24 Q And will you agree to treat the signed25 transcript, Exhibit 236, from December 28th as part of

Page 26

1 your sworn testimony today? 2 MR. HILL: Objection. 3 MR. KOENIG: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: I agree. 5 BY MR. DODGE: 6 Q Will you please look at Exhibit 229? 7 MS. FRIED: We're going to have an 8 across-the-board objection to this. I'm happy to save 9 it for our cross or I can place it on the record now.10 MR. DODGE: It will be preserved either11 way. If you don't mind doing it during cross.12 MS. FRIED: That's fine with me. Okay.13 That's fine. Thank you.14 BY MR. DODGE: 15 Q Do you have Exhibit 229 in front of you,16 Mr. Bogoeski?17 A Yes, I have it.18 (Bogoeski Exhibit 229 marked for purposes19 of identification.)20 BY MR. DODGE: 21 Q Were you shown this document during your22 December 28th, 2014, statement?23 A Yes, it's true.24 Q And is this a document that was identified25 as Exhibit 229 in your December 28th statement?

Page 27

1 A Yes, it's true. 2 (Bogoeski Exhibit 230 marked for purposes 3 of identification.) 4 BY MR. DODGE: 5 Q Will you please look at Exhibit 230. Mr. 6 Bogoeski, were you shown Exhibit 230 during your 7 December 28th statement? 8 A (Witness reviewing document.) 9 Yes, it was shown to me.10 Q And is this document the same document that11 was identified in your statement as Exhibit 230.12 A Yes, it's true.13 MR. DODGE: Will you please show the14 witness Exhibit 231.15 (Bogoeski Exhibit 231 marked for purposes16 of identification.)17 THE WITNESS: Yes.18 BY MR. DODGE: 19 Q Mr. Bogoeski, were you shown Exhibit 23120 during your December 28th statement?21 A Yes, it was.22 Q And is this the same document that was23 identified in your statement as Exhibit 231?24 A Yes, it truth, it's the same document.25 MR. DODGE: Will you show the witness,

Page 28

1 please, Exhibit 232. 2 (Bogoeski Exhibit 232 marked for purposes 3 of identification.) 4 BY MR. DODGE: 5 Q Mr. Bogoeski, were you shown Exhibit 232 6 during your December 28th statement? 7 A Yes, it was. 8 Q And is this the same document that was 9 identified in your statement as Exhibit 232?10 A Yes, it's the same document that was11 presented to me at that time.12 MR. DODGE: Will you hand the witness,13 please, Exhibit 233.14 (Bogoeski Exhibit 233 marked for purposes15 of identification.)16 THE WITNESS: Yes.17 BY MR. DODGE: 18 Q Were you shown this document during your --19 were you shown Exhibit 233 during your December 28th20 statement?21 A Yes, it was.22 Q And was this the same document that is23 identified in your statement as Exhibit 233?24 A Yes, this is same document, in complete.25 (Bogoeski Exhibit 234 marked for purposes


(7) Pages 25 - 28




Page 29

1 of identification.) 2 MR. DODGE: Will you show the witness, 3 please, Exhibit 234. 4 BY MR. DODGE: 5 Q Were you shown Exhibit 234 during your 6 December 28th statement? 7 A Yes, it was shown to me. 8 Q And is this document the same document that 9 was identified during your statement as Exhibit 233 --10 234, I'm sorry?11 A Yes, that's the same document.12 (Bogoeski Exhibit 48 marked for purposes of13 identification.)14 MR. DODGE: Will you show the witness,15 please, Exhibit 48.16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have it.17 BY MR. DODGE: 18 Q Were you shown Exhibit 48 during your19 December 28th statement?20 A Yes, it was. Yes.21 Q Is this the same document that was22 identified in your statement as Exhibit 48?23 A Yes, that's the same document.24 (Bogoeski Exhibit 91 marked for purposes of25 identification.)

Page 30

1 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 91, please. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 BY MR. DODGE: 4 Q Mr. Bogoeski, were you shown the document 5 Exhibit 91 during your December 28th statement? 6 A Yes, it was. 7 Q And is this the same document that was 8 identified as Exhibit 91 in your statement? 9 A Yes, that's the same document.10 (Bogoeski Exhibit 166 marked for purposes11 of identification.)12 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 166, please.13 BY MR. DODGE: 14 Q Were you shown Exhibit 166 during your15 December 28th statement?16 A Yes, it was.17 Q And is this the same document that was18 identified during your statement as Exhibit 166?19 A Yes, that's the same document.20 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I've noticed that some of the21 exhibits you've been shown are written in English.22 My question is: Do you have any knowledge23 of the English language?24 A I can -- I can read and I can comprehended,25 but I cannot use the language on a higher level.

Page 31

1 Q Exhibit 229 is your biography; is that 2 right? 3 A Yes, that's my short biography. 4 Q Did you write this document in English? 5 A No. It was written in Macedonian, but my 6 son translated in English. 7 Q Okay. Some of the other documents, say, 8 Exhibit 230 and 231, 232, and 233 are all written in 9 English.10 Were you able to understand what these11 documents meant?12 A Yes, I was able to -- they were all13 translated in Macedonian.14 Q Who translated those documents?15 A My son translated, who was a head of --16 THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifying.)17 THE WITNESS: So NetKom and AmeriKom. He18 was the head, his son.19 BY MR. DODGE: 20 Q Mr. Bogoeski, changing subjects a little21 bit.22 Did there come a time in the year 2013 when23 you were placed under arrest?24 A Yes, it's true.25 Q And when was that? When were you arrested?

Page 32

1 A That occurred on 17 of April 2013. 2 Q And when were you released from custody? 3 A Sixteenth of December 2013. 4 Q Do you know someone named Emanuel Malelis 5 Manoli? 6 A I know him. I know him for a while, and 7 his name -- real name is Emanuel Malelis and a nickname 8 is Manoli. 9 Q And who is Mr. Malelis?10 A Malelis is a Greek who, up until 1992, was11 working in the Greek consulate in Skopje. He's a Greek12 citizen. In 1992, he was suspended from work, from13 perjury, because he's married with Macedonian citizen.14 He stayed and he lives in Skopje.15 Q Did you have any discussions with16 Mr. Malelis after your release from prison in17 December 2013?18 A Yes, I had three meetings with him.19 Q I'd like to ask you about the first20 meeting.21 When was that?22 A I cannot recall the exact date, but it was23 in May, somewhere around -- around the holidays in24 2014.25 Q And during --


(8) Pages 29 - 32




Page 33

1 A The first meeting was in Alexandra Palace, 2 the hotel. 3 Q What did Mr. Malelis say to you, and what 4 did you say to him during that meeting? 5 MR. KOENIG: Objection. 6 THE WITNESS: He came to introduce himself 7 as a friend who wanted to help me and that he is in 8 everyday conversation with the head of security -- 9 state security Sasho Mialkov. At the same time, he10 wanted to blackmail me if I continued to -- if I11 continued -- and if I continue to go in that direction12 to uncover who is the owner of the firm.13 THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.)14 THE WITNESS: Central Balkan Investment in15 Cyprus -- which is in -- which is in ownership of16 Dimitri Contominas, that if I continue -- if I continue17 to go in that direction, that not only we're going to18 get and receive our punishment, but some other measures19 will be taken.20 And he is -- Contominas is very upset and21 very concerned that I mentioned his name in the whole22 court process. In some way, he told me that Dimitri23 Contominas is sending him to me to warn me that I24 shouldn't talk anything about the case that is25 actually -- it's subject of my -- yes, from the -- my

Page 34

1 statement from the 28th of December. 2 BY MR. DODGE: 3 Q What else did Mr. Malelis say to you that 4 day? 5 A That he's a coordinator of all of the firms 6 that Mr. Contominas has in Macedonia, which -- which 7 are -- which are registered. All the firms are 8 registered on the address. It is a lawyer, Marcov, in 9 Skopje, which is an office very close to the present10 government. And he's in everyday communication with11 Sasho Mialkov and Prime Minister Gruevski.12 Q What did you say to Mr. Malelis, if13 anything?14 A I only told him that -- that the whole15 process -- the whole process that is against me and the16 two lawyers and that they're playing a -- dirty names,17 not fair games. And the only way that I'm going to be18 blackmailed and to be controlled from the family19 government, which is in very close relations for a long20 years with Contominas, from the 2000 up until now.21 The friendship -- their friendship is22 dating from -- so the friendship between Malelis and23 Gruevski starts in 2000, when the (inaudible) from24 Skopje was sold on -- to Hellenic Petroleum for no25 money, pretty much. And the deal and then the

Page 35

1 contract -- the deal was signed by Nikola Gruevski at 2 that time -- 3 THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.) 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. At the time, the prime 5 minister was a minister, trade minister, in the 6 Government of (inaudible). 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q So, Mr. Bogoeski, I want to focus on simply 9 what -- what Mr. Malelis said to you and what you said10 to him during that meeting.11 Can we move to the second meeting, and can12 you tell me when that was?13 A There was on the end of August after the --14 after the vacations were over, the end of August.15 MR. HILL: I'm sorry, after the what?16 MR. DODGE: Vacations were over.17 THE INTERPRETER: After the vacations were18 over.19 BY MR. DODGE: 20 Q And what did Mr. Malelis say to you, and21 what did you say to him on that occasion?22 MS. FRIED: Objection.23 THE WITNESS: It was, again, almost a24 similar conversation in which he brought me greetings25 from Dimitri Contominas, and he is asking me not to

Page 36

1 mention his name anywhere, not only in our court 2 process, and also for laundering money from the case of 3 Macedonian Telekom and stopping of the investigation. 4 The -- after -- after the -- against the suspects from 5 Macedonian Telekom. It's about Attila Szendrei, 6 Mikhail Kefaloyannis, and other three people, but about 7 Kefaloyannis, Contominas was most worried. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q What else did Mr. Malelis say to you?10 MS. FRIED: Objection.11 THE WITNESS: He said that they're very12 powerful in Macedonia to do everything, and if I13 mention it because I was a witness in their negotiation14 of stopping the investigation, that I will -- that I15 will get an answer from a -- the Prime Minister16 Gruevski and his cousin Sasho Mialkov.17 BY MR. DODGE: 18 Q Did you consider that to be a threat?19 MR. HILL: Objection.20 MS. FRIED: Objection.21 THE WITNESS: That is a permanent22 blackmailing.23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q What, if anything, did you say to25 Mr. Malelis?


(9) Pages 33 - 36




Page 37

1 A I told him that the Macedonian authorities 2 are leading a criminal act, criminal against us 3 motivated by material things, interests, and to be -- 4 to be blackmail, not to say anything about the previous 5 criminal acts in between the Premiere Gruevski and 6 Contominas. That was the basic message. 7 Q Tell me about the third meeting with 8 Mr. Malelis; when was that? 9 A That was in December 2014. There was the10 first couple of days, the first five days. I cannot11 recall exactly the day, but it was the first five days12 of December when he arrived in Skopje to meet with13 Sasho Mialkov, who said to me that we will be -- that14 we will be tried, and -- but if I -- if I keep my mouth15 shut, if I don't say anything like I was before, that16 it -- within six months, that the case is going to be17 closed, only if I don't talk about the criminal18 activities between Sasho Mialkov, Gruevski, and19 Contominas.20 That way, they just wanted to keep me under21 control, because the power, it's -- in Macedonia, it's22 in the hands of that family.23 Q What did you say to Mr. Malelis, if24 anything?25 A That I -- that I told him that I cannot

Page 38

1 accept that me, who never did any traffic violation or 2 anything like that, to be kept this way and to be tried 3 criminally. 4 And I told him that I will fight up until 5 the end with every possibility, that they are actually 6 using a -- criminal ways of blackmailing. 7 Q In December of 2014, did you give an 8 interview to the Focus newspaper in Macedonia? 9 A Yes, it's true, I gave that interview.10 Q And was your interview with Focus before or11 after your third discussion with Mr. Malelis?12 A After the conversation, after the talk with13 Malelis.14 Q So you spoke with Mr. Malelis first and15 then spoke with a reporter from Focus; is that right?16 A I talked to the editor of Focus after that.17 Q After speaking to Mr. Malelis?18 THE INTERPRETER: After the meeting, that's19 correct.20 BY MR. DODGE: 21 Q Did you have any other discussions with22 Mr. Malelis other than the ones you've just spoken23 about?24 A Special -- a special conversation, we25 didn't have after that, because he was very short in

Page 39

1 Skopje and he was having an excuses. He was making an 2 excuse that the prime minister is waiting for him, 3 Mialkov is waiting for him, that he has to go and so 4 on. 5 (Bogoeski Exhibit 237 marked for purposes 6 of identification.) 7 MR. DODGE: Will you show the witness, 8 please, Exhibit 237. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q Exhibit 237 is a photograph.11 Can you identify the person in the12 photograph?13 MS. LANE: Objection.14 MR. KOENIG: Objection. Objection.15 MR. HILL: Objection. For the record, the16 name -- there's a name right on the same page.17 BY MR. DODGE: 18 Q Mr. Bogoeski --19 A Yes, I can identify him and I personally20 know him. This is the former prime minister Vlado21 Buckovski.22 Q How many times have you seen Prime Minister23 Buckovski?24 A I know him personally, and I know him from25 early times when he was a student. He is younger than

Page 40

1 me, but I know him during the time, and I had minimal 2 15 meetings with him. 3 Q So is the person in Exhibit 237 the same 4 person that you testified about on December 28th with 5 me? 6 MS. FRIED: Objection. 7 MR. KOENIG: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. 9 (Bogoeski Exhibit 238 marked for purposes10 of identification.)11 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 238, please.12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q Have you seen the person in this photograph14 before?15 MS. FRIED: Objection.16 MS. LANE: Same objection.17 THE WITNESS: Yes, I know him personally.18 This is Ali Ahmeti, who is a leader of the political19 party.20 BY MR. DODGE: 21 Q And how many times have you seen22 Mr. Ahmeti?23 A First time I met him, 1981. And in the24 period of 2005 and 2006, we met four times. We met25 four times.


(10) Pages 37 - 40




Page 41

1 MR. DODGE: For defense counsel, I'm going 2 to be showing the witness a series of photographs. You 3 can have a continuing objection to all of the 4 photographs. 5 MS. LANE: And we do. 6 MR. HILL: We do, thanks. 7 MS. FRIED: We do. 8 MR. DODGE: 239, please. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q Have you seen the person in this photograph11 before?12 (Bogoeski Exhibit 239 marked for purposes13 of identification.)14 BY MR. DODGE: 15 Q Have you seen the person in this photograph16 before?17 A Yes. This is Musa Xhaferi, who is the18 deputy of -- the president of the party and the19 government also.20 Q And how many times have you met21 Mr. Xhaferi?22 A With Xhaferi, I met only two times up until23 now.24 Q Do you know what Mr. Xhaferi looks like,25 though?

Page 42

1 A Yes, exactly like he is on the photograph. 2 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 240, please. 3 (Bogoeski Exhibit 240 marked for purposes 4 of identification.) 5 BY MR. DODGE: 6 Q Have you seen the person in this photograph 7 before? 8 A I know him very long time ago. 9 Q How many times have you met this person?10 A Many times. I cannot remember. More or11 less, 30 times.12 Q And who is the person in Exhibit 240?13 A On the photograph is Abdulhalim Kasami.14 He's the first director of the political party DUE, the15 general secretary of the party. The actual -- the16 actual title was director of the party.17 Q In 2005 and 2006, do you know whether18 Mr. Kasami had any position within the D-U-I party, the19 DUI party?20 A At that period, he was still at that21 position.22 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 241, please.23 (Bogoeski Exhibit 241 marked for purposes24 of identification.)25 BY MR. DODGE:

Page 43

1 Q Have you seen the person in this photograph 2 before? 3 A Yes. 4 Q How many times have you met him? 5 A I cannot recall exactly, but five to six 6 meetings we had. 7 Q And who is the person in Exhibit 241? 8 A That is Xhemali Mehazi. He's the minister 9 in the government of Macedonia in the period of time,10 the period of 2006 and -- 2002 and 2006.11 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 242, please.12 (Bogoeski Exhibit 242 marked for purposes13 of identification.)14 BY MR. DODGE: 15 Q Do you know the -- have you seen the person16 in this photograph before?17 A Yes.18 Q How many times have you seen this person?19 A With him, I had the most -- with him, I had20 the most contact, the most -- and I know him from the21 1993.22 Q Who is in Exhibit 242? Who is in that23 photograph?24 A In the photograph is Dimitri Contominas.25 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 243, please.

Page 44

1 (Bogoeski Exhibit 243 marked for purposes 2 of identification.) 3 BY MR. DODGE: 4 Q Have you seen the person in Exhibit 243 5 before? 6 A Yes, I have seen him many times, and I've 7 known him since his childhood, when he was a little 8 child. 9 Q And who was --10 A And on the photograph is Bekim Zemoski, who11 was an advisor of the prime minister Buckovski.12 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 244, please.13 (Bogoeski Exhibit 244 marked for purposes14 of identification.)15 BY MR. DODGE: 16 Q Have you seen the person in Exhibit 24417 before?18 A Yes, of course.19 Q How many times have you seen him? How many20 times have you met him?21 A This one is almost the same, like on other.22 I met him so many times. Even in the prior times in23 Yugoslavia, I probably saw him more than 30 times.24 Q Who is the person in the photograph on25 Exhibit 244?


(11) Pages 41 - 44




Page 45

1 A On the photograph is Ekrem Lluka from 2 Kosovo, from the town Pec. He's one of the owners of 3 MobiCos Kosovo. 4 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 245, please. 5 (Bogoeski Exhibit 245 marked for purposes 6 of identification.) 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q Have you seen the person in the photograph 9 in Exhibit 245 before?10 A Of course.11 Q How many times have you seen this person?12 A I cannot count. Many times.13 Q Who is the person whose photograph is in14 Exhibit 245?15 A The photograph is Sasho Mialkov. It's a16 first cousin of the prime minister Buckovski. He is --17 he is a boss of the security and -- security in18 Macedonia since 2006.19 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 246, please.20 (Bogoeski Exhibit 246 marked for purposes21 of identification.)22 BY MR. DODGE: 23 Q Have you seen the person in the photograph24 in Exhibit 246 before?25 A Yes, I know him, and I had only two

Page 46

1 meetings with this person. 2 Q Who is this person in Exhibit 246? 3 A On the photograph is Elek Straub from 4 Deutsche Telekom. 5 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 247, please. 6 (Bogoeski Exhibit 247 marked for purposes 7 of identification.) 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q Have you seen the person in this photograph10 before?11 A This is Emanuel Malelis from -- who was12 employed in counselor section in Skopje.13 Q And how many times have you met Mr.14 Malelis, total?15 A Since 1992, we had hundreds of meetings.16 Q At this time, Mr. Bogoeski, the counsel for17 the defendants will have an opportunity to ask you18 questions. The SEC will reserve some time at the end19 for possible redirect.20 MR. DODGE: We've going for about an hour21 and a half. I don't know if people would like a break?22 MS. FRIED: Perhaps a ten-minute break.23 Does that sound good?24 MR. DODGE: Okay. So I think we're going25 to take a ten-minute break. We're going to go off the

Page 47

1 record now at U.S. eastern time 7:38 a.m. and return in 2 approximately ten minutes. 3 (Deposition recessed at 7:38 a.m.) 4 (Deposition resumed at 7:58 a.m.) 5 EXAMINATION BY MS. FRIED 6 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Bogoeski. Once again, 7 I'm Lisa Fried. I'm counsel for Elek Straub, and I'm 8 going to ask you a few questions now and then the 9 attorneys for the other defendants may be asking you10 questions as well.11 Before we begin, I and, I believe, counsel12 for the other defendants wanted to make a statement for13 the record. As indicated earlier during today's14 deposition, the defendants object --15 THE INTERPRETER: I want -- we'll have --16 MS. FRIED: We have an objection that we17 would like to place on the record. In particular, by18 participating at today's deposition, the defendants in19 no way waive or concede -- strike that -- waive any20 objections they have to the use of Mr. Bogoeski's21 statement to the SEC on December 28th. To be clear, we22 do not concede that the statement Mr. Bogoeski made on23 December 28th is admissible.24 THE INTERPRETER: Can you explain25 "admissible"?

Page 48

1 MS. FRIED: Is admissible as evidence in 2 this case. Mr. Bogoeski's purported adoption of that 3 statement today does not change that. Defense counsel 4 was not present in the room at the time that 5 Mr. Bogoeski gave that statement. Had they been 6 present, they would have placed objections based on 7 form and other reasons, on the record, and they were 8 denied the opportunity to do so. 9 It is also clear based on the transcript of10 that interview that discussions occurred between11 Mr. Dodge and Mr. Bogoeski that are not reflected in12 the record. And if that interview or Mr. Bogoeski's13 testimony about it today were admitted, the defendants14 would be prejudiced for that reason as well.15 I, on behalf of Mr. Straub and my cocounsel16 on behalf of the other defendants, will be questioning17 Mr. Bogoeski about his statements on December 28th18 today, but we are doing so only out of an abundance of19 caution and to protect our clients and not because we20 agree that any of Mr. Bogoeski's statements on21 December 28th constitute admissible evidence.22 I would just ask if my cocounsel has23 anything to add?24 MR. HILL: No. On behalf of Andras Balogh,25 we obviously adopt Ms. Fried's statements and make the


(12) Pages 45 - 48




Page 49

1 same objections that are -- I think we've preserved the 2 objection. We can state fuller reasons at a subsequent 3 time as appropriate. 4 MR. KOENIG: I would just add that it's not 5 just that we are not waiving our objections. We are 6 affirmatively objecting to the admissibility of the 7 interview and -- 8 MR. HILL: I would add one thing -- I'm 9 sorry.10 MR. KOENIG: And we do not only object to11 the substantive reasons that Ms. Fried set forth, but12 also the entirety of the process. I would just want to13 reaffirm what Ms. Fried said, in particular with regard14 to -- particularly with regard to the defendant's15 ability to interpose objections on a16 question-by-question basis.17 MR. HILL: I'd like to just add a couple of18 other things to the record. Mr. Dodge and the SEC --19 well, we have gone through great lengths at20 considerable hardship to be here today to participate21 in this process on very short notice. We were not22 notified of the videotaped statement until after it was23 taken. Had we been informed about the potential of24 taking the videotaped statement and/or deposition, we25 would have traveled to Skopje along with the SEC to be

Page 50

1 able to be present during either the videotaped 2 statement or a deposition. And the SEC today has 3 apparently taken the -- made the tactical decision not 4 to ask the witness on a question-by-question basis most 5 of the substance of his prior videotaped statement, 6 further depriving us of the opportunity to participate 7 in the deposition in the way that we would have had we 8 been invited to a deposition in Skopje. 9 I have nothing further at this time.10 MS. FRIED: Thank you.11 BY MS. FRIED: 12 Q Mr. Bogoeski, you described at some length13 today -- excuse me, in your statement on December 28th14 a scheme aimed at bribing Macedonian and Albanian15 officials to accomplish the business goals of Magyar16 Telecom, correct?17 THE INTERPRETER: Can you read again?18 BY MS. FRIED: 19 Q You have described at some length a scheme20 aimed at bribing Macedonian and Albanian officials to21 accomplish the business goals of Magyar Telecom,22 correct?23 A Yes, it's true.24 Q But isn't it the case that the only tasks25 you claim you completed in connection with this scheme

Page 51

1 were to arrange one meeting in December 2004 and 2 possibly to arrange a second meeting in January 2005, 3 correct? 4 A Yes, it's true. 5 Q In fact, isn't it the case that during your 6 interview with Mr. Dodge in December, you said that 7 you -- I'm quoting here -- did not have any significant 8 role -- and, again, a quote -- did not have any part in 9 all of it?10 THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.)11 MS. FRIED: And he also said he did not12 have any part in all of it?13 MR. DODGE: I'm going to object to the form14 of that question.15 THE INTERPRETER: He doesn't understand the16 question.17 Can you do it again?18 MS. FRIED: Sure. I can rephrase the19 question.20 THE INTERPRETER: Would you, please. Thank21 you.22 BY MS. FRIED: 23 Q Isn't it the case, Mr. Bogoeski, that when24 you spoke with Mr. Dodge on December 28th, you told him25 that you didn't have any significant role in this plot

Page 52

1 you're describing? 2 MR. DODGE: Objection to the form. 3 MS. LANE: Are you done with your question? 4 Had you finished your question? 5 MS. FRIED: Yes. 6 BY MS. FRIED: 7 Q And that -- and you also -- let's leave it 8 at that. 9 You said that, correct?10 A It's not exactly true like the lawyer11 defined the question. The question is not defined the12 way he wants it. I mean, he -- he didn't have -- he13 didn't have a role in the matter of money of that14 meeting, but his role was the organizing of the15 meeting, by -- by -- Contominas asked him to do that.16 MS. FRIED: I would like to mark this17 exhibit, which I believe has already been provided to18 somebody in the embassy, as Straub Exhibit -- why don't19 we call it Straub-Bogoeski 1, if that's acceptable to20 the SEC? We'll call it Straub-Bogoeski 1.21 (Straub-Bogoeski Exhibit 1 marked for22 purposes of identification.)23 I'm going to represent that what I have24 marked here as Straub-Bogoeski 1 is a document that was25 provided to defense counsel yesterday.


(13) Pages 49 - 52




Page 53

1 BY MS. FRIED: 2 Q It's a document provided to us yesterday by 3 the SEC, and the SEC told us that this document is an 4 English translation of the Macedonian language 5 transcript of Mr. Bogoeski's December 28th interview 6 with Mr. Dodge. 7 MR. HILL: Which is Exhibit number 8 something. 9 MS. FRIED: And is it possible for somebody10 in the embassy to confirm that you have a copy of this11 and are able to show it to Mr. Bogoeski?12 Is there a copy of this document there?13 MR. BEDNAR: Yes, we have a copy here.14 MS. FRIED: Does the SEC have a copy of15 this handy?16 MR. DODGE: I do not.17 MS. FRIED: You do not.18 MR. DODGE: Not on me, no.19 BY MS. FRIED: 20 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I would like to direct your21 attention to page 53 of this document.22 MR. DODGE: I'm going to object to the23 witness being questioned about -- based on an24 English-language document when his native language is25 Macedonian.

Page 54

1 BY MS. FRIED: 2 Q Mr. Bogoeski, am I correctly recalling that 3 earlier today you testified that you understand and can 4 read English although you may not be sufficiently 5 comfortable to use it conversationally? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Thank you. 8 Mr. Bogoeski, I'd like to direct your 9 attention to the middle of page 53 of this English10 document, and I want to ask you do you see where you11 have said in your testimony: During this entire12 period, as I didn't have any significant role, I only13 had to organize the meetings and revise the documents14 if these were given to me.15 Do you see where that is reflected in the16 transcript?17 MR. DODGE: I'm also going to ask if the18 witness has in front of him the original Macedonian19 version so he can refer to that as well.20 MR. HILL: That has an Exhibit number.21 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 236.22 BY MS. FRIED: 23 Q Mr. Bogoeski, if it helps, this24 English-language document -- the SEC has represented to25 us that it is the English translation of Exhibit 236.

Page 55

1 A Yes. 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: The problem is that the 3 pages -- if we can interfere. The pages are not so -- 4 MS. FRIED: Okay. I can rephrase the 5 question. 6 BY MS. FRIED: 7 Q Mr. Bogoeski, do you deny that you told 8 Mr. Dodge that you didn't have any significant role in 9 the plot that you have described to Mr. Dodge on10 December 28th?11 MR. DODGE: I'm going to object to that12 question on the basis of form.13 Can you translate that, please?14 I'm also going to object that it misstates15 the witness's prior testimony, and I'm also going to16 object based on the witness being asked about the17 English-language courtesy translation rather than the18 original Macedonian translation.19 MS. FRIED: I would just note on the record20 that our objections were not translated into21 Macedonian, and to the extent that we make objections22 going forward, the defendants would ask that they be23 translated as well.24 MR. HILL: I'd like to add with respect to25 the objection that's been lodged the fact that I find

Page 56

1 it curious that the SEC wouldn't want us to rely on the 2 Macedonian and at the same time object to our use of 3 Macedonian-speaking counsel. 4 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat? 5 MR. HILL: I find it curious that the SEC 6 would object to our use of the English-language version 7 as opposed to the Macedonian, while at the same time 8 objecting to our use of Macedonian local counsel. 9 BY MS. FRIED: 10 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I do not read or understand11 Macedonian, but I am guessing that if you look on page12 51 of Exhibit 236, approximately two-thirds of the way13 down the page, you will see the passage that I wanted14 you to read to refresh your recollection.15 Isn't it the case, Mr. Bogoeski, that in16 this statement you told Mr. Dodge that you did not have17 any significant role in the plot that you claimed to be18 describing to him on December 28th?19 MR. DODGE: Objection. That misstates20 what's written there in the transcript in the English21 portion.22 THE WITNESS: Ms. Lawyer is interpreting it23 wrong. I just want to make clear.24 BY MS. FRIED: 25 Q How is my interpretation incorrect?


(14) Pages 53 - 56




Page 57

1 A She wants to give a completely different 2 thought of my statement. And my statement, the correct 3 statement it is. 4 In this whole period, my role was not 5 important. I would just organize the first meeting, 6 and I was going through the documents that were given 7 to me. 8 Q Okay. 9 A I didn't have any kind of role. I didn't10 have any kind of role. I was not a minister. I was11 not a deputy minister or any of these roles. I was12 just employed.13 As a good friend of Contominas for long14 years, on his request, because I know all of these15 people, I was calling the people, and I was organizing16 the meetings for him. I was not a competent person to17 have any kind of role. And that's why I'm saying.18 Q Thank you for clarifying that,19 Mr. Bogoeski.20 In fact, Mr. Bogoeski, isn't it the case21 that Mr. Contominas wanted to cover your expenses for22 participating in these activities and you have told him23 that would not be necessary because your role had been24 so small?25 A It's, again, completely different

Page 58

1 interpretation of the statement. 2 Q How is this -- how is the interpretation 3 inaccurate? 4 A In this sense, it's true that Contominas 5 asked me to cover my expenses for the organization of 6 these meetings. 7 MR. HILL: I'm going to lodge another 8 objection based upon the testimony that's been given so 9 far. It seems to me that this deposition is to go --10 continue to go forward is completely inappropriate11 based on the fact that it is becoming apparent,12 obvious, that the witness's -- that the witness's13 understanding or interpretation of the -- let me start14 over.15 That the informal translation that we were16 provided is not an accurate translation according to17 the witness, and we can't continue to have a deposition18 with respect to the videotaped statement until we have19 an official certified translation of that statement20 that would form the official basis upon which to -- for21 us to formulate questions.22 We can't effectively examine the witness23 under circumstances in which we were just provided a24 translation which it is clear is not a good translation25 and would never be admissible under any circumstances

Page 59

1 in this proceeding. So we can't examine the witness 2 effectively without that official translation. 3 So on that basis, we object to -- add our 4 objection to this continued deposition. 5 MR. DODGE: I'm going to respond to that. 6 The witness has made no comments about the quality of 7 the English-language translation. Defense counsel has 8 had the videotape of the December 28th statement for 9 nearly two weeks, that the questions and the answers10 were in both English and Macedonian, that the11 English-language translation that was provided is a12 courtesy, and we provided it to the defense as soon as13 we got it.14 MS. FRIED: I'm prepared to continue, if15 that's okay.16 BY MS. FRIED: 17 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I'd like to move on and ask18 you some more specific questions about these meetings19 that you state you helped to organize.20 Am I correct that the first meeting or21 series of meetings that you described to Mr. Dodge22 occurred in late December 2004 in Skopje?23 THE INTERPRETER: December?24 MS. FRIED: December 2004.25 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's true.

Page 60

1 BY MS. FRIED: 2 Q And you said that Mr. Contominas called you 3 to ask that you organize this meeting, correct? 4 A It's true. 5 Q When did he call you? 6 A He called me somewhere -- he called me 7 somewhere in the middle of December; that his people, 8 Stavridis and Kefaloyannis will come to Skopje; that 9 they have a very important proposals to Macedonian10 government, in connection with Macedonian Telekom, and11 will be very nice if I could before New Year's to12 organize a meeting with the prime minister at that13 time, Buckovski, as also with some people who are14 participants in the government.15 Q But in his phone call with you,16 Mr. Contominas did not tell you the purpose of these17 meetings, correct?18 A No, he didn't say in particular, but he19 just mentioned that they have a very important business20 plan that they would like to present in front of21 Macedonian government.22 Q And, Mr. Bogoeski, I'm going to go into a23 little bit of detail, because it sounds like you were24 asked to arrange several meetings, all to occur at the25 same time. I want to make sure I understand what you


(15) Pages 57 - 60




Page 61

1 said in your December 28th statement about those 2 meetings. 3 Now, is it correct that the first meeting 4 that you were asked to organize was supposed to occur 5 between Prime Minister Buckovski and Mr. Contominas and 6 Mr. Kefaloyannis? 7 A The first -- the first one, the first 8 meeting, was supposed to be in between Nikos Stavridis 9 and Kefaloyannis. Those were the first people of the10 firm of Contominas.11 Q And were you also asked to arrange a12 meeting between Mr. Contominas, Kefaloyannis, and13 Stavridis, on the one hand, and Musa Xhaferi, on the14 other hand?15 THE INTERPRETER: The other ones were?16 MS. FRIED: Contominas, Kefaloyannis, and17 Stavridis.18 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's true.19 BY MS. FRIED: 20 Q And then finally, during this same trip,21 you were supposed to arrange a meeting between Misters22 Contominas, Kefaloyannis, and Stavridis, on the one23 hand, and then Ali Ahmeti and Abdulhalim Kasami in24 Tetovo, correct?25 A I understand the question, but it's not

Page 62

1 true that -- she is constantly adding the name of 2 Contominas, because he came. In December he was not in 3 Skopje. 4 Q Okay. So maybe I can make this easier. In 5 the meetings we are talking about in Skopje in 6 December 2004, am I -- is it correct to say that the 7 only people who came from Greece were Mr. Kefaloyannis 8 and Mr. Stavridis? 9 A With him was also the head of security of10 the firms in Atina, and his name is Irakis Sifakakis.11 So he was the one who is responsible for the personal12 security of Contominas and his assets, pretty much his13 firms.14 But he did not -- he did not attend the15 meetings in Skopje and Tetovo, but he was waiting with16 me up until they finished the meetings and then we met.17 Q Mr. Bogoeski, what did you do to arrange18 these meetings?19 A In order to organize these meetings, I20 first called Mr. Buckovski to ask him if -- if he has21 the time before New Year's Eve to meet with the two22 directors of Contominas which are coming with a big23 business proposal or plan.24 And he told me if they come the latest of25 25 of December, he will be able to admit to see them.

Page 63

1 He also confirmed that they could come any day up until 2 the 25th. 3 Q And -- 4 A When the prime minister confirmed that he 5 is able to meet with them, I also -- after he told me 6 that, I also told him that they're interested of a 7 meeting of any high-profile representatives in the 8 government, especially from DUI party, especially from 9 Musa Xhaferi. And he took the responsibility upon10 himself to inform Musa Xhaferi for the meeting that11 they are going to have.12 For the other part of the visit in Tetovo13 in the party of DUI, I called Abdulhalim Kasami. I14 informed him that already -- I informed him that15 already the prime minister and the other ones are going16 to have a meeting and it's good for him to meet with17 all of them.18 Q And -- thank you, Mr. Bogoeski.19 In these discussions you had with the20 various people in Macedonia to arrange these meetings,21 it's correct that all you told them about the purpose22 of the meeting was that Mr. Contominas's23 representatives wanted to discuss a business proposal24 with them, correct?25 THE INTERPRETER: Can you repeat the

Page 64

1 question? 2 BY MS. FRIED: 3 Q In his discussions with the people in 4 Macedonia to arrange the meetings, all he told them 5 about the purpose of the meeting was that it was to 6 discuss a business proposal. 7 A Yes, that's correct, especially for the 8 very first -- for the very first meeting, that was the 9 only thing that I knew and that I was told, that10 they're coming to discuss a business plan and any other11 details.12 Q Thank you.13 Now, Mr. Bogoeski, when these meetings14 occurred in December of 2004, you did not attend any of15 these meetings, correct?16 THE INTERPRETER: He did not take any part17 in the meetings, but he was waiting after the meetings18 were done. So Nikos Stavridis and Mikhail19 Kefaloyannis, he was waiting for them after the20 meetings to be over so they can meet.21 BY MS. FRIED: 22 Q How soon after the meetings were concluded23 did you meet with Mr. Stavridis and Kefaloyannis?24 A I cannot really recall exactly in minutes25 how long these meetings were, but they arrived around


(16) Pages 61 - 64




Page 65

1 11:00 in Skopje, a.m., 12:00 they left to go to the 2 prime minister's office, and somewhere around 2:00 p.m. 3 they left for Tetovo. 4 It took a little while there in Tetovo. 5 Q Did you accompany them to Tetovo or you 6 stayed behind in Skopje? 7 A I stayed in Skopje with Sifakakis and 8 Irakis. 9 Q Can you tell me how -- what is the distance10 between Skopje and Tetovo? How long would it take to11 get to Tetovo from Skopje?12 A If there is not a traffic jam or there is13 not a lot of traffic, it's 40 minutes, approximately.14 Q And then did Mr. Kefaloyannis return from15 Tetovo later that day?16 A Yes, they returned to Skopje around17 somewhere 8:00 at night.18 Q And I apologize, a moment ago I said19 Mr. Kefaloyannis, but Mr. Stavridis also joined him on20 the trip to Tetovo, correct?21 A So I'm repeating again. Kefaloyannis and22 Stavridis were leading the meetings, including the one23 in Tetovo.24 Q Thank you.25 And then when they returned to Skopje at

Page 66

1 about 8:00 that night, did you meet with them then? 2 A Yes, I did meet them. Yes, I did meet them 3 in the restaurant in Nostalgia on the street of the 4 (inaudible) in Skopje. 5 Q Was it just the three of you? 6 A He was waiting -- him with Irakis were 7 waiting for them in the restaurant, Sifakakis. 8 Q How long did you meet with them at the 9 restaurant?10 A It was not a whole hour, because I was11 planning to treat them dinner. But they didn't like12 to. They actually refused my dinner because they13 already ate in Tetovo, and they said that they're going14 into the hotel to sleep.15 Q Okay. Why did they meet with you that16 evening?17 A It was by order of Mr. Contominas.18 Q Order to whom?19 A It was ordered to Kefaloyannis and20 Stavridis to meet with me and tell me what exactly --21 what these meetings are about.22 Q Okay.23 MS. FRIED: One moment.24 BY MS. FRIED: 25 Q After meeting with Mr. Kefaloyannis and

Page 67

1 Mr. Stavridis, did you do anything with the information 2 they provided to you? 3 A They introduced me to the following; they 4 told me the following: They said that both of the 5 meetings, the one in the government in Skopje and the 6 one with Buckovski and the other one in Tetovo, that 7 they were very successful. 8 Q And you didn't -- you didn't do anything 9 with this information after that, though, right,10 Mr. Bogoeski?11 A I didn't have anything to do with the12 information, because directly they talked to the prime13 minister and the head people.14 Q And just to be very clear, Mr. Bogoeski,15 nobody from Magyar Telecom or Deutsche Telekom16 participated in these meetings we have been discussing,17 correct?18 A That is true that nobody from Deutsche19 Telekom, Magyar Telecom, east Stonebridge and20 Stonebridge did not attend these meetings, but21 Kefaloyannis and Stavridis informed me shortly that22 this is the bigger plan than Deutsche Telekom -- Magyar23 Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, and stone -- Mr. Contominas24 are in the plan. And also Stonebridge.25 Q Okay.

Page 68

1 A They told me -- they told me that this 2 business plan is between Dimitri Contominas and Straub. 3 MS. FRIED: Straub? 4 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. 5 THE WITNESS: And right after the New 6 Year's holidays, they will come with a written proposal 7 to talk about -- they will bring a -- a written 8 materials for all of the questions that they were in 9 play.10 BY MS. FRIED: 11 Q Let me ask you a few questions about that,12 Mr. Bogoeski.13 Are you saying that Mr. Stavridis and14 Mr. Kefaloyannis told you that this business plan that15 they had been sent to Macedonia to discuss concerned a16 business deal between Mr. Contominas and Mr. Straub?17 A Yes, in written form was nothing proposed18 yet. It was just an announcement. I was told that is19 just a business plan between Contominas and Straub.20 Q And when did Mr. Kefaloyannis and21 Mr. Stavridis tell you that? Was that when you met22 with him at Nostalgia?23 A Yes, the night.24 Q But you didn't tell that to Mr. Dodge when25 you met with him on December 28th, did you?


(17) Pages 65 - 68




Page 69

1 A Shortly I told them where the meeting was 2 held. 3 Q But all I'm asking, Mr. Bogoeski, is 4 whether when you spoke with Mr. Dodge on December 28th, 5 you told him that Mr. Kefaloyannis and Mr. Stavridis 6 had indicated to you when you met with them at 7 Nostalgia, that the purpose of their trip was to 8 discuss a business deal between Mr. Contominas and 9 Mr. Straub?10 A No. I did not explain that part of the11 question because the question was asked where that they12 came, and I told him that it was in Nostalgia.13 Q But to be clear, Mr. Straub was not in14 Macedonia during these meetings, correct?15 A That's true.16 Q And you told Mr. Dodge when you met with17 him that no representatives from Magyar Telecom18 participated in these meetings for security reasons,19 right?20 A It's true, but that security reasons could21 be interpreted wrongly, and the main reason for that22 was to keep the secret.23 Q What secret are you referring to,24 Mr. Bogoeski?25 A So they're not exposed to the public, the

Page 70

1 involvement of all the people. 2 Q Okay. Mr. Bogoeski, let's move on to the 3 second meeting that you talked about when you spoke 4 with Mr. Dodge on December 28th. I believe you -- you 5 recalled meetings occurring in the middle of January 6 2005. 7 I think you said it was perhaps around 8 January 15th; is that correct? 9 A Yes, I said -- I mentioned that it's around10 that time, the 15th of January, because I recall that11 Buckovski said that he's not going to be here for the12 New Year's Eve and then the best time for the meetings13 to be held, it's around 15th or 16th of January because14 of the old, the Orthodox New Year's eve, which is on15 the 14th. So the best will be 15th or 16th, and he16 cannot recall exactly the date.17 Q Did you play any role in organizing this --18 that meeting?19 A The second part, the second meeting was20 easier for me to prepare because I just had to -- I had21 to talk to -- it was just a matter of calling22 Contominas to get the exact date for Stavridis and23 Kefaloyannis to come to Skopje. It was pretty much the24 easier part, the second meeting.25 Q Okay. But you did that; you placed the

Page 71

1 phone calls; you spoke to the various parties to 2 organize this meeting? 3 A Yes, it's true. 4 Q And what was your understanding of why this 5 meeting was being organized? 6 A This meeting from January was actually a -- 7 continuing on the meeting from December, because in the 8 meetings -- in the meeting in December, they did not 9 bring any kind of documents and they promised that.10 And in the next meeting, which means January, they will11 come with a memorandum of understanding that will be --12 in which will be included all the questions that there13 were subject of talks of conversations.14 Q Again, here in January, as in December, you15 did not actually participate in the meeting once it was16 organized, correct?17 A Right, it's true, and there was no need for18 me to be present.19 Q And were the cast of characters at these20 meetings the same as they had been at the December 200421 meeting?22 A Yes, the cast was pretty much the same, and23 it was strengthened by an Irakis Sifakakis.24 THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.)25 THE WITNESS: So there were two more people

Page 72

1 at this time, and the first one is Irakis Sifakakis, 2 who was a financial advisor of the firm. 3 MR. DODGE: Sifakakis. 4 THE INTERPRETER: Irakis Sifakakis? 5 THE WITNESS: So Irakis Sifakakis and 6 Irakis Fideteis. He's the financial advisor. But they 7 didn't attend the meetings. They were just at the firm 8 of Contominas. 9 MR. HILL: Can you translate?10 THE WITNESS: Yes.11 So the two of them, they were staying at12 the firm, in the offices of the firm of Mr. Contominas,13 which is -- the name of the firm is Net Phone, and is14 the firm -- the first telephone company.15 BY MS. FRIED: 16 Q And, Mr. Bogoeski, isn't it the case that17 the only information you have about these meetings in18 January 2005 came to you from Mr. Kefaloyannis and19 Mr. Stavridis after those meetings had ended, right?20 A For the meeting in January?21 Q Yes.22 A I received -- I received a -- I received a23 copy from the memorandum, and then later on it was24 named as a Protocol of Cooperation.25 Q Who did you receive that from?


(18) Pages 69 - 72




Page 73

1 A Kefaloyannis gave it to me. 2 Q After the meeting? 3 A I received a copy before the meeting when 4 we were at Net Phone, because it was ordered by -- 5 THE INTERPRETER: Contominas or 6 Kefaloyannis? 7 THE WITNESS: Kefaloyannis gave it to him, 8 and Contominas asked me to look at the draft, if I have 9 any notes or anything about the materials in the --10 BY MS. FRIED: 11 Q This occurred at the offices of Net Phone?12 A It was in the offices of Net Phone, in the13 office of the -- Dimitri Segalous, at the time he was14 director.15 Q But you didn't have any substantive16 comments on the protocol, did you, on the draft17 document you received?18 A I did have one comment, which in the19 statement on the 28th of December I did not explain in20 depth; but if you want me to, I will explain to you in21 details.22 Q Yes, I'd like to know what your comment23 was, the comment that you neglected to mention when you24 spoke with Mr. Dodge on December 28th.25 A When I read the text, all these questions

Page 74

1 were very -- they were very popular at that time as a 2 problem, very popular known. At that time, first the 3 two of the biggest company, Cosmofon and -- MobiMak and 4 Cosmofon from Greece, they refused to pay their taxes 5 to the -- to the government, because there is a law 6 that it was -- 7 MR. DODGE: I think he's saying frequency, 8 radio frequent. 9 MS. LANE: I would like to lodge an10 objection.11 Will you please stop testifying, the both12 of you. I think they can figure out what he is saying13 without what you're saying, the SEC.14 THE WITNESS: The two of these companies15 did not want to pay a fee, that it's called a fee for16 using of radio frequencies. So they didn't want to pay17 it because they were saying that it's too high.18 And Magyer Telekom, there was a second19 problem also that Magyer Telekom did not want to pay20 the dividend for 2004, and they paid the 2003 with a21 big delays. And --22 BY MS. FRIED: 23 Q I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Bogoeski,24 because I think your response is going slightly beyond25 the question I asked.

Page 75

1 But to be clear, is it your testimony that 2 what you have been testifying about for the past 3 several minutes are questions or concerns you had about 4 this draft when it was provided to you in the offices 5 of Net Phone before this January 2005 meeting? 6 THE INTERPRETER: Could you start the 7 question again? 8 MS. FRIED: That was confusing. I 9 apologize.10 BY MS. FRIED: 11 Q Mr. Bogoeski, are you saying that these are12 concerns you had with the draft that you were given13 when you were in the offices of Net Phone before the14 January 2005 meetings in Macedonia?15 THE INTERPRETER: He was just explaining16 the problems. They were part of the memorandum.17 BY MS. FRIED: 18 Q Okay. But, Mr. Bogoeski, it's correct19 that -- is it not, that when you spoke with Mr. Dodge20 on December 28th, you said that you didn't have any21 comments to the protocol, there was nothing serious22 that you remarked upon, because if you looked at the23 protocol, you couldn't have any serious comments about24 it; is that accurate?25 A I'm repeating -- I repeat this now, that if

Page 76

1 you look at the protocol, if you look at the 2 memorandum, you will not find serious problems or 3 serious notes. 4 Q Okay. Thank you. 5 A Those comments that I was mentioning right 6 now were with the problems in the memorandum. 7 Q Okay. Well, I may ask you about -- I may 8 ask you about the memorandum, but at this point I was 9 just asking about what happened -- what role, if any,10 you played when these meetings were going on in11 Macedonia in January 2005?12 A My first role was to organize the meetings13 and then to look at the memorandum and then -- which14 later was named as a Protocol of Cooperation.15 Q Okay. Now, there came a time,16 Mr. Bogoeski, according to your prior statement to17 Mr. Dodge, that you were asked to organize a meeting18 with Ekrem Lluka in Kosovo, correct?19 A Yes, that's true, and I was asked kindly20 from Kefaloyannis and Stavridis to organize a meeting21 with the license carrying of Ekrem Lluka.22 THE INTERPRETER: I couldn't hear that one.23 MobiCos Kosovo.24 BY MS. FRIED: 25 Q What was your understanding of why this


(19) Pages 73 - 76




Page 77

1 meeting was being arranged? 2 A The first time, I did not understand why 3 exactly they needed Kosovo to be included in this, but 4 then when I read the very first part of the memorandum, 5 I understand they needed it. From the text and from 6 the conversations from Stavridis and Kefaloyannis, I 7 understood that in the business plan that they had with 8 Magyer Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, the main -- the 9 main intention is also a -- giving services in Kosovo10 also or to perform a mobile virtual operator, MobiCos11 Kosovo, Ekrem Lluka, and Macedonia, which will be12 involved in, in which the signal from Macedonia, it13 will be transferred to Kosovo.14 Q And --15 A Through that mutual operator.16 Q And this meeting ended up occurring in17 March 2005 in Kosovo, correct?18 A From the statement that I gave to Mr. Dodge19 on the 28th of December, I cannot recall exactly which20 date was it, but I can remember -- because I can -- I21 recall that there was still snow on the mountains by22 the town of Pec.23 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I can represent to you that24 when you spoke with Mr. Dodge, at least according to25 the translation that has been provided to us, you

Page 78

1 indicated that you thought this meeting probably 2 occurred approximately March 2005. 3 Who attended the meeting? 4 A The meeting was held in the private house, 5 the residence of Mr. Lluka, in Pec. Attended: Nikos 6 Stavridis, Mikhail Kefaloyannis, Irakis Sifakakis, and 7 me, and one Albanian from Skopje who was with us, who 8 was accompanying us from a safety reasons, but he did 9 not attend the meeting.10 Q And, of course, Ekrem Lluka was there11 because it was -- it was in Ekrem Lluka's house; is12 that correct?13 A In his house in the -- downtown Pec.14 MR. DODGE: Excuse me, Lisa, you've been15 going about an hour and 40 minutes. Was wondering what16 your thoughts were on a break.17 MS. FRIED: I'm fine taking a break, maybe18 another ten minutes.19 Mr. Bogoeski, we'd like to take a20 ten-minute break. So we'll go off the record.21 (Deposition recessed at 9:35 a.m.)22 (Deposition resumed at 10:00 a.m.)23 BY MS. FRIED: 24 Q Mr. Bogoeski, when we went off the record,25 we were discussing the meeting you participated in, you

Page 79

1 attended in Kosovo, and it was your understanding, 2 wasn't it, that the purpose of that meeting was to talk 3 about developing something called a Mobile Virtual 4 Operator in Kosovo, correct? 5 A The basic goal was exactly that. 6 Q But the Kosovo MVO was never established, 7 was it? 8 A That is true. This agreement or this 9 proposal never became real, never become real.10 Q And isn't it the case that you felt11 slightly embarrassed because of the role you felt you12 had played perhaps in misleading Mr. Lluka?13 THE INTERPRETER: Repeat the beginning of14 the question?15 BY MS. FRIED: 16 Q Were you -- strike that. Let me rephrase17 that.18 You felt that Mr. Lluka was treated19 unfairly during this episode, didn't you?20 A In the first meeting, you could not sense21 that, because it was promised a lot to him.22 Q I understand that, but once it became clear23 that the MVO was not being established, were you24 concerned that Mr. Lluka would be disappointed?25 THE INTERPRETER: What --

Page 80

1 MS. FRIED: Mr. Lluka would be 2 disappointed. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, he was very 4 disappointed, not just because it never came to 5 realization of this project, but because of the whole 6 procedure and unfair procedure, that it was letting 7 carried on by Kefaloyannis and Stavridis. 8 BY MS. FRIED: 9 Q And isn't it true that you felt a little10 embarrassed and perhaps responsible for Mr. Lluka's11 being disappointed?12 A I felt more responsibilities because of the13 seriousness of the -- the meetings. In sense of that,14 that is about the serious companies, that they have a15 serious proposals, that they do have the serious16 intentions for fulfilling that, but later on I just17 understood and realized that it was actually just a18 simple game.19 Q At the time that you learned the MVO was20 not going to be developed, did you feel that the way21 Mr. Contominas's representatives treated Lluka was22 unfair?23 Did you feel that the way Mr. Contominas's24 representatives treated Mr. Lluka was unfair?25 A Yes, that's true, they treated him unfairly


(20) Pages 77 - 80




Page 81

1 and they lied to him. 2 Q And, in fact, you went to Mr. Contominas's 3 associates at that time and asked them why they were 4 treating Mr. Lluka so unfairly, correct? 5 A I said -- yes, I did react to 6 Mr. Contominas that it's not fair to take the original 7 license from Mr. Lluka and to be treated and to be 8 acted upon the way that they were acting at him. 9 Q And was it your understanding after having10 spoken to Mr. Stavridis and Mr. Kefaloyannis that there11 had never been a plan to start an MVNO in Kosovo?12 A From the situation, that ongoing situation13 later on, it shows that there was no intention of14 developing or -- developing a -- the MVO on -- in15 Kosovo.16 Q And this came as a shock to you after you17 had spent the time and energy to organize this meeting,18 didn't it?19 A It was not a shock. I was embarrassed.20 Q After you came to understand that the MVNO21 was not going to be developed in Kosovo, did you22 discuss that with anybody other than Mr. Stavridis and23 Mr. Kefaloyannis?24 A I first talked to Contominas because he was25 my first address to ask -- so to ask, I first -- I

Page 82

1 first turned to Contominas and asked him what's going 2 on, because the man is pressuring, is asking what is 3 going on with the whole situation. And Contominas said 4 not to the worry about it and that later -- and then a 5 little later, Kefaloyannis and Stavridis explained to 6 me what are the reasons, actually why are they doing 7 this. And the answer was that this kind of lies and 8 this kind of mistreating people, it's regular way of 9 doing business and I should not be worried about that.10 Q You never discussed this episode with the11 Kosovo MVNO, with anybody at Magyer Telekom?12 A Correct, I have not had direct meetings13 with nobody from Magyer Telekom, because I was --14 because I was in service of Contominas, not from Magyer15 Telekom, the people from Magyer Telekom. Even though16 some events in Skopje -- even on the events in Skopje,17 when I was invited, I didn't want to attend those18 events when the people from Magyer Telekom were at the19 same place, because I thought that was really20 unappropriate to do.21 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I'd like to change topics now22 and ask you about a document that you spoke about at23 some length when you met with Mr. Dodge that you24 referred to as the "Non Paper." For your convenience,25 it's the document marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 231.

Page 83

1 You received this document from Bekim 2 Zemoski, right? 3 A The original copy that he signed by Vlado 4 Buckovski and Straub is -- I receive it from Bekim, but 5 the copy from the working ship before signing of this 6 Non Paper document, which was a subject of negotiation 7 conversation among Buckovski, I received it from 8 Kefaloyannis before the negotiations started. 9 It means that this Non Paper, even though10 it's signed by two sides, two parties, in general it's11 a two-party paper. One of them is between Buckovski12 and Contominas, and the second one is from -- and the13 second one is signed by Buckovski and Straub.14 Q Okay. Mr. Bogoeski, I'd like to walk15 through this with you quite carefully just to make sure16 we're being precise when we refer to this document.17 So I would ask you initially just to look18 at the document that has been marked as Exhibit 231,19 which, as you'll see, is a document that has signature20 lines for Vlado Buckovski and Elek Straub, but which is21 not itself signed, correct?22 A Correct.23 Q Did you ever receive a copy of this24 document as this document actually appears, with those25 signature lines and no signatures?

Page 84

1 A All the -- all the papers between Buckovski 2 and Straub look like this. The papers look like this 3 before they were signed. Before they were signed, 4 there were two other documents, and this is the final 5 one. 6 Q Okay. Let me back up. 7 Mr. Bogoeski, have you ever seen a version 8 of this document that has been signed? 9 A I have a same text of this document signed10 by Buckovski and Straub that was given to me by Bekim11 Zemoski.12 Q When did Bekim Zemoski provide you with13 this document?14 A The signed copy, because the Non Paper is15 actually the actual document which says who is getting16 how much money from the deals. So this was a condition17 for signing the Protocol for Cooperation.18 Q Okay. Excuse me. Mr. Bogoeski, we'll get19 to some more substance, but at this point I just have20 asked when Bekim Zemoski provided you with a copy of21 the Non Paper that you say had been signed by Vlado22 Buckovski and Elek Straub.23 MR. KOENIG: I want to object.24 Can you repeat what you just said before25 you repeat the question?


(21) Pages 81 - 84




Page 85

1 THE INTERPRETER: He said in May, but he 2 cannot recall. And this is where I stopped. I was 3 interrupted. 4 Would you mind repeating your question? 5 BY MS. FRIED: 6 Q The first question is very simple: When 7 was the version of the Non Paper that you say had been 8 signed by Mr. Buckovski and Mr. Straub, when was that 9 provided to you?10 MR. HILL: Objection.11 THE INTERPRETER: He cannot recall exactly12 the date, but it was few days before the -- May 27th,13 and because the condition, in order to be signed, this14 memorandum was -- needed to be signed. These two15 papers needed to be signed.16 BY MS. FRIED: 17 Q And why did Mr. Zemoski give you a signed18 copy of the Non Paper?19 THE INTERPRETER: Non Thing?20 MS. FRIED: Non Paper.21 THE WITNESS: So Bekim Zemoski was the22 trustee of Buckovski at that time, the person that23 Buckovski was trust -- trusted him. At the same24 time -- at the same time, he had a complete trust in25 me, and if we take into consideration the fact that he

Page 86

1 didn't live permanently in Skopje, but in Germany. He 2 was scared to travel with these type of documents. 3 BY MS. FRIED: 4 Q I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Bogoeski. 5 Isn't it the case that when you spoke with 6 Mr. Dodge in December, you told him that the signed 7 version of the Non Paper that Mr. Zemoski provided to 8 you had been signed by Mr. Buckovski and 9 Mr. Contominas, not Mr. Straub?10 THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.)11 MS. FRIED: Had been signed by Buckovski12 and Contominas, not Buckovski and Straub.13 THE WITNESS: That's not true. When I was14 reading the transcript, I saw that it was made a15 technical error, a mistake. That's why in that part,16 it's a correction on my statement. The translator17 made -- the translator made a technical error, mistake.18 BY MS. FRIED: 19 Q Mr. Bogoeski, are you able to direct us to20 the page of Exhibit 236 where you made this correction?21 A Page 14 of the Macedonian version. The22 last paragraph.23 Q Can you explain -- I guess I would ask the24 translator if you can explain, if you can translate the25 Macedonian and then the handwritten correction?

Page 87

1 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Here it says that 2 it gave to me the original version, that it's signed by 3 Buckovski, and the cross name is Contominas; but then 4 it's corrected, okay, and it says Straub. 5 MS. FRIED: Okay. 6 BY MS. FRIED: 7 Q And -- 8 THE INTERPRETER: In the other version 9 between Contominas and Elek Straub.10 MR. HILL: Can I inquire of the SEC whether11 the translated version was translated with the12 corrections or without the corrections?13 MR. DODGE: That, I don't know.14 MS. LANE: I think it's --15 MS. FRIED: Let me just back up.16 BY MS. FRIED: 17 Q So is it your testimony, Mr. Bogoeski, that18 the transcript of your discussion with Mr. Dodge on the19 28th was simply mistaken and what you said to Mr. Dodge20 on December 28th was that the copy of the Non Paper21 that had been given to you by Mr. Zemoski had, in fact,22 been signed by Elek Straub?23 THE INTERPRETER: He corrected himself with24 his handwriting the mistakes that were made in the25 transcript. There is a lot of other technical mistakes

1 in that long conversation. 2 BY MS. FRIED: 3 Q But to be clear, when you spoke to 4 Mr. Dodge, did you say that Elek Straub had signed the 5 document, or is it your testimony that you said 6 Mr. Contominas signed the document, and after the fact 7 you crossed out the word "Contominas" and changed it to 8 "Straub"? 9 MS. FRIED: Does that make sense?10 THE INTERPRETER: No.11 MS. FRIED: Do you know what I'm saying?12 THE INTERPRETER: No, I don't.13 MS. FRIED: Let's back up.14 BY MS. FRIED: 15 Q Mr. Bogoeski, when you were speaking to16 Mr. Dodge on December 28th, at that time did you tell17 him that the version of the Non Paper that was provided18 to you by Mr. Zemoski had been signed by Elek Straub?19 A In that kind of conversation of night20 hours, I cannot recall and remember every single word,21 but I can comment on the text. And in this moment, I22 cannot really recall every single word.23 Q Perhaps the videotape will be helpful.24 Mr. Bogoeski, I'll ask you this: Sitting25 here today, do you still have a copy of the Non Paper


(22) Pages 85 - 88

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 88 of 166



1 that has been signed by anybody? 2 A I don't -- I don't carry -- I don't hold 3 any of these documents anymore in my possession. 4 Q And you have said -- is it the case that 5 you -- you claim you, at one point, possessed a signed 6 copy of the Non Paper, but you gave it to prime 7 minister -- arranged to have it given to Prime Minister 8 Gruevski? 9 A In the folder that I used to have, there10 were three original papers. The first one is the11 one -- is a Non Paper that is signed by Buckovski and12 Straub. The second one was the Protocol of Cooperation13 paper. And the third one was the letter that Mr.14 Gruevski was sending to -- so Buckovski -- the third15 paper is the letter from Buckovski to Straub that he is16 selling the stocks of Macedonian Telekom, the17 9.9 percent.18 Inside there were many copies, but19 altogether I gave it to the former minister of interior20 to give it by hand to the premier -- to the prime21 minister to use it in the whole procedure and then to22 be given back to me.23 Q But it was never returned to you, was it?24 A They were never returned to me. They25 claimed that they lost it.

Page 90

1 Q And is it correct that you handed those 2 documents over to the minister in 2008? 3 A Yes, that's true. 4 Q Why didn't you make any copies of the 5 documents before you handed them over to the 6 government? 7 A I didn't have any intentions of making 8 copies or any of that things. I just -- because of the 9 popularity of the whole case, I thought maybe I should10 give it to a person that I can trust and not somebody11 that -- because the person was from the government, of12 course, he trusted that he's -- the former minister of13 interior.14 Q But you have said you retained this15 unsigned copy of the Non Paper, correct?16 A Yes, I do have a copy -- I do have a copy17 because before the actual document needed to be signed,18 there were made a bunch of other copies right before19 the signing of paper, as a rule.20 Q My question is: If you had decided not to21 retain a copy of the signed version, why did you retain22 a copy of the unsigned version?23 A Yes, I didn't -- I didn't do that with any24 intention. I was -- I just found a copy of it25 somewhere in some drawer. They were forgotten copies.

Page 91

1 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I know earlier today 2 Mr. Dodge made reference to an article that had 3 appeared in the Veccer Newspaper, and isn't it the case 4 that this document called "Non Paper" is identical to 5 the Non Paper that appeared in the June 20th, 2008, 6 edition of Veccer, which is Exhibit 91? 7 A That's the same text. 8 Q So, I mean, this unsigned document could 9 very easily have simply been typed up and copied out of10 this newspaper, correct?11 MR. DODGE: We need English, I think.12 THE INTERPRETER: He's asking for -- he's13 asking for -- he does not understand the question,14 so --15 MS. FRIED: Okay. Let me rephrase the16 question.17 THE INTERPRETER: Rephrase the question,18 please?19 BY MS. FRIED: 20 Q I'll withdraw the question.21 I'd like to ask you some more specific22 questions about the Non Paper, Mr. Bogoeski, and it23 would be helpful if you had the Protocol of Cooperation24 in front of you as well. That's document 230.25 Mr. Bogoeski, isn't it the case when there

Page 92

1 are references in the Non Paper to party A or party B, 2 those references are intended to correspond to the 3 parties A and B in the Protocol of Cooperation? 4 THE INTERPRETER: Repeat it again, I'm 5 sorry. Can you repeat it again? 6 MS. FRIED: Let me rephrase it. 7 MR. HILL: Hold on one second. Just for 8 the record, it appears that from time to time the 9 witness is conversing with somebody to his left.10 Can we just note for the record who that11 is?12 THE WITNESS: I have not communicated with13 anybody. I'm just using the documents.14 MR. HILL: Thank you.15 BY MS. FRIED: 16 Q Thank you, Mr. Bogoeski.17 I can make the question more simple. In18 the Non Paper there are references to party A and party19 B.20 Are those references to parties A and B in21 the Protocol of Cooperation?22 A So before I explain to you that the23 Protocol of Cooperation will not be signed if the Non24 Paper was not adopted and signed, because the side --25 the -- behind the protocol is the Non Paper.


(23) Pages 89 - 92

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 89 of 166



Page 93

1 Q Who told you that, Mr. Bogoeski? 2 A In many occasions in the conversation with 3 Stavridis, Kefaloyannis, and Contominas, it was 4 mentioned, and the rest who actually were a part of the 5 realization of this. 6 Q But nobody at Magyer Telekom ever told you 7 that, correct? 8 A So I have never contacted with anybody from 9 Magyer Telekom, but with conversation with all these10 people that I mentioned before -- Stavridis,11 Kefaloyannis -- the financing comes from Magyer12 Telekom.13 Q To be clear, though, the only two people14 you have said you discussed this with was Mr. Stavridis15 and Mr. Kefaloyannis; is that correct?16 A It's not true, and Contominas also.17 Q Let's get back to my question, Mr.18 Bogoeski. Party A and party B in the Non Paper, is19 that meant to mean the government of Macedonia for20 party A and Matav for party B?21 A Party A is the government of Republic of22 Macedonia.23 Q And party B --24 A Is the -- the party B is Matav from Magyer25 Telekom.

Page 94

1 Q Okay. And do you know why in the Non Paper 2 the government of Macedonia and Matav are not 3 identified? 4 A I don't understand the question. 5 Q Do you know why the Non Paper refers to the 6 government of Macedonia and Matav only as party A and 7 party B? 8 A I don't know why, but I can just guess the 9 reasons. There was no need for the whole names to be10 presented because the Non Paper is a paper of trust.11 Q What do you mean -- isn't it actually the12 case that the names -- you have said that the names13 were not included because the Non Paper was intended to14 be a hidden document, the agreement behind the15 protocol?16 A Yes, in one way you can consider it as a17 cover document, a backup document for the protocol.18 Q It's strange, though, isn't it, that19 Mr. Buckovski and Mr. Straub then appear on the20 signature lines? Do you agree?21 A I cannot comment if it's strange or not,22 but I explained to you before that it's a paper of23 three parties.24 Q Do you know why there is a Non Paper25 separate from a Protocol of Cooperation and the parties

Page 95

1 did not just enter into one agreement? 2 A This is a normal and a standard procedure, 3 because the protocol, it's a public document between 4 the government and Magyer Telekom, and the Non Paper is 5 the criminal base on that protocol. 6 MS. FRIED: Did he say "criminal"? 7 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. 8 THE WITNESS: Exactly, because the money 9 were made in cash.10 BY MS. FRIED: 11 Q Let's talk about the Non Paper, then.12 You've described the payments -- you have13 described the payments discussed in the Non Paper as14 being bribe payments, correct?15 A Not incomplete. I was just explaining the16 procedure, how it was unfolding, the paying in cash.17 Q So are you saying the Non Paper does not18 discuss bribes?19 A It explains. Of course, it explains.20 Q What is your basis for saying that? Why do21 you believe this document concerns bribes?22 A Because in many occasions, I was attending23 meetings on which were discussed the same context that24 contains the Non Paper.25 Q Which meeting --

Page 96

1 A Such in every meeting that I had with 2 Contominas was talked about the problems that they had 3 with paying in cash -- the payment towards the 4 government and the payment towards the Albanian 5 participants in the government. 6 Q But -- 7 A And I was personally attending the paying 8 off of Abdulhalim Kasami with a million and $250,000. 9 Q Isn't it the case that you never personally10 observed or participated in the payment of bribes in11 connection with this Non Paper?12 A The lawyer, again, it's interpreting my13 statements on a wrong way and turns it -- I said that I14 am not a participant who made the decisions. Neither15 the realization of this was dependent on me. That I16 organized the meetings, that's true, that I'm informed17 of the pains, especially -- especially of the last18 portion of a million and 250 to the people of Tetovo.19 Q Mr. Bogoeski, didn't you tell Mr. Dodge20 that you were not present during the payment of any21 bribes and that you were not personally present to see22 documentation that bribes were paid?23 A You're interpreting my statement wrongly24 again or just partially interpreting the statement.25 With the payments to Buckovski, with the payments for


(24) Pages 93 - 96




Page 97

1 the people in Tetovo, he has not -- I have not been in 2 the situation, and I have not been present or neither I 3 have touched any papers that they shown any bribery or 4 signed for any. 5 The only thing I'm talking right now, those 6 are the million and -- the last money, it's on the 7 meeting in Atina, in the village of the -- Mr. Dimitri 8 Contominas. On the reaction of Kasami, that this last 9 portion of million and 250, it's not paid off.10 Although Contominas was presenting some proofs that11 this money were paid, he decided not to become to a12 bigger complication or circumstances. He decided to13 pay this million and $250,000 because he was afraid,14 scared from this conflict among them not to become a15 big scandal, not to result, not to --16 As I said in the statement, this meeting in17 the villa of Contominas in Atina, it was held after the18 attempted murder of -- assassination, attempted19 assassination of Kasami.20 Q Okay. Mr. Bogoeski, in an effort to21 organize our discussion a little, I think there are two22 types of circumstances you have been discussing.23 Isn't it correct that the only knowledge24 you claim to have about bribes having been paid comes25 from one of two sources?

Page 98

1 Isn't it true -- Mr. Bogoeski, isn't it 2 correct that Bekim -- that your knowledge of bribes 3 being paid came from Bekim Zemoski? 4 A No, it's not true. It's not that only from 5 Bekim, but I have, like I said before, I'm saying right 6 now, that I have a knowledge for paying -- payments 7 made or briberies made. I know from Kefaloyannis, 8 Stavridis, Contominas, and Irakis, and also I have the 9 knowledge of this type of money from Kasami because he10 was telling us that $1,250,000 were not paid off.11 Q But your discussion with Mr. Kasami12 concerned his complaint that he had not received a13 bribe payment, correct?14 A Yes, Kasami complained that a million and15 $250,000 were missing from the agreement, and he was16 pressuring the prime minister Buckovski, and for17 that -- and for that he was referred to Contominas, and18 Contominas was claiming that he paid everything. And19 then it came to a shaking relationship between them and20 shaking trust. They couldn't trust each other.21 MR. DODGE: I have a question about the22 translation.23 Is the witness saying euros or dollars?24 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. So it's25 euros, not dollars.

Page 99

1 BY MS. FRIED: 2 Q Mr. Buckovski, when the various people were 3 discussing -- gave you information about bribes being 4 paid, did you do anything with that information? 5 A Yes. The whole folder with the documents 6 that I had when the investigation started in 2008, I 7 gave it to the prime minister, like I described before. 8 Prior to that, nobody contacted me as a witness or 9 anything else.10 Q So are you saying that you came to11 understand that these payments were bribes in 2008?12 A I was -- I had thought that during the13 whole period of time. I knew.14 Q And you did nothing. You did not bring15 this to the attention of any authorities or take any16 action in connection with that information?17 A In Macedonia, it's completely different18 situation that is in your country, the United States.19 If the main authorities were included or they were in20 the criminal, the crime, if only you said one word,21 then your head -- you can lose your head and nothing22 else.23 Q Are you saying that everyone in the24 government of Macedonia was involved in this plot at25 that point?

Page 100

1 A Of course not everybody, but involved in 2 this were the prime minister, the deputy prime 3 minister, and minister Zhemali Mehazi. No other 4 minister's were involved or knew about the case. 5 Q Just to be clear, when you learned that 6 bribes had been paid or when you came to believe that 7 bribes had been paid, you did nothing further with that 8 information until 2008, when you handed your documents 9 over to the minister of the interior, correct?10 A It's true. As I explained before, in11 Macedonia, if the government -- but the first man --12 you can just lose your head, and you will not receive13 any legal protection because there is not a legal14 system in Macedonia. It does not exist.15 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I'm almost done with my16 questions. I just would like to ask you a few17 questions about the two meetings you said you had with18 Elek Straub.19 I believe you previously stated that the20 first time you met with Mr. Straub occurred before the21 Protocol of Cooperation was signed, correct?22 A That's correct.23 Q And you said that meeting occurred when24 Mr. Straub was in Skopje to meet with Mr. Buckovski,25 correct?


(25) Pages 97 - 100




Page 101

1 A That's true. 2 Q You didn't participate in any meeting at 3 that time with Mr. Straub and Mr. Buckovski, correct? 4 A It's true, I did not participate. 5 Q Instead, you met with Mr. Straub after that 6 meeting for lunch at a restaurant with several other 7 people, correct? 8 A Yes, it's true. 9 Q And do you recall who else was at that10 lunch?11 A There was a small restaurant by the12 government, nearby the government, who is a closed13 restaurant. Now it's closed restaurant. To eat lunch,14 they had a relatively short time attended. Nikos15 Stavridis, Mikhail Kefaloyannis, Ekrem Lluka from Pec;16 and, of course very shortly, Schilling came because he17 was in some other responsibilities.18 Ekrem Lluka was also, Elek Straub, the19 lawyer from (inaudible) Schilling, who were visiting20 with the premier Buckovski at the --21 Q Isn't it true that you had invited22 Mr. Lluka because he had been trying to get answers23 about the status of the MVNO project?24 A It's true. He had a big expectations after25 the first meeting in Pec. And after that meeting, he

Page 102

1 was calling me pretty much on daily basis to find out 2 what was going on with the project. 3 That's why I asked Contominas. At the same 4 time, from Kefaloyannis and Stavridis, that it's good, 5 this meeting to be used -- this meeting to be used also 6 as a meeting with Ekrem Lluka and for them to -- to 7 explain -- to explain to him what is going on with the 8 whole project situation. 9 Q Yes. And it was the case -- Mr. Straub10 actually reassured Mr. Lluka at the lunch that the11 plans for the MVNO were going to be realized?12 A So Mr. Straub, at that point of time,13 explained to Lluka that it will be realization of the14 whole project, and then in the near time that he is15 going to be invited in Vienna and he is going to be16 given more details about the project.17 Q Okay.18 A But that visit or that meeting actually was19 prolonged. And it happened in August 11th, when Ekrem20 Lluka went to Vienna.21 Q And, Mr. Bogoeski, I did want to ask you22 briefly about the second meeting you have stated that23 you had with Mr. Straub.24 That actually happened at the time of the25 signing of the Protocol of Cooperation at the

Page 103

1 government office, correct? 2 A That's true, on May 27th, 2005. 3 Q And that meeting was actually at the 4 Holiday Inn? 5 A The protocol was signed in the cabinet of 6 the prime minister. It was very short event, and after 7 that they went to lunch in Holiday Inn. 8 Q Okay. 9 A At the lunch, attended Dimitri Contominas,10 Nikos Stavridis, Mikhail Kefaloyannis, the two Irakis,11 Ekrem Lluka, and very shortly -- he didn't stay out12 until the end -- Elek Straub. This lunch, working13 lunch, this time Contominas was trying to tell Lluka14 that everything was okay, and he was drawing a big pie15 on the table simply explaining to him that he will make16 a lot of money. He just needs to be patient.17 Q Okay. But it's the case, isn't it, that18 your discussion with Mr. Straub at that lunch was not19 business related; it was largely informal conversation,20 correct?21 A In Holiday Inn, you mean?22 Q Yes.23 A Straub was more like nonofficial, but24 Contominas was leading that part of the lunch as a25 work-related -- as a work-related lunch.

Page 104

1 Q Did you have any one-on-one discussions 2 with Mr. Straub at that lunch? 3 A In Holiday Inn? 4 Q Yes. 5 A We didn't talk separately. We didn't have 6 a time one-on-one. We were just sitting at the same 7 table. 8 The main theme of discussion were 9 Contominas and Ekrem Lluka.10 MS. FRIED: I don't have any further11 questions right now, and I can pass the witness on to12 one of our codefendants, assuming -- are you ready or13 would you like to take a short break?14 MR. HILL: Let's take five minutes.15 MS. FRIED: We'll take a five-minute break.16 LAWYER AT EMBASSY: We just would like to17 know who will be next of your colleagues that will be18 taking the deposition, because if it is Mr. Thomas19 Hill --20 MR. HILL: Yes, I'll be next, and I21 wouldn't anticipate being --22 LAWYER AT EMBASSY: We would like to use23 this small break to reach you somehow. We have a24 problem because our cell phones were taken away from us25 for security reasons, so we will try to use this break


(26) Pages 101 - 104




Page 105

1 and contact you and ask some of the personnel here from 2 the embassy to provide us with a secure line to reach 3 you briefly, if that's all right with all of you. 4 MR. HILL: That's fine. My cell phone 5 actually already rang once. 6 LAWYER AT EMBASSY: We'll use that phone. 7 MR. HILL: Though it may wind of morphing 8 into more of a -- 9 MR. BEDNAR: Okay. Before we go off the10 record, if the interpreter can inform those present in11 the room that their remarks during the break are still12 being broadcast into this room, just so that they're13 aware that whatever they say is being broadcasted into14 this room.15 (Deposition recessed at 11:25 a.m.)16 (Deposition resumed at 11:51 a.m.)17 EXAMINATION BY MR. HILL18 Q Mr. Bogoeski, my name is Tom Hill, and I'm19 representing Andras Balogh here. I guess good20 afternoon, almost good evening for you. I will try to21 be -- I'll try to be fairly brief, and I think I can be22 here. Let me apologize at the beginning. I'm not very23 good at pronouncing some of these names, including24 yours perhaps. As I was saying, I'm not very good at25 pronouncing these names, so I apologize in advance if I

Page 106

1 mispronounce. 2 Mr. Bogoeski, you certainly consider 3 yourself to be an honorable and honest man; is that 4 right? 5 A Yes, I am. 6 Q And you've had a long and distinguished 7 career; is that right? 8 A Yes, that's true. 9 Q And, in fact, I think many hours ago when10 Mr. Dodge was examining you in connection with your11 description of the meetings that you had recently with12 Mr. Malelis, you suggested, I think, that you hadn't13 even had any parking tickets; is that right?14 A That is true -- it's true. The only case15 is the case that is led by us right now, and it's still16 on the superior court.17 Q When you say "the case that's led by us,"18 are you referring to the --19 THE INTERPRETER: Against us.20 BY MR. HILL: 21 Q -- the case against you, yourself, the case22 in which you are facing a possible prison sentence; is23 that what you're referring to?24 A I'm talking about the case that there --25 was open in 2013, which is completely politically

Page 107

1 constructed case. 2 Q This is the case against you, correct? 3 A The case is against six people. Among 4 them, it's me also. 5 Q Right. 6 Just so we're clear, and we may come back 7 to this in a little while, but that's a case about 8 money laundering and corruption, correct? 9 A It's partially -- it's a partially true,10 because it's not -- it's not a corruption, but is a11 misuse of a responsibilities at -- work12 responsibilities.13 Q That involves money laundering, right?14 A Please listen to me so we don't make15 mistakes.16 So the lawyer of Contominas -- the name of17 the lawyer is Vasco Tomanovich. He's a suspect, that18 he's misused his position while making the deal with19 the government in which Mr. Contominas, he gave away20 the right of places where you build buildings. And I21 don't know the exact name.22 The agreement between the government,23 the --24 THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.)25 THE WITNESS: Vasco Tomanovich is a lawyer

Page 108

1 of Contominas, the government. There are still legal, 2 and they're not condemned by anybody, anyone. And even 3 though it was agreed that he made a -- he made a -- he 4 misused his position, in order to construct, to produce 5 a procedure for laundering money to the rest of the 6 people who are accused, including me. 7 MR. DODGE: The conference, as we've seen, 8 is cut off now. It's noon. I did, during last break, 9 place a call to our AV people who told me that it was10 cut off in Skopje. She's already reached out to people11 in Skopje to try and get it reconnected. So hopefully12 we'll get word in the next minute or two that this will13 be reconnected. But we were expecting the conference14 to last another hour, but she saw the same notice that15 bee saw on the screen, that it was cutting off, and16 that was done in Skopje. As soon as I get more word on17 this, I'll communicate it back to you guys.18 MR. HILL: All right.19 (Deposition recessed at 12:01 p.m.)20 (Deposition resumed at 12:34 p.m.)21 BY MR. HILL: 22 Q This is Tom Hill again, Mr. Bogoeski.23 Obviously, there are technical difficulties, and we24 understand that we're also limited because of the25 embassy rules and we -- this would be terminated in


(27) Pages 105 - 108




Page 109

1 about 20 minutes, which I don't think gives us enough 2 time. 3 THE INTERPRETER: At quarter to 7:00 they 4 have to leave. 5 MR. HILL: They have to leave at quarter to 6 7:00? Well, then we can't do it. 7 BY MR. HILL: 8 Q Mr. Bogoeski, you were told that we have to 9 leave at quarter to 7:00?10 A When they arrived, the security guards told11 them that they have to leave before 7:00.12 Q Mr. Bogoeski, my question for you is:13 Would it be possible -- we don't know your situation,14 and I told Mr. Dodge I was going to ask you this15 question, and he said that was fine. We don't know16 your situation, but would you be in a position to17 return to the embassy on the morning of January 28th,18 which is in approximately two weeks for probably, I'm19 guessing, two hours, something like that?20 A What day is that?21 Q Wednesday, January 28th. We could suggest22 other days, too, but that's a date that I know23 everybody would be available.24 A They're agreeing all that it's okay. The25 lawyers and everybody else is agreeing with it.

Page 110

1 MR. DODGE: Then I propose that we 2 adjourn -- 3 COUNSEL: He confirms that it's okay. 4 MR. DODGE: I would suggest that we adjourn 5 until January 28th at 9:00 in the morning, Skopje time, 6 and we'll figure out a way to arrange the technical 7 stuff, but so I -- my only caution is I would ask that 8 the witness in the interim not consult about these 9 matters with counsel for the SEC.10 THE INTERPRETER: What was the second part?11 THE WITNESS: 9:00 Macedonian time, in the12 morning.13 MR. HILL: You're not going to have any14 objection.15 MR. DODGE: My only other request on behalf16 of all of the defendants is that between now and then,17 Mr. Bogoeski not consult with the SEC lawyers or18 Ms. Panova, other than scheduling and logistics, but19 not about the substance of the matter at hand.20 THE WITNESS: There was no other21 conversations.22 THE INTERPRETER: I would like to -- he has23 a point. 9:00 Macedonian time, in the morning?24 MR. HILL: We're going to be there. We're25 going to be in Europe. All of us are going to be in

Page 111

1 Europe. 2 MR. DODGE: This is Robert Dodge from the 3 SEC, and we have no objection to the proposal set forth 4 by Mr. Hill. 5 This is Robert Dodge from the SEC. The 6 proposal by Mr. Hill is acceptable to us. My only 7 qualification is that we do need to communicate with 8 the witness about scheduling matters. 9 MR. HILL: Obviously, that's fine.10 MR. DODGE: And to work out where and when11 he is to appear.12 MR. HILL: Right. That's acceptable, and13 we are now adjourned.14 MS. FRIED: I just want to state on the15 record that, obviously, if this was going to conclude16 today at 12:45, this would not have been a17 seven-hour-long deposition, and in the event that18 forces beyond any of our control prevent us from19 continuing this deposition on the 28th, as we have just20 endeavored to arrange, I believe I'm speaking for all21 of the defendants when I say that we would take the22 position that we were denied the opportunity to23 complete a full and proper deposition of this witness.24 MR. DODGE: Okay. So just for the record,25 the federal rules do not require the deposition go for

Page 112

1 seven hours. It simply places a maximum of seven hours 2 on a deposition. Our view, the SEC's view, is that the 3 witness has made himself available on a voluntary basis 4 from noon, local time, to 6:00 p.m., local time. 5 That's at least when we've had this deposition. 6 If this is all we get, the SEC's view is 7 that that will be adequate and the best that could be 8 arranged under the circumstances. We will, in all 9 events, make our utmost efforts to cooperate with the10 defense to allow as much cross-examination as they feel11 is necessary.12 MR. HILL: Okay. I think that terminates13 today's proceeding.14 MR. BEDNAR: Thank you to everyone at15 Embassy Skopje, and have a good evening.16 THE WITNESS: So it is 28th of January at17 9:00?18 MR. DODGE: Yes.19 MR. HILL: Yes.20 MR. KOENIG: Yes.21 MR. BEDNAR: We did have a backup audio22 recording to supplement the stenographic recording, and23 if the court reporter does have his own audio24 recording, I'll ask that that be marked as Joint25 Exhibit 1, just so you're aware of what's going to


(28) Pages 109 - 112




Page 113

1 happen to that. 2 (Joint Exhibit 1 marked for purposes 3 of identification.) 4 Anything else on the record? 5 MR. HILL: I don't think so. Thanks. 6 (Deposition was concluded at 12:44 p.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 __________________________12 SLOBADAN BOGOESKI13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 114

1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ss 2 ) 3 I hereby certify that the witness in the 4 foregoing deposition, Slobadan Bogoeski, was by me 5 duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth 6 and nothing but the truth, in the within-entitled 7 cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and 8 place herein named; and that the deposition is a true 9 record of the witness's testimony as reported by me, a10 duly certified shorthand reporter and a disinterested11 person, and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting12 by computer.13 I further certify that I am not interested in14 the outcome of the said action, nor connected with nor15 related to any of the parties in said action, nor to16 their respective counsel.17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my18 hand this 29th day of January, 2014.19 Reading and Signing was:20 _X_ requested ___ waived ___ not requested21 22 23 24 25 Steven Poulakos


(29) Pages 113 - 114


EXHIBIT C


TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Page 109

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT3 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK4

______________________________5 :

US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE : Civil Action No:6 COMMISSION : 11-Civ-9645 (RJS)

:7 Plaintiff :

:8 -v- :

:9 ELEK STRAUB :

ANDRAS BALOGH, and :10 TAMAS MORVAI :

:11 Defendants :

_____________________________ :1213 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION

(Via Skype)14

OF15

Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski16

On Wednesday, January 28th 201517

Commencing at 8.08 am1819 Taken at:20 Partos & Noblet

Gerbeaud House21 Vorosmarty ter 7/8

1051 Hungary2223 Vol II24 Reported by: Miss Pamela Henley25 Job Number 89041



2 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 110

1

2 A P P E A R A N C E S3

4 On behalf of the Plaintiff:5 US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION6 DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT7 100 F Street NE8 Washington, DC 205499 BY: Mr. ROBERT DODGE

10

11

12

13 US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION14 DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT15 100 F Street NE16 Washington, DC 2054917 BY: Mr. ADAM EISNER18

19

20

21 PANOVA LAW OFFICE & PATENT BUREAU22 Vasil Gorgov No 34/1-623 1000 Skopje24 Republic of Macedonia25 BY: Ms. BILJANA PANOVA

Page 112

1

2

3 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN4 2300 N Street, NW5 Washington, DC 200376 BY: Ms. KRISTEN BAKER7

8

9

10 On behalf of Defendant Tamas Morvai11 HINCKLEY ALLEN & SNYDER12 14 Wall Street13 New York, NY 1000514 BY: Mr. MICHAEL KOENIG15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 111

1

2

3 On behalf of Defendant Elek Straub4 HOGAN LOVELLS5 875 Third Avenue6 New York, NY 100227 BY: Ms. LISA FRIED8

9

10

11 HOGAN LOVELLS12 875 Third Avenue13 New York, NY 1002214 BY: Mr. DAVID MITCHELL15

16

17

18

19 On behalf of Defendant Andras Balogh20 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN21 2300 N Street, NW22 Washington, DC 2003723 BY: Mr. THOMAS HILL24

25

Page 113

12 In attendance:3 Mr. Antonio Apostolski4 Ms. Marija Sandeva5 Mr. Josip Gargas67 Interpreters:8 Mr. Zahari Arsenkov9 Ms. Svetlana Spasovska

1011 Videographer: Mr. Simon Addinsell12 Court Reporter: Miss Pamela Henley13141516171819202122232425



3 (Pages 114 to 117)

Page 1141

2 I N D E X3 DEPONENT4 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski5 Examination: Page No:6 Examined by Mr. Hill 1177 __________________________________________________8 EXHIBIT INDEX9

10 Number Page No:11 (No exhibits were marked during this deposition)12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 116

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 Mr. KOENIG: I am Michael Koenig 3 from the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, counsel for4 Tamas Morvai.5 Mr. HILL: Thomas Hill, and my 6 associate, Kristen Baker, on behalf of Mr. Balogh 7 with the law firm of Pillsbury in Washington DC.8 Mr. DODGE: Robert Dodge and Adam 9 Eisner for the plaintiff, Securities and Exchange

10 Commission.11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And in12 Macedonia, please, if you would introduce13 yourselves and state whom you represent.14 THE WITNESS: My name is Slobodan15 Bogoeski from Skopje.16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Would the17 attorneys please introduce theMs.elves and state 18 who them represent.19 Ms. PANOVA: Biljana Panova, local 20 attorney. On behalf of our colleagues of21 Pillsbury, the local legal counsel are Antonio22 Apostolski, Marija Sandeva and Josip Gargas23 representing Andras Balogh.24 (Interpreters sworn)25 (Witness sworn)

Page 115

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the3 beginning of tape 1 in Volume II of the deposition4 of Slobodan Bogoeski. This matter is between the5 US Securities and Exchange Commission versus6 Elek Straub et al. This matter is in the Southern7 District of New York, United States District Court8 -- the Southern District of New York, civil action9 number 11-CIV-9645 (RJS). Today's date is 28th

10 January 2015, and the time is 8 minutes past 8.0011 am. This part of the deposition is taking place12 at the offices of Hogan Lovells in Budapest. It13 is being conducted over a video link from the14 offices of Panova Law in Skopje, Macedonia.15 The court reporter is Pamela16 Henley. The videographer Simon Addinsell, both17 with TSG Reporting. Our interpreters are Svetlana18 Spasovska and Zahari Arsenkov.19 Would counsel first in Budapest20 introduce theMs.elves and state who they represent 21 today, please.22 Ms. FRIED: I am Lisa Fried from 23 Hogan Lovells. I am accompanied by my associate,24 David Mitchell, and we are counsel for defendant25 Elek Straub.

Page 117

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 Mr. HILL: Mr. Bogoeski, good 3 morning. Thank you for making yourself available4 this morning to continue --5 A. Good morning.6 Q. -- to continue the deposition which7 we began on January 15th. Before we begin I want8 to explain a little bit about how this deposition9 will work, I am going to begin by asking the

10 questions, and then some of the other lawyers may11 very well ask questions later. I am going to try12 very hard to ask you questions that only require13 short answers, often my question will simply14 require you to say "yes" or "no". I want you to15 listen very carefully to the questions, and limit16 yourself to answering only the question that has17 been put to you. This is especially important18 because this deposition is being translated and19 the translators can only translate accurately if20 the answers and the question are short, do you21 understand?22 A. Yes, I understood.23 Q. We seem to have lost the picture.24 (Pause) If you could just move the mouse, I am25 told. (Pause). I am told we still do not have



4 (Pages 118 to 121)

Page 118

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 picture. You need to move that mouse every few3 minutes, or else the picture will freeze. I assume4 that you cannot see us, is that correct?5 A. Yes, I can see you. I cannot see6 the camera sign on the screen.7 Mr. MITCHELL: Is Biljana in the 8 room?9 Ms. PANOVA: Yes, I am here, I am

10 trying to put video on because the video11 disappeared. So I am trying to get the video12 back. (Pause).13 Mr. HILL: We are going off the 14 record while we deal with these technical issues.15 (Off the record at 8.18 am)16 (On the record at 8.44 am)17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the18 record at 8.44.19 Mr. HILL: Mr. Bogoeski, and I think 20 I apologised to you the last time about my bad21 pronunciation of some of the names, so I apologise22 again in advance. I think -- when we got cut off I23 think I had just finished trying to explain that24 it is going to be important during this deposition25 for you to listen carefully to what the questions

Page 120

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 off the last time I had just asked you whether3 since January 15th, the last time we met, have you4 had any conversations with Mr. Dodge? 5 (Connection lost)6 (Off the record at 8.54 am)7 (On the record at 8.55 am)8 BY Mr. HILL: 9 Q. Can you hear us, Mr. Bogoeski?we

10 cannot hear you.11 A. I am as close as possible to the12 mic. I am speaking very loud.13 Q. Can you hear me?14 A. Sometimes I cannot, but now I can.15 Q. We are going to try at least one16 more time. If at any point you do not hear me or17 do not understand me please tell me. Okay? So18 since we met last on January 15th, have you spoken19 with Mr. Dodge? 20 A. No, I have not.21 Q. Have you spoken with Ms. Panova? 22 A. Yes, on a couple of occasions23 related to the venue and date of this deposition.24 Q. Have you talked at all with Ms. 25 Panova about the substance of what you testified

Page 119

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 are, and answer only the question in as concise a3 way as concise a way as possible, and I am going4 to try to answer very specific questions.5 Q. Do you understand?6 A. Yes, I do.7 Q. Mr. Bogoeski, since we were last 8 together on January 15th, have you spoken at all9 to Mr. Dodge?

10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It is frozen.11 (Connection lost)12 (Off the record at 8.47 am)13 (On the record at 8.52 am)14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the15 record at 8.52.16 Mr. HILL: There is some 17 interference on our end.18 Q. Do you hear it on your end?19 A. The interference is coming from20 your end. They hear nothing there.21 Mr. DODGE: We will turn off our 22 cell phones.23 Mr. HILL: We are going to try and 24 see, we will do the best we can.25 Q. Mr. Bogoeski, I think when it cut

Page 121

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 to on January 15th?3 A. No, nothing at all.4 Q. Have you spoken with anyone about5 the deposition that was given on January 15th?6 A. No, I have not spoken to anyone.7 There has been no need.8 Q. Has anybody spoken to you about the9 deposition that occurred on January 15th?

10 A. I must interrupt you and warn you11 that --12 Q. I am sorry?13 A. I must interrupt you and warn you14 that --15 (Screen froze)16 Q. Can you hear me?17 (Connection lost)18 (Off the record at 9.00 am)19 (On the record at 9.20 am)20 Mr. DODGE: Okay, Biljana, please 21 repeat what you just told me.22 Ms. PANOVA: So Mr. Bogoeski now here 23 next to me, and also the lawyers sitting here, and24 he said that he should go to hospital. It was25 arranged and when we asked for another bit, an



5 (Pages 122 to 125)

Page 122

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 hour, when we can continue he informed us that he3 will give the date and hour additionally tomorrow.4 Hopefully tomorrow we will inform about the day5 and hour.6 Mr. HILL: I think as I understand 7 it although none of the lawyers, including the8 lawyers for the SEC, were informed about this9 before today, as I understand it this appointment

10 was previously scheduled, is that correct?11 Ms. PANOVA: Just to ask Mr. Bogoeski 12 about this, and the lawyers also, (pause while13 counsel takes instructions). Okay, so the lawyers14 of Mr. Balogh were not informed. He only mentioned 15 to me that maybe he would not have more than16 2 hours or 3 hours to stay here and to give the17 deposition. Hello?18 Mr. DODGE: We can hear you. 19 Mr. HILL: I am sorry, when did he 20 tell you?21 Ms. PANOVA: This was the last time 22 that we spoke about scheduling, about the date and23 starting hour at 8.00 am.24 Mr. HILL: And when was that, that 25 conversation? Which day did that conversation

Page 124

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 stay from 8 until 12 o'clock to give my answers3 because he personally told me that I will be4 needed only for a few questions. Not much longer.5 Mr. HILL: The conversation that 6 you just reported to us, that is the conversation7 between you and Mr. Bogoeski that occurred on 8 Saturday, is that right?9 Ms. PANOVA: This is the

10 conversation about the schedule, date and hour. As11 he was informed that it is scheduled from12 8 o'clock start until 12 o'clock. So he confirMs. 13 that he will come, but he said that he thinks that14 it will be much -- 12 o'clock is 4 hours, so that15 maybe he will need less hours because you said16 only a few questions. This is what he said to me.17 Mr. HILL: And he said that to you 18 on Saturday?19 Ms. PANOVA: Yes. 20 Mr. HILL: Okay. And -- but on 21 Saturday he said he would have -- on Saturday he22 told you that he had a medical appointment, but he23 told you he could stay 2 or 3 hours; do I24 understand that correctly?25 Ms. PANOVA: Well, no, about the

Page 123

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 occur on?3 Ms. PANOVA: That was Saturday. 4 Mr. HILL: And that was a 5 conversation between Mr. Bogoeski and yourself? 6 Ms. PANOVA: Yes. 7 Mr. HILL: And you did not inform 8 Mr. Dodge of that conversation, is that correct? 9 Ms. PANOVA: Well, we informed

10 Mr. Dodge about this, and we hoped that Mr. Bogoeski 11 would stay much longer in order to reply to12 Mr. Hill's questions. But when he came here this 13 morning he says that he cannot stay more than14 90 minutes here. He stay here and we will learn15 this morning.16 Mr. HILL: Just for the record, it 17 is now 9.22, I believe. But, I am sorry, I am a18 little confused, the conversation you had on19 Saturday with Mr. Bogoeski if I understand 20 correctly he told you that he would have 2 or21 3 hours, is that right?22 Ms. PANOVA: He said actually his 23 words were that when he spoke with you that you24 said to him that you will need only a few25 questions to him. So he was asking why I should

Page 125

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 medical report I hear that today at 9.15. This3 morning he said to me he had to be somewhere else.4 But Mr. Bogoeski has to leave the office so, 5 please, if we can schedule some meetings.6 Mr. HILL: Well, before Mr. Bogoeski 7 leaves and then I want to --8 Ms. PANOVA: I am sorry, but he 9 already left the office. So it is better that --

10 that is why I called you in order to set up a date11 and to agree among everybody. So he just came12 with a colleague, so please be precise, and we13 shall agree about the next schedule.14 Mr. HILL: Just so that the record 15 is clear, Mr. Bogoeski is not there, correct? 16 Ms. PANOVA: He came with a 17 colleague and he is standing in front of me. He18 wants to leave the office.19 Mr. HILL: He should leave the 20 office. We will get back to you with a new date,21 okay. Is he generally available to return over the22 next several weeks? Is his calendar relatively23 clear?24 Ms. PANOVA: Just to ask the 25 question (pause while counsel takes instructions).



6 (Pages 126 to 129)

Page 126

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 He will know tomorrow. Now he could not do3 anything.4 Mr. HILL: All right. Tell him to 5 go to the hospital.6 Ms. PANOVA: Yes. He is free to go? 7 To leave the office. We will speak to agree some8 dates.9 Mr. HILL: If he has a medical

10 appointment at the hospital he should leave and go11 to the hospital now.12 Ms. PANOVA: Thank you very much. He 13 just left the office, so we said at the end he can14 call me tomorrow and he can inform me about his15 free days and hour, is that okay with you?16 Mr. HILL: Yes. But I just want to 17 go back to what he told you on Saturday and what18 you may or may not have told Mr. Dodge about what 19 he said to you on Saturday. That is all. I want20 the record to be clear about that. So tell me21 whether --22 Ms. PANOVA: I am sorry, but I do 23 not think that I am here in a deposition or24 something because the witness just left our office25 and I am here with the lawyers, so I do not know

Page 128

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 subpoena so he is not required to be any length of3 time, but we would be very grateful if he would4 stay for as long as the questions were put to him.5 In that conversation nobody mentioned anything to6 me about any medical appointment. I did not know7 anything about it. It sounds to me from Ms. Panova 8 she was not aware of a medical appointment either.9 Biljana, were you aware of a

10 medical appointment on Saturday?11 Ms. PANOVA: Well, no. He just came 12 this morning and later than he should be, 9.15 or13 something appointment. Today we learned that in14 the morning he appeared, and when he is supposed15 to sit and to start with the questioning. First16 time I learn when the others lawyers learned. I17 did not know before.18 Mr. HILL: Bob, when you had the 19 conversation with Ms. Panova, I guess, did you 20 indicate to her that you -- well, first of all,21 that certainly Mr. Koenig, at least, had not had an 22 opportunity to get up yet and that you yourself23 might have additional questions?24 Mr. DODGE: The only thing I said to 25 Biljana after her conversation with the witness

Page 127

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 whether we shall continue this, or we can continue3 on the day when he is supposed to come and you can4 open these questions to him.5 Mr. HILL: Well, I assume he does 6 not know what you said to Mr. Dodge. 7 Mr. DODGE: We are not taking a 8 deposition of Ms. Panova. We can have a 9 representation from counsel on the record which we

10 are going to do. But Biljana is not under oath.11 She is not a witness.12 What I will tell you is that -- on13 the record -- this is Bob Dodge for the SEC -- I14 did speak to Ms. Panova on Saturday. She reported 15 that she had spoken to the witness on Saturday.16 The witness -- and the subject of the discussion17 had to do with scheduling of today's deposition.18 The witness did enquire of Ms. Panova how long we 19 expected the deposition to go, and the witness20 pointed out that since he understood to have been21 told by defence counsel that there were only a few22 questions remaining he wondered why he would be23 needed for more than a couple of hours, and the24 report that we gave back to him was we do not know25 how long it is going to last. He is not under

Page 129

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 was that the SEC -- I asked her to communicate to3 the witness that the SEC would very grateful if he4 would stay for as long as the questions were put5 to him. I did not say anything about how long I6 expected the questions to last because I have no7 idea.8 Mr. HILL: I think the record is 9 complete with respect to that issue. And I think

10 the record, tell me if it already reflects -- it11 reflects all the technical issues we have had this12 morning.13 Mr. DODGE: I am quite sure the 14 record reflects a panoply of technical probleMs. 15 over the course of the morning, not due to16 anybody's fault, but we have been struggling with17 the technology between Budapest and Skopje. It18 has been quite difficult for all the parties. I19 think we have all done the best we can. But it20 sounds --21 Mr. HILL: And we would propose 22 rescheduling when we all can look at our calendars23 in Washington because we think the technology has24 proven that it is workable. As soon as possible25 consistent with everybody's schedule.



7 (Pages 130 to 133)

Page 130

1 Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski2 Mr. DODGE: Yes, I think for the SEC 3 we will certainly agree to whatever scheduling the4 defendants propose. We want to do whatever we can5 to facilitate the continuation of the deposition.6 I agree that it should be done between Washington7 and Skopje rather than Budapest and Skopje. And as8 soon as possible would be our preference.9 Mr. HILL: Will the SEC represent, I

10 do not know to the extent that the parties or any11 of the parties feel that we need to go to Judge12 Sullivan with respect to the fact that it will be13 subsequent to January 31st, obviously.14 Mr. DODGE: I think we actually have 15 that covered in the protective order.16 Mr. HILL: All right. Anything else 17 we need on the record?18 Ms. FRIED: I do not think so. 19 Mike?20 Mr. KOENIG: No. 21 Mr. HILL: We can close the record 22 now.23 (The deposition concluded at 9:32 am)24

25

Page 132

1

2 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER3

4 I, Pamela E Henley, Court Reporter,5 do hereby certify that I took the stenotype notes6 of the foregoing deposition and that the7 transcript thereof is a true and accurate record8 transcribed to the best of my skill and ability9 I further certify that I am neither

10 counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of11 the parties to the action in which this deposition12 was taken, and that I am not a relative or13 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by14 the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise15 interested in the outcome of the action.16 DATED: 2/9/201517

18

19

20

21

22 _______________________23 Pamela E Henley24

25

Page 131

1

2 CERTIFICATE OF WITNESS3

4

5

6

7 I, Slobodan Bogoeski, am the8 witness in the foregoing deposition. I have read9 the foregoing deposition and, having made such

10 changes and corrections as I desired, I certify11 that the transcript is a true and accurate record12 of my responses to the questions put to me on13 Wednesday, January 28th 2015.14

15

16

17

18 Signed________________________________19 Slobodan Bogoeski20 Dated this ___________ day of_________ 201521

22

23

24

25

Page 133

1

2

3 ERRATA4 (Please make any amendments or corrections on the5 errata sheet and not on the original deposition)6 CORRECTION PAGE7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 ____________________ ______________24

25 Signature Date


EXHIBIT D


In The Matter Of:Securities and Exchange Commission v.

Elek Straub, et al.

Slobodan BogoeskiVol. 2

February 19, 2015

Behmke Reporting and Video Services, Inc.160 Spear Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, California 94105(415) 597-5600

Original File 26207Bogoeski.txt

Min-U-Script® with Word Index



Slobodan Bogoeski - Vol. 2February 19, 2015

Page 115

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ) 5 COMMISSION, ) 6 Plaintiff, ) 7 vs. ) Civil Action No. 8 ELEK STRAUB, ANDRAS BALOGH, ) 1:11cv09645 9 and TAMAS MORVAI, ) 10 Defendants. ) 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 13 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI 14 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015 15 PAGES 115 - 178; VOLUME 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 BEHMKE REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICES, INC. 22 BY: STEVEN POULAKOS, RPR 23 160 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 300 24 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94015 25 (415) 597-5600

Page 116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Videotaped deposition of SLOBADAN 9 S. BOGOESKI, Volume 2, taken on behalf of Plaintiff's,10 at the Law Offices of the Securities and Exchange11 Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington,12 D.C., was held on Thursday, February 19, 2015,13 commencing at 8:15 a.m., before Certified Shorthand14 Reporter, pursuant to the Notice of Videotaped15 Deposition.16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 117

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: 3 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 4 DIVISION ENFORCEMENT 5 BY: ROBERT I. DODGE, ESQUIRE 6 THOMAS A. BEDNAR, ESQUIRE 7 ADAM EISNER, ESQUIRE 8 100 F. Street, N.E. 9 Washington, D.C. 20549 10 Telephone: (202) 551-4421 11 Email: [email protected] 12 FOR THE DEFENDANT, ANDRAS BALOGH: 13 PILLSBURY, WINTHROP, SHAW, PITTMAN, LLP 14 BY: THOMAS C. HILL, ESQUIRE 15 WILLIAM M. SULLIVAN, JR., ESQUIRE 16 KRISTEN E. BAKER, ESQUIRE 17 2300 N Street, N.W. 18 Washington, D.C. 20037-1122 19 Telephone: (202)663.8262 20 Email: [email protected] 21 22 23 24 25

Page 118

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL - CONTINUED: 2 FOR THE DEFENDANT, TAMAS MORVAI: 3 HINCKLEY ALLEN 4 BY: MICHAEL KOENIG, ESQUIRE 5 VICTORIA P. LANE, ESQUIRE 6 30 South Pearl Street 7 Suite 901 8 Albany, New York 12207 9 Telephone: (518) 396-310010 Email: [email protected] 12 FOR THE DEFENDANT, ELEK STRAUB: 13 HOGAN LOVELLS14 BY: LISA J. FRIED, ESQUIRE15 GARIMA MALHOTRA, ESQUIRE16 ROBERT BUEHLER, ESQUIRE17 875 Third Avenue18 New York, New York 1002219 Telephone: (212) 918-300020 Email: [email protected] 22 23 24 25


(1) Pages 115 - 118




Page 119

1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 2 FOR THE DEFENDANT, ANDRAS BALOGH: 3 APOSTOLSKI LAW FIRM 4 BY: ANTONIO APOSTOLSKI, ESQUIRE 5 MARRJA HRISTOVSKA, ESQUIRE 6 Bul. Kocho Racin 14, loc 6 7 1000 Skopje 8 Republic of Macedonia 9 10 11 12 ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Zahari Arsenkov and Ms. Svetiana 13 Spasovska, interpreters 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 120

1 INDEX 2 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015 3 SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI - VOLUME 2 4 Examination by: Page 5 Mr. Hill 122 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 121

1 EXHIBITS 2 SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI - VOLUME 2 3 PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS 4 Exhibit Description Page 5 Exhibit 229 Previously Marked Exhibit A biography 6 - 1 page 151 7 Exhibit 230 Previously Marked The protocol 8 - 2 pages 145 9 Exhibit 231 Previously Marked The Non Paper 10 - 1 page 145 11 Exhibit 232 Previously Marked The protocol 12 - 1 page 145 13 Exhibit 233 Previously Marked The protocol 14 - 5 pages 145 15 Exhibit 236 Previously Marked A transcript 16 of a video deposition 17 - 60 pages 125 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 122

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 Whereupon, 3 SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI, 4 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn to 5 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 6 truth, was examined and testified as follows: 7 MR. HILL: Can everybody hear me in Skopje? 8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. Good day to 9 you.10 MR. HILL: And good day to you as well.11 Why don't we begin and have at least people12 on the Macedonian side identify who's in the room just13 so we have it on the record.14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Speaking in15 Macedonian.)16 MR. HILL: If you could -- is it possible17 to turn the volume up on your end? It's a little faint18 on this end.19 EXAMINATION BY MR. HILL: 20 Q Mr. Bogoeski, are you ready to begin?21 A Yes, you can begin.22 Q Thank you.23 Mr. Bogoeski, again, I know I've introduced24 myself now I think this is the third time, but my name25 is Tom Hill and I represent Andras Balogh. And good --


(2) Pages 119 - 122




Page 123

1 I guess good afternoon to you. Good morning to us 2 here. 3 A Good morning to you all there. 4 Q Mr. Bogoeski, first let me ask you: I 5 assume today you don't have any doctors appointments; 6 is that correct? 7 A I did make sure to inform everyone that I 8 will be available for two hours, from now until 4:00. 9 Q And so you have no -- you have no ability10 to stay beyond 4:00; is that what you're saying?11 A Not even a single minute.12 Q And that's because that's the limit that13 you're setting on this deposition; is that right?14 A I'm not setting any limits. I did make my15 deposition on the 15th of January of this year, but16 upon your request, and your kind request, I have made17 myself available here again; but I cannot be at your18 disposition for an unlimited period of time.19 Q And, Mr. Bogoeski, just very briefly here,20 we tried to do this on the 28th of January, as you21 know, but had technical difficulties.22 A I'm sorry, yes, that happens.23 Q But we learned on the morning of the 28th,24 when we arrived for the deposition, that you had25 scheduled a doctor's appointment at 9:15 that morning;

Page 124

1 is that right? 2 A Yes. Even back then we did have sufficient 3 time to do the whole thing, but there were technical 4 difficulties. 5 Q But you had a doctor's appointment at 9:15 6 that day; is that correct? That's my question. 7 A Yes. 8 Q And was the -- when did you notify 9 Ms. Panova or Mr. Dodge of the fact that you had that10 doctor's appointment?11 A I notified Ms. Panova over one day in12 advance.13 Q So that deposition that was scheduled for14 the -- 8:00 in the morning would have had to terminate15 at 9:15 no matter what; is that correct?16 A Unfortunately, yes.17 Q And Ms. Panova -- and through Ms. Panova18 the SEC were aware of that the day before; is that19 correct?20 A I cannot precisely recall the hour that we21 talked about my need to go to the doctors, but I cannot22 program my medical needs, and I cannot see why this is23 so important.24 Q Now, Mr. Bogoeski, I'm going to try very25 hard in this deposition to ask you questions that only

Page 125

1 require very short answers, usually yes or no. 2 Do you understand that? 3 A I, on the other hand, also will try to do 4 my best to be as concise as possible provided that the 5 questions that you ask are clear; otherwise, if there's 6 any ambiguity in the questions, it goes without saying 7 that I cannot just say yes or no. 8 Q And if there's any ambiguity in the 9 question, I would ask you to ask me to clarify the10 question.11 A Of course.12 Q Now, let me begin by asking you about the13 interview that you gave that was videotaped on14 December 28th.15 Do you remember that?16 A The 20th of which month?17 Q Excuse me, December, with Mr. Dodge.18 A Yes, I do remember.19 Q And sometime after that, you gave that20 video, I believe you testified that you reviewed a21 transcript of that video; is that correct?22 A Yes, I did.23 Q And I believe that's actually already24 introduced as Exhibit 236.25 And the transcript that you reviewed, was

Page 126

1 it in Macedonian or English? 2 A It was in Macedonian. 3 Q Okay. Did you -- have you ever viewed the 4 videotape itself, looked at it? 5 A No, I have not. 6 Q Okay. When you reviewed the Macedonian 7 transcript, okay, did someone ask you to do that? 8 A No. I asked for an opportunity to do it. 9 Q Okay. And did -- when you reviewed it --10 before you reviewed it, were you given any11 introductions as to what you were to do as you reviewed12 it?13 A No one ever gave me any instructions, nor14 could they have done so. What happened was that I15 asked to see the transcript in Macedonian to make sure16 there were no errors, mistakes, dates stated17 incorrectly or names, because there were many names,18 especially Greek names, and I just wanted to make sure19 it's all correctly translated.20 Q Okay. So when you say "correctly21 translated," you mean transcribed from the video, or do22 you mean translated from one language to another23 language?24 A During the interview, as I was speaking in25 Macedonia -- Macedonian, it was all interpreted into


(3) Pages 123 - 126




Page 127

1 English. So I asked for the Macedonian version of the 2 transcript. I had no need whatsoever to look at the 3 English transcript. 4 Q So, now, you -- when you reviewed it, you 5 were reviewing it to make sure that it was as accurate 6 as possible; is that right? 7 A Yes, of course, that was my intention. I 8 did want to make sure that the entire interview was 9 conveyed in a correct way, because it took a long time,10 and technical and other errors, like spelling errors,11 were possible either due to the interpreter, as there12 was only one back then, being tired or for any other13 reasons. So that was the intention of my reviewing it.14 Q So you took great care when you reviewed it15 to make sure you were thorough and accurate; is that16 right?17 A Yes, this is exactly why I asked to review18 it.19 Q And when you reviewed it, did you review it20 by yourself, or did anybody help you in reviewing it or21 assist you?22 A I did it by myself. There was no need for23 anyone else's assistance.24 Q And how long did it take you to review the25 transcript?

Page 128

1 A I cannot recall exactly how much time I 2 needed, but it was something like more than 60 pages, 3 and I guess an hour and a half. 4 Q And by my count, it looks like you made 5 about 25 changes. 6 So you were being very careful; isn't that 7 right? 8 A I never did count the number of 9 interventions that I did in the transcript, but what I10 came to conclude in the end was that most of those11 mistakes were errors, were either misspelled names or12 errors of technical nature, maybe the structure of the13 sentence; but it was nothing that would have any14 semantical bearing.15 Q Now, you wound up signing each page; is16 that right?17 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, could you18 repeat that?19 BY MR. HILL: 20 Q You signed each page of the transcript,21 correct?22 A Yes, as far as I remember, I did.23 Q Did anybody tell you to do that?24 A No, no one gave me any instructions to do25 so. I just knew that it was the usual practice when

Page 129

1 making the depositions of this kind to check the 2 contents, and my signature on each of the pages is a -- 3 is a -- sort of confirmation that I have read it. 4 After all, my handwriting is on the transcript itself. 5 Q So we can be confident today that the 6 transcript, the corrected transcript that you've 7 provided, is true and accurate; is that right? 8 A In essence, yes. 9 Q And certainly any substantive changes that10 needed to be made by you were made; is that right?11 A I think so, yes.12 Q All right.13 Let's change gears for a minute,14 Mr. Bogoeski.15 Now, you, yourself, consider yourself to be16 an honorable man, correct?17 A Of course I do.18 Q And, in fact, you've had a very long and19 distinguished career in Macedonia, correct?20 A Yes, I do believe so.21 Q And, in fact, beginning really as a young22 man in 1975, you went into the service of the23 government, correct?24 A Yes.25 Q And from 1991 to 1997, in fact, you were

Page 130

1 the head of the security service, correct? 2 A Yes, that's correct. I was the 3 undersecretary there. 4 Q And from 1997 to 2000, you were an advisor, 5 a direct advisor, to the prime minister, correct? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q And over these many years, you've 8 established many contacts and developed many 9 relationships with Macedonian political and government10 officials; that's correct, isn't it?11 A It's only natural when you work in such12 positions that you have no, actually, choice but to go13 intensive communication with officials at the highest14 positions.15 Q And at the highest positions and also even16 at lower-level positions, correct, you have contact17 with people throughout the government?18 A It comes with the territory of the19 profession. When you do something like that, then you20 just go and contact and communicate with a lot of21 people, not only people working for the government, but22 people in general.23 Q So you have many, many contacts with24 political, business, government officials throughout25 Macedonia today; is that right?


(4) Pages 127 - 130




Page 131

1 A Macedonia is but a small country with only 2 2 million people, and even if you're not in a position 3 that I was in and if you're not doing such work, most 4 of the people here in the country know each other. 5 Q Now, your integrity is very important to 6 you, it's important that you be perceived as a man of 7 integrity; is that right? 8 A I think it's important for every person, 9 not only for me.10 Q But it is important for you?11 A Naturally so, as everyone would be caring12 about these things.13 Q And your reputation is very important to14 you?15 A Everybody tries to preserve their16 professional and personal dignity and reputation.17 Q Mr. Bogoeski, you've never accepted a18 bribe, have you?19 A No, I have never received a bribe.20 Q And, in fact, if anybody ever offered you a21 bribe, you would not accept it, would you?22 A I do not see the point in the question.23 It's intended that I would not accept a bribe.24 Q Well, I don't think it's -- I don't think25 you have to worry about the point of my questions; just

Page 132

1 answer the questions. 2 So if you were offered a bribe, you would 3 not accept one, correct? 4 A No, I would not accept a bribe. 5 Q And you've never bribed anybody, yourself, 6 have you? 7 A Of course, I have not, nor have I had the 8 possibility to do so. 9 Q And you've never -- and you've never10 participated in any scheme or any process to bribe11 anybody, have you, in Macedonia?12 A No, I have not participated.13 Q In fact, you, yourself, have exposed14 corruption and bribery in Macedonia, and that's one of15 the reasons why you currently believe you are being16 prosecuted; is that correct?17 A I have not understood the question.18 Q You, yourself, have exposed and brought to19 the attention of the authorities and the public20 instances of corruption; is that correct?21 A That's correct, I have exposed. I have22 pointed out two examples of corruption.23 Q And as you currently face your own legal24 problems, criminal problems, your position is that that25 is because of the fact that you have exposed other

Page 133

1 corruption; is that correct? 2 A The process initiated against me is 3 exclusively based on political and criminal motives. 4 It is a classical setup of a political process 5 politically motivated, not based -- grounded on the 6 law. 7 It is an event of the family of the prime 8 minister, motivated by their personal interests 9 touching upon the past, being rooted deeply into the10 past, and motivated also by some current events that11 they have undertook and have exercised literally --12 exercised pressure and violence on the public13 prosecution office and the judiciary.14 The proceedings, the criminal proceedings,15 against me have been raised against me and a few other16 people, and I have insurmountable evidence that this17 has been done by the prime minister and his cousin, by18 the administration. Strong pressure has been exercised19 on the authorities to raise these proceedings, although20 they were quite aware that they had dispose of no21 evidence to do so. And the public will very soon be22 exposed to the proof of what I'm saying, that these23 proceedings have been raised by the most severe form of24 abuse of one's official duty on behalf of the prime25 minister, his cousin Sasho Mialkov, the head of the

Page 134

1 security services, and their -- a relative of theirs, 2 which is the public prosecutor in charge of these 3 proceedings. 4 I will publicly expose to the public these 5 evidence. And if you are interested in obtaining this 6 evidence, I can show them to you later on. 7 Q And, in fact -- we can return to that later 8 on. 9 But, in fact, what you've just outlined,10 you've actually given interviews on television and in11 the newspaper basically saying the same thing; is that12 right?13 A I have given one interview only for weekly14 newspaper, magazine, and one interview for a television15 portal, and that's all; but very soon I will cast a16 light on these evidence.17 Q But for -- just for now, so that the record18 is clear, as things stand today you stand convicted19 of -- and I understand that you contest this, but you20 stand convicted today of abuse of official position and21 money laundering, correct?22 A No, that's not correct. No proceedings23 have been raised on the grounds of abuse of one's24 official position against me. Last time, I told you25 that I'm being prosecuted for money laundering, and


(5) Pages 131 - 134




Page 135

1 they're referring to an act which was not committed at 2 all. And they have actually breached, violated the law 3 in order to be -- to raise the charges against me and 4 so that finally I am convicted. 5 Q But as we sit here today, you are convicted 6 of money laundering, correct? 7 A Yes, I'm being prosecuted for an invented 8 criminal act of money laundering. 9 Q Mr. Bogoeski, we understand that you10 contest it, but I'm asking you, as we sit here today,11 you, in fact, have been convicted, correct?12 A It's possible I am convicted for money13 laundering. I am convicted for money laundering, but14 if any lawyer could see the charges and the conviction,15 they would be clear with the notion that this is16 invented, and many other people are being prosecuted17 and convicted in Macedonia for inexistant acts.18 Q And you're facing a two-year prison19 sentence at this time, correct?20 A That's correct.21 Q And you're facing a loss of your assets as22 well; is that correct?23 A Yes, I am facing loss of assets; however,24 looking at the Court decision, it is unclear what kind25 of assets are we talking about.

Page 136

1 Q Now, let's change gears here, Mr. Bogoeski. 2 When you were -- when did you have your 3 initial contact with Ms. Panova? 4 A My initial contact with Ms. Panova was in 5 the mid-December, immediately after my interview with 6 the weekly magazine Fokus. 7 Q And did she contact you, or did you contact 8 her? 9 A She contacted me. Before that, I did not10 know her.11 Q And what did -- when she contacted you,12 what did she say to you?13 A She told me that part of the interview I14 had given triggers her interest.15 Q Did she tell you -- did she tell you16 whether she had a client, who her client was?17 A I do not understand.18 Which client are you referring to?19 Q Well, did she explain to you what it was20 about what she read that was of particular interest to21 her and why it was of interest to her?22 A A few days after the interview, Biljana23 Panova called me, introduced herself that she's a24 lawyer, attorney at law, and asked me to have a meeting25 with her and discuss the interview. I accepted the

Page 137

1 offer, and a few days ago -- a few days afterwards, we 2 met in the vicinity of my apartment and she introduced 3 herself, told me who her client is -- 4 Q Who did she say her client was? 5 A The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission. 6 Q And did she -- when you -- how long did you 7 meet for on that first meeting? 8 A Not very long. I cannot exactly recall how 9 many minutes at this meeting. I think it was not more10 than one hour, since I had other obligations, other11 activities. And I asked her to meet some other time12 and discuss the topic she was interested in in greater13 detail.14 Q Did she explain to you what topics she was15 interested in?16 A Of course, she did; otherwise, why would we17 have the conversation. She told me --18 Q What did she tell you was the topic of19 interest?20 A She introduced herself, said who is she21 representing, who her client is; and it was clear to me22 that she would be interested in the part of the23 interview that concerns the withdrawal of the warrants,24 search warrants --25 THE INTERPRETER: Not search. The

Page 138

1 warrants? 2 MR. HILL: Yes. 3 THE WITNESS: -- against people of 4 Contominas in Skopje related to the criminal act money 5 laundering at the Macedonian Telekom. In the interview 6 I said that it is a criminal act, that we draw the 7 warrant against Mihail Kefaloyannis by the highest 8 exponents of the government of Macedonia in order to 9 conceal what they have done, and at the same time10 motivated, motivated by criminal financial; that is,11 lucrative interest of the chief of the security12 services, Sasho Mialkov.13 Q When you say in the interview, you're14 talking about the interview that was published in the15 newspaper on December 12th, correct?16 A Correct. That is the interview for the17 weekly magazine Fokus given on December 12th.18 Q Okay. Now, when you said the first meeting19 with Ms. Panova lasted for about than hour.20 Did she mention that she was working with21 the individuals and lawyers from the SEC, including22 Mr. Dodge?23 A I cannot exactly remember the first24 meeting. I was in a hurry. We scheduled a second25 meeting at which we discussed my interview in greater


(6) Pages 135 - 138




Page 139

1 detail, and then she elaborated in more detail what was 2 she working on and asked me, among other things -- 3 THE INTERPRETER: -- asked me? 4 THE WITNESS: Am I prepared, would I like 5 to discuss this with authorized persons from the 6 Security Exchange Commissions. 7 BY MR. HILL: 8 Q And -- 9 A I answered --10 Q Just let me be clear here.11 Mr. Bogoeski, the meeting you are currently12 discussing, this is the second meeting you had with13 Ms. Panova; is that right?14 A Yes. At the first meeting, we did not have15 sufficient time to engage in this discussion. At the16 second meeting, I described in greater detail how did17 the cessation, the stopping of the criminal proceedings18 went, and these criminal proceedings concerned the19 money laundering of persons from the Macedonian20 Telekom.21 And I told her, since I am saying these in22 an interview publicly, I'm prepared to discuss exact23 same issues with persons from the Securities and24 Exchange Commission.25 Q And this second meeting occurred also in

Page 140

1 the middle of December; is that right? 2 A A few days after the first meeting. 3 Q So before Christmas, right? 4 A Yes, exactly. 5 Q And at that second meeting, did she ask you 6 for -- let me back up for a minute. 7 When was the first time you actually had 8 any communication, either speaking or in writing with 9 Mr. Dodge?10 A It was only during my making the deposition11 that I met Mr. Dodge for the first time in my life.12 Never, ever had I even heard of him or known him before13 that.14 Q Did you -- when you say -- when you're15 referring to my deposition, you're talking about the16 video interview on December 28th, correct?17 A Exactly, yes. That happened at the same18 day, during the same day.19 Q Had you spoken with him or communicated20 with him in any way prior to December 28th?21 A No, because I did not even know who that22 person is, nor had I had any opportunity prior to that23 to meet him in any context whatsoever.24 Q But in the middle -- in the middle of25 December, Ms. Panova let you know that -- asked you

Page 141

1 whether you would be willing to participate in an 2 interview with representatives of the SEC, correct? 3 A It was only after I discussed with 4 Ms. Panova in greater detail all the issues that were 5 related to the money laundering and the criminal acts 6 in the Macedonian Telekom that she asked me if I would 7 be willing to give an interview or talk to any official 8 representative of the commission, and I accepted. 9 Q And this occurred during the second meeting10 in mid-December, correct?11 A Yes, exactly.12 Q And during that meeting, did -- let me ask13 you: Did Ms. Panova at any point ask you whether you14 had any documents relating to the activities that you15 were discussing with her?16 A Of course. When we started the second17 meeting, she normally asked me whether some documents18 can be found that could be related to the issue that we19 discussed.20 Q And, in fact, did you tell her that you had21 some documents?22 A Yes, I told her that the majority of the23 documents that I had, whether in the form of drafts,24 copies, or originals, I had, through the minister,25 delivered, actually submitted to the prime minister, I

Page 142

1 would be willing to give any of the copies or documents 2 that I had left. 3 (Speaking in Macedonian.) 4 Q And when, in fact, did -- Mr. Bogoeski, 5 listen to my questions, please, and try to restrict 6 yourself to the very narrow question that I'm trying to 7 ask. 8 When did you give those documents to 9 Ms. Panova?10 A Following the second meeting, we met11 briefly once again, and whatever I could provide by12 that time, at that moment I handed over to her,13 promising that if I am able to find anything more in14 the meantime, I will be willing to hand those documents15 to her as well.16 Q All right.17 And this third meeting where you handed18 over the documents, this meeting also occurred before19 Christmas, correct?20 A I cannot recall the exact date, whether it21 was before or after Christmas, but it was -- I remember22 it was several days after the second meeting.23 Q And it was -- and it was certainly before24 the meeting that you had with Mr. Dodge on25 December 28th, correct?


(7) Pages 139 - 142




Page 143

1 A Yes, correct. 2 Q Okay. And did -- and it was your 3 understanding, correct, that Ms. Panova would share the 4 documents that you gave her with representatives of the 5 SEC? You understood from her that that's what she 6 would do, correct? 7 A We did not talk about this at that point in 8 time, but as soon as we -- when she told me at our 9 first meeting who she's representing, it was obvious10 for me, clear to me that all of these documents will be11 subjected to further processing or reviewing. There12 was no need for her to underline this.13 Q By the way, did she give you a receipt for14 the documents?15 A I asked for no such receipt.16 Q Did you make copies?17 Mr. Bogoeski --18 A Because these were not documents that I19 created.20 Q Mr. Bogoeski, did you make copies of the21 documents that you provided to Ms. Panova before you22 gave them to her to maintain for yourself?23 A I'm afraid I cannot answer this question.24 Q You can't answer it or you won't answer it?25 A I cannot and I will not.

Page 144

1 Q So you're refusing to answer that question, 2 correct? 3 A It is not related with the issue that we're 4 discussing, and it can only jeopardize my security. 5 Q Now, Mr. Bogoeski, so you've met -- I think 6 we've established now that you've met before 7 December 28th; before the actual interview with 8 Mr. Dodge, you had met with Ms. Panova at least three 9 times.10 Is that the extent of your meetings with11 her, or were there additional meetings -- excuse me --12 one telephone conversation followed by three meetings.13 Is there additional meetings?14 A As far as I remember, that was all.15 Q Now, you turned over documents to16 Ms. Panova in the third meeting, and you told her that17 you would look to see if you had more documents.18 Did you, in fact, look to see whether you19 had more documents?20 A Again, we're going back to the question21 that I would -- not wanted to answer, but I told her at22 that time that I will not give her any other documents23 in addition to the ones that I did give her.24 MR. HILL: I'm sorry, could the translator25 just give me back the last sentence?

Page 145

1 THE INTERPRETER: I told her at that 2 meeting that I would not give her any additional 3 documents. 4 BY MR. HILL: 5 Q You told her that you would not give her 6 additional documents, or that there were no additional 7 documents? 8 A I told her that I would not be giving her 9 any other documents and that I would consider that10 possibility only after I met an official representative11 of the SEC.12 Q I think there are -- I think you have the13 prior exhibits there, but I want to direct your14 attention, just for the moment, to Exhibits 230, 231,15 232, and 233, four exhibits.16 Are they --17 MR. HILL: Ms. Panova, do you have them18 there? Does somebody have them there?19 THE INTERPRETER: Could you repeat the20 numbers of the exhibits again?21 MR. HILL: 230, 231, 232, and 233.22 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, we have them.23 MR. HILL: If you could show them to24 Mr. Bogoeski, please.25 THE INTERPRETER: He apologizes, he has to

Page 146

1 go and get his glasses. 2 BY MR. HILL: 3 Q Mr. Bogoeski, simple question: Other than 4 these four documents, did you, in fact, give Ms. Panova 5 any additional documents? 6 A (Witness reviewing document.) 7 It was only these four documents. 8 Q It was only these four documents? Is that 9 what I heard?10 A Yes.11 Q Now, at any point, Mr. Bogoeski, have you12 given any additional documents to either Ms. Panova or13 the SEC at any point?14 A I personally have not.15 Q Do you have additional documents that16 are -- that deal with -- that have anything to do with17 the matter at hand here, the -- do you possess18 additional documents?19 A I answered this question earlier. I really20 would not like to go back to it.21 Q Well, so my understanding of your prior22 answer is that you're refusing to answer this question;23 is that correct?24 A I refuse to answer this question since I25 believe that there is no relevance to the topic of


(8) Pages 143 - 146




Page 147

1 discussion. 2 Q So you believe that the existence of other 3 documents having to do with the same subject matter has 4 no relevance to the subject matter? 5 A I cannot give you any answers to this 6 question. 7 Q Has the SEC asked you for all the documents 8 that you have relating to the events of 2005 and 2006 9 regarding the matters at hand?10 A During our discussion with Mr. Dodge, when11 I was giving the interview I expected that they would12 be interested in the entire documentation related to13 this matter.14 As it can be seen in my deposition, I said15 that anything else that I will be able to provide, I16 will. So that's about all that I can give you as an17 answer to this question.18 Q Well, did you, in fact, provide additional19 documents to the SEC other than the four documents that20 you initially provided to Ms. Panova?21 A I gave these documents to Ms. Panova. I22 have not given any documents to Mr. Dodge in a23 conversation we had.24 Q But my question was different than that.25 Did Mr. -- as I understand it, Mr. Dodge

Page 148

1 asked you for all the documents that you had; is that 2 correct? 3 A Mr. Dodge, of course, showed interest in 4 the substantive evidence related to this case, which is 5 only normal -- 6 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I need you to listen to the 7 questions and answer the questions. 8 My question was very simple: Did Mr. Dodge 9 ask you for all the documents that you possessed that10 are related to this matter?11 A I cannot remember such a thing.12 Q So you don't remember --13 A A yes or no. Since this was one14 conversation, it lasted for quiet a long time. And I15 cannot recall every single word. Currently in this16 moment, I cannot remember.17 Q Do you, in fact, have additional documents18 relating to this matter?19 A For the third time, I shall not answer this20 question.21 MR. HILL: For the record, we're going to22 request that the witness be directed to produce all23 documents that he has that can be subject to the24 appropriate protective order, but that they be25 produced.

Page 149

1 MR. DODGE: On behalf of the SEC, I will 2 say that we do not control what the witness does or 3 does not do. We can make a request for these 4 documents, just as the Defendants can make a request 5 for the documents from the witness, and Mr. Bogoeski is 6 free to decide how he wants to respond to that. 7 MR. HILL: Well, for the record, first of 8 all, we specifically asked that the SEC make the 9 request directly of Mr. Bogoeski as the SEC just10 indicated that it could do.11 MR. DODGE: Mr. Bogoeski, the SEC would12 request that you produce any additional documents that13 you might have relating to the subject matter that14 you've spoken to us about.15 MR. HILL: And I'd also like a16 representation from the SEC as to whether or not prior17 to today it was aware of the fact that Mr. Bogoeski has18 additional documents that he is not apparently prepared19 to produce.20 MR. DODGE: We are going to object to that21 characterization. It is not clear to us from -- it is22 not clear to us from this record whether any additional23 documents exist or do not exist.24 MR. HILL: We'd also like a representation25 from the SEC as to whether or not the SEC requested

Page 150

1 from Mr. Bogoeski that he produce to them all relevant 2 documents. 3 MR. DODGE: I'll respond to that. I 4 actually personally do not recall whether I made that 5 request to him or not. 6 MR. HILL: We're going to get back to the 7 deposition, but so it's your recollection, Bob, that 8 you don't remember whether or not you asked him whether 9 the four documents that he produced were the only10 documents he had?11 MR. DODGE: My understanding at the time12 and my understanding today is that the documents that13 were produced to us represented the full set of14 relevant documents in the witness's possession.15 MR. HILL: What's the basis of that16 understanding if you don't remember whether you asked17 him for a full set of documents?18 MR. DODGE: I don't recall the exact19 conversation word for word. As the witness has20 testified, we met for a long time. We did discuss the21 existence of certain documents, and as a result of that22 conversation, my understanding was that any relevant23 documents relevant to the subject matter had been24 produced to us; but the witness is not within the SEC's25 subpoena power, and we did not attempt to serve a


(9) Pages 147 - 150




Page 151

1 formal document request on him or subpoena any 2 documents. 3 I also just want to clarify for the record 4 that I don't know if it's clear whether or not the four 5 exhibits you've mentioned were the only documents that 6 were ever produced, because Exhibit 229, which is in 7 the record, was also produced. 8 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Dodge, I'm sorry, 9 you'll have to speak sentence by sentence so I can10 cover what you are saying and translate to11 Mr. Bogoeski. I apologize.12 MR. DODGE: Okay. I'm sorry.13 THE INTERPRETER: Once again, Mr. Dodge,14 may I ask you to repeat?15 MR. DODGE: Yes.16 I would also like to point out that Exhibit17 229 was produced to the SEC.18 THE INTERPRETER: Exhibit 229 was produced19 or was not?20 MR. DODGE: Was produced to the SEC.21 MR. HILL: Just so that the witness has it22 in front of him, Exhibit 229, which I don't think was23 put in front of him, is the biography which the witness24 testified previously he prepared, I believe the day25 before his deposition. It's not a historical document.

Page 152

1 Let's return to the witness in one minute, 2 but just so I'm clear, it would not be the SEC's normal 3 investigative process to ask a witness for a full set 4 of documents that the witness might have relative to 5 the subject matter that the SEC is inquiring about? 6 MR. DODGE: We're not taking my 7 deposition -- we're not taking my deposition today. 8 The witness has made himself available for a limited 9 period of time, and I suggest you devote that time to10 questioning the witness.11 MR. HILL: Well, this issue has -- this12 issue arose with Mr. Bogoeski's refusal to answer13 questions with regard to the additional documents, but14 let's move on for the moment.15 BY MR. HILL: 16 Q Mr. --17 THE INTERPRETER: This is a wrong18 conclusion, he says.19 THE WITNESS: I responded that I shall not20 respond. I will not respond. I did not say that I21 refuse to submit.22 BY MR. HILL: 23 Q Okay. Mr. Bogoeski, when -- when Mr. Dodge24 came and interviewed you on December 28th, when were25 the arrangements made with you that that interview

Page 153

1 would happen on December 28th? 2 A I -- 3 Q Again, my question was when? It's a simple 4 question. 5 THE INTERPRETER: I apologize. May I 6 translate what he said so far? 7 MR. HILL: Yes. 8 THE WITNESS: I have not had any previous 9 contact with Mr. Dodge. I was contacted by Ms. Panova,10 and she told me that on December 28th an official11 person from the SEC will come on the basis -- on my12 previous consent to give a deposition, to give a13 statement in front of an official person from the SEC.14 BY MR. HILL: 15 Q Right.16 And my simple question was: When did that17 occur?18 A When did what occur?19 Q When did you schedule the interview for20 December 28th?21 A Ms. Panova gave me this information after22 our third meeting. She told me that on that date an23 authorized person from the SEC might come, and we24 agreed on the exact time when I was supposed to show up25 at the venue at the -- in the office.

Page 154

1 Q What time was that? By the way, what time 2 was that? 3 A It was the morning before 9:00 a.m., few 4 minutes before 9:00 a.m. 5 Q And did you -- did you have an 6 understanding from Ms. Panova before December 28th that 7 your interview would be videotaped? 8 A In the conversation I had with Ms. Panova, 9 after agreeing, after I agreed to give a statement, she10 told me, actually asked me on whether I agree for this11 conversation to be recorded, video recorded. I gave a12 consent for such a thing. It's a regular procedure,13 and I knew this in advance.14 Q So that consent was given, again, during15 that third meeting with Ms. Panova, correct?16 A Yes.17 Q And if -- I want to ask you: If Ms. Panova18 had told you back then that Mr. Dodge would bring with19 him lawyers representing the Defendants, would you20 still have agreed to be interviewed?21 A No, I would not have agreed.22 Q Now, we're going to jump --23 A Here are the reasons for it. In my24 conversation with Ms. Panova, I underlined the25 sensibility of the issues subject to the statement. I


(10) Pages 151 - 154




Page 155

1 asked for the range of users of that information to be 2 protected -- I mean the users of the information which 3 would arise from me giving a statement, and I asked for 4 confidentiality of everything I would have said, and I 5 said, in the conversation with the authorized person 6 from the SEC. 7 Those provisions are allowed also through 8 our legislation, our legislative framework, for the 9 weakness to ask special protection of himself and10 whatever information he provides so within the11 deposition --12 Q Mr. Bogoeski, if those same protections had13 been provided to you with respect to the defense14 lawyers, as they ultimately were, if you knew that15 those confidentiality protections were in place, would16 you have sat down with Mr. Dodge and the defense17 lawyers on December 28th?18 A I am not sure whether I would have agreed,19 because timewise when I gave the statement on20 December 28th, I was resolute. I decided under no21 circumstances not to accept presence of any lawyers or22 anybody else at that meeting. And if anybody else had23 been present, I would not have given the statement I24 gave.25 I specifically stressed and underlined this

Page 156

1 to Mr. Dodge as well. 2 Q And let's move ahead. We're going to jump 3 ahead a little bit to 2008. I want to talk about 2008. 4 Okay. There came a point in 2008 when you turned over 5 information and documents. You actually turned them 6 over to Pavle -- and I'm going to not pronounce the 7 name correctly. So you can help me with the name 8 perhaps, but I think you know who I'm talking about, 9 right?10 A Okay. Could you go on with your question?11 Q Yes. It's Pavle Trajanov, if I'm12 pronouncing that correctly.13 You turned over information and documents14 to him so that he could turn them over to the prime15 minister, correct?16 A Yes, that's correct.17 Q And you, in fact, had known Pavle Trajanov18 for a long time, correct?19 A I've known him since 1972 as a -- both of20 us were students at the faculty of law in Skopje.21 Q You've known him for a long time and you22 trusted him, correct?23 A I trust him, of course, as a person and as24 a professional.25 Q And when you turned over the documents to

Page 157

1 him, it was your understanding that those documents 2 would be given not only to the prime minister but to 3 the public prosecutor, correct? 4 A As I said in my statement of December, I 5 had a few, numerous, informal contacts with a public 6 officials from the Ministry of the Interior who were 7 more or less in the vault in the procedure. And I mean 8 here the procedure referring to the money laundering in 9 the Macedonian Telekom case. These people informally10 contacted me, bearing in mind, knowing of my contacts11 with Mr. Contominas.12 They requested of me informal data,13 information, in reference to the question: Who is the14 main organizer of the money laundering? I did not15 trust these people. So I gave these documents to16 Mr. Trajanov so that he can pass them over to the prime17 minister, underlining that occasion that they have to18 exercise caution in dealing with these documents;19 otherwise, my personal safety might be endangered, as20 well as the safety of some other people. But I also21 said that I was prepared, if the prime minister want22 to, to discuss this with him as well.23 Why did I give it to Pavle Trajanov24 specifically? He is an ex-minister of interior. He is25 an NP in parliament right now, and from my long-lasting

Page 158

1 acquaintance with him as a person and a professional, I 2 knew that he would adequately act in these situations. 3 Q Mr. Bogoeski, please, I'm going to -- 4 A He's not the minister now. This is 5 important. Just allow me to finish. He was a recent 6 minister of the interior. In line with our laws, he, 7 although no longer a minister, is under the obligation 8 of preserving the confidentiality and secrets that 9 might arise, and bears responsibility for such10 preserving the confidentiality to dispose with11 information of this type.12 Q Mr. Bogoeski, now, listen -- I'm going to13 ask you a series of questions. Please listen to the14 questions and answer the question and only the15 question.16 Now, when you turned over documents and17 offered your assistance, you did so understanding that18 they would be used in furtherance of a criminal19 prosecution, correct?20 A I was, of course, aware of when I passed21 over these documents that they might be used in the22 procedure which was ongoing at that period of time.23 Q When you turned over the documents, did you24 receive a receipt for the documents that you turned25 over? That's a yes-or-no question.


(11) Pages 155 - 158




Page 159

1 A I must answer this question in greater 2 detail because I find the question to be provocative. 3 Q I'm sorry, Mr. Bogoeski -- 4 A No receipt. 5 Q You did not get a receipt? 6 A I find this question nonsense, because I 7 was not at the public prosecution to turn over these 8 documents so I could ask for a receipt. This is a 9 matter of confidential relations, interpersonal10 relations, and confidential documents that the prime11 minister was obliged to give on to the public12 prosecutor and the investigative judge.13 I bear no -- I bear no obligation to ask14 for a receipt, nor any authority bears an obligation to15 issue me a receipt, because these are not documents I16 have created or evidence I have created.17 Q Mr. Bogoeski, did you make a copy of the18 documents that you provided to maintain for yourself19 before you turned them over?20 A At that specific moment, I did not make any21 copies, but I also previously mentioned that at --22 until then I had made, or I have had different draft23 versions of these documents and different copies of24 these documents. As the negotiations unfolded,25 different versions and different copies of these

Page 160

1 documents were created. 2 Q So my question was simple. You handed over 3 a group of documents to Mr. Trajanov. 4 Did you make a copy of what it was that you 5 gave to him, yes or no? 6 A Of the file of documents, of the folder of 7 documents that I gave to him, I did not have a need to 8 make a copy. 9 Q Okay.10 A I only asked him after having used these11 documents in the proceeding to return these documents12 to me so I could make sure they were not misused --13 Q So the answer to -- Mr. Bogoeski --14 A Right --15 Q -- the answer to my question was, no, I did16 not make a copy, correct?17 A I find the question to be too ambiguous so18 I could give such an answer, that I did not make a19 copy. It might be misleading in terms of the20 conclusions being drawn.21 Q Mr. Bogoeski, looking back, again, at22 document -- Exhibits 230, 231, 232, and 233, those four23 documents, were those four documents among the24 documents that you turned over to Mr. Trajanov?25 A (Witness reviewing document.)

Page 161

1 Yes, that's correct. All of these 2 documents, all these four documents were among the 3 documents that I turned over to Mr. Trajanov. 4 Q In addition to those four documents, how 5 many other documents did you turn over to Mr. Trajanov? 6 A In the documents -- among the documents -- 7 among the documents I turned over to him, there were 8 more copies of each document, different draft versions, 9 as well as the originals; but in addition to these10 four, there were no other documents I turned.11 Q You say -- let's distinguish between copies12 and originals for a minute.13 How many original documents -- and when I14 say "original documents," I mean signed original15 documents did you turn over to Mr. Trajanov?16 A Four.17 Q And tell me which four documents those were?18 A The Protocol of Cooperation --19 Q Just so we're clear, we're talking about20 original signed documents, correct?21 A Yes.22 Q The Protocol?23 A The Protocol, the Non Paper, Exhibit 233,24 and Exhibit 232.25 Q So you turned over Exhibit 232 and 233 in

Page 162

1 original form; is that correct? The originals of those 2 were turned over? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And with respect to the original of the 5 protocol, okay, do you have a copy of that today? 6 A I have the exhibit in front of me. 7 Q Well, the exhibit that I have in front of 8 me is -- you're talking about Exhibit 230? 9 A Yes. That's the protocol, 230.10 Q What I'm looking at, is 230, is not a11 signed -- there's no signature on here.12 Is this the same document without a13 signature that you turned over to Mr. Trajanov, or did14 you turn over one that had a signature?15 A I turned to him the original signed copy.16 What I have here in front of me is one of the copies17 which are unsigned, prior to the signing that I18 accidentally found, or it was accidentally left in my19 possession.20 Q And do you today have a copy of the signed21 version that you turned over to Mr. Trajanov?22 A For the fourth time -- for the fourth time23 you're asking something that you should not be asking.24 It is not allowed, and I will not answer this question.25 Q With respect to -- you said the fourth,


(12) Pages 159 - 162




Page 163

1 quote/unquote, original document that you turned over 2 was the Non Paper, correct? 3 A Yes, Exhibit 231, the Non Paper. 4 Q Now, again, Exhibit 231, the actual exhibit 5 is not signed by anybody, correct? 6 A None of the draft documents, that is, the 7 working documents that we have here, is signed. Only 8 the original versions are signed. Of the Non Paper we 9 have right now, there were three previous versions10 which existed before all the parties agreed on this11 one. That's why you might come across other copies of12 the working versions --13 Q Mr. Bogoeski --14 A -- but the original version corresponds to15 this exhibit we have right now, to this Non Paper.16 Q But that was not my question, was it,17 Mr. Bogoeski?18 Mr. Bogoeski, what you turned over to19 Mr. Trajanov, did you turn over a signed version of the20 Non Paper?21 A As I've told you, all of these four22 documents were originals that were signed. Those were23 the final versions.24 Q Do you have a copy today of the signed25 version that you turned over to Mr. Trajanov?

Page 164

1 A For the fifth time, I refuse to answer this 2 question. Let me warn you it's only five minutes to 3 4:00, and I have to leave at 4:00 sharp. So if you 4 have any question that is of high relevance, please ask 5 me such questions. 6 Q And you have to leave at 4:00 because you 7 have some urgent appointment, Mr. Bogoeski? 8 A I have very important and urgent things to 9 take care of. I have sacrificed a lot of my time so10 far. This is the third time that I have made myself11 available at your disposal, upon your request, because12 I wanted to be --13 Q Well, then let's --14 A I want to be fair, but I have millions of15 things to do of my own, so I cannot be available --16 Q Mr. Bogoeski, I have a lot more questions,17 but you're telling me that you're not -- that you're18 not going to stay; is that right? It's a simple19 yes-or-no question.20 A You knew last time that the time available21 that we had was six hours. You have make the best use22 of it, and then, again, after that I also made myself23 available. And this is the third timed that I'm doing so.24 Q My question -- my -- Mr. Bogoeski --25 A It's pointless to go on like this forever.

Page 165

1 Q So you're not going to stay beyond 4:00, 2 correct? 3 A Unfortunately, and I did announce this 4 beforehand that this is the latest I'm going to stay. 5 Q I'm going to ask you one or two more 6 questions, and then I think Mr. -- we have a couple of 7 quick questions from Mr. Koenig. 8 MR. KOENIG: Three quick questions. 9 BY MR. HILL: 10 Q Later on in 2008, as I understand it, you11 were asked by Mr. Contominas and Mr. Kefaloyannis12 whether or not Mr. -- I'm going to -- Mr. Sasho13 Mialkov, okay, whether he -- I apologize for the14 pronunciation, but you were asked by them whether or15 not he was a person who had the power to get these16 criminal charges withdrawn if he was paid the bribe17 that they had been asked for?18 Do you understand my question? It's not19 a -- you were asked by Mr. Contominas and20 Mr. Kefaloyannis whether or not he was an appropriate21 person to effectuate the withdrawal of the warrants?22 THE INTERPRETER: Whether who was the23 appropriate person?24 MR. HILL: Mr. Sasho Mialkov.25 THE WITNESS: That's what they asked me,

Page 166

1 that's correct. 2 BY MR. HILL: 3 Q And you told him that, in fact, if they 4 paid him the two-and-a-half-million-euro bribe, that, 5 in fact, he had the authority, he had the power, to 6 cause those warrants to be withdrawn? You advised 7 Mr. Contominas of that, correct? 8 A I never advised -- I never advised him that 9 he gave money to Mr. Mialkov so that he could withdraw10 the -- his question was: Can I believe that this young11 man, when he promises me, that he can effectuate this12 and that he has more power than the prime minister13 himself? So specifically, in concrete terms, he asked14 me whether this man does have such power and can he15 believe him.16 Not knowing the content and nature of their17 conversation and knowing the relations between the18 prime minister and Mr. Mialkov, knowing that they are19 related and they're first cousins, it was -- when he20 spoke to Mr. Mialkov, it was as if he spoke with the21 prime minister himself.22 So I never did advise anyone to give money,23 but I said that it's all the same, whether he speaks to24 Mr. Mialkov or the prime minister and if they provide25 sufficient guarantee that they can --


(13) Pages 163 - 166




Page 167

1 Q And, Mr. Bogoeski -- 2 A I am afraid that we are five minutes after 3 the time that I had for each day, and this was the last 4 question I had. I'm afraid -- I apologize, but I 5 believe that I have been at your disposal for too long. 6 I do apologize, and I wish you -- you have a good day, 7 all of you. 8 MR. KOENIG: Well, I -- is he still in the 9 room, even?10 MR. HILL: Is Mr. Bogoeski still there?11 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, he is.12 MR. KOENIG: Will he answer three very13 quick pointed questions by me on behalf of Tamas14 Morvai? Is it three questions.15 THE WITNESS: I apologize, but I would want16 you to --17 MR. KOENIG: These are three --18 THE WITNESS: This is not appropriate. I19 have placed myself at your disposal three times. I20 apologize, but we agreed that this will be it.21 MR. KOENIG: Then I want the record to very22 clearly reflect that I have asked this witness to sit23 for less than one minute to ask three very quick24 questions. He has refused to do so. Mr. Morvai has25 not had an opportunity -- Mr. Morvai --

Page 168

1 THE WITNESS: This is not true. You knew 2 that the timing that I had in advance. 3 MR. KOENIG: I understand, and I'm asking 4 you to sit for one more minute to answer three very 5 specific questions and then I will be done. 6 Rather than arguing about it, we could be 7 done if we stopped arguing. I understand, but rather 8 than arguing about it, we could have been done with the 9 questions already.10 THE INTERPRETER: He has urgent things to11 do. Please understand him.12 MR. KOENIG: I do. And if he would answer13 these quick questions instead of arguing about it, we14 would be done.15 THE WITNESS: I apologize. You have to16 respect my time as well.17 MR. KOENIG: Mr. Morvai has been deprived18 his opportunity to ask any questions of what the SEC19 has identified as a critical witness in this case, and20 unless he's going to agree to be deposed again,21 Mr. Morvai has been deprived an opportunity that he is22 entitled to have.23 MR. DODGE: The SEC will state for the24 record --25 MR. HILL: Just before you respond, so you

Page 169

1 can respond to both. And so that the record is 2 completely clear, Mr. Balogh also takes the position 3 that he has been deprived of his right to question the 4 witness in its entirety, a witness, again, who the SEC 5 characterizes as critical. 6 There are many subject matters and 7 questions which Mr. Balogh had prepared to ask the 8 witness and was not able to ask the witness because the 9 witness both left and also because frankly the witness10 refused to answer certain questions.11 He -- you know, the witness came forward12 and volunteered this information to the SEC. Had we13 been notified at the time that the witness came forward14 that the SEC was going to travel to Macedonia to15 interview and videotape the witness, we would have16 accompanied the SEC and could have held a proper17 deposition. And for that reason and many other18 reasons, which we'll later on have an opportunity to19 brief and argue, we object to any use of either this20 proceeding -- I'm not going to call it a deposition21 even -- in any future proceedings related to this case.22 MR. BUEHLER: If I can just jump in before23 you respond. I assume there's no reason to translate,24 because I don't think there's anybody left, but we25 object as well. I realize that, you know, on behalf of

Page 170

1 Mr. Straub we conducted our cross-examination earlier, 2 but we've also made clear, and has been the case 3 throughout this case, the cross-examination here was 4 shared among all the Defendants. So we covered certain 5 aspects having to do with certain of the points that 6 the witness made. 7 And on behalf of the other Defendants, we'd 8 agree that counsel for Mr. Balogh would cover these 9 other issues, many of which were not able to be -- were10 not able to be covered in full. So we join and have11 joined in the objections that --12 MR. DODGE: I'm sorry, people in Skopje,13 you're still on the microphone.14 THE INTERPRETER: Yes.15 MR. DODGE: Can you please identify who is16 in Skopje still, and is the witness still there?17 THE INTERPRETER: Well, the witness is at18 the door because the U.S. Embassy staff is not allowing19 him to go alone, to exit, so he's waiting his host to20 escort him.21 MR. KOENIG: Will he answer three more22 questions while he's standing there doing nothing?23 THE INTERPRETER: No.24 MR. KOENIG: Let me be very clear. He is25 refusing to answer questions even though he is still in


(14) Pages 167 - 170




Page 171

1 that room, or in the vicinity of the room? 2 THE INTERPRETER: He's in this room only 3 because he has to wait for somebody to escort him to 4 the exit. 5 MR. KOENIG: Will he answer questions while 6 he's waiting? 7 THE WITNESS: It would not be serious of me 8 to do so, so I cannot. 9 MR. HILL: The other thing I would put on10 the record and then before the SEC, if the SEC wants to11 respond --12 THE INTERPRETER: He's just leaving the13 room. He's just left the room because his escort came,14 and now he's going to the exit. So he's no longer in15 the room.16 MR. DODGE: If the witness is no longer in17 the room, would you please mute your microphone,18 because there's no reason to have anything in Skopje19 still on the record if the witness isn't there anymore.20 THE INTERPRETER: Well, yes, but we have to21 call the IT expert to do so. So this will be in the22 next two minutes.23 MR. DODGE: Just be aware that your microphone24 is live. So anything you say will go on the record.25 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you for the

Page 172

1 information. 2 MR. BUEHLER: I was just finishing up my 3 comments before we were interrupted by the events in 4 Skopje, but I just wanted to make clear that 5 Mr. Straub's cross-examination was not completed as 6 well, because there were a lot of topics that we had 7 not pursued having to do with, among other things, the 8 witness's background, history, motivation that were 9 going to be covered today that ultimately weren't, and10 so we, too, join in the objections being lodged by our11 co-Defendants.12 MR. DODGE: Okay. So --13 MR. HILL: I just want to add one other14 thing, and that is, I just would note for the record,15 again, that with respect to the three Defendants, at16 the time that they were deposed, the SEC requested and17 received permission to conduct two full days' worth of18 deposition on the grounds that they were critical19 witnesses. And, again, we've had certainly less than20 one day of opportunity to examine this witness.21 MR. DODGE: On behalf of the SEC, I mean,22 one, I think is a misstatement of the record. We did23 not conduct two full days of deposition. We conducted24 one interview of the witness on December 28th and there25 was a deposition --

Page 173

1 MR. HILL: I was referring to your 2 depositions of the three Defendants where you requested 3 that the normal seven-hour limitation be extended to 14 4 hours. 5 MR. DODGE: Okay. 6 Anyway, with respect to the deposition of 7 this particular witness, the parties will undoubtedly 8 have much to brief and argue before the Court. I don't 9 think we need to preview or pre-hash those arguments10 here on the record.11 For the sake of completeness, the SEC views12 that -- that the Defendants have had more than an13 adequate opportunity to cross-examine this witness.14 The SEC has been deprived of any15 opportunity to redirect this witness, and so to the16 extent that the examination of all parties has been cut17 short, our examination has been cut short as well as18 the Defendant's examination, and that has been true not19 only in this deposition, but in many other depositions20 in this case.21 For example, our cross-examination of22 Mr. Szendrei in Budapest was cut dramatically short,23 and we had many more questions to ask of Mr. Szendrei.24 So we can argue these issues before the Court, and we25 undoubtedly will, and we will address those in due time.

Page 174

1 MR. HILL: I would ask on the record, 2 though, that you make a written request of the witness, 3 as well as the oral request, which you made here, that 4 he produce all relevant documents relating to this matter. 5 MR. DODGE: We'll be happy to do that. 6 MR. SULLIVAN: And I would also ask on 7 behalf of Mr. Balogh to make another request for the 8 witness to sit for another opportunity to complete our 9 cross-examinations. There's no downside to asking him10 to return at another time; and if he's amenable to11 that, great, and if he's not, then we'll have that on12 the record for purposes of the briefing that you13 reference.14 MR. DODGE: The SEC will be happy to make15 that request as well.16 MR. HILL: I think this concludes this17 proceeding.18 MR. SULLIVAN: Or whatever it was.19 MR. DODGE: We call them depositions in20 this country.21 We're off the record.22 (Deposition concluded at 10:12 a.m.)23 24 __________________________25 Slobadan Bogoeski


(15) Pages 171 - 174




Page 175

1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ss 2 3 I hereby certify that the witness in the 4 foregoing deposition, Slobadan Bogoeski, was by me 5 duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth 6 and nothing but the truth, in the within-entitled 7 cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and 8 place herein named; and that the deposition is a true 9 record of the witness's testimony as reported by me, a10 duly certified shorthand reporter and a disinterested11 person, and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting12 by computer.13 I further certify that I am not interested in14 the outcome of the said action, nor connected with nor15 related to any of the parties in said action, nor to16 their respective counsel.17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my18 hand this 4th day of March, 2015.19 Reading and Signing was:20 _X_ requested ___ waived ___ not requested21 22 23 24 25 Steven Poulakos


(16) Page 175


EXHIBIT E


1F3kgstrc

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2 ------------------------------xSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

3 COMMISSION,

4 Plaintiff,

5 v. 11 CV 9645(RJS)

6 ELEK STRAUB, ANDRAS BALOGH,and TAMAS MORVAI,

7Defendants.

8------------------------------x

9 New York, N.Y.March 20, 2015

10 10:30 a.m.Before:

11HON. RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

12District Judge

13APPEARANCES

14SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

15 Attorneys for Plaintiff SECROBERT DODGE

16 THOMAS BEDNARJOHN WORLAND

17HOGAN LOVELLS (US), LLP

18 Attorneys for Defendant StraubROBERT BUEHLER

19 LISA FRIED

20 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLPAttorneys for Defendant Balogh

21 THOMAS HILLWILLIAM SULLIVAN

22 KRISTEN BAKER

23 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLPAttorneys for Defendant Morvai

24 MICHAEL LOUIS KOENIGVICTORIA LANE

25

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300


2F3kgstrc

1 (Case called)

2 MR. DODGE: Robert Dodge. Good morning.

3 MR. BEDNAR: Tom Bednar and Jack Worland, your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Good morning.

5 For the defendants, I guess we'll go my left to right.

6 MR. BUEHLER: Robert Buehler and Lisa Fried for

7 Mr. Straub.

8 THE COURT: Good morning.

9 MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, your Honor. William

10 Sullivan, Tom Hill and Kristen Baker on behalf of Mr. Balogh.

11 THE COURT: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Hill and Ms. Baker.

12 MR. KOENIG: Michael Koenig and Victoria Lane on

13 behalf of Tamas Movai. Good morning.

14 THE COURT: Good morning to you, Ms. Lane.

15 MS. LANE: Thank you.

16 THE COURT: Thanks for coming. I always feel guilty

17 dragging people up from D.C. For those who make the trip, you

18 are always free to ask if you want to appear telephonically or

19 through the miracle of video teleconference. That's always an

20 option. Keep that in mind.

21 We have got a couple of issues that have been tee'd

22 up. I got letters from the parties back in February involving

23 discovery disputes that I have resolved but also involving some

24 other disputes that we're going to talk about today.

25 In no particular order, but I think this is the order



3F3kgstrc

1 we should go, we have the plaintiff's contemplated motion for

2 summary judgment on a variety of grounds; we have the

3 defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Slobodan

4 Bogoevski on a couple of grounds; and then we have the

5 plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.

6 Let's start with the motion for summary judgment.

7 This isn't a typical motion that you're contemplating here,

8 Mr. Dodge, right? It seems to me like it's a preemptive

9 summary judgment designed to neutralize what might be a summary

10 judgment motion you're contemplating from the defense.

11 MR. DODGE: It's a motion for partial summary

12 judgment.

13 THE COURT: But a partial summary judgment on

14 particular elements of causes of action and on jurisdiction,

15 right?

16 MR. DODGE: That's correct, to eliminate defenses with

17 respect to, for example, statute of limitations. But we

18 believe that given the Court's analysis of the law and the

19 facts that have been developed during discovery, that it's

20 proper at this time for the Court to rule as a matter of law on

21 personal jurisdiction, on the statute of limitations and on the

22 use of interstate commerce.

23 THE COURT: Let me ask the defendants. Are you

24 contemplating motions for summary judgment, any of you?

25 MR. SULLIVAN: William Sullivan on behalf of



4F3kgstrc

1 Mr. Balogh. Yes, we are, your Honor.

2 THE COURT: We haven't gotten there yet because I

3 think the deadline for premotion letters -- I have to take a

4 look at the schedule I set -- but I think it's usually after

5 discovery is all wrapped up.

6 MR. SULLIVAN: That's correct.

7 THE COURT: You were contemplating waiting until after

8 expert discovery is done?

9 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. We have about ten expert

10 depositions. I think as we outlined in our premotion

11 conference letter or our case management status letter, to be

12 more precise, we have expert depositions going through the late

13 spring through the summer. And I think we anticipate filing

14 motions in the late summer, early fall.

15 THE COURT: I'm not going to hold you to this, but

16 you're contemplating a motion as to the inverse of the motions

17 that Mr. Dodge is thinking about?

18 MR. SULLIVAN: I don't think we'll move on statute of

19 limitations, but I think that we probably will be doing the

20 obverse of what Mr. Dodge contemplates.

21 THE COURT: For jurisdiction?

22 MR. SULLIVAN: Jurisdiction, absolutely, and for the

23 interstate commerce.

24 THE COURT: Okay. For you, of course, that would mean

25 you win. If Mr. Dodge wins on that, then he's got one less



5F3kgstrc

1 element to worry about, I suppose. If you win on any of those,

2 then that basically eliminates an entire claim or all claims,

3 right?

4 MR. SULLIVAN: That would be our hope.

5 THE COURT: I think that's probably the more logical

6 way to do this, is to tee it up that way. If it were only the

7 plaintiff's contemplated motions, I would say that's almost

8 really more what I would handle as part of a motion in limine

9 after a joint pretrial order where I ask the parties to specify

10 whether there's jurisdiction. And if there's a dispute, I

11 would resolve that. Then I would probably look to see if there

12 are other undisputed facts that could be resolved before it

13 went to the jury, I think.

14 But if the defendants are moving for summary judgment

15 on claims, then obviously you can make a countermotion for

16 summary judgment, and I think that would be tee'd up pretty

17 clean.

18 Mr. Buehler.

19 MR. BUEHLER: Thank you, your Honor. Robert Buehler

20 for Mr. Straub. Your Honor, I just wanted to indicate that I

21 think for purposes of the defendants' summary judgment motions,

22 both Mr. Straub and Mr. Morvai would also be moving

23 affirmatively on statute of limitations grounds because we have

24 a factual basis for that as well. This kind of begins bleeding

25 into the next issue that I think your Honor would be taking up:



6F3kgstrc

1 The defendants would also contemplate even more sweeping

2 summary judgment claims were we to succeed in precluding the

3 testimony of Mr. Bogoevski.

4 THE COURT: We'll get to that in a minute. I can't

5 tell somebody they can't make a motion, and I wouldn't, but I

6 certainly can control the timing.

7 Mr. Dodge, I think we ought to hold off on these until

8 I have all of my summary judgment motions in a row and then

9 I'll figure out what we've got.

10 MR. DODGE: Yes, sir. It was not our intention to

11 file a summary judgment motion now; it's simply that the

12 Court's scheduling order did require premotion letters on

13 summary judgment by last month, but our expectation is

14 consistent with the defense.

15 THE COURT: Did I then amend the scheduling order

16 since then?

17 MR. DODGE: I think it was amended after we submitted

18 our claim.

19 THE COURT: That may be it.

20 MR. DODGE: In any case, we thought we complied with

21 the Court's deadline, but our expectation is we complete expert

22 discovery first, and then all the parties would file

23 cross-motions for summary judgment. That was always our

24 expectation.

25 THE COURT: I think we can put that on ice for now and



7F3kgstrc

1 we'll have this conversation, I'm sure, again later given what

2 you have told me. And I don't think I even need to hear from

3 anyone else about contemplated summary judgment motions because

4 there's no point. Things may change based on the expert

5 discovery.

6 Let's now talk then about the motion to exclude the

7 testimony of Mr. Bogoevski. This is the defendants' motion. I

8 don't know who is carrying the ball on this one. I read the

9 letters on this. There are two principal objections: One is

10 the fact that the witness adopted statements made previously in

11 a proceeding at which the defendants were not present; also,

12 there's the suggestion, somewhat general at this point, that

13 this is hearsay or a large proportion of his testimony was

14 hearsay. I'm not sure if people really want to brief this

15 further or if we have enough here and you want me to just deem

16 the motion made and resolve it.

17 MR. BUEHLER: Your Honor, if you were going to grant

18 the defendants' motion, we would be happy to rely on the

19 letters, but we do think it is a very significant motion. I

20 will tell you, we struggled to get in as much as we possibly

21 could into the letter that we did.

22 Mr. Bogoevski, we agree with the SEC, he's a crucial

23 witness. He's crucial for them for a different reason than for

24 us. We feel he is an eleventh-hour witness who is, frankly,

25 not a credible one who is testifying almost exclusively based



8F3kgstrc

1 on information that he received from others.

2 THE COURT: He's a coconspirator. He's at least

3 presented as a coconspirator, right?

4 MR. BUEHLER: That's correct. That's how he's

5 presented by the SEC. We would take great issue with that. I

6 don't even think he characterizes himself as a coconspirator if

7 you look at his testimony carefully. But because of the space

8 limitations, we were general as to the hearsay, but we are

9 doing essentially a line-by-line question-by-question analysis.

10 We do not believe there is virtually any admissible testimony

11 that is available.

12 We also want to make it clear, your Honor, that while

13 we focused on the adoption issue, the adoption issue is really

14 just the tip of the iceberg. What happened here, your Honor,

15 is, in this proceeding, during the course of fact discovery

16 when we were constantly dealing with the SEC on arranging and

17 taking all sorts of depositions all over the world on notice

18 properly done, the SEC found this individual; and without

19 giving us notice, contrary to what Rule 30(b)(1) requires, that

20 we must be given written notice, they went off on their own and

21 conducted a videotaped interview with an eye towards using that

22 at trial, using that as admissible evidence; and then

23 afterwards deciding that they were going to use that as their

24 direct examination in the course of a deposition, thereby

25 undercutting, eviscerating the notice requirements of Rule 30,



9F3kgstrc

1 we'd also say Rule 30(c)(1), which requires examination and

2 cross-examination to proceed as they would at trial, which

3 would not be the case because we weren't present. We weren't

4 available to essentially examine and object.

5 THE COURT: Well, I'm not there yet, right? I don't

6 know how they're planning to use the testimony of

7 Mr. Bogoevski. Maybe he'll show up for all I know. That's

8 really a motion in limine, isn't it?

9 MR. BUEHLER: Yes. I would say, your Honor, a few

10 issues. I do not think he's going to show up. He is currently

11 in jail. He has well over a year to serve in jail. It's not

12 at all clear when he will get out of jail.

13 THE COURT: It's not at all clear when we're going to

14 have a trial in this case.

15 MR. BUEHLER: And whether or not he's going to be able

16 to travel. And he's made extensive comments on the record and

17 I believe also to the SEC indicating that he refuses to leave

18 Macedonia.

19 THE COURT: But there are ways to have testimony, even

20 if he doesn't leave Macedonia, right? I have this great gadget

21 here that will allow us to have testimony by video. I just did

22 it in a criminal trial last month.

23 MR. BUEHLER: I would note that wouldn't solve the

24 issues here because the evidentiary issues - we wouldn't be

25 wasting your Honor's time - are still going to have to be



10F3kgstrc

1 resolved before he testifies. And since we would like to make

2 dispositive summary judgment motions on all of the claims and

3 we do feel that Mr. Bogoevski's testimony is really the only

4 possible way that the SEC could dispute the issues that we

5 would be seeking summary judgment on, we do think those issues

6 should be resolved before the summary judgment process.

7 THE COURT: But those issues are the hearsay issues,

8 right?

9 MR. BUEHLER: That is correct, your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Because the adoption issue, what we have

11 called broadly the adoption issue, seem to me to turn on how

12 his testimony is introduced at trial, right?

13 MR. BUEHLER: Your Honor, that's true, but Rule 56

14 does talk in terms of the admissibility of evidence.

15 THE COURT: Right.

16 MR. BUEHLER: And we would say that as it's presently

17 constituted, that evidence is not admissible, not only for the

18 evidentiary reasons, but for the procedural reasons. It is not

19 testimony that is consistent with trial. It could not be used.

20 THE COURT: If he testifies live, then there's no

21 issue, right?

22 MR. BUEHLER: Your Honor, that could be the case, your

23 Honor, but at that point, you would have already made the

24 evidentiary rulings and it would be clear that his videotapes

25 wouldn't be useable. If he shows up, we can deal with that



11F3kgstrc

1 issue. I think it's highly unlikely, if your Honor reviews the

2 record, that he will ever agree to testify, but if he did, that

3 would be dealt with at another time.

4 We'd also argue, your Honor, that even then, we would

5 have been deprived of our right to depose him in a proper

6 fashion consistent with Rule 30, and we would object to his

7 even appearing, even if he did walk in the door.

8 THE COURT: You did depose him, right?

9 MR. BUEHLER: I would say depose in the most loosest

10 of terms possible.

11 THE COURT: How many hours did you have with the

12 witness?

13 MR. BUEHLER: I would say, your Honor, we were in the

14 same videoconference with him a total of somewhat less than six

15 hours over the course of three different sessions, which were

16 repeatedly afflicted with not only technological issues,

17 translation issues, disputes over the translation, the witness

18 refused to answer a number of questions that we put to him,

19 which we think right there is a basis to strike his testimony.

20 He withheld documents that he clearly possessed that he

21 wouldn't turn over. And he abruptly ended the deposition when

22 he still clearly had testimony to provide. He basically

23 dictated the terms of how, when, where and on what subjects he

24 would be questioned.

25 So, were we able to pose some questions to him? Yes.



12F3kgstrc

1 Did it constitute a proper deposition or proper

2 cross-examination? We think it was far from that.

3 THE COURT: It sounds like you want to brief this

4 further.

5 Mr. Dodge, I'll give you a chance to respond to what

6 Mr. Buehler just said, but I think it's likely we're going to

7 have to delve into this in a little more detail. The premotion

8 letters are designed to help tee up an issue. They're not

9 designed to replace a brief. Sometimes, frankly, they can

10 because there's not much more to say on a subject, especially

11 if it's a legal one, but this I think may not be one of those

12 easily resolved ones.

13 Go ahead.

14 MR. DODGE: Procedurally, we agree that this issue

15 should be briefed by the parties. It's an important issue for

16 both sides, and it should be briefed fully before the Court

17 rules.

18 With respect to the statement that the witness gave on

19 December 28, we're not aware of anything in the federal rules

20 that would prohibit the SEC from interviewing a potential

21 witness.

22 THE COURT: Clearly there's nothing wrong with you

23 interviewing a potential witness. It's a closer call as to

24 whether the interview, which is then taped and under oath, can

25 be introduced at trial as his testimony.



13F3kgstrc

1 Are you planning to do that?

2 MR. DODGE: Our expectation, your Honor, is that yes,

3 we will; that he made a statement that was subsequently adopted

4 during his deposition.

5 THE COURT: I get that, but it's a little cute, right?

6 It's a little cute that you could have a deposition at which

7 they can object and they can say things like, whoops, wait a

8 minute, wait a minute, not a good question. They didn't get to

9 do that here.

10 MR. DODGE: I don't think it's cute at all, your

11 Honor.

12 THE COURT: Let me just finish. It's also the case

13 that normally you'd interview a witness, you'd notice that this

14 is a guy you're going to rely on at trial, and then you'd give

15 them a chance to depose. And you're not going to spend any

16 time at a deposition doing your debrief, right, normally? If

17 it were a normal witness?

18 MR. DODGE: I'm not sure I follow the question.

19 THE COURT: I'm just saying I think this is the point

20 I'm trying to make in your favor. This is a situation where

21 you're not obliged to sort of run through your direct

22 examination in a deposition, right? If you've met with a

23 witness, you know what he's going to say, you're comfortable

24 this is a good witness for you, then you're going to notice him

25 to the other side and the other side then gets to take a crack



14F3kgstrc

1 at it. And they effectively do cross-examination in probing,

2 broad cross-examination, but you're not necessarily going to be

3 asking a ton of questions at that deposition, right?

4 MR. DODGE: Exactly. That assumes, of course, that

5 the witness will be available for trial. And in this case, our

6 expectation was that we have no confidence that he will be.

7 THE COURT: Why can't we get him here on this screen?

8 MR. DODGE: Well, he'll be in prison.

9 THE COURT: So? We take him out for a day.

10 MR. DODGE: That may or may not be allowed by the

11 authorities.

12 THE COURT: It happens all the time. I would imagine

13 it just requires a request - you probably ought to get on it

14 now - you say we want him, we could set a trial date. And then

15 we can go through the proper channels to get him lined up so he

16 can testify under oath here in this courtroom, or we have a

17 Rule 15 deposition type situation.

18 MR. DODGE: We can make that request and we are

19 certainly prepared to do that. I cannot have an enormous

20 amount of confidence that it will be granted. We don't have

21 any control over the authorities in Macedonia. The level of

22 cooperation we have received over there has not been high from

23 the government.

24 THE COURT: In the videotaped meeting that you had

25 with him, the interview, who posed the questions to the



15F3kgstrc

1 witness?

2 MR. DODGE: I did.

3 THE COURT: You did? Okay. So you were allowed to do

4 that?

5 MR. DODGE: Yes. I was allowed to fly into the

6 country and meet with the witness; yes.

7 THE COURT: So, is there any reason to think that you

8 wouldn't be allowed to do that again, this time with defense

9 counsel and do the whole thing there with us watching on a

10 screen?

11 MR. DODGE: I simply have no personal knowledge about

12 what procedures would be involved in trying to do that with an

13 individual who is in custody.

14 THE COURT: Was he in custody at the time you

15 interviewed him?

16 MR. DODGE: He was not. He had been ordered to begin

17 serving his prison sentence at that time on December 29, and I

18 met him on December 28.

19 THE COURT: Frankly, I think it is quite doable. I

20 don't know about Macedonia.

21 MR. DODGE: I hope it is doable, and if it is doable,

22 we'll certainly do it. I just don't know if it is.

23 THE COURT: Let's talk about the hearsay issues,

24 though, because those are the ones that would still be issues

25 to be discussed before he gave live testimony to the jury.



16F3kgstrc

1 MR. DODGE: There are several aspects to his testimony

2 that really not hearsay at all. The witness testified from

3 personal knowledge with respect to, for example, his handling

4 of key documents relating to the bribe scheme that he had in

5 his possession, his authentication of those documents, and his

6 delivery of those documents to us.

7 He also discussed or testified about his role in the

8 bribe scheme, his role in terms of giving legal advice on

9 documents, his involvement in managing the delivery of money.

10 And there are things that he was personally involved in, for

11 example --

12 THE COURT: Are you suggesting he's a coconspirator?

13 MR. DODGE: Yes, we are.

14 THE COURT: You are.

15 MR. DODGE: Part of his testimony is based on his

16 direct knowledge. Part of his testimony is based on statements

17 that other coconspirators made to him.

18 THE COURT: In the course of the conspiracy?

19 MR. DODGE: In the course of the conspiracy, yes,

20 during the conspiracy and part of it.

21 THE COURT: So, that's the whole ballgame, right?

22 Mr. Buehler disagrees with that characterization, and I guess

23 that's what we're going to see. The devil's in the details. I

24 have to see the statements and assess based on what he said in

25 the deposition.



17F3kgstrc

1 MR. DODGE: Yes.

2 THE COURT: Do you agree?

3 MR. DODGE: Yes. Exactly. Those issues need to be

4 resolved. Our suggestion is, when it comes to specific

5 questions, particularly about second-level hearsay and a

6 statement made by a coconspirator in furtherance of the

7 conspiracy, I think it probably makes sense to give us a chance

8 to designate what testimony we intend to use before going

9 through every single line of all of his testimony.

10 THE COURT: What do you propose for the purposes of

11 this motion? You would do that?

12 MR. DODGE: For the purposes of this motion, I don't

13 think it makes sense for us to designate his testimony now

14 because we haven't completed discovery yet. What I think does

15 make sense --

16 THE COURT: Well, fact discovery is completed, right?

17 MR. DODGE: Right, but our expectation is that we

18 would be designating testimony to use at trial when we get to

19 the pretrial stage of the case.

20 THE COURT: That's my point. Typically, a motion to

21 preclude certain evidence is usually what comes up as a motion

22 in limine. That's when I get it. They want to use these

23 deposition designations. They can't. That's clearly hearsay.

24 That's an objectionable question or answer and I shouldn't

25 allow it. That's typically what happens.



18F3kgstrc

1 Here, you're asking me to do it because it's relevant

2 to your motion and I guess the defense's motion ultimately for

3 summary judgment as to whether certain evidence is admissible.

4 And if it is admissible, then maybe I decide that summary

5 judgment motion one way and if it's not admissible, maybe it

6 goes the other way. Right?

7 MR. DODGE: We're not asking the Court to decide this

8 issue now. We do view it as a motion in limine and something

9 that could properly be dealt with later, but to the extent that

10 the defendants seek to file essentially a motion to strike the

11 witness' testimony in its entirety, that would be at least ripe

12 for adjudication, and we're certainly prepared to take that on.

13 So, for example, if the defense wants to move that his entire

14 testimony ought to be stricken because six hours of

15 cross-examination wasn't enough for them, then we're prepared

16 to address that and brief it.

17 If, for example, they want to file a motion that says

18 we should not be allowed to adopt his prior statement because

19 maybe somewhere out there, there's a law that says you can't

20 have a witness adopt a prior statement, then we're prepared to

21 take that on, too. But we don't think it makes sense to go

22 through line-by-line of the transcript and say if the SEC

23 designates this, then it's a hearsay problem, there's no

24 foundation, whatever. I don't think that makes sense. That's

25 properly a motion in limine subject.



19F3kgstrc

1 THE COURT: I think this is helpful.

2 Mr. Buehler, it sounds like you're planning to do a

3 line by line.

4 MR. BUEHLER: That's correct. Under Rule 56, parties

5 can only rely on evidence that's admissible. So, whether or

6 not we do this at trial, whether or not we do this on summary

7 judgment, they have to have admissible testimony. If they're

8 not going to rely on Mr. Bogoevski's testimony in response to

9 our summary judgment motion, that would be one thing, but we

10 don't understand that to be the case.

11 THE COURT: Your motion is to strike his testimony as

12 a whole.

13 MR. BUEHLER: I would say that's certainly the

14 ultimate goal, your Honor. We think we have ample grounds to

15 do that, but we're doing it with a really specific purpose in

16 mind, and that is so we can seek summary judgment because we

17 think we're entitled to it.

18 THE COURT: Right. Then you're having me do summary

19 judgment twice, right? Normally, what would happen in summary

20 judgment is you are each going to make your motion, submit your

21 briefs, talk about what are undisputed facts or disputed facts,

22 you're going to rely on things like deposition testimony. And

23 then in responding to the other side, you're going to say, hey,

24 that's not admissible evidence because it's hearsay or because

25 of something else, and then I would resolve that as part of the



20F3kgstrc

1 motion for summary judgment.

2 You're asking me to do all of that in advance as part

3 of a motion to strike, and then if you don't win on the motion

4 to strike, I'll do it again on a motion for summary judgment?

5 MR. BUEHLER: No, your Honor. I think we view it as,

6 and this I think is a great way to lay it out, we do not plan

7 on doing it again for summary judgment. We do not think,

8 though, that given the breadth of the issues here, and there

9 are significant ones, that we should do that in the course of a

10 summary judgment motion. I don't want to speak for the Court,

11 but I don't think it's going to be a particularly good way to

12 tee it up for the Court. It is certainly not what we think

13 would be the most sufficient way to deal with the issue.

14 We would be making a summary judgment motion and

15 within it would be a rather massive motion to strike the

16 testimony of this witness; we think we should do that first.

17 If we do that first, it will make summary judgment considerably

18 more clearer. If your Honor says it's in, then summary

19 judgment is really simplified. If your Honor says it's out, we

20 think summary judgment will be similarly simplified and there

21 will not be any evidentiary issues that your Honor will have to

22 deal with as part of summary judgment.

23 THE COURT: Again, I don't know why it would be so

24 massive. I think it will just turn on whether broad categories

25 of statements by the witness are admissible evidence for



21F3kgstrc

1 purposes of trial; and if they're not, then they won't be

2 considered and summary judgment will be effected.

3 MR. BUEHLER: I think the admissibility issue is not

4 just based on the rules of evidence. We think it does go to

5 the very nature of whether or not Mr. Dodge is able to

6 essentially conduct the deposition in violation of Rule 30.

7 THE COURT: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it seems

8 to me that the motion that we ought to be focused on now is

9 whether or not procedurally you got what you need that

10 justifies the deposition being available and useable on a

11 motion for summary judgment.

12 Broad arguments like this adoption was improper under

13 the law or broad arguments like his leaving without permission,

14 his basically refusing to answer questions, those things

15 effectively prevented you from being able to depose him. Those

16 are the kinds of arguments that I would generally consider on a

17 motion to strike the entire deposition.

18 The fine-tuned review of every statement, that seems

19 to me to be something I'm not inclined to do now because I

20 don't even know which of these statements are going to be

21 relevant for the summary judgment motion, and I don't want to

22 get into that now. I can only imagine how long this motion

23 will be if I'm doing that. So why don't we do it in two

24 pieces: Broad argument that the entire deposition should be

25 struck because of the irregularities or the improper methods by



22F3kgstrc

1 which it was conducted, which means either I strike it or I

2 give you another opportunity to depose him, perhaps. That's an

3 alternative resolution. I think that's the way I'm inclined to

4 do this. And then if I don't strike it, then you can make

5 arguments about which particular parts of it that they're

6 relying on or would need to rely on for their causes of action

7 are inadmissible. That's I think part of summary judgment.

8 MR. BUEHLER: I think that's absolutely acceptable to

9 the defense. We would like the opportunity to do that.

10 THE COURT: That's fair. So, then we will set a

11 briefing schedule for that. We have also got a motion to

12 amend, but I think that really is part and parcel with this

13 motion to strike the deposition.

14 Do you agree with that, Mr. Dodge?

15 MR. DODGE: I'm not sure it's part and parcel.

16 THE COURT: Let me interrupt you. I'm sorry. That's

17 the great thing about being a judge. I get to interrupt people

18 all the time, but I don't mean to be rude. I just mean I want

19 to be more clear about what I'm asking.

20 It seems to me that you are looking to extend the

21 period of the conduct here from March or May to January of

22 2005, right?

23 MR. DODGE: Yes.

24 THE COURT: And that's based exclusively on

25 Mr. Bogoevski's testimony?



23F3kgstrc

1 MR. DODGE: Principally, not exclusively, but

2 principally his testimony.

3 THE COURT: Now, if I strike, if I were to grant the

4 defense's motion to strike his testimony, his deposition is

5 out, can't rely on it, there's other bases that would support

6 the changes that you're proposing for your amendment?

7 MR. DODGE: We would have a circumstantial argument

8 that the bribe scheme began at an earlier point. The state of

9 the evidence when we filed the complaint established that the

10 negotiations between the company and the government took place

11 between late December 2004 and into the middle of 2005. The

12 clearest evidence of actual bribery would have supported a

13 statement that bribes were made beginning in May of 2005. We

14 believe they were made earlier, but we didn't have hard

15 evidence of that. You can make a circumstantial case that they

16 were made earlier, but Mr. Bogoevski testifies that, no, the

17 bribes were first explicitly offered in January of 2005.

18 THE COURT: Are there any other amendments that you're

19 contemplating?

20 MR. DODGE: No. It's very, very narrow. It's simply

21 that.

22 THE COURT: I guess we can do this two ways: We can

23 decide that motion at the same time that we decide the motion

24 to strike or we can just let you amend. Usually the standard

25 is pretty low for that. And then if I end up striking, you'll



24F3kgstrc

1 have a heck of a tough time proving the conduct that took place

2 before March or May of 2006 or '05? I'm trying to remember.

3 2006?

4 MR. DODGE: 2005.

5 THE COURT: 2005.

6 MR. DODGE: I guess my suggestion would be that you

7 simply let us amend, but I know the defense has objected to

8 that.

9 THE COURT: I want to hear what they have to say, but

10 I don't see what the big deal is. I don't know how they're

11 prejudiced by this. If it turns out that the evidence you are

12 seeking to rely on to prove that to the fact finder is out,

13 you're probably going to wish you hadn't amended.

14 MR. DODGE: Well, it may be that we make allegations

15 that we're unable to prove at the end of the day.

16 THE COURT: Right.

17 MR. DODGE: We don't expect that, but that could

18 happen. But the real question on whether or not we should be

19 allowed to amend the complaint, which should focus on prejudice

20 to the defense and whether there is any additional discovery

21 that would be required, we can't conceivably see any additional

22 discovery that would be made necessary by an amended complaint.

23 THE COURT: Who is covering this? Mr. Sullivan,

24 you're on this one?

25 MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, your Honor. As the SEC has



25F3kgstrc

1 effectively conceded, an amended complaint would uniquely rely

2 on the representations of Mr. Bogoevski.

3 THE COURT: I'm not sure he did concede that. I think

4 he suggested that there was other evidence that would support

5 an inference of an earlier start date but that Bogoevski is

6 sort of the direct evidence.

7 MR. SULLIVAN: Right, and without the direct evidence,

8 no inference would lie. We think it makes much more sense, as

9 you have articulated, since you're going to be looking at a

10 broad-based motion with regard to the admissibility of all of

11 the evidence of Mr. Bogoevski, based both on both procedural

12 and evidentiary grounds, whereupon you'll have an opportunity

13 to review the statements of Mr. Bogoevski -- and, quite

14 frankly, from the defense side, he doesn't say anything

15 remotely resembling what Mr. Dodge has articulated in terms of

16 the proffering of bribes as early May of 2005. We simply don't

17 read his evidence that way.

18 THE COURT: Can I interrupt you. It seems to me the

19 standard for a motion to amend is not the standard for a motion

20 for a summary judgment.

21 MR. SULLIVAN: That's correct.

22 THE COURT: On a motion for summary judgment, they'd

23 have to have admissible evidence. On a motion to amend, they

24 just have to have basically a good-faith basis to change,

25 right?



26F3kgstrc

1 MR. SULLIVAN: Absolutely right, and that leads me to

2 the second point, which is, as you noted earlier, that you may

3 strike this, so it may not be in play at all; and, therefore,

4 there wouldn't be anything to rely upon substantively or

5 inferentially; and, third, prejudice would accrue to the

6 defense.

7 THE COURT: What prejudice?

8 MR. SULLIVAN: Again, another public pronouncement of

9 an illegal act through the outlining of it yet again in a

10 complaint, the potential to do extra discovery and to draw --

11 THE COURT: What extra discovery is going to be needed

12 based on this amendment, March 2005 back to January 2005?

13 MR. SULLIVAN: Since this evidence just developed in

14 December/January, December 2014/January 2015, we were not on

15 notice and had no opportunity to track any parallel avenues of

16 information relating to our ability to challenge the

17 suggestions that the bribes or potential bribes, alleged bribes

18 may have occurred as early as May 2005. We'll have to go and

19 do that now.

20 It will accrue to the detriment, as I said,

21 reputationally to the defendants, and it will simply encourage

22 and necessitate more work on our part. It seems premature in

23 light of all of those considerations, particularly when we have

24 a well-framed and the meritorious motion to strike that will be

25 before you as you determine in accordance with your briefing



27F3kgstrc

1 schedule, it may eliminate this person's purported evidence

2 entirely rendering this early exercise unnecessary and

3 uneconomical frankly.

4 THE COURT: If I rule against you and the defendants

5 on the motion to strike, then you have no objection to them

6 amending? In other words, you think they're tethered, that

7 they're joined at the hip.

8 MR. SULLIVAN: I don't want to commit right here. I'd

9 like to review the amended complaint again, but I would not

10 suggest that we would have any significant, substantive

11 objections to the extent that you allow that evidence in.

12 THE COURT: Okay.

13 MR. SULLIVAN: But, again, we'll review it before we

14 make a final determination. There may be other grounds that

15 I'm not contemplating here that we may have in reserve, but I

16 do believe it is substantially tied, as the SEC has conceded,

17 to Mr. Bogoevski. The inference is, and I think we can all

18 agree, that the direct evidence relies on the admissibility of

19 what Mr. Bogoevski purports to offer.

20 THE COURT: Mr. Dodge, are you prejudiced by waiting

21 until I resolve the motion to strike as to when you amend? I

22 assume it doesn't matter to you, right?

23 MR. DODGE: It doesn't matter to us really so much

24 when the complaint is amended. I would make two observations,

25 your Honor. The first is that even if a motion to strike were



28F3kgstrc

1 granted, as the Court has already pointed out, Mr. Bogoevski is

2 potentially available as a live witness at trial. And his

3 availability as a live witness at trial, even if that's

4 uncertain, gives us a basis to amend the complaint regardless

5 of how the Court rules on a motion to strike.

6 THE COURT: I don't know. If I'm striking his

7 deposition testimony finding, in essence, that he wasn't

8 available to be deposed, do you think you'd nonetheless just

9 get to call him at trial?

10 MR. DODGE: We would certainly ask the Court for leave

11 to do that.

12 THE COURT: There might be a basis to do that. I'm

13 not sure that that's something I'm resolving now on this

14 contemplated motion or really that's a motion in limine down

15 the road.

16 MR. DODGE: I guess it depends, your Honor. For

17 example, if the effect of the Court's ruling were that

18 Mr. Bogoevski was simply never to appear in the case one way or

19 the other, then, of course, that would undermine the basis for

20 our motion to amend to a large extent. But what happens on a

21 motion to strike, that could be resolved in any number of

22 different ways it seems to me.

23 THE COURT: I think your point is that if I resolve

24 the motion to strike in your favor, then there's no question

25 that you're going to get to amend. If I resolve it against



29F3kgstrc

1 you, there's still a chance that you'd have a basis to amend.

2 MR. DODGE: That's exactly right.

3 THE COURT: Okay.

4 MR. DODGE: The second point finally with respect to

5 prejudice to us and what the SEC's motivation is seeking to

6 amend the complaint in the first instance, one of the causes of

7 action in the case involves lying to auditors and that cause of

8 action is subject to Rule 9 of the federal rules. And because

9 it involves allegations of fraud, we have to plead that with

10 particularity. So, it's necessary for us to identify each of

11 the statements that we allege are fraudulent. And for that

12 reason, we believe it's necessary, at least sometime between

13 now and trial, to have the complaint encompass all of the

14 statements that we contend to be fraudulent.

15 THE COURT: Let me ask Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Buehler,

16 or anybody who wants to answer, wouldn't it in some ways make

17 more sense to have the complaint amended? Then you know what

18 you're shooting at, and then you can assess the motion to

19 strike and the testimony that you think is clearly hearsay

20 through a finer prism.

21 MR. BUEHLER: Yes, your Honor. As currently laid out,

22 the motion to amend is not particularly major. It's a handful

23 of dates here and there changed. It's much less than what we

24 understood previously from a prior iteration that the SEC was

25 looking to amend. At this point, the upshot, while I'm not



30F3kgstrc

1 standing up here conceding or consenting to anything, I'm

2 willing to admit it's not a massive change to what we would be

3 facing. We really do think the motion to strike is the key

4 issue here and that's certainly what we're going to be focusing

5 on.

6 THE COURT: Mr. Sullivan.

7 MR. SULLIVAN: For Mr. Balogh's part, we think it's an

8 unnecessary step. The issues will be very well framed and

9 refined. After the Court's evidentiary ruling with regard to

10 Mr. Bogoevski, if the Court deems that that information is

11 going to be relevant and have a bearing on the matter at trial

12 for purposes of evidentiary production, then the SEC can amend

13 in conformity with the Court's ruling. Right now, that is a

14 contested issue. Right now, the amendment as stated is

15 accurate in connection with discovery that has been adduced in

16 this case. We would have an extra step to deal with if the

17 Court rules against the admission of Mr. Bogoevski's testimony

18 and the amendment will therefore be written in terms that

19 suggest the evidence produced by Mr. Bogoevski that would be

20 admissible and used at trial and we would have to reverse that

21 step. It's an extra step.

22 THE COURT: I don't know that we would have to reverse

23 that step. Again, a motion to amend is not applying the same

24 standard as a motion for summary judgment. A motion to amend,

25 they just have to have basically a good-faith basis to change



31F3kgstrc

1 it. And then they have to demonstrate it wasn't done in bad

2 faith, it's not a dilatory motive, no undue prejudice to the

3 defendants or futility, but futility of the amendment means

4 that it basically can't pass the 12(b)(6) standard, so there's

5 no point in allowing an amendment because it still fails to

6 meet 12(b)(6). On its face, there wouldn't be sufficient facts

7 alleged that could support the cause of action, but that's not

8 what we're talking about here.

9 You're suggesting that if I keep out Bogoevski's

10 testimony, then they don't have any basis or any way to prove

11 this at trial, but I don't think that's part of the standard on

12 a motion to amend. I don't think I get into, well, how are you

13 going to prove this at trial. I think I'm really focused on

14 whether they're acting in bad faith or by whether you are going

15 to be unduly prejudiced. And I don't see any of those at this

16 point. And since the standard is that these things should be

17 granted, I'm inclined to allow it, though, maybe, frankly,

18 Mr. Dodge, you may want to wait to see whether or not you win

19 on the motion to strike because you may not want to have a

20 complaint that lays out claims you can't support and lays out

21 facts you can't support.

22 MR. DODGE: We really don't see any legitimate basis

23 for the motion to strike. We'll brief that more fully, but we

24 really don't see that as being a well-founded motion. And we

25 certainly do intend to move to amend the complaint.



32F3kgstrc

1 MR. SULLIVAN: My final point, and then I'll defer

2 with the Court's indulgence to Mr. Koenig, my final point is at

3 this stage, I think the prejudice occurring to the defendants

4 outweighs and overwhelms --

5 THE COURT: What's the prejudice? That there's going

6 to be another document that sort of sullies the reputation? Is

7 that what you mean?

8 MR. SULLIVAN: That's part of it.

9 THE COURT: But I don't think that's ever part of the

10 analysis for purposes of a motion to amend.

11 MR. SULLIVAN: The additional effort and consumption

12 of time for purposes of developing the tributary issues related

13 to the evidence that this individual seeks to offer here as

14 Mr. Dodge suggested the inferences, the details back in time

15 from May 2005, even potentially before that time into

16 January 2005. There will be additional discovery required.

17 THE COURT: That's an argument of undue prejudice, it

18 seems to me, which hasn't been developed. Mr. Buehler seemed

19 to be suggesting that it wasn't going to be prejudicial. What

20 is the prejudice? What would you need to do? Assuming the

21 date goes back to January, what do you need to do that you

22 didn't do before that you couldn't have known you needed to do

23 before because you thought it was March instead of January?

24 MR. SULLIVAN: It was after May instead of January,

25 and now it's linked back to May when we thought it was



33F3kgstrc

1 substantially later in the year, and now the inference is it

2 may even go back as early as January. Those are two additional

3 timing steps that we're going to have to pursue and investigate

4 that was not part of this case before purely on what we

5 consider to be unsubstantiated hearsay evidence of this

6 gentleman produced in a way that's procedurally deficient.

7 THE COURT: But they're allowed to. They're allowed

8 to amend the complaint before there's even been a deposition.

9 They don't have to meet an evidentiary burden or a procedural

10 burden before they are allowed to rely on evidence for purposes

11 of an amended complaint.

12 MR. SULLIVAN: Based on a good-faith understanding,

13 yes. I'm not sure they have that here. I'll defer to

14 Mr. Koenig.

15 THE COURT: Yes. He looks like he has good stuff.

16 MR. KOENIG: The only point I want to make on

17 prejudice as to the questions you were just asking Mr. Sullivan

18 is, we conducted over 20 depositions in this case with an

19 expectation of what the time frames were. We didn't ask any

20 question to any of the people who were the auditors about any

21 of the times the SEC now wants to add in. So we have been

22 precluded from knowing that we should have asked questions

23 about this now-seemingly relevant time frame, which wasn't in

24 the complaint. That's the prejudice. The key people who might

25 have been able to answer questions about the relevant time



34F3kgstrc

1 period -- unless we want to redepose 20 people again and go

2 back, that is what the prejudice is.

3 THE COURT: That would be the kind of prejudice that a

4 motion to amend is focused on.

5 MR. KOENIG: Precisely.

6 THE COURT: Everybody was very slow to get to that.

7 It seemed a minute ago, nobody was too worried about that, but

8 if that's a real concern, let's brief that as well. I want one

9 brief on the two motions and a section with respect to the

10 prejudice that will be felt by the defendants as a result of

11 this amendment. It's two months, right? March 2005 to

12 January 2005; is that right? I don't have them in front of me.

13 MR. DODGE: I think the original complaint does use

14 the March date at one point. But your Honor, with respect to

15 the prejudice issue, the parties have known from our original

16 complaint, from the very beginning of this case, that the

17 factual narrative encompasses a period of time from

18 December 2004 up until the middle of 2006, and all of the

19 discovery taken has covered that entire period of time.

20 Everybody knew that the negotiations between the government and

21 the company were taking place from December of 2004 until the

22 middle of 2005, so that time period has always been on the

23 table. There are no surprises.

24 The only difference is that toward the end of the

25 discovery period, a new fact came to the light, it came to



35F3kgstrc

1 light to all parties, which was that the first discussion of

2 explicit bribery took place earlier than any of the parties

3 earlier knew. It happens in discovery. You learn facts all

4 the way through.

5 THE COURT: I get it. Let me cut you off. You folks

6 can brief this. I can't imagine I'm not going to let them

7 amend if I deny the motion to strike. I just can't imagine

8 that the standard is, as I said, very different than a summary

9 judgment standard and it's very difficult for me to imagine

10 that there's going to be the kind of prejudice here that would

11 preclude an amendment of this modest a nature. But I'm not

12 going to rule today. I'll give you a chance to flesh out these

13 arguments, but I wouldn't bet the house on it if you're a

14 betting man.

15 I think that's what I wanted to cover. Are there

16 other issues that we need to address? Expert discovery is just

17 bumping along, right?

18 MR. DODGE: It is. I think we have some scheduling

19 issues with respect to summary judgment briefing that the

20 parties are not in sync on. And I think there are also some

21 outstanding paper discovery issues that we wanted to bring to

22 the Court's discussion. Mr. Bednar is going to handle those

23 issues for us, but there are some paper discovery issues.

24 THE COURT: I thought I had resolved the discovery

25 issues. What are the paper discovery issues that I'm missing?



36F3kgstrc

1 MR. BEDNAR: They are relatively discrete and

2 hopefully they'll take care of themselves. We're hoping to get

3 an update today. We have two aspects of discovery requests

4 that have been outstanding since August with respect to

5 defendants Balogh and Straub. They regard minutes of

6 interviews that both defendants had with the Hungarian National

7 Police regarding events central to this case.

8 We have received an update from defendant Straub that

9 earlier this month he has submitted a written request now to

10 the Hungarian National Police, so we're hoping that issue will

11 be resolved with respect to him. We don't know where we stand

12 with respect to defendant Balogh, so we're hopeful his counsel

13 could update the Court today. Again, we're hoping to avoid

14 having to involve the Court in resolving those issues.

15 THE COURT: You and me both.

16 MR. BEDNAR: But they have been open since August, so

17 we're hoping to get an update on where we stand.

18 THE COURT: That's right with respect to Straub?

19 MR. BUEHLER: Yes, your Honor. We have made a

20 request. I do want to just note for the record we had

21 previously made a written request to the central prosecution

22 authority in Budapest. They indicated they were unable to

23 locate those records. We also made an oral request to the NBI,

24 the National Bureau of Investigation in Hungary. They also

25 were unable to respond with any specificity as to where these



37F3kgstrc

1 minutes were. So we have followed up with a written request,

2 but I did want to let you know it wasn't just earlier this

3 month that we first tackled this issue. We have been dealing

4 with it for a while.

5 THE COURT: So you get an "A." very good, Mr. Buehler.

6 Mr. Sullivan, how are you doing?

7 MR. SULLIVAN: Very well. Happy to address this

8 issue.

9 THE COURT: Let's see if you're going to get an "A."

10 MR. SULLIVAN: First of all, we're entertaining to

11 comply with the discovery requests made by the SEC to produce

12 materials to enhance third parties even though we don't believe

13 the federal rules of discovery mandate it.

14 THE COURT: Right. I think we have covered all of

15 that, right?

16 MR. SULLIVAN: Nevertheless, we have undertaken to

17 reach out to both the Hungarian National Police as well as the

18 Hungarian Financial Supervisory Authority.

19 THE COURT: In writing?

20 MR. SULLIVAN: In writing.

21 THE COURT: When was that?

22 MR. SULLIVAN: Within the past month. I don't have

23 the specific date. The problem is we have been hamstrung by

24 information provided to us by the SEC itself. The contact

25 individuals at these agencies are either no longer there or



38F3kgstrc

1 have had our mail returned to us for no apparent reason.

2 Moreover, in the final roadblock we were evaluating,

3 your Honor, and we don't believe we really have the obligation

4 to pursue this, the Hungarian Financial Supervisory Authority

5 has advised us that for purposes of addressing our written

6 request, we need to proceed through local counsel by way of a

7 power of attorney. This is going to require my client to

8 engage the services of a local Hungarian lawyer for the

9 purposes of executing a power of attorney to be submitted to

10 the Hungarian Financial Authority.

11 Our position is that we're reevaluating this, but I'm

12 also inclined to suggest that it may be well beyond the

13 obligation of an individual defendant in a civil enforcement

14 action to pursue a foreign national agency for purposes of

15 engaging local counsel to comply with specific rules and

16 requirements of that agency which require legal work, in this

17 case, the power of attorney.

18 I think at some point, our efforts have been

19 worthwhile, meritorious, well intentioned, but I think they

20 must cease at a certain level, and I think we have reached that

21 point.

22 THE COURT: Mr. Buehler, did you have to do a power of

23 attorney thing?

24 MR. BUEHLER: Mr. Straub happened to have local

25 counsel in Hungary, so he was able to handle that on



39F3kgstrc

1 Mr. Straub's behalf.

2 THE COURT: And if the SEC were to cover the cost of

3 local counsel, would that solve the problem?

4 MR. SULLIVAN: I think that would be very helpful.

5 We'd welcome that solution.

6 MR. BEDNAR: In addition, we have proposed, and we're

7 still willing, if defendant Balogh would prefer to execute a

8 very limited power of attorney, we have a local counsel who can

9 take care of submitting the request if that power of attorney

10 is executed if the defendant would rather not go through the

11 expense of engaging local counsel.

12 THE COURT: I have to believe that a local Hungarian

13 attorney for the purposes of this has got to be a lot cheaper

14 than Mr. Sullivan. So, I think it probably behooves everybody

15 to get this done with a minimal amount of back and forth and

16 briefing and getting the Court involved, seems to me. And I

17 say that with admiration, Mr. Sullivan, you have no idea how

18 much.

19 MR. SULLIVAN: As long as that's on the record, and I

20 believe it is, I'm very pleased.

21 We still have to work through the issue of actually

22 who to direct our well-intentioned correspondence to with

23 regard to the Hungarian National Police. And we have not had

24 any helpful suggestions on the part of the SEC, but we're happy

25 to work with them.



40F3kgstrc

1 THE COURT: I can't help you. I don't know anybody

2 over there. Colombia would be a different story, so that's one

3 issue. What else?

4 MR. BEDNAR: Your Honor, we had intended to discuss

5 scheduling issues with the Court because of very different

6 summary judgment schedules that we proposed. I think that's

7 been overtaken by how the Court has proposed to handle the

8 different briefing issues here, so we'll defer to the Court on

9 scheduling for those. Of course our preference is to begin and

10 complete the briefing in an expeditious manner.

11 THE COURT: For summary judgment?

12 MR. BEDNAR: For summary judgment, as well as for any

13 motion to strike --

14 THE COURT: We're going to set a schedule now for the

15 motion to strike, right? Summary judgment, I think we're going

16 to wait until the end of discovery. That's what I would be

17 inclined to do now.

18 The motion to strike, how long do we need to brief

19 that, Mr. Buehler?

20 MR. BUEHLER: First, I just wanted to make sure

21 that we were on the same page as the Court. My understanding

22 of the motion to strike would just be to deal with the various

23 procedural issues that we raised that go to the legitimacy or

24 integrity of the process that we'd use and we will save the

25 evidentiary issues for summary judgment depending on how your



41F3kgstrc

1 Honor rules on the motion to strike.

2 THE COURT: Yes, because otherwise we would be

3 spending a lot of time on facts and statements they're not

4 planning to rely on, and it's just irrelevant.

5 MR. BUEHLER: No. Understood. I just wanted to make

6 sure we were on the same page.

7 THE COURT: We're on the same page, you and I.

8 MR. BUEHLER: Your Honor, I think in our letter that

9 we had submitted to the Court assumed your Honor would

10 entertain this, and you will and we really appreciate that, we

11 suggested April 3, which is two weeks from today for us to

12 submit our motion.

13 THE COURT: That's fine with me. April 3. And how

14 long for --

15 MR. BUEHLER: If your Honor would indulge, since we

16 submitted that, my schedule had changed a little bit.

17 THE COURT: If I had said it like this, ah, April 3,

18 all right, I guess, then you would just shut up?

19 MR. BUEHLER: I was always taught to try to read the

20 Court, your Honor. If we can get a little more time, it would

21 be appreciated.

22 THE COURT: What day do you want?

23 MR. BUEHLER: If we can have one week more.

24 THE COURT: April 10. That's my birthday, so I'm

25 bound to be in a good mood that day.



42F3kgstrc

1 MR. BUEHLER: That would be our gift to you, your

2 Honor.

3 THE COURT: Always thinking of me. Thanks,

4 Mr. Buehler.

5 What sort of birthday gift would you like to give me,

6 Mr. Dodge?

7 MR. DODGE: I think the schedule that the defense

8 initially proposed, the increments of time seem fine with us.

9 They proposed May 11 as an opposition date, but if we extend

10 that by a week as well to May 18, that would be fine with us.

11 THE COURT: I don't envision this being a terribly

12 complex and lengthy motion at this point, but I'll give you

13 that time if you want it, but I would think everybody wants to

14 get this puppy going.

15 MR. DODGE: We'll stick with May 11 for our

16 oppositions, and then June 1 for the reply.

17 THE COURT: Generally, I give a week for the reply.

18 Are you guys planning to travel in the month of May? I'm

19 talking to the defendants.

20 Mr. Buehler, May 11, are you going to have this

21 response? How long do you need for a reply?

22 MR. BUEHLER: A week is fine.

23 THE COURT: I'll give you two weeks. Let's do it

24 before Labor Day, okay?

25 MR. BUEHLER: Great.



43F3kgstrc

1 THE COURT: May 25.

2 MR. BUEHLER: Perfect.

3 THE COURT: I will issue an order or a minute entry

4 that lays out these dates, just if there's any question, okay?

5 Is there anything else we need to cover today?

6 MR. DODGE: Yes.

7 THE COURT: The answer I was looking for was "no."

8 MR. DODGE: I apologize, your Honor. The briefing on

9 the motion to amend, am I to assume that would follow the same

10 schedule?

11 THE COURT: This is going to be a consolidated

12 briefing with respect to the two motions.

13 MR. DODGE: Both issues at the same time?

14 THE COURT: I think that's right. We can make this as

15 formal as we want, but I just don't think there's any point in

16 having crossing motions. You can file your motion to amend

17 tomorrow if you want, but let's just have their opposition and

18 then your reply as it were.

19 MR. DODGE: One set of briefs that deal with both

20 issues. That's our preference, too.

21 THE COURT: It is fully on the tail of the motion to

22 strike. I really don't think the motion to amend is going

23 anyplace. I'm going to grant the motion to amend for sure if I

24 deny the motion to strike. I'm likely to grant the motion to

25 amend even if I grant the motion to strike. I can't imagine



44F3kgstrc

1 that the prejudice is going to be such here that it causes me

2 to say no, you can't amend. But I'm going to give defense

3 counsel an opportunity to brief this with respect to prejudice.

4 I think that's the only issue that's up for grabs. I don't

5 think there's bad faith. I don't think it's being done for

6 purposes of delay. Futility is not the issue. I think

7 prejudice is the only issue, and I'll let them develop it, but

8 you just need to respond to that. I don't want a separate set

9 of briefs on that.

10 MR. DODGE: Thank you.

11 THE COURT: It's always good to see you. It's always

12 a pleasure to have good lawyers who know what they're doing. I

13 mean that sincerely. Thank you for your time.

14 Let me thank the court reporter also. If anyone needs

15 a copy of the transcript, let me ask you to take that up with

16 her later through the website, just because I have another

17 matter I want to start.

18 Thanks. Have a nice day. Get out of here before the

19 snow. Happy spring.

20 (Adjourned)

21

22

23

24

25



portalb · united states district court southern district of new york...

Documents