Bogoevski - Svedok PDF

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 166
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________
:
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
:
COMMISSION,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
-v:
:
ELEK STRAUB,
:
ANDRS BALOGH, and
:
TAMS MORVAI,
:
:
Defendants. :
____________________________________:
No. 11 Civ. 9645 (RJS)

FILED UNDER SEAL
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, Andrs Balogh and Tams 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.
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

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 taperecording. Before we begin, we have a Notary Public (N); Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski will be placed under oath. Id 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 thats 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, Im going to hand you a document thats 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.
1
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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. Thats 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. Im 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
2
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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.
3
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 Years 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
4
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 Years 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
5
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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.
6
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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
8
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 Llukas 1year 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
9
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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: Im 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 youve 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: Thats 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.
10
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 NonPaper 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?
11
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 Ive 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 havent 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
12
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
13
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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.
14
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
15
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 didnt 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, theres 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?
16
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
17
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 weve been going for almost two hours, I wonder if we might take a short break, if you could use
a break? So, well 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.
18
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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
19
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 havent 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.
20
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
21
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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
22
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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. Im 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, lets 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: Whos they?
23
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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.
24
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
25
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 dont know if weve 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
26
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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
27
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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: Kasamis wife?
28
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 dont 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: Lets 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?
29
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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
30
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 Ive 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 wasnt 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 TMobile 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
31
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 dont 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 didnt 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?
32
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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: Lets 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 dont 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
33
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 didnt 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 didnt 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 werent any other reasons why somebody would shoot the father of the party.
34
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 wasnt 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 dont 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 dont we take a short break, is that alright? Ok it is ten minutes after two, were going off the record now.
Part three
RD: We are back on the record at 14:42 pm. Id like to ask you some questions about consulting agreements between
MakTel and Chaptex, and I want to ask you youve 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.
35
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 didnt 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 Im 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 others godfather.
RD: And did that have to do with the consulting contracts?
36
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
37
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 weve 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 werent really worried about it.
38
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 havent 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 havent 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
39
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 didnt 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 dont 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.
40
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
41
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 dont worry, there is no problem at all, because weve been
transferring money through NetPhone for years now, and there was never any problem. Whats 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 didnt 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, Id like to move to another subject. Im going to hand you a documents thats 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?
42
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 dont 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 weve 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; were 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 thats been marked as exhibit
166, its 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 Llukas or somebody elses, 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?
43
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 theyd 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
44
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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.
45
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

RD: And you gave me a business card, for SCHILLING is that hows 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
didnt 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?
46
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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?
47
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 dont 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.
48
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

RD: Im handing you a document thats 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 youve seen it and what it
is?
SB: Yes, Im 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?
49
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

SB: Heres 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 wouldnt 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.
50
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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: Im 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, its 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, its 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?
51
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 thats 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.
52
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

RD: Do you know whether Bekim Zemoski got any payments in connection with the Protocol of Cooperation, or anything
else weve 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 didnt 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
53
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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: Whats 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
54
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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: Im showing you a document, its in Macedonian, and Ive 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, whats 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.
55
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 weve discussed today, and its 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 Ive 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.
56
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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: youve 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 weve 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
57
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

Prosecutor for organozed crime was not officially authorized to undertake any activities. But the public prosecutor was inlaws 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. Nobodys 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 wasnt 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?
58
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 wasnt 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 havent.
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 didnt offer me any benefit, she did not pressure me at all.
RD: Did I offer you any benefit or put pressure on you?
59
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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.
60
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________

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 youve 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
-----------------------------
61
Slobodan Bogoeski
___________________
EXHIBIT B
In The Matter Of:

Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Elek Straub, et al.
Slobodan Bogoeski
Vol. 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
Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 67 Slobodan

of 166 Bogoeski - Vol. 1

Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(415) 597-5600
Page 2
Page 4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE )
COMMISSION
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action No.
ELEK STRAUB, ANDRAS BALOGH,
1:11cv09645
and TAMAS MORVAI,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DEPOSITION OF SLOBADAN BOGOESKI

THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2015
PAGES 1 - 114; VOLUME 1
BEHMKE REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICES, INC.

BY:
STEVEN POULAKOS, RPR
160 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 300

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94015
Deposition of SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI, Volume 1,
taken on behalf of Plaintiff's, at the Law Offices of

the Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C., was held on Thursday, January 15, 2015,

commencing at 6:13 a.m., before Certified Shorthand Reporter,
pursuant to the Notice of Videotaped Deposition.
Min-U-Script
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: dodgeR@sec.gov
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL - CONTINUED:

FOR THE DEFENDANT, TAMAS MORVAI:
HINCKLEY ALLEN
BY: MICHAEL KOENIG, ESQUIRE
VICTORIA P. LANE, ESQUIRE
30 South Pearl Street
Suite 901
Albany, New York 12207
Telephone: (518) 396-3100
Email: vlane@hinckleyallen.com
FOR THE DEFENDANT, ELEK STRAUB:
HOGAN LOVELLS
BY: LISA J. FRIED, ESQUIRE
GARIMA MALHOTRA, ESQUIRE
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 918-3000
Email: garima.malhotra@hoganlovells.com
ALSO PRESENT: BETI ARSOESKA, THE INTERPRETER

(415) 597-5600
(1) Pages 1 - 4


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
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
-o0o9
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 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS - CONTINUED

SLOBADAN BOGOESKI - VOLUME 1
Exhibit
Description
Exhibit 234
Exhibit 235
Exhibit 236
Page
An unidentified document
- 3 pages
28
Protective Order - 3 pages
17
A transcript of an interview
written using the cyrillic
alphabet - 60 pages
22
Exhibit 237
A photograph - 1 page
39
Exhibit 238
40
Exhibit 239
41
Exhibit 240
42
Exhibit 241
42
Exhibit 242
43
Exhibit 243
44
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Exhibit
Joint Exhibit 1
Description
Page
Audio (Retained by the SEC)
113
Straub-Bogoeski
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 48
Exhibit 91
An English translation of a
document (Retained By Defendant)
52
An unidentified document - 2 pages
29
A letter from the Minister of

the Economy - 3 pages
29
Exhibit 166
Letter of intent - 1 page
30
Exhibit 229
A biography - 1 page
26
Exhibit 230
Protocol of Cooperation - 2 pages
27
Exhibit 231
A confidential Non Paper - 1 page
27
Exhibit 232
A one-page document - 1 page
28
Exhibit 233
Nonbinding provisions - 5 pages
28
Min-U-Script
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Exhibit
Description
Page
Exhibit 244
44
Exhibit 245
45
Exhibit 246
45
Exhibit 247
46

(415) 597-5600
(2) Pages 5 - 8


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
MR. DODGE: We're on the record now. Today
3
is January 15th, 2015. It is 6:13 a.m. Eastern time.
4
We're proceeding by video conference from Skopje,
5
Macedonia. Where the time is six hours later.
6
Today we're conducting the deposition of
7
Slobadan Bogoeski in the matter of U.S. Securities and
8
Exchange Commission versus Elek Straub. That's Civil
9
Action Number 11-CV-9465 in the Southern District of 10
New York.
11
My name is Robert Dodge. I guess, as we 12
begin, why don't we first begin by identifying the 13
people who are here.
14
Robert Dodge is counsel for the Securities 15
and Exchange Commission, the Plaintiff in this action. 16
With me here in Washington, D.C. is Adam Eisner. I'd 17
ask the other attorneys here in Washington, D.C. to 18
identify themselves and who they represent please? 19
MR. HILL: Is everything being captured 20
audio-wise -21
MR. DODGE: Let me explain some of the 22
mechanics of how this is going to work. Everything is 23
being recorded. That includes the audio and the video 24
feed. The video feed, as I understand, the recording 25
THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2015; 6:13 A.M.
Page 11
beginning until we get to the oath and then we can
translate that, I mean, interpret that; but the rest of
it I can do it in writing as a translation.
supposed to be done.
MR. DODGE:
Okay.
Well, I think we
probably will begin the translations with the oath.
think we can identify who's present without necessarily
translating that.
So can we identify who is present here in
Washington, D.C., please, and who you represent?

MR. KOENIG:
Sure.
represent Tamas Morvai.
Mike Koenig and I
Victoria Lane, I also
represent Tamas Morvai.

MS. FRIED:
Lovells.
I'm Lisa Fried from Hogan
We represent Elek Straub, and I am
accompanied today by two of my associates, Garima

Malhotra and David Mitchell.
MR. HILL:
Thomas Hill from the Pillsbury
law firm, representing Andras Balogh, and I'm

accompanied by my colleague Kristen Baker.
MR. POULAKOS:
I am the court reporter,
Steven Poulakos.
THE INTERPRETER:
My name is Beti Arsoeska,
and I'm going to be the interpreter today.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Just a
suggestion, or, you know, the legal procedure how it's
Page 12
1
MR. DODGE: And can we have an
2 identification, please, of everyone who is present in
is speaking. The microphone captures all of the
3 Skopje?
discussion in the room.
4
MR. BURNSTEIN: I'm Greg Burnstein. I'm
So if you're having side discussions, I
5 the head of the consular section at the U.S. Embassy in
would be very cautious about that, it would likely be
6 Skopje.
picked up on the record.
7
(Speaking in Hungarian) the notary from
Also, given the fact that there is going to
8 Skopje.
be a slight delay, it's been explained to me, as the
9
MS. VAVISKI: The lawyer, Janapana Vaviski,
feed switches from Washington, D.C. to Skopje, it would 10 the local lawyer by the Security and Exchange
be better if there's a slight pause between when one 11 Commission.
person finishes speaking and the next person begins. 12
(Inaudible)
So pauses between questions and answers, also pauses 13
MR. APOSTOLSKI: Yes, on behalf of
between questions and objections I think will help the 14 Pillsbury the Apostolski Firm, Antonio Apostolski,
record stay more clean.
15 Kiril Stojanovski, and Kiril Stojanovski attorneys at
With that, any other questions on the
16 law on behalf of Andras Balogh representing Andras
mechanics?
17 Balogh as local counsel.
MR. HILL: Yes. Well, the only other
18
MR. DODGE: So, thank you. I'd like now to
question I would have is: Does everything, including 19 have the consular official in Skopje first administer
what you just said, for example, need to be translated? 20 an oath to the witness, please.
THE INTERPRETER: That's my question too. 21
MR. HILL: Bob, I've got one preliminary
MR. DODGE: I guess, yes, well, let's -- it 22 thing. I don't know if you want to put it on the
should be translated. So -23 record now or after the oath, I don't care, but I've
THE INTERPRETER: If it's easier for you, 24 got have one -until we get -- if we can leave this procedure from the 25
MR. DODGE: Let's do the oath first.
is going to capture whoever is speaking, and so the
video feed will move back and forth, depending on who
Min-U-Script

(415) 597-5600
(3) Pages 9 - 12


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HILL: Okay.

Whereupon,
SLOBADAN BOGOESKI,
called as a witness, having been first duly sworn to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, was examined and testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. DODGE: We also have a notary public
from Macedonia who will administer an oath under
Macedonian law.
If we could do that now, please.
THE INTERPRETER: According to the law of
notary 68, I'm going to be taking a -- I'm going to be
taking a oath and -(Clarifies).
Okay. The witness -- the witness will -the witness will give -- okay. So the witness will
give a oath and he is going to record the oath.
THE INTERPRETER: I swear that everything I
know for this work, for this job, I will tell the truth
and I will not hide anything.
MR. DODGE: Before we proceed Mr. Hill has
said that he has a statement he would like to make on
the record.
MR. HILL: Thank you. First of all, I have
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deposition should not be construed as consent or a

waiver of the possible use of this deposition for any
purpose at trial.
And then I also have well probably a
question more for the SEC here, or perhaps for the
witness, and that is whether or not the prescriptions
of the U.S. Perjury Statute, the Perjury Statute in the
United States, the statute that -- the statute that
makes it a crime to lie under oath and the statute that
makes it a crime to make a false statement, whether
those statutes apply to this deposition and to any
statement that may be made by the witness.
MR. DODGE: Is that it?
MR. HILL: Yes.
MR. DODGE: This is Bob Dodge again. We'll
proceed, subject to the objection raised by Mr. Hill.
MR. HILL: Well, that wasn't -MR. DODGE: I'm speaking. Let the witness
translate.
MR. HILL: I thought you were finished.
I'm sorry.
THE INTERPRETER: Can you repeat?
MR. DODGE: We will proceed today subject
to the defense objection that's been made, questions
about what the witness understands about the oath, the
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a question: Does our interpreter need to be sworn?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.
MR. DODGE: Can you administer an oath to
the interpreter, please?
(INTERPRETER SWORN)
MR. HILL: On behalf of Mr. Balogh, and I
suspect on behalf of all of the defendants, I just want
the record to reflect, first of all, that our
participation in this deposition in no way should be
construed as our consent or our waiver with respect to
any possible use of this deposition at trial.
MR. DODGE: Okay, we need to break it up so
that -THE INTERPRETER: We need to break it up in
a couple of sentences because it's a little bit too
fast.
MR. HILL: I'm sorry.
On behalf of Mr. Balogh, and I suspect all
of the defendants, I want the record to reflect that
our participation in this deposition should in no way
be construed as our consent or a waiver of any
positions with respect to the possible use of the
deposition at trial.
THE INTERPRETER: One more time.
MR. HILL: Our participation in this
Min-U-Script
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
defense can ask the witness directly during their

cross-examination.
With that, I'm going to proceed with my
direct questioning.
MR. HILL: So is the SEC declining to take
a position with respect to whether or not the perjury
statutes and the 1001 apply to this proceeding?
THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, Mr. Hill,
again?
MR. HILL: Is the SEC declining to take a
position whether or not the prohibitions of the Perjury
Statute and 18 U.S.C. 1001, which is the False
Statement Statute, apply to this deposition?
MR. DODGE: The answer to that question is,
no. This deposition is being taken under oath in the
same manner as any other deposition subject to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the same rules
apply.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DODGE
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, will you state your full
name?
MR. KOENIG: Just -- this is Mike Koening
on behalf of Tamas Morai. I just want to make clear
Mr. Hill said he suspects that we agree about the
circumstances of this, deposition and I do want to

(415) 597-5600
(4) Pages 13 - 16


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
affirmatively state that we do concur with what

Mr. Hill said about the use of this deposition.
MS. FRIED: And on behalf of Mr. Straub, we
join in that view.
MR. DODGE: Are there any other statements
that defense counsel would like to make before we
begin?
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, will you state your full
name, please?
A
My name is Slobadan Bogoeski.
(Bogoeski Exhibit 235 marked for purposes
of identification.)
MR. DODGE: Today's deposition is being
taken subject to a protective order. The protective
order has been marked as Exhibit 235. Everyone present
in Washington and -- I'm sorry, I'd ask that there not
be conversations at the same time because it really
obstructs the record.
I'd ask that everyone present both this
Washington, D.C. and in Skopje will sign -- will
sign -- either has signed or will sign today an
acknowledgment having received a protective order.
Everyone present today, both in Washington
and in Skopje, are bound by the protective order.
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mentioned that a notary administered an oath; is that

right?
As part of that statement, a notary public
administered an oath; is that right?
A
That's true, there was the notary, Sasho,
Pitatoski (ph) who is -- who was at the place today.
Q
And did you take the same oath on
December 28th that you took today?
A
The same -- the same oath because this is a
oath from the law of notary.
Q
What did you understand the oath to require
of you?
A
The oath required that whatever I know I
will tell and whatever I tell it will be true.
Q
To your knowledge, are there penalties
under Macedonian law for not telling the truth after
giving an oath like that?
MR. HILL: Objection.
THE INTERPRETER: Do we want him to answer
first or do you want the objection?
MR. DODGE: Yes, I'd like him to answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I know that there is -there is a law in Macedonian, in Macedonian law that if
I say something that is not true, it's going to be
punished.
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, did you meet with me on
December 28th, 2014?
A
Yes, it's true, we met.
Q Where did we meet?
A
In the office of the lawyer of Biana Panova
in Skopje.
Q How long did that meeting last?
A
It lasted quite long, something about eight
hours, close to eight hours.
Q Who else was present at that meeting, that
you recall?
A
On the meeting was also Biana Panova, who
is the lawyer; also Alexandra, who is a lawyer also,
was at the meeting and she was a translator, and Mihial
who was the technical support.
Q Was there also a notary public there?
A
Prior to that the notary took the oath that
everything he says is going to be true.
Q As part of our meeting on December 28th,
did you give a statement by answering questions that I
asked of you?
A
I answered all of the questions that I was
asked.
Q Before you gave that statement, you
Min-U-Script
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
When you gave your statement to me on
December 28th, 2014, did you tell the truth?
A
Everything I gave answer to, it was
absolute true.
Q
Did you tell the entire truth on
December 28th?
A
Everything I knew, I told.
Q
In your answers to my questions on
December 28th, did you leave out any significant
information about the subject we were discussing?
MR. KOENIG: Objection.
MS. FRIED: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I didn't leave anything out
because whatever I remembered at that point I told you.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
On December 28th were you under the
influence of any drugs or alcohol?
A
I have not been under influence on alcohol,
drugs, or any kind of sedatives.
Q
On December 28th when you gave your
statement to me, were you thinking clearly?
THE WITNESS: I was thinking with clear
mind for everything we talk at that moment.

(415) 597-5600
(5) Pages 17 - 20


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HILL: I just want the record to

reflect, we've said this in prior depositions, but
unless otherwise noted an objection by anyone of the
defendants is an objection on behalf of all.
MR. DODGE: Right. We'll stipulate to
that.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q When we spoke on December 28th, were you
under any pressure or duress that affected your
testimony?
MR. KOENIG: Objection to form.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Even then I mentioned
that I feel threatened by the whole situation because
of the people who are involved in the case.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q The pressure that you mentioned, did that
affect your ability to tell the truth in your statement
on December 28th?
THE INTERPRETER: He didn't feel that it
will influence telling the truth, but he just mentioned
to be a caution measures to be taken for protection of
him and his family.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q When we spoke on December 28th, were you
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE INTERPRETER: Sixty-five?

MR. DODGE: Sixty pages.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, do you have Exhibit 236 in
front of you?
A
Yes, I have it.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, what is Exhibit 236?
A
So this is the whole conversation we had on
the 28th, 2014, and my -- and my statement that I gave.
Q
Is Exhibit 236 a transcript of your
interview with me on December 28th, 2014?
A
Yes, it is a transcript from the whole
conversation.
Q
What language is this document written in?
A
The document is written in Macedonian
language.
Q
Is Macedonian your native language?
A
Yes Macedonian is my native.
Q
Before today did you review Exhibit 236?
A
Yes, I did.
Q
On each page of Exhibit 236 and again at
the very end there is a signature. Do you see that?
A
Yes, I personally signed it.
Q
So these -- that is your signature on each
page; is that right?
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
offered or promised anything in connection with your

statement, the statement that you gave to me?
A
Nobody offered anything to me, neither I
asked for anything.
Q Did anyone threaten or pressure you to give
a statement to me?
A
Nobody pressured me neither had the
opportunity to pressure me for giving the statement to
Mr. Dodge.
Q The statement that you gave on
December 28th, was that videotaped?
A
Yes, it was taped from the beginning to the
end.
Q And at the time you gave the statement, did
you know that it was being videotaped?
A
Yes, I absolutely knew, and I was seeing it
in front of myself.
Q I would ask you to take a look at Exhibit
236, please.
of identification.)
MR. DODGE: For the record, while this is
being handed out, Exhibit 236 is a 60-page typed
document in characters written in the cyrillic
alphabet.
Min-U-Script
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
It's true yes it's true and this is my
signature with the whole first name and last name.
Q
And when you signed each page of Exhibit
236 what did you intend to mean by that?
MR. KOENIG: Objection to form.
THE WITNESS: That is this is this is the
truth I've said in the conversation and on the
December 28th.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
And did you review each page of Exhibit
236?
A
All the pages are carefully written by -from the first one to the last one.
Q
Carefully read by you; is that right?
A
Yes, of course.
Q
Does the entire transcript there accurately
state what you said to me during our meeting on
December 28th, 2014?
A
The whole transcript is true whatever I
said on the 28th.
Q
Are there any mistakes in the transcript?
A
There is no mistakes, but there is few
technical mistakes which are not important. That I
personally by hand corrected them.
Q
Okay. So the handwritten notations in

(415) 597-5600
(6) Pages 21 - 24


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit 236 are those your notations?

A
Yes, it's true.
Q And after having reviewed the transcript is
there anything that you would like to correct in the
transcript now?
A
For now I don't have anything special that
I would like to correct.
Q If I ask you the same questions today that
I asked you on December 28th, would you give the same
answers today?
THE WITNESS: Of course I will.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q And would you agree to treat your
videotaped statement on December 28th as part of your
sworn testimony today?
THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry?
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Will you agree to treat your videotaped
statement on December 28th as part of your sworn
testimony today?
A
Yes.
Q And will you agree to treat the signed
transcript, Exhibit 236, from December 28th as part of
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes, it's true.

of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Will you please look at Exhibit 230. Mr.
Bogoeski, were you shown Exhibit 230 during your
December 28th statement?
A
(Witness reviewing document.)
Yes, it was shown to me.
Q
And is this document the same document that
was identified in your statement as Exhibit 230.
A
Yes, it's true.
MR. DODGE: Will you please show the
witness Exhibit 231.
of identification.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, were you shown Exhibit 231
during your December 28th statement?
A
Yes, it was.
Q
And is this the same document that was
identified in your statement as Exhibit 231?
A
Yes, it truth, it's the same document.
MR. DODGE: Will you show the witness,
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your sworn testimony today?

THE WITNESS: I agree.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Will you please look at Exhibit 229?
MS. FRIED: We're going to have an
across-the-board objection to this. I'm happy to save
it for our cross or I can place it on the record now.
MR. DODGE: It will be preserved either
way. If you don't mind doing it during cross.
MS. FRIED: That's fine with me. Okay.
That's fine. Thank you.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Do you have Exhibit 229 in front of you,
Mr. Bogoeski?
A
Yes, I have it.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Were you shown this document during your
December 28th, 2014, statement?
A
Yes, it's true.
Q And is this a document that was identified
as Exhibit 229 in your December 28th statement?
Min-U-Script
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
please, Exhibit 232.

of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, were you shown Exhibit 232
during your December 28th statement?
A
Yes, it was.
Q
And is this the same document that was
A
Yes, it's the same document that was
presented to me at that time.
MR. DODGE: Will you hand the witness,
of identification.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Were you shown this document during your -were you shown Exhibit 233 during your December 28th
statement?
A
Yes, it was.
Q
And was this the same document that is
A
Yes, this is same document, in complete.

(415) 597-5600
(7) Pages 25 - 28


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Were you shown Exhibit 234 during your
A
Yes, it was shown to me.
Q And is this document the same document that
was identified during your statement as Exhibit 233 -234, I'm sorry?
A
Yes, that's the same document.
(Bogoeski Exhibit 48 marked for purposes of
identification.)
please, Exhibit 48.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have it.
BY MR. DODGE:
A
Yes, it was. Yes.
Q Is this the same document that was
A
(Bogoeski Exhibit 91 marked for purposes of
identification.)
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
Exhibit 229 is your biography; is that
right?
A
Yes, that's my short biography.
Q
Did you write this document in English?
A
No. It was written in Macedonian, but my
son translated in English.
Q
Okay. Some of the other documents, say,
Exhibit 230 and 231, 232, and 233 are all written in
English.
Were you able to understand what these
documents meant?
A
Yes, I was able to -- they were all
translated in Macedonian.
Q
Who translated those documents?
A
My son translated, who was a head of -THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifying.)
THE WITNESS: So NetKom and AmeriKom. He
was the head, his son.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, changing subjects a little
bit.
Did there come a time in the year 2013 when
you were placed under arrest?
A
Yes, it's true.
Q
And when was that? When were you arrested?
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DODGE: Exhibit 91, please.

THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, were you shown the document
Exhibit 91 during your December 28th statement?
A
Yes, it was.
Q And is this the same document that was
identified as Exhibit 91 in your statement?
A
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
A
Yes, it was.
Q And is this the same document that was
identified during your statement as Exhibit 166?
A
Q Mr. Bogoeski, I've noticed that some of the
exhibits you've been shown are written in English.
My question is: Do you have any knowledge
of the English language?
A
I can -- I can read and I can comprehended,
but I cannot use the language on a higher level.
Min-U-Script
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
That occurred on 17 of April 2013.
Q
And when were you released from custody?
A
Sixteenth of December 2013.
Q
Do you know someone named Emanuel Malelis
Manoli?
A
I know him. I know him for a while, and
his name -- real name is Emanuel Malelis and a nickname
is Manoli.
Q
And who is Mr. Malelis?
A
Malelis is a Greek who, up until 1992, was
working in the Greek consulate in Skopje. He's a Greek
citizen. In 1992, he was suspended from work, from
perjury, because he's married with Macedonian citizen.
He stayed and he lives in Skopje.
Q
Did you have any discussions with
Mr. Malelis after your release from prison in
December 2013?
A
Yes, I had three meetings with him.
Q
I'd like to ask you about the first
meeting.
When was that?
A
I cannot recall the exact date, but it was
in May, somewhere around -- around the holidays in
2014.
Q
And during --

(415) 597-5600
(8) Pages 29 - 32


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
The first meeting was in Alexandra Palace,
the hotel.
Q What did Mr. Malelis say to you, and what
did you say to him during that meeting?
THE WITNESS: He came to introduce himself
as a friend who wanted to help me and that he is in
everyday conversation with the head of security -state security Sasho Mialkov. At the same time, he
wanted to blackmail me if I continued to -- if I
continued -- and if I continue to go in that direction
to uncover who is the owner of the firm.
THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.)
THE WITNESS: Central Balkan Investment in
Cyprus -- which is in -- which is in ownership of
Dimitri Contominas, that if I continue -- if I continue
to go in that direction, that not only we're going to
get and receive our punishment, but some other measures
will be taken.
And he is -- Contominas is very upset and
very concerned that I mentioned his name in the whole
court process. In some way, he told me that Dimitri
Contominas is sending him to me to warn me that I
shouldn't talk anything about the case that is
actually -- it's subject of my -- yes, from the -- my
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contract -- the deal was signed by Nikola Gruevski at

that time -THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.)
THE WITNESS: Okay. At the time, the prime
minister was a minister, trade minister, in the
Government of (inaudible).
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
So, Mr. Bogoeski, I want to focus on simply
what -- what Mr. Malelis said to you and what you said
to him during that meeting.
Can we move to the second meeting, and can
you tell me when that was?
A
There was on the end of August after the -after the vacations were over, the end of August.
MR. HILL: I'm sorry, after the what?
MR. DODGE: Vacations were over.
THE INTERPRETER: After the vacations were
over.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
And what did Mr. Malelis say to you, and
what did you say to him on that occasion?
THE WITNESS: It was, again, almost a
similar conversation in which he brought me greetings
from Dimitri Contominas, and he is asking me not to
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
statement from the 28th of December.

BY MR. DODGE:
Q What else did Mr. Malelis say to you that
day?
A
That he's a coordinator of all of the firms
that Mr. Contominas has in Macedonia, which -- which
are -- which are registered. All the firms are
registered on the address. It is a lawyer, Marcov, in
Skopje, which is an office very close to the present
government. And he's in everyday communication with
Sasho Mialkov and Prime Minister Gruevski.
Q What did you say to Mr. Malelis, if
anything?
A
I only told him that -- that the whole
process -- the whole process that is against me and the
two lawyers and that they're playing a -- dirty names,
not fair games. And the only way that I'm going to be
blackmailed and to be controlled from the family
government, which is in very close relations for a long
years with Contominas, from the 2000 up until now.
The friendship -- their friendship is
dating from -- so the friendship between Malelis and
Gruevski starts in 2000, when the (inaudible) from
Skopje was sold on -- to Hellenic Petroleum for no
money, pretty much. And the deal and then the
Min-U-Script
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mention his name anywhere, not only in our court

process, and also for laundering money from the case of
Macedonian Telekom and stopping of the investigation.
The -- after -- after the -- against the suspects from
Macedonian Telekom. It's about Attila Szendrei,
Mikhail Kefaloyannis, and other three people, but about
Kefaloyannis, Contominas was most worried.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
What else did Mr. Malelis say to you?
THE WITNESS: He said that they're very
powerful in Macedonia to do everything, and if I
mention it because I was a witness in their negotiation
of stopping the investigation, that I will -- that I
will get an answer from a -- the Prime Minister
Gruevski and his cousin Sasho Mialkov.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Did you consider that to be a threat?
THE WITNESS: That is a permanent
blackmailing.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
What, if anything, did you say to
Mr. Malelis?

(415) 597-5600
(9) Pages 33 - 36


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
I told him that the Macedonian authorities
are leading a criminal act, criminal against us
motivated by material things, interests, and to be -to be blackmail, not to say anything about the previous
criminal acts in between the Premiere Gruevski and
Contominas. That was the basic message.
Q Tell me about the third meeting with
Mr. Malelis; when was that?
A
That was in December 2014. There was the
first couple of days, the first five days. I cannot
recall exactly the day, but it was the first five days
of December when he arrived in Skopje to meet with
Sasho Mialkov, who said to me that we will be -- that
we will be tried, and -- but if I -- if I keep my mouth
shut, if I don't say anything like I was before, that
it -- within six months, that the case is going to be
closed, only if I don't talk about the criminal
activities between Sasho Mialkov, Gruevski, and
Contominas.
That way, they just wanted to keep me under
control, because the power, it's -- in Macedonia, it's
in the hands of that family.
Q What did you say to Mr. Malelis, if
anything?
A
That I -- that I told him that I cannot
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Skopje and he was having an excuses. He was making an

excuse that the prime minister is waiting for him,
Mialkov is waiting for him, that he has to go and so
on.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Exhibit 237 is a photograph.
Can you identify the person in the
photograph?
MS. LANE: Objection.
MR. KOENIG: Objection. Objection.
MR. HILL: Objection. For the record, the
name -- there's a name right on the same page.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski -A
Yes, I can identify him and I personally
know him. This is the former prime minister Vlado
Buckovski.
Q
How many times have you seen Prime Minister
Buckovski?
A
I know him personally, and I know him from
early times when he was a student. He is younger than
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accept that me, who never did any traffic violation or

anything like that, to be kept this way and to be tried
criminally.
And I told him that I will fight up until
the end with every possibility, that they are actually
using a -- criminal ways of blackmailing.
Q In December of 2014, did you give an
interview to the Focus newspaper in Macedonia?
A
Yes, it's true, I gave that interview.
Q And was your interview with Focus before or
after your third discussion with Mr. Malelis?
A
After the conversation, after the talk with
Malelis.
Q So you spoke with Mr. Malelis first and
then spoke with a reporter from Focus; is that right?
A
I talked to the editor of Focus after that.
Q After speaking to Mr. Malelis?
THE INTERPRETER: After the meeting, that's
correct.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Did you have any other discussions with
Mr. Malelis other than the ones you've just spoken
about?
A
Special -- a special conversation, we
didn't have after that, because he was very short in
Min-U-Script
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
me, but I know him during the time, and I had minimal
15 meetings with him.
Q
So is the person in Exhibit 237 the same
person that you testified about on December 28th with
me?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Have you seen the person in this photograph
before?
MS. LANE: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I know him personally.
This is Ali Ahmeti, who is a leader of the political
party.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
And how many times have you seen
Mr. Ahmeti?
A
First time I met him, 1981. And in the
period of 2005 and 2006, we met four times. We met
four times.

(415) 597-5600
(10) Pages 37 - 40


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DODGE: For defense counsel, I'm going

to be showing the witness a series of photographs. You
can have a continuing objection to all of the
photographs.
MS. LANE: And we do.
MR. HILL: We do, thanks.
MS. FRIED: We do.
MR. DODGE: 239, please.
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Have you seen the person in this photograph
before?
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
before?
A
Yes. This is Musa Xhaferi, who is the
deputy of -- the president of the party and the
government also.
Q And how many times have you met
Mr. Xhaferi?
A
With Xhaferi, I met only two times up until
now.
Q Do you know what Mr. Xhaferi looks like,
though?
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
Have you seen the person in this photograph
before?
A
Yes.
Q
How many times have you met him?
A
I cannot recall exactly, but five to six
meetings we had.
Q
And who is the person in Exhibit 241?
A
That is Xhemali Mehazi. He's the minister
in the government of Macedonia in the period of time,
the period of 2006 and -- 2002 and 2006.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Do you know the -- have you seen the person
in this photograph before?
A
Yes.
Q
How many times have you seen this person?
A
With him, I had the most -- with him, I had
the most contact, the most -- and I know him from the
1993.
Q
Who is in Exhibit 242? Who is in that
photograph?
A
In the photograph is Dimitri Contominas.
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes, exactly like he is on the photograph.

of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
before?
A
I know him very long time ago.
Q How many times have you met this person?
A
Many times. I cannot remember. More or
less, 30 times.
Q And who is the person in Exhibit 240?
A
On the photograph is Abdulhalim Kasami.
He's the first director of the political party DUE, the
general secretary of the party. The actual -- the
actual title was director of the party.
Q In 2005 and 2006, do you know whether
Mr. Kasami had any position within the D-U-I party, the
DUI party?
A
At that period, he was still at that
position.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Min-U-Script
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Have you seen the person in Exhibit 243
before?
A
Yes, I have seen him many times, and I've
known him since his childhood, when he was a little
child.
Q And who was -A
And on the photograph is Bekim Zemoski, who
was an advisor of the prime minister Buckovski.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q
Have you seen the person in Exhibit 244
before?
A
Yes, of course.
Q
How many times have you seen him? How many
times have you met him?
A
This one is almost the same, like on other.
I met him so many times. Even in the prior times in
Yugoslavia, I probably saw him more than 30 times.
Q
Who is the person in the photograph on
Exhibit 244?

(415) 597-5600
(11) Pages 41 - 44


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
On the photograph is Ekrem Lluka from
Kosovo, from the town Pec. He's one of the owners of
MobiCos Kosovo.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Have you seen the person in the photograph
in Exhibit 245 before?
A
Of course.
Q How many times have you seen this person?
A
I cannot count. Many times.
Q Who is the person whose photograph is in
Exhibit 245?
A
The photograph is Sasho Mialkov. It's a
first cousin of the prime minister Buckovski. He is -he is a boss of the security and -- security in
Macedonia since 2006.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
Q Have you seen the person in the photograph
in Exhibit 246 before?
A
Yes, I know him, and I had only two
Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
record now at U.S. eastern time 7:38 a.m. and return in

approximately ten minutes.
(Deposition recessed at 7:38 a.m.)
(Deposition resumed at 7:58 a.m.)
EXAMINATION BY MS. FRIED
Q
Good afternoon, Mr. Bogoeski. Once again,
I'm Lisa Fried. I'm counsel for Elek Straub, and I'm
going to ask you a few questions now and then the
attorneys for the other defendants may be asking you
questions as well.
Before we begin, I and, I believe, counsel
for the other defendants wanted to make a statement for
the record. As indicated earlier during today's
deposition, the defendants object -THE INTERPRETER: I want -- we'll have -MS. FRIED: We have an objection that we
would like to place on the record. In particular, by
participating at today's deposition, the defendants in
no way waive or concede -- strike that -- waive any
objections they have to the use of Mr. Bogoeski's
statement to the SEC on December 28th. To be clear, we
do not concede that the statement Mr. Bogoeski made on
December 28th is admissible.
THE INTERPRETER: Can you explain
"admissible"?
Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meetings with this person.

Q Who is this person in Exhibit 246?
A
On the photograph is Elek Straub from
Deutsche Telekom.
of identification.)
BY MR. DODGE:
before?
A
This is Emanuel Malelis from -- who was
employed in counselor section in Skopje.
Q And how many times have you met Mr.
Malelis, total?
A
Since 1992, we had hundreds of meetings.
Q At this time, Mr. Bogoeski, the counsel for
the defendants will have an opportunity to ask you
questions. The SEC will reserve some time at the end
for possible redirect.
MR. DODGE: We've going for about an hour
and a half. I don't know if people would like a break?
MS. FRIED: Perhaps a ten-minute break.
Does that sound good?
MR. DODGE: Okay. So I think we're going
to take a ten-minute break. We're going to go off the
Min-U-Script
Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. FRIED: Is admissible as evidence in

this case. Mr. Bogoeski's purported adoption of that
statement today does not change that. Defense counsel
was not present in the room at the time that
Mr. Bogoeski gave that statement. Had they been
present, they would have placed objections based on
form and other reasons, on the record, and they were
denied the opportunity to do so.
It is also clear based on the transcript of
that interview that discussions occurred between
Mr. Dodge and Mr. Bogoeski that are not reflected in
the record. And if that interview or Mr. Bogoeski's
testimony about it today were admitted, the defendants
would be prejudiced for that reason as well.
I, on behalf of Mr. Straub and my cocounsel
on behalf of the other defendants, will be questioning
Mr. Bogoeski about his statements on December 28th
today, but we are doing so only out of an abundance of
caution and to protect our clients and not because we
agree that any of Mr. Bogoeski's statements on
December 28th constitute admissible evidence.
I would just ask if my cocounsel has
anything to add?
MR. HILL: No. On behalf of Andras Balogh,
we obviously adopt Ms. Fried's statements and make the

(415) 597-5600
(12) Pages 45 - 48


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
same objections that are -- I think we've preserved the

objection. We can state fuller reasons at a subsequent
time as appropriate.
MR. KOENIG: I would just add that it's not
just that we are not waiving our objections. We are
affirmatively objecting to the admissibility of the
interview and -MR. HILL: I would add one thing -- I'm
sorry.
MR. KOENIG: And we do not only object to
the substantive reasons that Ms. Fried set forth, but
also the entirety of the process. I would just want to
reaffirm what Ms. Fried said, in particular with regard
to -- particularly with regard to the defendant's
ability to interpose objections on a
question-by-question basis.
MR. HILL: I'd like to just add a couple of
other things to the record. Mr. Dodge and the SEC -well, we have gone through great lengths at
considerable hardship to be here today to participate
in this process on very short notice. We were not
notified of the videotaped statement until after it was
taken. Had we been informed about the potential of
taking the videotaped statement and/or deposition, we
would have traveled to Skopje along with the SEC to be
Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were to arrange one meeting in December 2004 and

possibly to arrange a second meeting in January 2005,
correct?
A
Yes, it's true.
Q
In fact, isn't it the case that during your
interview with Mr. Dodge in December, you said that
you -- I'm quoting here -- did not have any significant
role -- and, again, a quote -- did not have any part in
all of it?
MS. FRIED: And he also said he did not
have any part in all of it?
MR. DODGE: I'm going to object to the form
of that question.
THE INTERPRETER: He doesn't understand the
question.
Can you do it again?
MS. FRIED: Sure. I can rephrase the
question.
THE INTERPRETER: Would you, please. Thank
you.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Isn't it the case, Mr. Bogoeski, that when
you spoke with Mr. Dodge on December 28th, you told him
that you didn't have any significant role in this plot
Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
able to be present during either the videotaped

statement or a deposition. And the SEC today has
apparently taken the -- made the tactical decision not
to ask the witness on a question-by-question basis most
of the substance of his prior videotaped statement,
further depriving us of the opportunity to participate
in the deposition in the way that we would have had we
been invited to a deposition in Skopje.
I have nothing further at this time.
MS. FRIED: Thank you.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, you described at some length
today -- excuse me, in your statement on December 28th
a scheme aimed at bribing Macedonian and Albanian
officials to accomplish the business goals of Magyar
Telecom, correct?
THE INTERPRETER: Can you read again?
BY MS. FRIED:
Q You have described at some length a scheme
aimed at bribing Macedonian and Albanian officials to
accomplish the business goals of Magyar Telecom,
correct?
A
Yes, it's true.
Q But isn't it the case that the only tasks
you claim you completed in connection with this scheme
Min-U-Script
Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're describing?
MR. DODGE: Objection to the form.
MS. LANE: Are you done with your question?
Had you finished your question?
MS. FRIED: Yes.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
And that -- and you also -- let's leave it
at that.
You said that, correct?
A
It's not exactly true like the lawyer
defined the question. The question is not defined the
way he wants it. I mean, he -- he didn't have -- he
didn't have a role in the matter of money of that
meeting, but his role was the organizing of the
meeting, by -- by -- Contominas asked him to do that.
MS. FRIED: I would like to mark this
exhibit, which I believe has already been provided to
somebody in the embassy, as Straub Exhibit -- why don't
we call it Straub-Bogoeski 1, if that's acceptable to
the SEC? We'll call it Straub-Bogoeski 1.
(Straub-Bogoeski Exhibit 1 marked for
purposes of identification.)
I'm going to represent that what I have
marked here as Straub-Bogoeski 1 is a document that was
provided to defense counsel yesterday.

(415) 597-5600
(13) Pages 49 - 52


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MS. FRIED:
Q It's a document provided to us yesterday by
the SEC, and the SEC told us that this document is an
English translation of the Macedonian language
transcript of Mr. Bogoeski's December 28th interview
with Mr. Dodge.
MR. HILL: Which is Exhibit number
something.
MS. FRIED: And is it possible for somebody
in the embassy to confirm that you have a copy of this
and are able to show it to Mr. Bogoeski?
Is there a copy of this document there?
MR. BEDNAR: Yes, we have a copy here.
MS. FRIED: Does the SEC have a copy of
this handy?
MR. DODGE: I do not.
MS. FRIED: You do not.
MR. DODGE: Not on me, no.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, I would like to direct your
attention to page 53 of this document.
MR. DODGE: I'm going to object to the
witness being questioned about -- based on an
English-language document when his native language is
Macedonian.
Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: The problem is that the
pages -- if we can interfere. The pages are not so -MS. FRIED: Okay. I can rephrase the
question.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, do you deny that you told
Mr. Dodge that you didn't have any significant role in
the plot that you have described to Mr. Dodge on
December 28th?
MR. DODGE: I'm going to object to that
question on the basis of form.
Can you translate that, please?
I'm also going to object that it misstates
the witness's prior testimony, and I'm also going to
object based on the witness being asked about the
English-language courtesy translation rather than the
original Macedonian translation.
MS. FRIED: I would just note on the record
that our objections were not translated into
Macedonian, and to the extent that we make objections
going forward, the defendants would ask that they be
translated as well.
MR. HILL: I'd like to add with respect to
the objection that's been lodged the fact that I find
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MS. FRIED:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, am I correctly recalling that
earlier today you testified that you understand and can
read English although you may not be sufficiently
comfortable to use it conversationally?
A
Yes.
Q Thank you.
Mr. Bogoeski, I'd like to direct your
attention to the middle of page 53 of this English
document, and I want to ask you do you see where you
have said in your testimony: During this entire
period, as I didn't have any significant role, I only
had to organize the meetings and revise the documents
if these were given to me.
Do you see where that is reflected in the
transcript?
MR. DODGE: I'm also going to ask if the
witness has in front of him the original Macedonian
version so he can refer to that as well.
MR. HILL: That has an Exhibit number.
MR. DODGE: Exhibit 236.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, if it helps, this
English-language document -- the SEC has represented to
us that it is the English translation of Exhibit 236.
Min-U-Script
Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it curious that the SEC wouldn't want us to rely on the

Macedonian and at the same time object to our use of
Macedonian-speaking counsel.
THE INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat?
MR. HILL: I find it curious that the SEC
would object to our use of the English-language version
as opposed to the Macedonian, while at the same time
objecting to our use of Macedonian local counsel.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, I do not read or understand
Macedonian, but I am guessing that if you look on page
51 of Exhibit 236, approximately two-thirds of the way
down the page, you will see the passage that I wanted
you to read to refresh your recollection.
Isn't it the case, Mr. Bogoeski, that in
this statement you told Mr. Dodge that you did not have
any significant role in the plot that you claimed to be
describing to him on December 28th?
MR. DODGE: Objection. That misstates
what's written there in the transcript in the English
portion.
THE WITNESS: Ms. Lawyer is interpreting it
wrong. I just want to make clear.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
How is my interpretation incorrect?

(415) 597-5600
(14) Pages 53 - 56


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
She wants to give a completely different
thought of my statement. And my statement, the correct
statement it is.
In this whole period, my role was not
important. I would just organize the first meeting,
and I was going through the documents that were given
to me.
Q Okay.
A
I didn't have any kind of role. I didn't
have any kind of role. I was not a minister. I was
not a deputy minister or any of these roles. I was
just employed.
As a good friend of Contominas for long
years, on his request, because I know all of these
people, I was calling the people, and I was organizing
the meetings for him. I was not a competent person to
have any kind of role. And that's why I'm saying.
Q Thank you for clarifying that,
Mr. Bogoeski.
In fact, Mr. Bogoeski, isn't it the case
that Mr. Contominas wanted to cover your expenses for
participating in these activities and you have told him
that would not be necessary because your role had been
so small?
A
It's, again, completely different
Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in this proceeding. So we can't examine the witness

effectively without that official translation.
So on that basis, we object to -- add our
objection to this continued deposition.
MR. DODGE: I'm going to respond to that.
The witness has made no comments about the quality of
the English-language translation. Defense counsel has
had the videotape of the December 28th statement for
nearly two weeks, that the questions and the answers
were in both English and Macedonian, that the
English-language translation that was provided is a
courtesy, and we provided it to the defense as soon as
we got it.
MS. FRIED: I'm prepared to continue, if
that's okay.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, I'd like to move on and ask
you some more specific questions about these meetings
that you state you helped to organize.
Am I correct that the first meeting or
series of meetings that you described to Mr. Dodge
occurred in late December 2004 in Skopje?
THE INTERPRETER: December?
MS. FRIED: December 2004.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it's true.
Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interpretation of the statement.

Q How is this -- how is the interpretation
inaccurate?
A
In this sense, it's true that Contominas
asked me to cover my expenses for the organization of
these meetings.
MR. HILL: I'm going to lodge another
objection based upon the testimony that's been given so
far. It seems to me that this deposition is to go -continue to go forward is completely inappropriate
based on the fact that it is becoming apparent,
obvious, that the witness's -- that the witness's
understanding or interpretation of the -- let me start
over.
That the informal translation that we were
provided is not an accurate translation according to
the witness, and we can't continue to have a deposition
with respect to the videotaped statement until we have
an official certified translation of that statement
that would form the official basis upon which to -- for
us to formulate questions.
We can't effectively examine the witness
under circumstances in which we were just provided a
translation which it is clear is not a good translation
and would never be admissible under any circumstances
Min-U-Script
Page 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
And you said that Mr. Contominas called you
to ask that you organize this meeting, correct?
A
It's true.
Q
When did he call you?
A
He called me somewhere -- he called me
somewhere in the middle of December; that his people,
Stavridis and Kefaloyannis will come to Skopje; that
they have a very important proposals to Macedonian
government, in connection with Macedonian Telekom, and
will be very nice if I could before New Year's to
organize a meeting with the prime minister at that
time, Buckovski, as also with some people who are
participants in the government.
Q
But in his phone call with you,
Mr. Contominas did not tell you the purpose of these
meetings, correct?
A
No, he didn't say in particular, but he
just mentioned that they have a very important business
plan that they would like to present in front of
Macedonian government.
Q
And, Mr. Bogoeski, I'm going to go into a
little bit of detail, because it sounds like you were
asked to arrange several meetings, all to occur at the
same time. I want to make sure I understand what you

(415) 597-5600
(15) Pages 57 - 60


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said in your December 28th statement about those

meetings.
Now, is it correct that the first meeting
that you were asked to organize was supposed to occur
between Prime Minister Buckovski and Mr. Contominas and
Mr. Kefaloyannis?
A
The first -- the first one, the first
meeting, was supposed to be in between Nikos Stavridis
and Kefaloyannis. Those were the first people of the
firm of Contominas.
Q And were you also asked to arrange a
meeting between Mr. Contominas, Kefaloyannis, and
Stavridis, on the one hand, and Musa Xhaferi, on the
other hand?
THE INTERPRETER: The other ones were?
MS. FRIED: Contominas, Kefaloyannis, and
Stavridis.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it's true.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q And then finally, during this same trip,
you were supposed to arrange a meeting between Misters
Contominas, Kefaloyannis, and Stavridis, on the one
hand, and then Ali Ahmeti and Abdulhalim Kasami in
Tetovo, correct?
A
I understand the question, but it's not
Page 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
He also confirmed that they could come any day up until

the 25th.
Q
And -A
When the prime minister confirmed that he
is able to meet with them, I also -- after he told me
that, I also told him that they're interested of a
meeting of any high-profile representatives in the
government, especially from DUI party, especially from
Musa Xhaferi. And he took the responsibility upon
himself to inform Musa Xhaferi for the meeting that
they are going to have.
For the other part of the visit in Tetovo
in the party of DUI, I called Abdulhalim Kasami. I
informed him that already -- I informed him that
already the prime minister and the other ones are going
to have a meeting and it's good for him to meet with
all of them.
Q
And -- thank you, Mr. Bogoeski.
In these discussions you had with the
various people in Macedonia to arrange these meetings,
it's correct that all you told them about the purpose
of the meeting was that Mr. Contominas's
representatives wanted to discuss a business proposal
with them, correct?
THE INTERPRETER: Can you repeat the
Page 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
true that -- she is constantly adding the name of

Contominas, because he came. In December he was not in
Skopje.
Q Okay. So maybe I can make this easier. In
the meetings we are talking about in Skopje in
December 2004, am I -- is it correct to say that the
only people who came from Greece were Mr. Kefaloyannis
and Mr. Stavridis?
A
With him was also the head of security of
the firms in Atina, and his name is Irakis Sifakakis.
So he was the one who is responsible for the personal
security of Contominas and his assets, pretty much his
firms.
But he did not -- he did not attend the
meetings in Skopje and Tetovo, but he was waiting with
me up until they finished the meetings and then we met.
Q Mr. Bogoeski, what did you do to arrange
these meetings?
A
In order to organize these meetings, I
first called Mr. Buckovski to ask him if -- if he has
the time before New Year's Eve to meet with the two
directors of Contominas which are coming with a big
business proposal or plan.
And he told me if they come the latest of
25 of December, he will be able to admit to see them.
Min-U-Script
Page 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question?
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
In his discussions with the people in
Macedonia to arrange the meetings, all he told them
about the purpose of the meeting was that it was to
discuss a business proposal.
A
Yes, that's correct, especially for the
very first -- for the very first meeting, that was the
only thing that I knew and that I was told, that
they're coming to discuss a business plan and any other
details.
Q
Thank you.
Now, Mr. Bogoeski, when these meetings
occurred in December of 2004, you did not attend any of
these meetings, correct?
THE INTERPRETER: He did not take any part
in the meetings, but he was waiting after the meetings
were done. So Nikos Stavridis and Mikhail
Kefaloyannis, he was waiting for them after the
meetings to be over so they can meet.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
How soon after the meetings were concluded
did you meet with Mr. Stavridis and Kefaloyannis?
A
I cannot really recall exactly in minutes
how long these meetings were, but they arrived around

(415) 597-5600
(16) Pages 61 - 64


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:00 in Skopje, a.m., 12:00 they left to go to the

prime minister's office, and somewhere around 2:00 p.m.
they left for Tetovo.
It took a little while there in Tetovo.
Q Did you accompany them to Tetovo or you
stayed behind in Skopje?
A
I stayed in Skopje with Sifakakis and
Irakis.
Q Can you tell me how -- what is the distance
between Skopje and Tetovo? How long would it take to
get to Tetovo from Skopje?
A
If there is not a traffic jam or there is
not a lot of traffic, it's 40 minutes, approximately.
Q And then did Mr. Kefaloyannis return from
Tetovo later that day?
A
Yes, they returned to Skopje around
somewhere 8:00 at night.
Q And I apologize, a moment ago I said
Mr. Kefaloyannis, but Mr. Stavridis also joined him on
the trip to Tetovo, correct?
A
So I'm repeating again. Kefaloyannis and
Stavridis were leading the meetings, including the one
in Tetovo.
Q Thank you.
And then when they returned to Skopje at
Page 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Stavridis, did you do anything with the information

they provided to you?
A
They introduced me to the following; they
told me the following: They said that both of the
meetings, the one in the government in Skopje and the
one with Buckovski and the other one in Tetovo, that
they were very successful.
Q
And you didn't -- you didn't do anything
with this information after that, though, right,
Mr. Bogoeski?
A
I didn't have anything to do with the
information, because directly they talked to the prime
minister and the head people.
Q
And just to be very clear, Mr. Bogoeski,
nobody from Magyar Telecom or Deutsche Telekom
participated in these meetings we have been discussing,
correct?
A
That is true that nobody from Deutsche
Telekom, Magyar Telecom, east Stonebridge and
Stonebridge did not attend these meetings, but
Kefaloyannis and Stavridis informed me shortly that
this is the bigger plan than Deutsche Telekom -- Magyar
Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, and stone -- Mr. Contominas
are in the plan. And also Stonebridge.
Q
Okay.
Page 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about 8:00 that night, did you meet with them then?
A
Yes, I did meet them. Yes, I did meet them
in the restaurant in Nostalgia on the street of the
(inaudible) in Skopje.
Q Was it just the three of you?
A
He was waiting -- him with Irakis were
waiting for them in the restaurant, Sifakakis.
Q How long did you meet with them at the
restaurant?
A
It was not a whole hour, because I was
planning to treat them dinner. But they didn't like
to. They actually refused my dinner because they
already ate in Tetovo, and they said that they're going
into the hotel to sleep.
Q Okay. Why did they meet with you that
evening?
A
It was by order of Mr. Contominas.
Q Order to whom?
A
It was ordered to Kefaloyannis and
Stavridis to meet with me and tell me what exactly -what these meetings are about.
Q Okay.
MS. FRIED: One moment.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q After meeting with Mr. Kefaloyannis and
Min-U-Script
Page 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
They told me -- they told me that this
business plan is between Dimitri Contominas and Straub.
MS. FRIED: Straub?
THE WITNESS: And right after the New
Year's holidays, they will come with a written proposal
to talk about -- they will bring a -- a written
materials for all of the questions that they were in
play.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Let me ask you a few questions about that,
Mr. Bogoeski.
Are you saying that Mr. Stavridis and
Mr. Kefaloyannis told you that this business plan that
they had been sent to Macedonia to discuss concerned a
business deal between Mr. Contominas and Mr. Straub?
A
Yes, in written form was nothing proposed
yet. It was just an announcement. I was told that is
just a business plan between Contominas and Straub.
Q
And when did Mr. Kefaloyannis and
Mr. Stavridis tell you that? Was that when you met
with him at Nostalgia?
A
Yes, the night.
Q
But you didn't tell that to Mr. Dodge when
you met with him on December 28th, did you?

(415) 597-5600
(17) Pages 65 - 68


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
held.
Q
Shortly I told them where the meeting was

But all I'm asking, Mr. Bogoeski, is
whether when you spoke with Mr. Dodge on December 28th,
you told him that Mr. Kefaloyannis and Mr. Stavridis

had indicated to you when you met with them at
Nostalgia, that the purpose of their trip was to
discuss a business deal between Mr. Contominas and
Mr. Straub?
A
No. I did not explain that part of the
question because the question was asked where that they
came, and I told him that it was in Nostalgia.
Q But to be clear, Mr. Straub was not in
Macedonia during these meetings, correct?
A
That's true.
Q And you told Mr. Dodge when you met with
him that no representatives from Magyar Telecom
participated in these meetings for security reasons,
right?
A
It's true, but that security reasons could
be interpreted wrongly, and the main reason for that
was to keep the secret.
Q What secret are you referring to,
Mr. Bogoeski?
A
So they're not exposed to the public, the
Page 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
phone calls; you spoke to the various parties to

organize this meeting?
A
Yes, it's true.
Q
And what was your understanding of why this
meeting was being organized?
A
This meeting from January was actually a -continuing on the meeting from December, because in the
meetings -- in the meeting in December, they did not
bring any kind of documents and they promised that.
And in the next meeting, which means January, they will
come with a memorandum of understanding that will be -in which will be included all the questions that there
were subject of talks of conversations.
Q
Again, here in January, as in December, you
did not actually participate in the meeting once it was
organized, correct?
A
Right, it's true, and there was no need for
me to be present.
Q
And were the cast of characters at these
meetings the same as they had been at the December 2004
meeting?
A
Yes, the cast was pretty much the same, and
it was strengthened by an Irakis Sifakakis.
THE WITNESS: So there were two more people
Page 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
involvement of all the people.

Q Okay. Mr. Bogoeski, let's move on to the
second meeting that you talked about when you spoke
with Mr. Dodge on December 28th. I believe you -- you
recalled meetings occurring in the middle of January
2005.
I think you said it was perhaps around
January 15th; is that correct?
A
Yes, I said -- I mentioned that it's around
that time, the 15th of January, because I recall that
Buckovski said that he's not going to be here for the
New Year's Eve and then the best time for the meetings
to be held, it's around 15th or 16th of January because
of the old, the Orthodox New Year's eve, which is on
the 14th. So the best will be 15th or 16th, and he
cannot recall exactly the date.
Q Did you play any role in organizing this -that meeting?
A
The second part, the second meeting was
easier for me to prepare because I just had to -- I had
to talk to -- it was just a matter of calling
Contominas to get the exact date for Stavridis and
Kefaloyannis to come to Skopje. It was pretty much the
easier part, the second meeting.
Q Okay. But you did that; you placed the
Min-U-Script
Page 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at this time, and the first one is Irakis Sifakakis,

who was a financial advisor of the firm.
MR. DODGE: Sifakakis.
THE INTERPRETER: Irakis Sifakakis?
THE WITNESS: So Irakis Sifakakis and
Irakis Fideteis. He's the financial advisor. But they
didn't attend the meetings. They were just at the firm
of Contominas.
MR. HILL: Can you translate?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
So the two of them, they were staying at
the firm, in the offices of the firm of Mr. Contominas,
which is -- the name of the firm is Net Phone, and is
the firm -- the first telephone company.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
And, Mr. Bogoeski, isn't it the case that
the only information you have about these meetings in
January 2005 came to you from Mr. Kefaloyannis and
Mr. Stavridis after those meetings had ended, right?
A
For the meeting in January?
Q
Yes.
A
I received -- I received a -- I received a
copy from the memorandum, and then later on it was
named as a Protocol of Cooperation.
Q
Who did you receive that from?

(415) 597-5600
(18) Pages 69 - 72


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
Kefaloyannis gave it to me.
Q After the meeting?
A
I received a copy before the meeting when
we were at Net Phone, because it was ordered by -THE INTERPRETER: Contominas or
Kefaloyannis?
THE WITNESS: Kefaloyannis gave it to him,
and Contominas asked me to look at the draft, if I have
any notes or anything about the materials in the -BY MS. FRIED:
Q This occurred at the offices of Net Phone?
A
It was in the offices of Net Phone, in the
office of the -- Dimitri Segalous, at the time he was
director.
Q But you didn't have any substantive
comments on the protocol, did you, on the draft
document you received?
A
I did have one comment, which in the
statement on the 28th of December I did not explain in
depth; but if you want me to, I will explain to you in
details.
Q Yes, I'd like to know what your comment
was, the comment that you neglected to mention when you
spoke with Mr. Dodge on December 28th.
A
When I read the text, all these questions
Page 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But to be clear, is it your testimony that

what you have been testifying about for the past
several minutes are questions or concerns you had about
this draft when it was provided to you in the offices
of Net Phone before this January 2005 meeting?
THE INTERPRETER: Could you start the
question again?
MS. FRIED: That was confusing. I
apologize.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, are you saying that these are
concerns you had with the draft that you were given
when you were in the offices of Net Phone before the
January 2005 meetings in Macedonia?
THE INTERPRETER: He was just explaining
the problems. They were part of the memorandum.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Okay. But, Mr. Bogoeski, it's correct
that -- is it not, that when you spoke with Mr. Dodge
on December 28th, you said that you didn't have any
comments to the protocol, there was nothing serious
that you remarked upon, because if you looked at the
protocol, you couldn't have any serious comments about
it; is that accurate?
A
I'm repeating -- I repeat this now, that if
Page 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were very -- they were very popular at that time as a

problem, very popular known. At that time, first the
two of the biggest company, Cosmofon and -- MobiMak and
Cosmofon from Greece, they refused to pay their taxes
to the -- to the government, because there is a law
that it was -MR. DODGE: I think he's saying frequency,
radio frequent.
MS. LANE: I would like to lodge an
objection.
Will you please stop testifying, the both
of you. I think they can figure out what he is saying
without what you're saying, the SEC.
THE WITNESS: The two of these companies
did not want to pay a fee, that it's called a fee for
using of radio frequencies. So they didn't want to pay
it because they were saying that it's too high.
And Magyer Telekom, there was a second
problem also that Magyer Telekom did not want to pay
the dividend for 2004, and they paid the 2003 with a
big delays. And -BY MS. FRIED:
Q I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Bogoeski,
because I think your response is going slightly beyond
the question I asked.
Min-U-Script
Page 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you look at the protocol, if you look at the

memorandum, you will not find serious problems or
serious notes.
Q
Okay. Thank you.
A
Those comments that I was mentioning right
now were with the problems in the memorandum.
Q
Okay. Well, I may ask you about -- I may
ask you about the memorandum, but at this point I was
just asking about what happened -- what role, if any,
you played when these meetings were going on in
Macedonia in January 2005?
A
My first role was to organize the meetings
and then to look at the memorandum and then -- which
later was named as a Protocol of Cooperation.
Q
Okay. Now, there came a time,
Mr. Bogoeski, according to your prior statement to
Mr. Dodge, that you were asked to organize a meeting
with Ekrem Lluka in Kosovo, correct?
A
Yes, that's true, and I was asked kindly
from Kefaloyannis and Stavridis to organize a meeting
with the license carrying of Ekrem Lluka.
THE INTERPRETER: I couldn't hear that one.
MobiCos Kosovo.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
What was your understanding of why this

(415) 597-5600
(19) Pages 73 - 76


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meeting was being arranged?

A
The first time, I did not understand why
exactly they needed Kosovo to be included in this, but
then when I read the very first part of the memorandum,
I understand they needed it. From the text and from
the conversations from Stavridis and Kefaloyannis, I
understood that in the business plan that they had with
Magyer Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, the main -- the
main intention is also a -- giving services in Kosovo
also or to perform a mobile virtual operator, MobiCos
Kosovo, Ekrem Lluka, and Macedonia, which will be
involved in, in which the signal from Macedonia, it
will be transferred to Kosovo.
Q And -A
Through that mutual operator.
Q And this meeting ended up occurring in
March 2005 in Kosovo, correct?
A
From the statement that I gave to Mr. Dodge
on the 28th of December, I cannot recall exactly which
date was it, but I can remember -- because I can -- I
recall that there was still snow on the mountains by
the town of Pec.
Q Mr. Bogoeski, I can represent to you that
when you spoke with Mr. Dodge, at least according to
the translation that has been provided to us, you
Page 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attended in Kosovo, and it was your understanding,

wasn't it, that the purpose of that meeting was to talk
about developing something called a Mobile Virtual
Operator in Kosovo, correct?
A
The basic goal was exactly that.
Q
But the Kosovo MVO was never established,
was it?
A
That is true. This agreement or this
proposal never became real, never become real.
Q
And isn't it the case that you felt
slightly embarrassed because of the role you felt you
had played perhaps in misleading Mr. Lluka?
THE INTERPRETER: Repeat the beginning of
the question?
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Were you -- strike that. Let me rephrase
that.
You felt that Mr. Lluka was treated
unfairly during this episode, didn't you?
A
In the first meeting, you could not sense
that, because it was promised a lot to him.
Q
I understand that, but once it became clear
that the MVO was not being established, were you
concerned that Mr. Lluka would be disappointed?
THE INTERPRETER: What --
Page 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
indicated that you thought this meeting probably

occurred approximately March 2005.
Who attended the meeting?
A
The meeting was held in the private house,
the residence of Mr. Lluka, in Pec. Attended: Nikos
Stavridis, Mikhail Kefaloyannis, Irakis Sifakakis, and
me, and one Albanian from Skopje who was with us, who
was accompanying us from a safety reasons, but he did
not attend the meeting.
Q And, of course, Ekrem Lluka was there
because it was -- it was in Ekrem Lluka's house; is
that correct?
A
In his house in the -- downtown Pec.
MR. DODGE: Excuse me, Lisa, you've been
going about an hour and 40 minutes. Was wondering what
your thoughts were on a break.
MS. FRIED: I'm fine taking a break, maybe
another ten minutes.
Mr. Bogoeski, we'd like to take a
ten-minute break. So we'll go off the record.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, when we went off the record,
we were discussing the meeting you participated in, you
Min-U-Script
Page 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. FRIED: Mr. Lluka would be

disappointed.
THE WITNESS: Yes, he was very
disappointed, not just because it never came to
realization of this project, but because of the whole
procedure and unfair procedure, that it was letting
carried on by Kefaloyannis and Stavridis.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
And isn't it true that you felt a little
embarrassed and perhaps responsible for Mr. Lluka's
being disappointed?
A
I felt more responsibilities because of the
seriousness of the -- the meetings. In sense of that,
that is about the serious companies, that they have a
serious proposals, that they do have the serious
intentions for fulfilling that, but later on I just
understood and realized that it was actually just a
simple game.
Q
At the time that you learned the MVO was
not going to be developed, did you feel that the way
Mr. Contominas's representatives treated Lluka was
unfair?
Did you feel that the way Mr. Contominas's
representatives treated Mr. Lluka was unfair?
A
Yes, that's true, they treated him unfairly

(415) 597-5600
(20) Pages 77 - 80


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and they lied to him.

Q And, in fact, you went to Mr. Contominas's
associates at that time and asked them why they were
treating Mr. Lluka so unfairly, correct?
A
I said -- yes, I did react to
Mr. Contominas that it's not fair to take the original
license from Mr. Lluka and to be treated and to be
acted upon the way that they were acting at him.
Q And was it your understanding after having
spoken to Mr. Stavridis and Mr. Kefaloyannis that there
had never been a plan to start an MVNO in Kosovo?
A
From the situation, that ongoing situation
later on, it shows that there was no intention of
developing or -- developing a -- the MVO on -- in
Kosovo.
Q And this came as a shock to you after you
had spent the time and energy to organize this meeting,
didn't it?
A
It was not a shock. I was embarrassed.
Q After you came to understand that the MVNO
was not going to be developed in Kosovo, did you
discuss that with anybody other than Mr. Stavridis and
Mr. Kefaloyannis?
A
I first talked to Contominas because he was
my first address to ask -- so to ask, I first -- I
Page 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You received this document from Bekim

Zemoski, right?
A
The original copy that he signed by Vlado
Buckovski and Straub is -- I receive it from Bekim, but
the copy from the working ship before signing of this
Non Paper document, which was a subject of negotiation
conversation among Buckovski, I received it from
Kefaloyannis before the negotiations started.
It means that this Non Paper, even though
it's signed by two sides, two parties, in general it's
a two-party paper. One of them is between Buckovski
and Contominas, and the second one is from -- and the
second one is signed by Buckovski and Straub.
Q
Okay. Mr. Bogoeski, I'd like to walk
through this with you quite carefully just to make sure
we're being precise when we refer to this document.
So I would ask you initially just to look
at the document that has been marked as Exhibit 231,
which, as you'll see, is a document that has signature
lines for Vlado Buckovski and Elek Straub, but which is
not itself signed, correct?
A
Correct.
Q
Did you ever receive a copy of this
document as this document actually appears, with those
signature lines and no signatures?
Page 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first turned to Contominas and asked him what's going

on, because the man is pressuring, is asking what is
going on with the whole situation. And Contominas said
not to the worry about it and that later -- and then a
little later, Kefaloyannis and Stavridis explained to
me what are the reasons, actually why are they doing
this. And the answer was that this kind of lies and
this kind of mistreating people, it's regular way of
doing business and I should not be worried about that.
Q You never discussed this episode with the
Kosovo MVNO, with anybody at Magyer Telekom?
A
Correct, I have not had direct meetings
with nobody from Magyer Telekom, because I was -because I was in service of Contominas, not from Magyer
Telekom, the people from Magyer Telekom. Even though
some events in Skopje -- even on the events in Skopje,
when I was invited, I didn't want to attend those
events when the people from Magyer Telekom were at the
same place, because I thought that was really
unappropriate to do.
Q Mr. Bogoeski, I'd like to change topics now
and ask you about a document that you spoke about at
some length when you met with Mr. Dodge that you
referred to as the "Non Paper." For your convenience,
it's the document marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 231.
Min-U-Script
Page 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
All the -- all the papers between Buckovski
and Straub look like this. The papers look like this
before they were signed. Before they were signed,
there were two other documents, and this is the final
one.
Q
Okay. Let me back up.
Mr. Bogoeski, have you ever seen a version
of this document that has been signed?
A
I have a same text of this document signed
by Buckovski and Straub that was given to me by Bekim
Zemoski.
Q
When did Bekim Zemoski provide you with
this document?
A
The signed copy, because the Non Paper is
actually the actual document which says who is getting
how much money from the deals. So this was a condition
for signing the Protocol for Cooperation.
Q
Okay. Excuse me. Mr. Bogoeski, we'll get
to some more substance, but at this point I just have
asked when Bekim Zemoski provided you with a copy of
the Non Paper that you say had been signed by Vlado
Buckovski and Elek Straub.
MR. KOENIG: I want to object.
Can you repeat what you just said before
you repeat the question?

(415) 597-5600
(21) Pages 81 - 84


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE INTERPRETER: He said in May, but he

cannot recall. And this is where I stopped. I was
interrupted.
Would you mind repeating your question?
BY MS. FRIED:
Q The first question is very simple: When
was the version of the Non Paper that you say had been
signed by Mr. Buckovski and Mr. Straub, when was that
provided to you?
THE INTERPRETER: He cannot recall exactly
the date, but it was few days before the -- May 27th,
and because the condition, in order to be signed, this
memorandum was -- needed to be signed. These two
papers needed to be signed.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q And why did Mr. Zemoski give you a signed
copy of the Non Paper?
THE INTERPRETER: Non Thing?
MS. FRIED: Non Paper.
THE WITNESS: So Bekim Zemoski was the
trustee of Buckovski at that time, the person that
Buckovski was trust -- trusted him. At the same
time -- at the same time, he had a complete trust in
me, and if we take into consideration the fact that he
Page 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Here it says that

it gave to me the original version, that it's signed by
Buckovski, and the cross name is Contominas; but then
it's corrected, okay, and it says Straub.
MS. FRIED: Okay.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
And -THE INTERPRETER: In the other version
between Contominas and Elek Straub.
MR. HILL: Can I inquire of the SEC whether
the translated version was translated with the
corrections or without the corrections?
MR. DODGE: That, I don't know.
MS. LANE: I think it's -MS. FRIED: Let me just back up.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
So is it your testimony, Mr. Bogoeski, that
the transcript of your discussion with Mr. Dodge on the
28th was simply mistaken and what you said to Mr. Dodge
on December 28th was that the copy of the Non Paper
that had been given to you by Mr. Zemoski had, in fact,
been signed by Elek Straub?
THE INTERPRETER: He corrected himself with
his handwriting the mistakes that were made in the
transcript. There is a lot of other technical mistakes
Page 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't live permanently in Skopje, but in Germany. He

was scared to travel with these type of documents.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Bogoeski.
Isn't it the case that when you spoke with
Mr. Dodge in December, you told him that the signed
version of the Non Paper that Mr. Zemoski provided to
you had been signed by Mr. Buckovski and
Mr. Contominas, not Mr. Straub?
MS. FRIED: Had been signed by Buckovski
and Contominas, not Buckovski and Straub.
THE WITNESS: That's not true. When I was
reading the transcript, I saw that it was made a
technical error, a mistake. That's why in that part,
it's a correction on my statement. The translator
made -- the translator made a technical error, mistake.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, are you able to direct us to
the page of Exhibit 236 where you made this correction?
A
Page 14 of the Macedonian version. The
last paragraph.
Q Can you explain -- I guess I would ask the
translator if you can explain, if you can translate the
Macedonian and then the handwritten correction?
Min-U-Script
Page 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in that long conversation.

BY MS. FRIED:
Q
But to be clear, when you spoke to
Mr. Dodge, did you say that Elek Straub had signed the
document, or is it your testimony that you said
Mr. Contominas signed the document, and after the fact
you crossed out the word "Contominas" and changed it to
"Straub"?
MS. FRIED: Does that make sense?
THE INTERPRETER: No.
MS. FRIED: Do you know what I'm saying?
THE INTERPRETER: No, I don't.
MS. FRIED: Let's back up.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, when you were speaking to
Mr. Dodge on December 28th, at that time did you tell
him that the version of the Non Paper that was provided
to you by Mr. Zemoski had been signed by Elek Straub?
A
In that kind of conversation of night
hours, I cannot recall and remember every single word,
but I can comment on the text. And in this moment, I
cannot really recall every single word.
Q
Perhaps the videotape will be helpful.
Mr. Bogoeski, I'll ask you this: Sitting
here today, do you still have a copy of the Non Paper

(415) 597-5600
(22) Pages 85 - 88


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that has been signed by anybody?

A
I don't -- I don't carry -- I don't hold
any of these documents anymore in my possession.
Q And you have said -- is it the case that
you -- you claim you, at one point, possessed a signed
copy of the Non Paper, but you gave it to prime
minister -- arranged to have it given to Prime Minister
Gruevski?
A
In the folder that I used to have, there
were three original papers. The first one is the
one -- is a Non Paper that is signed by Buckovski and
Straub. The second one was the Protocol of Cooperation
paper. And the third one was the letter that Mr.
Gruevski was sending to -- so Buckovski -- the third
paper is the letter from Buckovski to Straub that he is
selling the stocks of Macedonian Telekom, the
9.9 percent.
Inside there were many copies, but
altogether I gave it to the former minister of interior
to give it by hand to the premier -- to the prime
minister to use it in the whole procedure and then to
be given back to me.
Q But it was never returned to you, was it?
A
They were never returned to me. They
claimed that they lost it.
Page 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, I know earlier today
Mr. Dodge made reference to an article that had
appeared in the Veccer Newspaper, and isn't it the case
that this document called "Non Paper" is identical to
the Non Paper that appeared in the June 20th, 2008,
edition of Veccer, which is Exhibit 91?
A
That's the same text.
Q
So, I mean, this unsigned document could
very easily have simply been typed up and copied out of
this newspaper, correct?
MR. DODGE: We need English, I think.
THE INTERPRETER: He's asking for -- he's
asking for -- he does not understand the question,
so -MS. FRIED: Okay. Let me rephrase the
question.
THE INTERPRETER: Rephrase the question,
please?
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
I'll withdraw the question.
I'd like to ask you some more specific
questions about the Non Paper, Mr. Bogoeski, and it
would be helpful if you had the Protocol of Cooperation
in front of you as well. That's document 230.
Mr. Bogoeski, isn't it the case when there
Page 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q And is it correct that you handed those

documents over to the minister in 2008?
A
Yes, that's true.
Q Why didn't you make any copies of the
documents before you handed them over to the
government?
A
I didn't have any intentions of making
copies or any of that things. I just -- because of the
popularity of the whole case, I thought maybe I should
give it to a person that I can trust and not somebody
that -- because the person was from the government, of
course, he trusted that he's -- the former minister of
interior.
Q But you have said you retained this
unsigned copy of the Non Paper, correct?
A
Yes, I do have a copy -- I do have a copy
because before the actual document needed to be signed,
there were made a bunch of other copies right before
the signing of paper, as a rule.
Q My question is: If you had decided not to
retain a copy of the signed version, why did you retain
a copy of the unsigned version?
A
Yes, I didn't -- I didn't do that with any
intention. I was -- I just found a copy of it
somewhere in some drawer. They were forgotten copies.
Min-U-Script
Page 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are references in the Non Paper to party A or party B,

those references are intended to correspond to the
parties A and B in the Protocol of Cooperation?
THE INTERPRETER: Repeat it again, I'm
sorry. Can you repeat it again?
MS. FRIED: Let me rephrase it.
MR. HILL: Hold on one second. Just for
the record, it appears that from time to time the
witness is conversing with somebody to his left.
Can we just note for the record who that
is?
THE WITNESS: I have not communicated with
anybody. I'm just using the documents.
MR. HILL: Thank you.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Thank you, Mr. Bogoeski.
I can make the question more simple. In
the Non Paper there are references to party A and party
B.
Are those references to parties A and B in
the Protocol of Cooperation?
A
So before I explain to you that the
Protocol of Cooperation will not be signed if the Non
Paper was not adopted and signed, because the side -the -- behind the protocol is the Non Paper.

(415) 597-5600
(23) Pages 89 - 92


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Who told you that, Mr. Bogoeski?

A
In many occasions in the conversation with
Stavridis, Kefaloyannis, and Contominas, it was
mentioned, and the rest who actually were a part of the
realization of this.
Q But nobody at Magyer Telekom ever told you
that, correct?
A
So I have never contacted with anybody from
Magyer Telekom, but with conversation with all these
people that I mentioned before -- Stavridis,
Kefaloyannis -- the financing comes from Magyer
Telekom.
Q To be clear, though, the only two people
you have said you discussed this with was Mr. Stavridis
and Mr. Kefaloyannis; is that correct?
A
It's not true, and Contominas also.
Q Let's get back to my question, Mr.
Bogoeski. Party A and party B in the Non Paper, is
that meant to mean the government of Macedonia for
party A and Matav for party B?
A
Party A is the government of Republic of
Macedonia.
Q And party B -A
Is the -- the party B is Matav from Magyer
Telekom.
Page 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did not just enter into one agreement?

A
This is a normal and a standard procedure,
because the protocol, it's a public document between
the government and Magyer Telekom, and the Non Paper is
the criminal base on that protocol.
MS. FRIED: Did he say "criminal"?
THE WITNESS: Exactly, because the money
were made in cash.
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Let's talk about the Non Paper, then.
You've described the payments -- you have
described the payments discussed in the Non Paper as
being bribe payments, correct?
A
Not incomplete. I was just explaining the
procedure, how it was unfolding, the paying in cash.
Q
So are you saying the Non Paper does not
discuss bribes?
A
It explains. Of course, it explains.
Q
What is your basis for saying that? Why do
you believe this document concerns bribes?
A
Because in many occasions, I was attending
meetings on which were discussed the same context that
contains the Non Paper.
Q
Which meeting --
Page 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Okay. And do you know why in the Non Paper

the government of Macedonia and Matav are not
identified?
A
I don't understand the question.
Q Do you know why the Non Paper refers to the
government of Macedonia and Matav only as party A and
party B?
A
I don't know why, but I can just guess the
reasons. There was no need for the whole names to be
presented because the Non Paper is a paper of trust.
Q What do you mean -- isn't it actually the
case that the names -- you have said that the names
were not included because the Non Paper was intended to
be a hidden document, the agreement behind the
protocol?
A
Yes, in one way you can consider it as a
cover document, a backup document for the protocol.
Q It's strange, though, isn't it, that
Mr. Buckovski and Mr. Straub then appear on the
signature lines? Do you agree?
A
I cannot comment if it's strange or not,
but I explained to you before that it's a paper of
three parties.
Q Do you know why there is a Non Paper
separate from a Protocol of Cooperation and the parties
Min-U-Script
Page 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
Such in every meeting that I had with
Contominas was talked about the problems that they had
with paying in cash -- the payment towards the
government and the payment towards the Albanian
participants in the government.
Q
But -A
And I was personally attending the paying
off of Abdulhalim Kasami with a million and $250,000.
Q
Isn't it the case that you never personally
observed or participated in the payment of bribes in
connection with this Non Paper?
A
The lawyer, again, it's interpreting my
statements on a wrong way and turns it -- I said that I
am not a participant who made the decisions. Neither
the realization of this was dependent on me. That I
organized the meetings, that's true, that I'm informed
of the pains, especially -- especially of the last
portion of a million and 250 to the people of Tetovo.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, didn't you tell Mr. Dodge
that you were not present during the payment of any
bribes and that you were not personally present to see
documentation that bribes were paid?
A
You're interpreting my statement wrongly
again or just partially interpreting the statement.
With the payments to Buckovski, with the payments for

(415) 597-5600
(24) Pages 93 - 96


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the people in Tetovo, he has not -- I have not been in

the situation, and I have not been present or neither I
have touched any papers that they shown any bribery or
signed for any.
The only thing I'm talking right now, those
are the million and -- the last money, it's on the
meeting in Atina, in the village of the -- Mr. Dimitri
Contominas. On the reaction of Kasami, that this last
portion of million and 250, it's not paid off.
Although Contominas was presenting some proofs that
this money were paid, he decided not to become to a
bigger complication or circumstances. He decided to
pay this million and $250,000 because he was afraid,
scared from this conflict among them not to become a
big scandal, not to result, not to -As I said in the statement, this meeting in
the villa of Contominas in Atina, it was held after the
attempted murder of -- assassination, attempted
assassination of Kasami.
Q Okay. Mr. Bogoeski, in an effort to
organize our discussion a little, I think there are two
types of circumstances you have been discussing.
Isn't it correct that the only knowledge
you claim to have about bribes having been paid comes
from one of two sources?
Page 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MS. FRIED:
Q
Mr. Buckovski, when the various people were
discussing -- gave you information about bribes being
paid, did you do anything with that information?
A
Yes. The whole folder with the documents
that I had when the investigation started in 2008, I
gave it to the prime minister, like I described before.
Prior to that, nobody contacted me as a witness or
anything else.
Q
So are you saying that you came to
understand that these payments were bribes in 2008?
A
I was -- I had thought that during the
whole period of time. I knew.
Q
And you did nothing. You did not bring
this to the attention of any authorities or take any
action in connection with that information?
A
In Macedonia, it's completely different
situation that is in your country, the United States.
If the main authorities were included or they were in
the criminal, the crime, if only you said one word,
then your head -- you can lose your head and nothing
else.
Q
Are you saying that everyone in the
government of Macedonia was involved in this plot at
that point?
Page 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Isn't it true -- Mr. Bogoeski, isn't it

correct that Bekim -- that your knowledge of bribes
being paid came from Bekim Zemoski?
A
No, it's not true. It's not that only from
Bekim, but I have, like I said before, I'm saying right
now, that I have a knowledge for paying -- payments
made or briberies made. I know from Kefaloyannis,
Stavridis, Contominas, and Irakis, and also I have the
knowledge of this type of money from Kasami because he
was telling us that $1,250,000 were not paid off.
Q But your discussion with Mr. Kasami
concerned his complaint that he had not received a
bribe payment, correct?
A
Yes, Kasami complained that a million and
$250,000 were missing from the agreement, and he was
pressuring the prime minister Buckovski, and for
that -- and for that he was referred to Contominas, and
Contominas was claiming that he paid everything. And
then it came to a shaking relationship between them and
shaking trust. They couldn't trust each other.
MR. DODGE: I have a question about the
translation.
Is the witness saying euros or dollars?
THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. So it's
euros, not dollars.
Min-U-Script
Page 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
Of course not everybody, but involved in
this were the prime minister, the deputy prime
minister, and minister Zhemali Mehazi. No other
minister's were involved or knew about the case.
Q
Just to be clear, when you learned that
bribes had been paid or when you came to believe that
bribes had been paid, you did nothing further with that
information until 2008, when you handed your documents
over to the minister of the interior, correct?
A
It's true. As I explained before, in
Macedonia, if the government -- but the first man -you can just lose your head, and you will not receive
any legal protection because there is not a legal
system in Macedonia. It does not exist.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, I'm almost done with my
questions. I just would like to ask you a few
questions about the two meetings you said you had with
Elek Straub.
I believe you previously stated that the
first time you met with Mr. Straub occurred before the
Protocol of Cooperation was signed, correct?
A
That's correct.
Q
And you said that meeting occurred when
Mr. Straub was in Skopje to meet with Mr. Buckovski,
correct?

(415) 597-5600
(25) Pages 97 - 100


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
That's true.
Q You didn't participate in any meeting at
that time with Mr. Straub and Mr. Buckovski, correct?
A
It's true, I did not participate.
Q Instead, you met with Mr. Straub after that
meeting for lunch at a restaurant with several other
people, correct?
A
Yes, it's true.
Q And do you recall who else was at that
lunch?
A
There was a small restaurant by the
government, nearby the government, who is a closed
restaurant. Now it's closed restaurant. To eat lunch,
they had a relatively short time attended. Nikos
Stavridis, Mikhail Kefaloyannis, Ekrem Lluka from Pec;
and, of course very shortly, Schilling came because he
was in some other responsibilities.
Ekrem Lluka was also, Elek Straub, the
lawyer from (inaudible) Schilling, who were visiting
with the premier Buckovski at the -Q Isn't it true that you had invited
Mr. Lluka because he had been trying to get answers
about the status of the MVNO project?
A
It's true. He had a big expectations after
the first meeting in Pec. And after that meeting, he
Page 103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
government office, correct?

A
That's true, on May 27th, 2005.
Q
And that meeting was actually at the
Holiday Inn?
A
The protocol was signed in the cabinet of
the prime minister. It was very short event, and after
that they went to lunch in Holiday Inn.
Q
Okay.
A
At the lunch, attended Dimitri Contominas,
Nikos Stavridis, Mikhail Kefaloyannis, the two Irakis,
Ekrem Lluka, and very shortly -- he didn't stay out
until the end -- Elek Straub. This lunch, working
lunch, this time Contominas was trying to tell Lluka
that everything was okay, and he was drawing a big pie
on the table simply explaining to him that he will make
a lot of money. He just needs to be patient.
Q
Okay. But it's the case, isn't it, that
your discussion with Mr. Straub at that lunch was not
business related; it was largely informal conversation,
correct?
A
In Holiday Inn, you mean?
Q
Yes.
A
Straub was more like nonofficial, but
Contominas was leading that part of the lunch as a
work-related -- as a work-related lunch.
Page 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was calling me pretty much on daily basis to find out

what was going on with the project.
That's why I asked Contominas. At the same
time, from Kefaloyannis and Stavridis, that it's good,
this meeting to be used -- this meeting to be used also
as a meeting with Ekrem Lluka and for them to -- to
explain -- to explain to him what is going on with the
whole project situation.
Q Yes. And it was the case -- Mr. Straub
actually reassured Mr. Lluka at the lunch that the
plans for the MVNO were going to be realized?
A
So Mr. Straub, at that point of time,
explained to Lluka that it will be realization of the
whole project, and then in the near time that he is
going to be invited in Vienna and he is going to be
given more details about the project.
Q Okay.
A
But that visit or that meeting actually was
prolonged. And it happened in August 11th, when Ekrem
Lluka went to Vienna.
Q And, Mr. Bogoeski, I did want to ask you
briefly about the second meeting you have stated that
you had with Mr. Straub.
That actually happened at the time of the
signing of the Protocol of Cooperation at the
Min-U-Script
Page 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
Did you have any one-on-one discussions
with Mr. Straub at that lunch?
A
In Holiday Inn?
Q
Yes.
A
We didn't talk separately. We didn't have
a time one-on-one. We were just sitting at the same
table.
The main theme of discussion were
Contominas and Ekrem Lluka.
MS. FRIED: I don't have any further
questions right now, and I can pass the witness on to
one of our codefendants, assuming -- are you ready or
would you like to take a short break?
MR. HILL: Let's take five minutes.
MS. FRIED: We'll take a five-minute break.
LAWYER AT EMBASSY: We just would like to
know who will be next of your colleagues that will be
taking the deposition, because if it is Mr. Thomas
Hill -MR. HILL: Yes, I'll be next, and I
wouldn't anticipate being -LAWYER AT EMBASSY: We would like to use
this small break to reach you somehow. We have a
problem because our cell phones were taken away from us
for security reasons, so we will try to use this break

(415) 597-5600
(26) Pages 101 - 104


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and contact you and ask some of the personnel here from
the embassy to provide us with a secure line to reach
you briefly, if that's all right with all of you.
MR. HILL: That's fine. My cell phone
actually already rang once.
LAWYER AT EMBASSY: We'll use that phone.
MR. HILL: Though it may wind of morphing
into more of a -MR. BEDNAR: Okay. Before we go off the
record, if the interpreter can inform those present in
the room that their remarks during the break are still
being broadcast into this room, just so that they're
aware that whatever they say is being broadcasted into
this room.
EXAMINATION BY MR. HILL
Q Mr. Bogoeski, my name is Tom Hill, and I'm
representing Andras Balogh here. I guess good
afternoon, almost good evening for you. I will try to
be -- I'll try to be fairly brief, and I think I can be
here. Let me apologize at the beginning. I'm not very
good at pronouncing some of these names, including
yours perhaps. As I was saying, I'm not very good at
pronouncing these names, so I apologize in advance if I
Page 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
constructed case.
Q
This is the case against you, correct?
A
The case is against six people. Among
them, it's me also.
Q
Right.
Just so we're clear, and we may come back
to this in a little while, but that's a case about
money laundering and corruption, correct?
A
It's partially -- it's a partially true,
because it's not -- it's not a corruption, but is a
misuse of a responsibilities at -- work
responsibilities.
Q
That involves money laundering, right?
A
Please listen to me so we don't make
mistakes.
So the lawyer of Contominas -- the name of
the lawyer is Vasco Tomanovich. He's a suspect, that
he's misused his position while making the deal with
the government in which Mr. Contominas, he gave away
the right of places where you build buildings. And I
don't know the exact name.
The agreement between the government,
the -THE INTERPRETER: (Clarifies.)
THE WITNESS: Vasco Tomanovich is a lawyer
Page 106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mispronounce.
Mr. Bogoeski, you certainly consider
yourself to be an honorable and honest man; is that
right?
A
Yes, I am.
Q And you've had a long and distinguished
career; is that right?
A
Yes, that's true.
Q And, in fact, I think many hours ago when
Mr. Dodge was examining you in connection with your
description of the meetings that you had recently with
Mr. Malelis, you suggested, I think, that you hadn't
even had any parking tickets; is that right?
A
That is true -- it's true. The only case
is the case that is led by us right now, and it's still
on the superior court.
Q When you say "the case that's led by us,"
are you referring to the -THE INTERPRETER: Against us.
BY MR. HILL:
Q -- the case against you, yourself, the case
in which you are facing a possible prison sentence; is
that what you're referring to?
A
I'm talking about the case that there -was open in 2013, which is completely politically
Min-U-Script
Page 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of Contominas, the government. There are still legal,

and they're not condemned by anybody, anyone. And even
though it was agreed that he made a -- he made a -- he
misused his position, in order to construct, to produce
a procedure for laundering money to the rest of the
people who are accused, including me.
MR. DODGE: The conference, as we've seen,
is cut off now. It's noon. I did, during last break,
place a call to our AV people who told me that it was
cut off in Skopje. She's already reached out to people
in Skopje to try and get it reconnected. So hopefully
we'll get word in the next minute or two that this will
be reconnected. But we were expecting the conference
to last another hour, but she saw the same notice that
bee saw on the screen, that it was cutting off, and
that was done in Skopje. As soon as I get more word on
this, I'll communicate it back to you guys.
MR. HILL: All right.
(Deposition recessed at 12:01 p.m.)
(Deposition resumed at 12:34 p.m.)
BY MR. HILL:
Q
This is Tom Hill again, Mr. Bogoeski.
Obviously, there are technical difficulties, and we
understand that we're also limited because of the
embassy rules and we -- this would be terminated in

(415) 597-5600
(27) Pages 105 - 108


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
Page 109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about 20 minutes, which I don't think gives us enough

time.
THE INTERPRETER: At quarter to 7:00 they
have to leave.
MR. HILL: They have to leave at quarter to
7:00? Well, then we can't do it.
BY MR. HILL:
Q Mr. Bogoeski, you were told that we have to
leave at quarter to 7:00?
A
When they arrived, the security guards told
them that they have to leave before 7:00.
Q Mr. Bogoeski, my question for you is:
Would it be possible -- we don't know your situation,
and I told Mr. Dodge I was going to ask you this
question, and he said that was fine. We don't know
your situation, but would you be in a position to
return to the embassy on the morning of January 28th,
which is in approximately two weeks for probably, I'm
guessing, two hours, something like that?
A
What day is that?
Q Wednesday, January 28th. We could suggest
other days, too, but that's a date that I know
everybody would be available.
A
They're agreeing all that it's okay. The
lawyers and everybody else is agreeing with it.
Page 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Europe.
MR. DODGE: This is Robert Dodge from the
SEC, and we have no objection to the proposal set forth
by Mr. Hill.
This is Robert Dodge from the SEC. The
proposal by Mr. Hill is acceptable to us. My only
qualification is that we do need to communicate with
the witness about scheduling matters.
MR. HILL: Obviously, that's fine.
MR. DODGE: And to work out where and when
he is to appear.
MR. HILL: Right. That's acceptable, and
we are now adjourned.
MS. FRIED: I just want to state on the
record that, obviously, if this was going to conclude
today at 12:45, this would not have been a
seven-hour-long deposition, and in the event that
forces beyond any of our control prevent us from
continuing this deposition on the 28th, as we have just
endeavored to arrange, I believe I'm speaking for all
of the defendants when I say that we would take the
position that we were denied the opportunity to
complete a full and proper deposition of this witness.
MR. DODGE: Okay. So just for the record,
the federal rules do not require the deposition go for
Page 110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DODGE: Then I propose that we

adjourn -COUNSEL: He confirms that it's okay.
MR. DODGE: I would suggest that we adjourn
until January 28th at 9:00 in the morning, Skopje time,
and we'll figure out a way to arrange the technical
stuff, but so I -- my only caution is I would ask that
the witness in the interim not consult about these
matters with counsel for the SEC.
THE INTERPRETER: What was the second part?
THE WITNESS: 9:00 Macedonian time, in the
morning.
MR. HILL: You're not going to have any
objection.
MR. DODGE: My only other request on behalf
of all of the defendants is that between now and then,
Mr. Bogoeski not consult with the SEC lawyers or
Ms. Panova, other than scheduling and logistics, but
not about the substance of the matter at hand.
THE WITNESS: There was no other
conversations.
THE INTERPRETER: I would like to -- he has
a point. 9:00 Macedonian time, in the morning?
MR. HILL: We're going to be there. We're
going to be in Europe. All of us are going to be in
Min-U-Script
Page 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seven hours. It simply places a maximum of seven hours

on a deposition. Our view, the SEC's view, is that the
witness has made himself available on a voluntary basis
from noon, local time, to 6:00 p.m., local time.
That's at least when we've had this deposition.
If this is all we get, the SEC's view is
that that will be adequate and the best that could be
arranged under the circumstances. We will, in all
events, make our utmost efforts to cooperate with the
defense to allow as much cross-examination as they feel
is necessary.
MR. HILL: Okay. I think that terminates
today's proceeding.
MR. BEDNAR: Thank you to everyone at
Embassy Skopje, and have a good evening.
THE WITNESS: So it is 28th of January at
9:00?
MR. DODGE: Yes.
MR. HILL: Yes.
MR. KOENIG: Yes.
MR. BEDNAR: We did have a backup audio
recording to supplement the stenographic recording, and
if the court reporter does have his own audio
recording, I'll ask that that be marked as Joint
Exhibit 1, just so you're aware of what's going to

(415) 597-5600
(28) Pages 109 - 112


Elek Straub, et al.
January 15, 2015
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 BOGOESKI
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ss
)
I hereby certify that the witness in the
foregoing deposition, Slobadan Bogoeski, was by me
duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place herein named; and that the deposition is a true
record of the witness's testimony as reported by me, a
duly certified shorthand reporter and a disinterested
person, and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting
by computer.
I further certify that I am not interested in
the outcome of the said action, nor connected with nor
related to any of the parties in said action, nor to
their respective counsel.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 29th day of January, 2014.
Reading and Signing was:
_X_ requested ___ waived ___ not requested
Steven Poulakos
Min-U-Script

(415) 597-5600
(29) Pages 113 - 114
EXHIBIT C
Page 109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

______________________________
:
US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
: Civil Action No:
COMMISSION
: 11-Civ-9645 (RJS)
:
Plaintiff
:
:
-v:
:
ELEK STRAUB
:
ANDRAS BALOGH, and
:
TAMAS MORVAI
:
:
Defendants
:
_____________________________ :
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
(Via Skype)
14
OF
15
Mr. Slobodan Bogoeski

16
On Wednesday, January 28th 2015

17
Commencing at 8.08 am
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Taken at:
Partos & Noblet
Gerbeaud House
Vorosmarty ter 7/8
1051 Hungary
Vol II
Reported by: Miss Pamela Henley
Job Number 89041
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580

Page 110
1
2
APPEARANCES
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 111
On behalf of the Plaintiff:

US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT
100 F Street NE
Washington, DC 20549
BY: Mr. ROBERT DODGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT
100 F Street NE
BY: Mr. ADAM EISNER
13
14
16
17
18
19
19
20
20
22
23
24
25
PANOVA LAW OFFICE & PATENT BUREAU

Vasil Gorgov No 34/1-6
1000 Skopje
Republic of Macedonia
BY: Ms. BILJANA PANOVA
HOGAN LOVELLS
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
BY: Mr. DAVID MITCHELL
15
18
21
On behalf of Defendant Elek Straub

HOGAN LOVELLS
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
BY: Ms. LISA FRIED
21
22
23
On behalf of Defendant Andras Balogh

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
2300 N Street, NW
BY: Mr. THOMAS HILL
24
25
Page 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN

2300 N Street, NW
BY: Ms. KRISTEN BAKER
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On behalf of Defendant Tamas Morvai

HINCKLEY ALLEN & SNYDER
14 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
BY: Mr. MICHAEL KOENIG
Page 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In attendance:
Mr. Antonio Apostolski
Ms. Marija Sandeva
Mr. Josip Gargas
Interpreters:
Mr. Zahari Arsenkov
Ms. Svetlana Spasovska
Videographer:
Court Reporter:
Mr. Simon Addinsell

Miss Pamela Henley
2 (Pages 110 to 113)

877-702-9580

Page 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Page 115
1
INDEX
DEPONENT
Examination:
Page No:
Examined by Mr. Hill
117
__________________________________________________
EXHIBIT INDEX
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
10
11
Number
Page No:
(No exhibits were marked during this deposition)
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the
beginning of tape 1 in Volume II of the deposition
of Slobodan Bogoeski. This matter is between the
US Securities and Exchange Commission versus
Elek Straub et al. This matter is in the Southern
District of New York, United States District Court
-- the Southern District of New York, civil action
number 11-CIV-9645 (RJS). Today's date is 28th
January 2015, and the time is 8 minutes past 8.00
am. This part of the deposition is taking place
at the offices of Hogan Lovells in Budapest. It
is being conducted over a video link from the
offices of Panova Law in Skopje, Macedonia.
The court reporter is Pamela
Henley. The videographer Simon Addinsell, both
with TSG Reporting. Our interpreters are Svetlana
Spasovska and Zahari Arsenkov.
Would counsel first in Budapest
introduce theMs.elves and state who they represent
today, please.
Ms. FRIED: I am Lisa Fried from
Hogan Lovells. I am accompanied by my associate,
David Mitchell, and we are counsel for defendant
Elek Straub.
Page 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Mr. KOENIG: I am Michael Koenig
from the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, counsel for
Tamas Morvai.
Mr. HILL: Thomas Hill, and my
associate, Kristen Baker, on behalf of Mr. Balogh
with the law firm of Pillsbury in Washington DC.
Mr. DODGE: Robert Dodge and Adam
Eisner for the plaintiff, Securities and Exchange
Commission.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And in
Macedonia, please, if you would introduce
yourselves and state whom you represent.
THE WITNESS: My name is Slobodan
Bogoeski from Skopje.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Would the
attorneys please introduce theMs.elves and state
who them represent.
Ms. PANOVA: Biljana Panova, local
attorney. On behalf of our colleagues of
Pillsbury, the local legal counsel are Antonio
Apostolski, Marija Sandeva and Josip Gargas
representing Andras Balogh.
(Interpreters sworn)
(Witness sworn)
Page 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Mr. HILL: Mr. Bogoeski, good
morning. Thank you for making yourself available
this morning to continue -A. Good morning.
Q. -- to continue the deposition which
we began on January 15th. Before we begin I want
to explain a little bit about how this deposition
will work, I am going to begin by asking the
questions, and then some of the other lawyers may
very well ask questions later. I am going to try
very hard to ask you questions that only require
short answers, often my question will simply
require you to say "yes" or "no". I want you to
listen very carefully to the questions, and limit
yourself to answering only the question that has
been put to you. This is especially important
because this deposition is being translated and
the translators can only translate accurately if
the answers and the question are short, do you
understand?
A. Yes, I understood.
Q. We seem to have lost the picture.
(Pause) If you could just move the mouse, I am
told. (Pause). I am told we still do not have
3 (Pages 114 to 117)

877-702-9580

Page 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

picture. You need to move that mouse every few
minutes, or else the picture will freeze. I assume
that you cannot see us, is that correct?
A. Yes, I can see you. I cannot see
the camera sign on the screen.
Mr. MITCHELL: Is Biljana in the
room?
Ms. PANOVA: Yes, I am here, I am
trying to put video on because the video
disappeared. So I am trying to get the video
back. (Pause).
Mr. HILL: We are going off the
record while we deal with these technical issues.
(Off the record at 8.18 am)
(On the record at 8.44 am)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the
record at 8.44.
Mr. HILL: Mr. Bogoeski, and I think
I apologised to you the last time about my bad
pronunciation of some of the names, so I apologise
again in advance. I think -- when we got cut off I
think I had just finished trying to explain that
it is going to be important during this deposition
for you to listen carefully to what the questions
Page 119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

are, and answer only the question in as concise a
way as concise a way as possible, and I am going
to try to answer very specific questions.
Q. Do you understand?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Mr. Bogoeski, since we were last
together on January 15th, have you spoken at all
to Mr. Dodge?
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It is frozen.
(Connection lost)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the
record at 8.52.
Mr. HILL: There is some
interference on our end.
Q. Do you hear it on your end?
A. The interference is coming from
your end. They hear nothing there.
Mr. DODGE: We will turn off our
cell phones.
Mr. HILL: We are going to try and
see, we will do the best we can.
Q. Mr. Bogoeski, I think when it cut
Page 120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

off the last time I had just asked you whether
since January 15th, the last time we met, have you
had any conversations with Mr. Dodge?
(Connection lost)
BY Mr. HILL:
Q. Can you hear us, Mr. Bogoeski?we
cannot hear you.
A. I am as close as possible to the
mic. I am speaking very loud.
Q. Can you hear me?
A. Sometimes I cannot, but now I can.
Q. We are going to try at least one
more time. If at any point you do not hear me or
do not understand me please tell me. Okay? So
since we met last on January 15th, have you spoken
with Mr. Dodge?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you spoken with Ms. Panova?
A. Yes, on a couple of occasions
related to the venue and date of this deposition.
Q. Have you talked at all with Ms.
Panova about the substance of what you testified
Page 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

to on January 15th?
A. No, nothing at all.
Q. Have you spoken with anyone about
the deposition that was given on January 15th?
A. No, I have not spoken to anyone.
There has been no need.
Q. Has anybody spoken to you about the
deposition that occurred on January 15th?
A. I must interrupt you and warn you
that -Q. I am sorry?
A. I must interrupt you and warn you
that -(Screen froze)
Q. Can you hear me?
(Connection lost)
Mr. DODGE: Okay, Biljana, please
repeat what you just told me.
Ms. PANOVA: So Mr. Bogoeski now here
next to me, and also the lawyers sitting here, and
he said that he should go to hospital. It was
arranged and when we asked for another bit, an
4 (Pages 118 to 121)

877-702-9580

Page 122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

hour, when we can continue he informed us that he
will give the date and hour additionally tomorrow.
Hopefully tomorrow we will inform about the day
and hour.
Mr. HILL: I think as I understand
it although none of the lawyers, including the
lawyers for the SEC, were informed about this
before today, as I understand it this appointment
was previously scheduled, is that correct?
Ms. PANOVA: Just to ask Mr. Bogoeski
about this, and the lawyers also, (pause while
counsel takes instructions). Okay, so the lawyers
of Mr. Balogh were not informed. He only mentioned
to me that maybe he would not have more than
2 hours or 3 hours to stay here and to give the
deposition. Hello?
Mr. DODGE: We can hear you.
Mr. HILL: I am sorry, when did he
tell you?
Ms. PANOVA: This was the last time
that we spoke about scheduling, about the date and
starting hour at 8.00 am.
Mr. HILL: And when was that, that
conversation? Which day did that conversation
Page 123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

occur on?
Ms. PANOVA: That was Saturday.
Mr. HILL: And that was a
conversation between Mr. Bogoeski and yourself?
Ms. PANOVA: Yes.
Mr. HILL: And you did not inform
Mr. Dodge of that conversation, is that correct?
Ms. PANOVA: Well, we informed
Mr. Dodge about this, and we hoped that Mr. Bogoeski
would stay much longer in order to reply to
Mr. Hill's questions. But when he came here this
morning he says that he cannot stay more than
90 minutes here. He stay here and we will learn
this morning.
Mr. HILL: Just for the record, it
is now 9.22, I believe. But, I am sorry, I am a
little confused, the conversation you had on
Saturday with Mr. Bogoeski if I understand
correctly he told you that he would have 2 or
3 hours, is that right?
Ms. PANOVA: He said actually his
words were that when he spoke with you that you
said to him that you will need only a few
questions to him. So he was asking why I should
Page 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

stay from 8 until 12 o'clock to give my answers
because he personally told me that I will be
needed only for a few questions. Not much longer.
Mr. HILL: The conversation that
you just reported to us, that is the conversation
between you and Mr. Bogoeski that occurred on
Saturday, is that right?
Ms. PANOVA: This is the
conversation about the schedule, date and hour. As
he was informed that it is scheduled from
8 o'clock start until 12 o'clock. So he confirMs.
that he will come, but he said that he thinks that
it will be much -- 12 o'clock is 4 hours, so that
maybe he will need less hours because you said
only a few questions. This is what he said to me.
Mr. HILL: And he said that to you
on Saturday?
Ms. PANOVA: Yes.
Mr. HILL: Okay. And -- but on
Saturday he said he would have -- on Saturday he
told you that he had a medical appointment, but he
told you he could stay 2 or 3 hours; do I
understand that correctly?
Ms. PANOVA: Well, no, about the
Page 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

medical report I hear that today at 9.15. This
morning he said to me he had to be somewhere else.
But Mr. Bogoeski has to leave the office so,
please, if we can schedule some meetings.
Mr. HILL: Well, before Mr. Bogoeski
leaves and then I want to -Ms. PANOVA: I am sorry, but he
already left the office. So it is better that -that is why I called you in order to set up a date
and to agree among everybody. So he just came
with a colleague, so please be precise, and we
shall agree about the next schedule.
Mr. HILL: Just so that the record
is clear, Mr. Bogoeski is not there, correct?
Ms. PANOVA: He came with a
colleague and he is standing in front of me. He
wants to leave the office.
Mr. HILL: He should leave the
office. We will get back to you with a new date,
okay. Is he generally available to return over the
next several weeks? Is his calendar relatively
clear?
Ms. PANOVA: Just to ask the
question (pause while counsel takes instructions).
5 (Pages 122 to 125)

877-702-9580

Page 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

He will know tomorrow. Now he could not do
anything.
Mr. HILL: All right. Tell him to
go to the hospital.
Ms. PANOVA: Yes. He is free to go?
To leave the office. We will speak to agree some
dates.
Mr. HILL: If he has a medical
appointment at the hospital he should leave and go
to the hospital now.
Ms. PANOVA: Thank you very much. He
just left the office, so we said at the end he can
call me tomorrow and he can inform me about his
free days and hour, is that okay with you?
Mr. HILL: Yes. But I just want to
go back to what he told you on Saturday and what
you may or may not have told Mr. Dodge about what
he said to you on Saturday. That is all. I want
the record to be clear about that. So tell me
whether -Ms. PANOVA: I am sorry, but I do
not think that I am here in a deposition or
something because the witness just left our office
and I am here with the lawyers, so I do not know
Page 127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

whether we shall continue this, or we can continue
on the day when he is supposed to come and you can
open these questions to him.
Mr. HILL: Well, I assume he does
not know what you said to Mr. Dodge.
Mr. DODGE: We are not taking a
deposition of Ms. Panova. We can have a
representation from counsel on the record which we
are going to do. But Biljana is not under oath.
She is not a witness.
What I will tell you is that -- on
the record -- this is Bob Dodge for the SEC -- I
did speak to Ms. Panova on Saturday. She reported
that she had spoken to the witness on Saturday.
The witness -- and the subject of the discussion
had to do with scheduling of today's deposition.
The witness did enquire of Ms. Panova how long we
expected the deposition to go, and the witness
pointed out that since he understood to have been
told by defence counsel that there were only a few
questions remaining he wondered why he would be
needed for more than a couple of hours, and the
report that we gave back to him was we do not know
how long it is going to last. He is not under
Page 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

subpoena so he is not required to be any length of
time, but we would be very grateful if he would
stay for as long as the questions were put to him.
In that conversation nobody mentioned anything to
me about any medical appointment. I did not know
anything about it. It sounds to me from Ms. Panova
she was not aware of a medical appointment either.
Biljana, were you aware of a
medical appointment on Saturday?
Ms. PANOVA: Well, no. He just came
this morning and later than he should be, 9.15 or
something appointment. Today we learned that in
the morning he appeared, and when he is supposed
to sit and to start with the questioning. First
time I learn when the others lawyers learned. I
did not know before.
Mr. HILL: Bob, when you had the
conversation with Ms. Panova, I guess, did you
indicate to her that you -- well, first of all,
that certainly Mr. Koenig, at least, had not had an
opportunity to get up yet and that you yourself
might have additional questions?
Mr. DODGE: The only thing I said to
Biljana after her conversation with the witness
Page 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

was that the SEC -- I asked her to communicate to
the witness that the SEC would very grateful if he
would stay for as long as the questions were put
to him. I did not say anything about how long I
expected the questions to last because I have no
idea.
Mr. HILL: I think the record is
complete with respect to that issue. And I think
the record, tell me if it already reflects -- it
reflects all the technical issues we have had this
morning.
Mr. DODGE: I am quite sure the
record reflects a panoply of technical probleMs.
over the course of the morning, not due to
anybody's fault, but we have been struggling with
the technology between Budapest and Skopje. It
has been quite difficult for all the parties. I
think we have all done the best we can. But it
sounds -Mr. HILL: And we would propose
rescheduling when we all can look at our calendars
in Washington because we think the technology has
proven that it is workable. As soon as possible
consistent with everybody's schedule.
6 (Pages 126 to 129)

877-702-9580

Page 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Mr. DODGE: Yes, I think for the SEC
we will certainly agree to whatever scheduling the
defendants propose. We want to do whatever we can
to facilitate the continuation of the deposition.
I agree that it should be done between Washington
and Skopje rather than Budapest and Skopje. And as
soon as possible would be our preference.
Mr. HILL: Will the SEC represent, I
do not know to the extent that the parties or any
of the parties feel that we need to go to Judge
Sullivan with respect to the fact that it will be
subsequent to January 31st, obviously.
Mr. DODGE: I think we actually have
that covered in the protective order.
Mr. HILL: All right. Anything else
we need on the record?
Ms. FRIED: I do not think so.
Mike?
Mr. KOENIG: No.
Mr. HILL: We can close the record
now.
(The deposition concluded at 9:32 am)
Page 131
1
CERTIFICATE OF WITNESS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I, Slobodan Bogoeski, am the

witness in the foregoing deposition. I have read
the foregoing deposition and, having made such
changes and corrections as I desired, I certify
that the transcript is a true and accurate record
of my responses to the questions put to me on
Wednesday, January 28th 2015.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Signed________________________________
Slobodan Bogoeski
Dated this ___________ day of_________ 2015
21
22
23
24
24
25
25
Page 132
1
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2
3
3
4
Page 133
I, Pamela E Henley, Court Reporter,

do hereby certify that I took the stenotype notes
of the foregoing deposition and that the
transcript thereof is a true and accurate record
transcribed to the best of my skill and ability
I further certify that I am neither
counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of
the parties to the action in which this deposition
was taken, and that I am not a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel employed by
the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
interested in the outcome of the action.
DATED: 2/9/2015
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
23
ERRATA
(Please make any amendments or corrections on the
errata sheet and not on the original deposition)
CORRECTION
PAGE
_______________________
Pamela E Henley
22
23
24
24
25
25
____________________
Signature
______________
Date
7 (Pages 130 to 133)

877-702-9580
EXHIBIT D
In The Matter Of:

Elek Straub, et al.
Slobodan Bogoeski
Vol. 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
Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 106Slobodan


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
and TAMAS MORVAI,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.

1:11cv09645
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015
PAGES 115 - 178; VOLUME 2

BY:
STEVEN POULAKOS, RPR
160 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 300

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94015
(415) 597-5600
Page 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FOR THE DEFENDANT, ANDRAS BALOGH:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION:

DIVISION ENFORCEMENT
BY: ROBERT I. DODGE, ESQUIRE
THOMAS A. BEDNAR, ESQUIRE
ADAM EISNER, ESQUIRE
100 F. Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549
Telephone:
Email:
(202) 551-4421
dodgeR@sec.gov
PILLSBURY, WINTHROP, SHAW, PITTMAN, LLP

BY: THOMAS C. HILL, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM M. SULLIVAN, JR., ESQUIRE
KRISTEN E. BAKER, ESQUIRE
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037-1122
Telephone: (202)663.8262
Email: thomas.hill@pillsburylaw.com
Page 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Videotaped deposition of SLOBADAN

S. BOGOESKI, Volume 2, taken on behalf of Plaintiff's,
at the Law Offices of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington,
D.C., was held on Thursday, February 19, 2015,
commencing at 8:15 a.m., before Certified Shorthand
Reporter, pursuant to the Notice of Videotaped
Deposition.
Min-U-Script
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) 396-3100
10 Email: mkoenig@hinckleyallen.com
11
12 FOR THE DEFENDANT, ELEK STRAUB:
13 HOGAN LOVELLS
14 BY: LISA J. FRIED, ESQUIRE
15
GARIMA MALHOTRA, ESQUIRE
16
ROBERT BUEHLER, ESQUIRE
17 875 Third Avenue
18 New York, New York 10022
19 Telephone: (212) 918-3000
20 Email: garima.malhotra@hoganlovells.com
21
22
23
24
25

(415) 597-5600
(1) Pages 115 - 118


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FOR THE DEFENDANT, ANDRAS BALOGH:

APOSTOLSKI LAW FIRM
BY: ANTONIO APOSTOLSKI, ESQUIRE
MARRJA HRISTOVSKA, ESQUIRE
Bul. Kocho Racin 14, loc 6
1000 Skopje
Republic of Macedonia
ALSO PRESENT:
Page 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES (Continued):
Mr. Zahari Arsenkov and Ms. Svetiana
Spasovska, interpreters
EXHIBITS
SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI - VOLUME 2
PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Exhibit 229
Description
- 1 page
Exhibit 230
INDEX
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015
SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI - VOLUME 2
Examination by:
Mr. Hill
Min-U-Script
Page
122
151
Previously Marked The protocol

- 2 pages
Exhibit 231
145
Previously Marked The Non Paper

- 1 page
Exhibit 232
145

- 1 page
Exhibit 233
145

- 5 pages
Exhibit 236
145
Previously Marked A transcript

of a video deposition
- 60 pages
Page 120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page
Previously Marked Exhibit A biography
125
Page 122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
Whereupon,
SLOBADAN S. BOGOESKI,
called as a witness, having been first duly sworn to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, was examined and testified as follows:
MR. HILL: Can everybody hear me in Skopje?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. Good day to
you.
MR. HILL: And good day to you as well.
Why don't we begin and have at least people
on the Macedonian side identify who's in the room just
so we have it on the record.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Speaking in
Macedonian.)
MR. HILL: If you could -- is it possible
to turn the volume up on your end? It's a little faint
on this end.
EXAMINATION BY MR. HILL:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, are you ready to begin?
A
Yes, you can begin.
Q
Thank you.
Mr. Bogoeski, again, I know I've introduced
myself now I think this is the third time, but my name
is Tom Hill and I represent Andras Balogh. And good --

(415) 597-5600
(2) Pages 119 - 122


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I guess good afternoon to you. Good morning to us

here.
A
Good morning to you all there.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, first let me ask you: I
assume today you don't have any doctors appointments;
is that correct?
A
I did make sure to inform everyone that I
will be available for two hours, from now until 4:00.
Q
And so you have no -- you have no ability
to stay beyond 4:00; is that what you're saying?
A
Not even a single minute.
Q
And that's because that's the limit that
you're setting on this deposition; is that right?
A
I'm not setting any limits. I did make my
deposition on the 15th of January of this year, but
upon your request, and your kind request, I have made
myself available here again; but I cannot be at your
disposition for an unlimited period of time.
Q
And, Mr. Bogoeski, just very briefly here,
we tried to do this on the 28th of January, as you
know, but had technical difficulties.
A
I'm sorry, yes, that happens.
Q
But we learned on the morning of the 28th,
when we arrived for the deposition, that you had
scheduled a doctor's appointment at 9:15 that morning;
Page 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
require very short answers, usually yes or no.

Do you understand that?
A
I, on the other hand, also will try to do
my best to be as concise as possible provided that the
questions that you ask are clear; otherwise, if there's
any ambiguity in the questions, it goes without saying
that I cannot just say yes or no.
Q
And if there's any ambiguity in the
question, I would ask you to ask me to clarify the
question.
A
Of course.
Q
Now, let me begin by asking you about the
interview that you gave that was videotaped on
December 28th.
Do you remember that?
A
The 20th of which month?
Q
Excuse me, December, with Mr. Dodge.
A
Yes, I do remember.
Q
And sometime after that, you gave that
video, I believe you testified that you reviewed a
transcript of that video; is that correct?
A
Yes, I did.
Q
And I believe that's actually already
introduced as Exhibit 236.
And the transcript that you reviewed, was
Page 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is that right?
A
Yes. Even back then we did have sufficient
time to do the whole thing, but there were technical
difficulties.
Q
But you had a doctor's appointment at 9:15
that day; is that correct? That's my question.
A
Yes.
Q
And was the -- when did you notify
Ms. Panova or Mr. Dodge of the fact that you had that
doctor's appointment?
A
I notified Ms. Panova over one day in
advance.
Q
So that deposition that was scheduled for
the -- 8:00 in the morning would have had to terminate
at 9:15 no matter what; is that correct?
A
Unfortunately, yes.
Q
And Ms. Panova -- and through Ms. Panova
the SEC were aware of that the day before; is that
correct?
A
I cannot precisely recall the hour that we
talked about my need to go to the doctors, but I cannot
program my medical needs, and I cannot see why this is
so important.
Q
Now, Mr. Bogoeski, I'm going to try very
hard in this deposition to ask you questions that only
Min-U-Script
Page 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it in Macedonian or English?
A
It was in Macedonian.
Q
Okay. Did you -- have you ever viewed the
videotape itself, looked at it?
A
No, I have not.
Q
Okay. When you reviewed the Macedonian
transcript, okay, did someone ask you to do that?
A
No. I asked for an opportunity to do it.
Q
Okay. And did -- when you reviewed it -before you reviewed it, were you given any
introductions as to what you were to do as you reviewed
it?
A
No one ever gave me any instructions, nor
could they have done so. What happened was that I
asked to see the transcript in Macedonian to make sure
there were no errors, mistakes, dates stated
incorrectly or names, because there were many names,
especially Greek names, and I just wanted to make sure
it's all correctly translated.
Q
Okay. So when you say "correctly
translated," you mean transcribed from the video, or do
you mean translated from one language to another
language?
A
During the interview, as I was speaking in
Macedonia -- Macedonian, it was all interpreted into

(415) 597-5600
(3) Pages 123 - 126


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
English. So I asked for the Macedonian version of the

transcript. I had no need whatsoever to look at the
English transcript.
Q
So, now, you -- when you reviewed it, you
were reviewing it to make sure that it was as accurate
as possible; is that right?
A
Yes, of course, that was my intention. I
did want to make sure that the entire interview was
conveyed in a correct way, because it took a long time,
and technical and other errors, like spelling errors,
were possible either due to the interpreter, as there
was only one back then, being tired or for any other
reasons. So that was the intention of my reviewing it.
Q
So you took great care when you reviewed it
to make sure you were thorough and accurate; is that
right?
A
Yes, this is exactly why I asked to review
it.
Q
And when you reviewed it, did you review it
by yourself, or did anybody help you in reviewing it or
assist you?
A
I did it by myself. There was no need for
anyone else's assistance.
Q
And how long did it take you to review the
transcript?
Page 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
making the depositions of this kind to check the

contents, and my signature on each of the pages is a -is a -- sort of confirmation that I have read it.
After all, my handwriting is on the transcript itself.
Q
So we can be confident today that the
transcript, the corrected transcript that you've
provided, is true and accurate; is that right?
A
In essence, yes.
Q
And certainly any substantive changes that
needed to be made by you were made; is that right?
A
I think so, yes.
Q
All right.
Let's change gears for a minute,
Mr. Bogoeski.
Now, you, yourself, consider yourself to be
an honorable man, correct?
A
Of course I do.
Q
And, in fact, you've had a very long and
distinguished career in Macedonia, correct?
A
Yes, I do believe so.
Q
And, in fact, beginning really as a young
man in 1975, you went into the service of the
government, correct?
A
Yes.
Q
And from 1991 to 1997, in fact, you were
Page 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
I cannot recall exactly how much time I
needed, but it was something like more than 60 pages,
and I guess an hour and a half.
Q
And by my count, it looks like you made
about 25 changes.
So you were being very careful; isn't that
right?
A
I never did count the number of
interventions that I did in the transcript, but what I
came to conclude in the end was that most of those
mistakes were errors, were either misspelled names or
errors of technical nature, maybe the structure of the
sentence; but it was nothing that would have any
semantical bearing.
Q
Now, you wound up signing each page; is
that right?
THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, could you
repeat that?
BY MR. HILL:
Q
You signed each page of the transcript,
correct?
A
Yes, as far as I remember, I did.
Q
Did anybody tell you to do that?
A
No, no one gave me any instructions to do
so. I just knew that it was the usual practice when
Min-U-Script
Page 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the head of the security service, correct?

A
Yes, that's correct. I was the
undersecretary there.
Q
And from 1997 to 2000, you were an advisor,
a direct advisor, to the prime minister, correct?
A
That's correct.
Q
And over these many years, you've
established many contacts and developed many
relationships with Macedonian political and government
officials; that's correct, isn't it?
A
It's only natural when you work in such
positions that you have no, actually, choice but to go
intensive communication with officials at the highest
positions.
Q
And at the highest positions and also even
at lower-level positions, correct, you have contact
with people throughout the government?
A
It comes with the territory of the
profession. When you do something like that, then you
just go and contact and communicate with a lot of
people, not only people working for the government, but
people in general.
Q
So you have many, many contacts with
political, business, government officials throughout
Macedonia today; is that right?

(415) 597-5600
(4) Pages 127 - 130


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
Macedonia is but a small country with only
2 million people, and even if you're not in a position
that I was in and if you're not doing such work, most
of the people here in the country know each other.
Q
Now, your integrity is very important to
you, it's important that you be perceived as a man of
integrity; is that right?
A
I think it's important for every person,
not only for me.
Q
But it is important for you?
A
Naturally so, as everyone would be caring
about these things.
Q
And your reputation is very important to
you?
A
Everybody tries to preserve their
professional and personal dignity and reputation.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, you've never accepted a
bribe, have you?
A
No, I have never received a bribe.
Q
And, in fact, if anybody ever offered you a
bribe, you would not accept it, would you?
A
I do not see the point in the question.
It's intended that I would not accept a bribe.
Q
Well, I don't think it's -- I don't think
you have to worry about the point of my questions; just
Page 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
corruption; is that correct?

A
The process initiated against me is
exclusively based on political and criminal motives.
It is a classical setup of a political process
politically motivated, not based -- grounded on the
law.
It is an event of the family of the prime
minister, motivated by their personal interests
touching upon the past, being rooted deeply into the
past, and motivated also by some current events that
they have undertook and have exercised literally -exercised pressure and violence on the public
prosecution office and the judiciary.
The proceedings, the criminal proceedings,
against me have been raised against me and a few other
people, and I have insurmountable evidence that this
has been done by the prime minister and his cousin, by
the administration. Strong pressure has been exercised
on the authorities to raise these proceedings, although
they were quite aware that they had dispose of no
evidence to do so. And the public will very soon be
exposed to the proof of what I'm saying, that these
proceedings have been raised by the most severe form of
abuse of one's official duty on behalf of the prime
minister, his cousin Sasho Mialkov, the head of the
Page 132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
answer the questions.

So if you were offered a bribe, you would
not accept one, correct?
A
No, I would not accept a bribe.
Q
And you've never bribed anybody, yourself,
have you?
A
Of course, I have not, nor have I had the
possibility to do so.
Q
And you've never -- and you've never
participated in any scheme or any process to bribe
anybody, have you, in Macedonia?
A
No, I have not participated.
Q
In fact, you, yourself, have exposed
corruption and bribery in Macedonia, and that's one of
the reasons why you currently believe you are being
prosecuted; is that correct?
A
I have not understood the question.
Q
You, yourself, have exposed and brought to
the attention of the authorities and the public
instances of corruption; is that correct?
A
That's correct, I have exposed. I have
pointed out two examples of corruption.
Q
And as you currently face your own legal
problems, criminal problems, your position is that that
is because of the fact that you have exposed other
Min-U-Script
Page 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
security services, and their -- a relative of theirs,

which is the public prosecutor in charge of these
proceedings.
I will publicly expose to the public these
evidence. And if you are interested in obtaining this
evidence, I can show them to you later on.
Q
And, in fact -- we can return to that later
on.
But, in fact, what you've just outlined,
you've actually given interviews on television and in
the newspaper basically saying the same thing; is that
right?
A
I have given one interview only for weekly
newspaper, magazine, and one interview for a television
portal, and that's all; but very soon I will cast a
light on these evidence.
Q
But for -- just for now, so that the record
is clear, as things stand today you stand convicted
of -- and I understand that you contest this, but you
stand convicted today of abuse of official position and
money laundering, correct?
A
No, that's not correct. No proceedings
have been raised on the grounds of abuse of one's
official position against me. Last time, I told you
that I'm being prosecuted for money laundering, and

(415) 597-5600
(5) Pages 131 - 134


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they're referring to an act which was not committed at

all. And they have actually breached, violated the law
in order to be -- to raise the charges against me and
so that finally I am convicted.
Q
But as we sit here today, you are convicted
of money laundering, correct?
A
Yes, I'm being prosecuted for an invented
criminal act of money laundering.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, we understand that you
contest it, but I'm asking you, as we sit here today,
you, in fact, have been convicted, correct?
A
It's possible I am convicted for money
laundering. I am convicted for money laundering, but
if any lawyer could see the charges and the conviction,
they would be clear with the notion that this is
invented, and many other people are being prosecuted
and convicted in Macedonia for inexistant acts.
Q
And you're facing a two-year prison
sentence at this time, correct?
A
That's correct.
Q
And you're facing a loss of your assets as
well; is that correct?
A
Yes, I am facing loss of assets; however,
looking at the Court decision, it is unclear what kind
of assets are we talking about.
Page 137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
offer, and a few days ago -- a few days afterwards, we

met in the vicinity of my apartment and she introduced
herself, told me who her client is -Q
Who did she say her client was?
A
The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission.
Q
And did she -- when you -- how long did you
meet for on that first meeting?
A
Not very long. I cannot exactly recall how
many minutes at this meeting. I think it was not more
than one hour, since I had other obligations, other
activities. And I asked her to meet some other time
and discuss the topic she was interested in in greater
detail.
Q
Did she explain to you what topics she was
interested in?
A
Of course, she did; otherwise, why would we
have the conversation. She told me -Q
What did she tell you was the topic of
interest?
A
She introduced herself, said who is she
representing, who her client is; and it was clear to me
that she would be interested in the part of the
interview that concerns the withdrawal of the warrants,
search warrants -THE INTERPRETER: Not search. The
Page 136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, let's change gears here, Mr. Bogoeski.

When you were -- when did you have your
initial contact with Ms. Panova?
A
My initial contact with Ms. Panova was in
the mid-December, immediately after my interview with
the weekly magazine Fokus.
Q
And did she contact you, or did you contact
her?
A
She contacted me. Before that, I did not
know her.
Q
And what did -- when she contacted you,
what did she say to you?
A
She told me that part of the interview I
had given triggers her interest.
Q
Did she tell you -- did she tell you
whether she had a client, who her client was?
A
I do not understand.
Which client are you referring to?
Q
Well, did she explain to you what it was
about what she read that was of particular interest to
her and why it was of interest to her?
A
A few days after the interview, Biljana
Panova called me, introduced herself that she's a
lawyer, attorney at law, and asked me to have a meeting
with her and discuss the interview. I accepted the
Min-U-Script
Page 138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
warrants?
MR. HILL: Yes.
THE WITNESS: -- against people of
Contominas in Skopje related to the criminal act money
laundering at the Macedonian Telekom. In the interview
I said that it is a criminal act, that we draw the
warrant against Mihail Kefaloyannis by the highest
exponents of the government of Macedonia in order to
conceal what they have done, and at the same time
motivated, motivated by criminal financial; that is,
lucrative interest of the chief of the security
services, Sasho Mialkov.
Q
When you say in the interview, you're
talking about the interview that was published in the
newspaper on December 12th, correct?
A
Correct. That is the interview for the
weekly magazine Fokus given on December 12th.
Q
Okay. Now, when you said the first meeting
with Ms. Panova lasted for about than hour.
Did she mention that she was working with
the individuals and lawyers from the SEC, including
Mr. Dodge?
A
I cannot exactly remember the first
meeting. I was in a hurry. We scheduled a second
meeting at which we discussed my interview in greater

(415) 597-5600
(6) Pages 135 - 138


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
detail, and then she elaborated in more detail what was

she working on and asked me, among other things -THE INTERPRETER: -- asked me?
THE WITNESS: Am I prepared, would I like
to discuss this with authorized persons from the
Security Exchange Commissions.
BY MR. HILL:
Q
And -A
I answered -Q
Just let me be clear here.
Mr. Bogoeski, the meeting you are currently
discussing, this is the second meeting you had with
Ms. Panova; is that right?
A
Yes. At the first meeting, we did not have
sufficient time to engage in this discussion. At the
second meeting, I described in greater detail how did
the cessation, the stopping of the criminal proceedings
went, and these criminal proceedings concerned the
money laundering of persons from the Macedonian
Telekom.
And I told her, since I am saying these in
an interview publicly, I'm prepared to discuss exact
same issues with persons from the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Q
And this second meeting occurred also in
Page 141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether you would be willing to participate in an

interview with representatives of the SEC, correct?
A
It was only after I discussed with
Ms. Panova in greater detail all the issues that were
related to the money laundering and the criminal acts
in the Macedonian Telekom that she asked me if I would
be willing to give an interview or talk to any official
representative of the commission, and I accepted.
Q
And this occurred during the second meeting
in mid-December, correct?
A
Yes, exactly.
Q
And during that meeting, did -- let me ask
you: Did Ms. Panova at any point ask you whether you
had any documents relating to the activities that you
were discussing with her?
A
Of course. When we started the second
meeting, she normally asked me whether some documents
can be found that could be related to the issue that we
discussed.
Q
And, in fact, did you tell her that you had
some documents?
A
Yes, I told her that the majority of the
documents that I had, whether in the form of drafts,
copies, or originals, I had, through the minister,
delivered, actually submitted to the prime minister, I
Page 140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the middle of December; is that right?

A
A few days after the first meeting.
Q
So before Christmas, right?
A
Yes, exactly.
Q
And at that second meeting, did she ask you
for -- let me back up for a minute.
When was the first time you actually had
any communication, either speaking or in writing with
Mr. Dodge?
A
It was only during my making the deposition
that I met Mr. Dodge for the first time in my life.
Never, ever had I even heard of him or known him before
that.
Q
Did you -- when you say -- when you're
referring to my deposition, you're talking about the
video interview on December 28th, correct?
A
Exactly, yes. That happened at the same
day, during the same day.
Q
Had you spoken with him or communicated
with him in any way prior to December 28th?
A
No, because I did not even know who that
person is, nor had I had any opportunity prior to that
to meet him in any context whatsoever.
Q
But in the middle -- in the middle of
December, Ms. Panova let you know that -- asked you
Min-U-Script
Page 142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be willing to give any of the copies or documents

that I had left.
(Speaking in Macedonian.)
Q
And when, in fact, did -- Mr. Bogoeski,
listen to my questions, please, and try to restrict
yourself to the very narrow question that I'm trying to
ask.
When did you give those documents to
Ms. Panova?
A
Following the second meeting, we met
briefly once again, and whatever I could provide by
that time, at that moment I handed over to her,
promising that if I am able to find anything more in
the meantime, I will be willing to hand those documents
to her as well.
Q
All right.
And this third meeting where you handed
over the documents, this meeting also occurred before
Christmas, correct?
A
I cannot recall the exact date, whether it
was before or after Christmas, but it was -- I remember
it was several days after the second meeting.
Q
And it was -- and it was certainly before
the meeting that you had with Mr. Dodge on
December 28th, correct?

(415) 597-5600
(7) Pages 139 - 142


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
Yes, correct.
Q
Okay. And did -- and it was your
understanding, correct, that Ms. Panova would share the
documents that you gave her with representatives of the
SEC? You understood from her that that's what she
would do, correct?
A
We did not talk about this at that point in
time, but as soon as we -- when she told me at our
first meeting who she's representing, it was obvious
for me, clear to me that all of these documents will be
subjected to further processing or reviewing. There
was no need for her to underline this.
Q
By the way, did she give you a receipt for
the documents?
A
I asked for no such receipt.
Q
Did you make copies?
Mr. Bogoeski -A
Because these were not documents that I
created.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, did you make copies of the
documents that you provided to Ms. Panova before you
gave them to her to maintain for yourself?
A
I'm afraid I cannot answer this question.
Q
You can't answer it or you won't answer it?
A
I cannot and I will not.
Page 145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE INTERPRETER: I told her at that

meeting that I would not give her any additional
documents.
BY MR. HILL:
Q
You told her that you would not give her
additional documents, or that there were no additional
documents?
A
I told her that I would not be giving her
any other documents and that I would consider that
possibility only after I met an official representative
of the SEC.
Q
I think there are -- I think you have the
prior exhibits there, but I want to direct your
attention, just for the moment, to Exhibits 230, 231,
232, and 233, four exhibits.
Are they -MR. HILL: Ms. Panova, do you have them
there? Does somebody have them there?
THE INTERPRETER: Could you repeat the
numbers of the exhibits again?
MR. HILL: 230, 231, 232, and 233.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, we have them.
MR. HILL: If you could show them to
Mr. Bogoeski, please.
THE INTERPRETER: He apologizes, he has to
Page 144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
So you're refusing to answer that question,
correct?
A
It is not related with the issue that we're
discussing, and it can only jeopardize my security.
Q
Now, Mr. Bogoeski, so you've met -- I think
we've established now that you've met before
December 28th; before the actual interview with
Mr. Dodge, you had met with Ms. Panova at least three
times.
Is that the extent of your meetings with
her, or were there additional meetings -- excuse me -one telephone conversation followed by three meetings.
Is there additional meetings?
A
As far as I remember, that was all.
Q
Now, you turned over documents to
Ms. Panova in the third meeting, and you told her that
you would look to see if you had more documents.
Did you, in fact, look to see whether you
had more documents?
A
Again, we're going back to the question
that I would -- not wanted to answer, but I told her at
that time that I will not give her any other documents
in addition to the ones that I did give her.
MR. HILL: I'm sorry, could the translator
just give me back the last sentence?
Min-U-Script
Page 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
go and get his glasses.

BY MR. HILL:
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, simple question: Other than
these four documents, did you, in fact, give Ms. Panova
any additional documents?
A
It was only these four documents.
Q
It was only these four documents? Is that
what I heard?
A
Yes.
Q
Now, at any point, Mr. Bogoeski, have you
given any additional documents to either Ms. Panova or
the SEC at any point?
A
I personally have not.
Q
Do you have additional documents that
are -- that deal with -- that have anything to do with
the matter at hand here, the -- do you possess
additional documents?
A
I answered this question earlier. I really
would not like to go back to it.
Q
Well, so my understanding of your prior
answer is that you're refusing to answer this question;
is that correct?
A
I refuse to answer this question since I
believe that there is no relevance to the topic of

(415) 597-5600
(8) Pages 143 - 146


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussion.
Q
So you believe that the existence of other
documents having to do with the same subject matter has
no relevance to the subject matter?
A
I cannot give you any answers to this
question.
Q
Has the SEC asked you for all the documents
that you have relating to the events of 2005 and 2006
regarding the matters at hand?
A
During our discussion with Mr. Dodge, when
I was giving the interview I expected that they would
be interested in the entire documentation related to
this matter.
As it can be seen in my deposition, I said
that anything else that I will be able to provide, I
will. So that's about all that I can give you as an
answer to this question.
Q
Well, did you, in fact, provide additional
documents to the SEC other than the four documents that
you initially provided to Ms. Panova?
A
I gave these documents to Ms. Panova. I
have not given any documents to Mr. Dodge in a
conversation we had.
Q
But my question was different than that.
Did Mr. -- as I understand it, Mr. Dodge
Page 149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DODGE: On behalf of the SEC, I will

say that we do not control what the witness does or
does not do. We can make a request for these
documents, just as the Defendants can make a request
for the documents from the witness, and Mr. Bogoeski is
free to decide how he wants to respond to that.
MR. HILL: Well, for the record, first of
all, we specifically asked that the SEC make the
request directly of Mr. Bogoeski as the SEC just
indicated that it could do.
MR. DODGE: Mr. Bogoeski, the SEC would
request that you produce any additional documents that
you might have relating to the subject matter that
you've spoken to us about.
MR. HILL: And I'd also like a
representation from the SEC as to whether or not prior
to today it was aware of the fact that Mr. Bogoeski has
additional documents that he is not apparently prepared
to produce.
MR. DODGE: We are going to object to that
characterization. It is not clear to us from -- it is
not clear to us from this record whether any additional
documents exist or do not exist.
MR. HILL: We'd also like a representation
from the SEC as to whether or not the SEC requested
Page 148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asked you for all the documents that you had; is that
correct?
A
Mr. Dodge, of course, showed interest in
the substantive evidence related to this case, which is
only normal -Q
Mr. Bogoeski, I need you to listen to the
questions and answer the questions.
My question was very simple: Did Mr. Dodge
ask you for all the documents that you possessed that
are related to this matter?
A
I cannot remember such a thing.
Q
So you don't remember -A
A yes or no. Since this was one
conversation, it lasted for quiet a long time. And I
cannot recall every single word. Currently in this
moment, I cannot remember.
Q
Do you, in fact, have additional documents
relating to this matter?
A
For the third time, I shall not answer this
question.
MR. HILL: For the record, we're going to
request that the witness be directed to produce all
documents that he has that can be subject to the
appropriate protective order, but that they be
produced.
Min-U-Script
Page 150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from Mr. Bogoeski that he produce to them all relevant

documents.
MR. DODGE: I'll respond to that. I
actually personally do not recall whether I made that
request to him or not.
MR. HILL: We're going to get back to the
deposition, but so it's your recollection, Bob, that
you don't remember whether or not you asked him whether
the four documents that he produced were the only
documents he had?
MR. DODGE: My understanding at the time
and my understanding today is that the documents that
were produced to us represented the full set of
relevant documents in the witness's possession.
MR. HILL: What's the basis of that
understanding if you don't remember whether you asked
him for a full set of documents?
MR. DODGE: I don't recall the exact
conversation word for word. As the witness has
testified, we met for a long time. We did discuss the
existence of certain documents, and as a result of that
conversation, my understanding was that any relevant
documents relevant to the subject matter had been
produced to us; but the witness is not within the SEC's
subpoena power, and we did not attempt to serve a

(415) 597-5600
(9) Pages 147 - 150


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
formal document request on him or subpoena any

documents.
I also just want to clarify for the record
that I don't know if it's clear whether or not the four
exhibits you've mentioned were the only documents that
were ever produced, because Exhibit 229, which is in
the record, was also produced.
THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Dodge, I'm sorry,
you'll have to speak sentence by sentence so I can
cover what you are saying and translate to
Mr. Bogoeski. I apologize.
MR. DODGE: Okay. I'm sorry.
THE INTERPRETER: Once again, Mr. Dodge,
may I ask you to repeat?
MR. DODGE: Yes.
I would also like to point out that Exhibit
229 was produced to the SEC.
THE INTERPRETER: Exhibit 229 was produced
or was not?
MR. DODGE: Was produced to the SEC.
MR. HILL: Just so that the witness has it
in front of him, Exhibit 229, which I don't think was
put in front of him, is the biography which the witness
testified previously he prepared, I believe the day
before his deposition. It's not a historical document.
Page 153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would happen on December 28th?

A
I -Q
Again, my question was when? It's a simple
question.
THE INTERPRETER: I apologize. May I
translate what he said so far?
MR. HILL: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I have not had any previous
contact with Mr. Dodge. I was contacted by Ms. Panova,
and she told me that on December 28th an official
person from the SEC will come on the basis -- on my
previous consent to give a deposition, to give a
statement in front of an official person from the SEC.
BY MR. HILL:
Q
Right.
And my simple question was: When did that
occur?
A
When did what occur?
Q
When did you schedule the interview for
December 28th?
A
Ms. Panova gave me this information after
our third meeting. She told me that on that date an
authorized person from the SEC might come, and we
agreed on the exact time when I was supposed to show up
at the venue at the -- in the office.
Page 152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Let's return to the witness in one minute,

but just so I'm clear, it would not be the SEC's normal
investigative process to ask a witness for a full set
of documents that the witness might have relative to
the subject matter that the SEC is inquiring about?
MR. DODGE: We're not taking my
deposition -- we're not taking my deposition today.
The witness has made himself available for a limited
period of time, and I suggest you devote that time to
questioning the witness.
MR. HILL: Well, this issue has -- this
issue arose with Mr. Bogoeski's refusal to answer
questions with regard to the additional documents, but
let's move on for the moment.
BY MR. HILL:
Q
Mr. -THE INTERPRETER: This is a wrong
conclusion, he says.
THE WITNESS: I responded that I shall not
respond. I will not respond. I did not say that I
refuse to submit.
BY MR. HILL:
Q
Okay. Mr. Bogoeski, when -- when Mr. Dodge
came and interviewed you on December 28th, when were
the arrangements made with you that that interview
Min-U-Script
Page 154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
What time was that? By the way, what time
was that?
A
It was the morning before 9:00 a.m., few
minutes before 9:00 a.m.
Q
And did you -- did you have an
understanding from Ms. Panova before December 28th that
your interview would be videotaped?
A
In the conversation I had with Ms. Panova,
after agreeing, after I agreed to give a statement, she
told me, actually asked me on whether I agree for this
conversation to be recorded, video recorded. I gave a
consent for such a thing. It's a regular procedure,
and I knew this in advance.
Q
So that consent was given, again, during
that third meeting with Ms. Panova, correct?
A
Yes.
Q
And if -- I want to ask you: If Ms. Panova
had told you back then that Mr. Dodge would bring with
him lawyers representing the Defendants, would you
still have agreed to be interviewed?
A
No, I would not have agreed.
Q
Now, we're going to jump -A
Here are the reasons for it. In my
conversation with Ms. Panova, I underlined the
sensibility of the issues subject to the statement. I

(415) 597-5600
(10) Pages 151 - 154


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asked for the range of users of that information to be

protected -- I mean the users of the information which
would arise from me giving a statement, and I asked for
confidentiality of everything I would have said, and I
said, in the conversation with the authorized person
from the SEC.
Those provisions are allowed also through
our legislation, our legislative framework, for the
weakness to ask special protection of himself and
whatever information he provides so within the
deposition -Q
Mr. Bogoeski, if those same protections had
been provided to you with respect to the defense
lawyers, as they ultimately were, if you knew that
those confidentiality protections were in place, would
you have sat down with Mr. Dodge and the defense
lawyers on December 28th?
A
I am not sure whether I would have agreed,
because timewise when I gave the statement on
December 28th, I was resolute. I decided under no
circumstances not to accept presence of any lawyers or
anybody else at that meeting. And if anybody else had
been present, I would not have given the statement I
gave.
I specifically stressed and underlined this
Page 157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
him, it was your understanding that those documents

would be given not only to the prime minister but to
the public prosecutor, correct?
A
As I said in my statement of December, I
had a few, numerous, informal contacts with a public
officials from the Ministry of the Interior who were
more or less in the vault in the procedure. And I mean
here the procedure referring to the money laundering in
the Macedonian Telekom case. These people informally
contacted me, bearing in mind, knowing of my contacts
with Mr. Contominas.
They requested of me informal data,
information, in reference to the question: Who is the
main organizer of the money laundering? I did not
trust these people. So I gave these documents to
Mr. Trajanov so that he can pass them over to the prime
minister, underlining that occasion that they have to
exercise caution in dealing with these documents;
otherwise, my personal safety might be endangered, as
well as the safety of some other people. But I also
said that I was prepared, if the prime minister want
to, to discuss this with him as well.
Why did I give it to Pavle Trajanov
specifically? He is an ex-minister of interior. He is
an NP in parliament right now, and from my long-lasting
Page 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to Mr. Dodge as well.

Q
And let's move ahead. We're going to jump
ahead a little bit to 2008. I want to talk about 2008.
Okay. There came a point in 2008 when you turned over
information and documents. You actually turned them
over to Pavle -- and I'm going to not pronounce the
name correctly. So you can help me with the name
perhaps, but I think you know who I'm talking about,
right?
A
Okay. Could you go on with your question?
Q
Yes. It's Pavle Trajanov, if I'm
pronouncing that correctly.
You turned over information and documents
to him so that he could turn them over to the prime
minister, correct?
A
Yes, that's correct.
Q
And you, in fact, had known Pavle Trajanov
for a long time, correct?
A
I've known him since 1972 as a -- both of
us were students at the faculty of law in Skopje.
Q
You've known him for a long time and you
trusted him, correct?
A
I trust him, of course, as a person and as
a professional.
Q
And when you turned over the documents to
Min-U-Script
Page 158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
acquaintance with him as a person and a professional, I

knew that he would adequately act in these situations.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, please, I'm going to -A
He's not the minister now. This is
important. Just allow me to finish. He was a recent
minister of the interior. In line with our laws, he,
although no longer a minister, is under the obligation
of preserving the confidentiality and secrets that
might arise, and bears responsibility for such
preserving the confidentiality to dispose with
information of this type.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, now, listen -- I'm going to
ask you a series of questions. Please listen to the
questions and answer the question and only the
question.
Now, when you turned over documents and
offered your assistance, you did so understanding that
they would be used in furtherance of a criminal
prosecution, correct?
A
I was, of course, aware of when I passed
over these documents that they might be used in the
procedure which was ongoing at that period of time.
Q
When you turned over the documents, did you
receive a receipt for the documents that you turned
over? That's a yes-or-no question.

(415) 597-5600
(11) Pages 155 - 158


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
I must answer this question in greater
detail because I find the question to be provocative.
Q
I'm sorry, Mr. Bogoeski -A
No receipt.
Q
You did not get a receipt?
A
I find this question nonsense, because I
was not at the public prosecution to turn over these
documents so I could ask for a receipt. This is a
matter of confidential relations, interpersonal
relations, and confidential documents that the prime
minister was obliged to give on to the public
prosecutor and the investigative judge.
I bear no -- I bear no obligation to ask
for a receipt, nor any authority bears an obligation to
issue me a receipt, because these are not documents I
have created or evidence I have created.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, did you make a copy of the
documents that you provided to maintain for yourself
before you turned them over?
A
At that specific moment, I did not make any
copies, but I also previously mentioned that at -until then I had made, or I have had different draft
versions of these documents and different copies of
these documents. As the negotiations unfolded,
different versions and different copies of these
Page 161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes, that's correct. All of these

documents, all these four documents were among the
documents that I turned over to Mr. Trajanov.
Q
In addition to those four documents, how
many other documents did you turn over to Mr. Trajanov?
A
In the documents -- among the documents -among the documents I turned over to him, there were
more copies of each document, different draft versions,
as well as the originals; but in addition to these
four, there were no other documents I turned.
Q
You say -- let's distinguish between copies
and originals for a minute.
How many original documents -- and when I
say "original documents," I mean signed original
documents did you turn over to Mr. Trajanov?
A
Four.
Q
And tell me which four documents those were?
A
The Protocol of Cooperation -Q
Just so we're clear, we're talking about
original signed documents, correct?
A
Yes.
Q
The Protocol?
A
The Protocol, the Non Paper, Exhibit 233,
and Exhibit 232.
Q
So you turned over Exhibit 232 and 233 in
Page 160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
documents were created.

Q
So my question was simple. You handed over
a group of documents to Mr. Trajanov.
Did you make a copy of what it was that you
gave to him, yes or no?
A
Of the file of documents, of the folder of
documents that I gave to him, I did not have a need to
make a copy.
Q
Okay.
A
I only asked him after having used these
documents in the proceeding to return these documents
to me so I could make sure they were not misused -Q
So the answer to -- Mr. Bogoeski -A
Right -Q
-- the answer to my question was, no, I did
not make a copy, correct?
A
I find the question to be too ambiguous so
I could give such an answer, that I did not make a
copy. It might be misleading in terms of the
conclusions being drawn.
Q
Mr. Bogoeski, looking back, again, at
document -- Exhibits 230, 231, 232, and 233, those four
documents, were those four documents among the
documents that you turned over to Mr. Trajanov?
A
Min-U-Script
Page 162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
original form; is that correct? The originals of those

were turned over?
A
Yes.
Q
And with respect to the original of the
protocol, okay, do you have a copy of that today?
A
I have the exhibit in front of me.
Q
Well, the exhibit that I have in front of
me is -- you're talking about Exhibit 230?
A
Yes. That's the protocol, 230.
Q
What I'm looking at, is 230, is not a
signed -- there's no signature on here.
Is this the same document without a
signature that you turned over to Mr. Trajanov, or did
you turn over one that had a signature?
A
I turned to him the original signed copy.
What I have here in front of me is one of the copies
which are unsigned, prior to the signing that I
accidentally found, or it was accidentally left in my
possession.
Q
And do you today have a copy of the signed
version that you turned over to Mr. Trajanov?
A
For the fourth time -- for the fourth time
you're asking something that you should not be asking.
It is not allowed, and I will not answer this question.
Q
With respect to -- you said the fourth,

(415) 597-5600
(12) Pages 159 - 162


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quote/unquote, original document that you turned over

was the Non Paper, correct?
A
Yes, Exhibit 231, the Non Paper.
Q
Now, again, Exhibit 231, the actual exhibit
is not signed by anybody, correct?
A
None of the draft documents, that is, the
working documents that we have here, is signed. Only
the original versions are signed. Of the Non Paper we
have right now, there were three previous versions
which existed before all the parties agreed on this
one. That's why you might come across other copies of
the working versions -Q
Mr. Bogoeski -A
-- but the original version corresponds to
this exhibit we have right now, to this Non Paper.
Q
But that was not my question, was it,
Mr. Bogoeski?
Mr. Bogoeski, what you turned over to
Mr. Trajanov, did you turn over a signed version of the
Non Paper?
A
As I've told you, all of these four
documents were originals that were signed. Those were
the final versions.
Q
Do you have a copy today of the signed
version that you turned over to Mr. Trajanov?
Page 165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
So you're not going to stay beyond 4:00,
correct?
A
Unfortunately, and I did announce this
beforehand that this is the latest I'm going to stay.
Q
I'm going to ask you one or two more
questions, and then I think Mr. -- we have a couple of
quick questions from Mr. Koenig.
MR. KOENIG: Three quick questions.
BY MR. HILL:
Q
Later on in 2008, as I understand it, you
were asked by Mr. Contominas and Mr. Kefaloyannis
whether or not Mr. -- I'm going to -- Mr. Sasho
Mialkov, okay, whether he -- I apologize for the
pronunciation, but you were asked by them whether or
not he was a person who had the power to get these
criminal charges withdrawn if he was paid the bribe
that they had been asked for?
Do you understand my question? It's not
a -- you were asked by Mr. Contominas and
Mr. Kefaloyannis whether or not he was an appropriate
person to effectuate the withdrawal of the warrants?
THE INTERPRETER: Whether who was the
appropriate person?
MR. HILL: Mr. Sasho Mialkov.
THE WITNESS: That's what they asked me,
Page 164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
For the fifth time, I refuse to answer this
question. Let me warn you it's only five minutes to
4:00, and I have to leave at 4:00 sharp. So if you
have any question that is of high relevance, please ask
me such questions.
Q
And you have to leave at 4:00 because you
have some urgent appointment, Mr. Bogoeski?
A
I have very important and urgent things to
take care of. I have sacrificed a lot of my time so
far. This is the third time that I have made myself
available at your disposal, upon your request, because
I wanted to be -Q
Well, then let's -A
I want to be fair, but I have millions of
things to do of my own, so I cannot be available -Q
Mr. Bogoeski, I have a lot more questions,
but you're telling me that you're not -- that you're
not going to stay; is that right? It's a simple
yes-or-no question.
A
You knew last time that the time available
that we had was six hours. You have make the best use
of it, and then, again, after that I also made myself
available. And this is the third timed that I'm doing so.
Q
My question -- my -- Mr. Bogoeski -A
It's pointless to go on like this forever.
Min-U-Script
Page 166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's correct.
BY MR. HILL:
Q
And you told him that, in fact, if they
paid him the two-and-a-half-million-euro bribe, that,
in fact, he had the authority, he had the power, to
cause those warrants to be withdrawn? You advised
Mr. Contominas of that, correct?
A
I never advised -- I never advised him that
he gave money to Mr. Mialkov so that he could withdraw
the -- his question was: Can I believe that this young
man, when he promises me, that he can effectuate this
and that he has more power than the prime minister
himself? So specifically, in concrete terms, he asked
me whether this man does have such power and can he
believe him.
Not knowing the content and nature of their
conversation and knowing the relations between the
prime minister and Mr. Mialkov, knowing that they are
related and they're first cousins, it was -- when he
spoke to Mr. Mialkov, it was as if he spoke with the
prime minister himself.
So I never did advise anyone to give money,
but I said that it's all the same, whether he speaks to
Mr. Mialkov or the prime minister and if they provide
sufficient guarantee that they can --

(415) 597-5600
(13) Pages 163 - 166


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q
And, Mr. Bogoeski -A
I am afraid that we are five minutes after
the time that I had for each day, and this was the last
question I had. I'm afraid -- I apologize, but I
believe that I have been at your disposal for too long.
I do apologize, and I wish you -- you have a good day,
all of you.
MR. KOENIG: Well, I -- is he still in the
room, even?
MR. HILL: Is Mr. Bogoeski still there?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, he is.
MR. KOENIG: Will he answer three very
quick pointed questions by me on behalf of Tamas
Morvai? Is it three questions.
THE WITNESS: I apologize, but I would want
you to -MR. KOENIG: These are three -THE WITNESS: This is not appropriate. I
have placed myself at your disposal three times. I
apologize, but we agreed that this will be it.
MR. KOENIG: Then I want the record to very
clearly reflect that I have asked this witness to sit
for less than one minute to ask three very quick
questions. He has refused to do so. Mr. Morvai has
not had an opportunity -- Mr. Morvai --
Page 169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can respond to both. And so that the record is

completely clear, Mr. Balogh also takes the position
that he has been deprived of his right to question the
witness in its entirety, a witness, again, who the SEC
characterizes as critical.
There are many subject matters and
questions which Mr. Balogh had prepared to ask the
witness and was not able to ask the witness because the
witness both left and also because frankly the witness
refused to answer certain questions.
He -- you know, the witness came forward
and volunteered this information to the SEC. Had we
been notified at the time that the witness came forward
that the SEC was going to travel to Macedonia to
interview and videotape the witness, we would have
accompanied the SEC and could have held a proper
deposition. And for that reason and many other
reasons, which we'll later on have an opportunity to
brief and argue, we object to any use of either this
proceeding -- I'm not going to call it a deposition
even -- in any future proceedings related to this case.
MR. BUEHLER: If I can just jump in before
you respond. I assume there's no reason to translate,
because I don't think there's anybody left, but we
object as well. I realize that, you know, on behalf of
Page 168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: This is not true. You knew

that the timing that I had in advance.
MR. KOENIG: I understand, and I'm asking
you to sit for one more minute to answer three very
specific questions and then I will be done.
Rather than arguing about it, we could be
done if we stopped arguing. I understand, but rather
than arguing about it, we could have been done with the
questions already.
THE INTERPRETER: He has urgent things to
do. Please understand him.
MR. KOENIG: I do. And if he would answer
these quick questions instead of arguing about it, we
would be done.
THE WITNESS: I apologize. You have to
respect my time as well.
MR. KOENIG: Mr. Morvai has been deprived
his opportunity to ask any questions of what the SEC
has identified as a critical witness in this case, and
unless he's going to agree to be deposed again,
Mr. Morvai has been deprived an opportunity that he is
entitled to have.
MR. DODGE: The SEC will state for the
record -MR. HILL: Just before you respond, so you
Min-U-Script
Page 170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Straub we conducted our cross-examination earlier,

but we've also made clear, and has been the case
throughout this case, the cross-examination here was
shared among all the Defendants. So we covered certain
aspects having to do with certain of the points that
the witness made.
And on behalf of the other Defendants, we'd
agree that counsel for Mr. Balogh would cover these
other issues, many of which were not able to be -- were
not able to be covered in full. So we join and have
joined in the objections that -MR. DODGE: I'm sorry, people in Skopje,
you're still on the microphone.
MR. DODGE: Can you please identify who is
in Skopje still, and is the witness still there?
THE INTERPRETER: Well, the witness is at
the door because the U.S. Embassy staff is not allowing
him to go alone, to exit, so he's waiting his host to
escort him.
MR. KOENIG: Will he answer three more
questions while he's standing there doing nothing?
THE INTERPRETER: No.
MR. KOENIG: Let me be very clear. He is
refusing to answer questions even though he is still in

(415) 597-5600
(14) Pages 167 - 170


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that room, or in the vicinity of the room?

THE INTERPRETER: He's in this room only
because he has to wait for somebody to escort him to
the exit.
MR. KOENIG: Will he answer questions while
he's waiting?
THE WITNESS: It would not be serious of me
to do so, so I cannot.
MR. HILL: The other thing I would put on
the record and then before the SEC, if the SEC wants to
respond -THE INTERPRETER: He's just leaving the
room. He's just left the room because his escort came,
and now he's going to the exit. So he's no longer in
the room.
MR. DODGE: If the witness is no longer in
the room, would you please mute your microphone,
because there's no reason to have anything in Skopje
still on the record if the witness isn't there anymore.
THE INTERPRETER: Well, yes, but we have to
call the IT expert to do so. So this will be in the
next two minutes.
MR. DODGE: Just be aware that your microphone
is live. So anything you say will go on the record.
THE INTERPRETER: Thank you for the
Page 173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HILL: I was referring to your

depositions of the three Defendants where you requested
that the normal seven-hour limitation be extended to 14
hours.
MR. DODGE: Okay.
Anyway, with respect to the deposition of
this particular witness, the parties will undoubtedly
have much to brief and argue before the Court. I don't
think we need to preview or pre-hash those arguments
here on the record.
For the sake of completeness, the SEC views
that -- that the Defendants have had more than an
adequate opportunity to cross-examine this witness.
The SEC has been deprived of any
opportunity to redirect this witness, and so to the
extent that the examination of all parties has been cut
short, our examination has been cut short as well as
the Defendant's examination, and that has been true not
only in this deposition, but in many other depositions
in this case.
For example, our cross-examination of
Mr. Szendrei in Budapest was cut dramatically short,
and we had many more questions to ask of Mr. Szendrei.
So we can argue these issues before the Court, and we
undoubtedly will, and we will address those in due time.
Page 172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information.
MR. BUEHLER: I was just finishing up my
comments before we were interrupted by the events in
Skopje, but I just wanted to make clear that
Mr. Straub's cross-examination was not completed as
well, because there were a lot of topics that we had
not pursued having to do with, among other things, the
witness's background, history, motivation that were
going to be covered today that ultimately weren't, and
so we, too, join in the objections being lodged by our
co-Defendants.
MR. DODGE: Okay. So -MR. HILL: I just want to add one other
thing, and that is, I just would note for the record,
again, that with respect to the three Defendants, at
the time that they were deposed, the SEC requested and
received permission to conduct two full days' worth of
deposition on the grounds that they were critical
witnesses. And, again, we've had certainly less than
one day of opportunity to examine this witness.
MR. DODGE: On behalf of the SEC, I mean,
one, I think is a misstatement of the record. We did
not conduct two full days of deposition. We conducted
one interview of the witness on December 28th and there
was a deposition --
Min-U-Script
Page 174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HILL: I would ask on the record,

though, that you make a written request of the witness,
as well as the oral request, which you made here, that
he produce all relevant documents relating to this matter.
MR. DODGE: We'll be happy to do that.
MR. SULLIVAN: And I would also ask on
behalf of Mr. Balogh to make another request for the
witness to sit for another opportunity to complete our
cross-examinations. There's no downside to asking him
to return at another time; and if he's amenable to
that, great, and if he's not, then we'll have that on
the record for purposes of the briefing that you
reference.
MR. DODGE: The SEC will be happy to make
that request as well.
MR. HILL: I think this concludes this
proceeding.
MR. SULLIVAN: Or whatever it was.
MR. DODGE: We call them depositions in
this country.
We're off the record.
(Deposition concluded at 10:12 a.m.)
__________________________
Slobadan Bogoeski

(415) 597-5600
(15) Pages 171 - 174


Elek Straub, et al.
February 19, 2015
Page 175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ss
I hereby certify that the witness in the
foregoing deposition, Slobadan Bogoeski, was by me
duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place herein named; and that the deposition is a true
record of the witness's testimony as reported by me, a
duly certified shorthand reporter and a disinterested
person, and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting
by computer.
I further certify that I am not interested in
the outcome of the said action, nor connected with nor
related to any of the parties in said action, nor to
their respective counsel.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 4th day of March, 2015.
Reading and Signing was:
_X_ requested ___ waived ___ not requested
Steven Poulakos
Min-U-Script

(415) 597-5600
(16) Page 175
EXHIBIT E
1
F3kgstrc
1
2
3

------------------------------x
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
5
6
v.
11 CV 9645(RJS)

and TAMAS MORVAI,
7
Defendants.
8
------------------------------x
9
New York, N.Y.

March 20, 2015
10:30 a.m.
10
Before:
11
HON. RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

12
District Judge
13
APPEARANCES
14
15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiff SEC
ROBERT DODGE
THOMAS BEDNAR
JOHN WORLAND
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
HOGAN LOVELLS (US), LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Straub
ROBERT BUEHLER
LISA FRIED
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Balogh
THOMAS HILL
WILLIAM SULLIVAN
KRISTEN BAKER
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Morvai
MICHAEL LOUIS KOENIG
VICTORIA LANE
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
2
F3kgstrc
1
(Case called)
MR. DODGE:
MR. BEDNAR:
THE COURT:
For the defendants, I guess we'll go my left to right.
MR. BUEHLER:
Robert Dodge.
Tom Bednar and Jack Worland, your Honor.

Good morning.
Robert Buehler and Lisa Fried for
Mr. Straub.
THE COURT:
MR. SULLIVAN:
10
Good morning.
Good morning, your Honor.
William
Sullivan, Tom Hill and Kristen Baker on behalf of Mr. Balogh.
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. KOENIG:
13
Good morning.
Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Hill and Ms. Baker.

Michael Koenig and Victoria Lane on
behalf of Tamas Movai.
Good morning.
14
THE COURT:
15
MS. LANE:
16
THE COURT:
17
dragging people up from D.C.
18
are always free to ask if you want to appear telephonically or
19
through the miracle of video teleconference.
20
option.
21
Good morning to you, Ms. Lane.

Thank you.
Thanks for coming.
I always feel guilty
For those who make the trip, you
That's always an
Keep that in mind.

We have got a couple of issues that have been tee'd
22
up.
23
discovery disputes that I have resolved but also involving some
24
other disputes that we're going to talk about today.
25
I got letters from the parties back in February involving
In no particular order, but I think this is the order

(212) 805-0300
3
F3kgstrc
1
we should go, we have the plaintiff's contemplated motion for
summary judgment on a variety of grounds; we have the
defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Slobodan
Bogoevski on a couple of grounds; and then we have the
plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.
Let's start with the motion for summary judgment.
This isn't a typical motion that you're contemplating here,
Mr. Dodge, right?
summary judgment designed to neutralize what might be a summary
10
judgment motion you're contemplating from the defense.
11
12
It seems to me like it's a preemptive
MR. DODGE:
It's a motion for partial summary
THE COURT:
But a partial summary judgment on
judgment.
13
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.
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
24
25
THE COURT:
Let me ask the defendants.
But we
Are you
contemplating motions for summary judgment, any of you?

MR. SULLIVAN:
William Sullivan on behalf of

(212) 805-0300
4
F3kgstrc
1
Mr. Balogh.
Yes, we are, your Honor.
THE COURT:
We haven't gotten there yet because I
think the deadline for premotion letters -- I have to take a
look at the schedule I set -- but I think it's usually after
discovery is all wrapped up.
MR. SULLIVAN:
THE COURT:
That's correct.
You were contemplating waiting until after
expert discovery is done?
MR. SULLIVAN:
Yes.
We have about ten expert
10
depositions.
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.
14
motions in the late summer, early fall.
15
I think as we outlined in our premotion
THE COURT:
And I think we anticipate filing
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:
22
MR. SULLIVAN:
23
Jurisdiction, absolutely, and for the
interstate commerce.
24
25
For jurisdiction?
THE COURT:
you win.
Okay.
For you, of course, that would mean
If Mr. Dodge wins on that, then he's got one less

(212) 805-0300
5
F3kgstrc
1
element to worry about, I suppose.
then that basically eliminates an entire claim or all claims,
right?
MR. SULLIVAN:
THE COURT:
If you win on any of those,
That would be our hope.
I think that's probably the more logical
way to do this, is to tee it up that way.
If it were only the
plaintiff's contemplated motions, I would say that's almost
really more what I would handle as part of a motion in limine
after a joint pretrial order where I ask the parties to specify
10
whether there's jurisdiction.
11
would resolve that.
12
are other undisputed facts that could be resolved before it
13
went to the jury, I think.
14
And if there's a dispute, I
Then I would probably look to see if there
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.
25
into the next issue that I think your Honor would be taking up:
This kind of begins bleeding

(212) 805-0300
6
F3kgstrc
1
The defendants would also contemplate even more sweeping
summary judgment claims were we to succeed in precluding the
testimony of Mr. Bogoevski.
THE COURT:
We'll get to that in a minute.
I can't
tell somebody they can't make a motion, and I wouldn't, but I
certainly can control the timing.
Mr. Dodge, I think we ought to hold off on these until
I have all of my summary judgment motions in a row and then
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:
16
17
18
Did I then amend the scheduling order
since then?
MR. DODGE:
I think it was amended after we submitted
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.
24
expectation.
25
THE COURT:
That was always our
I think we can put that on ice for now and

(212) 805-0300
7
F3kgstrc
1
we'll have this conversation, I'm sure, again later given what
you have told me.
anyone else about contemplated summary judgment motions because
there's no point.
discovery.
And I don't think I even need to hear from
Things may change based on the expert
Let's now talk then about the motion to exclude the
testimony of Mr. Bogoevski.
This is the defendants' motion.
don't know who is carrying the ball on this one.
letters on this.
I read the
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.
15
further or if we have enough here and you want me to just deem
16
the motion made and resolve it.
17
I'm not sure if people really want to brief this
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.
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.
25
not a credible one who is testifying almost exclusively based
We feel he is an eleventh-hour witness who is, frankly,

(212) 805-0300
8
F3kgstrc
1
2
3
on information that he received from others.

THE COURT:
He's a coconspirator.
He's at least
presented as a coconspirator, right?
MR. BUEHLER:
That's correct.
That's how he's
presented by the SEC.
don't even think he characterizes himself as a coconspirator if
you look at his testimony carefully.
limitations, we were general as to the hearsay, but we are
doing essentially a line-by-line question-by-question analysis.
We would take great issue with that.
But because of the space
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.
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,
What happened here, your Honor,

(212) 805-0300
9
F3kgstrc
1
we'd also say Rule 30(c)(1), which requires examination and
cross-examination to proceed as they would at trial, which
would not be the case because we weren't present.
available to essentially examine and object.
THE COURT:
Well, I'm not there yet, right?
know how they're planning to use the testimony of
Mr. Bogoevski.
really a motion in limine, isn't it?
Maybe he'll show up for all I know.
MR. BUEHLER:
Yes.
issues.
11
in jail.
12
at all clear when he will get out of jail.
14
15
I do not think he's going to show up.
That's
He is currently
He has well over a year to serve in jail.
THE COURT:
I don't
I would say, your Honor, a few
10
13
We weren't
It's not
It's not at all clear when we're going to
have a trial in this case.

MR. BUEHLER:
And whether or not he's going to be able
16
to travel.
17
I believe also to the SEC indicating that he refuses to leave
18
Macedonia.
19
And he's made extensive comments on the record and
THE COURT:
But there are ways to have testimony, even
20
if he doesn't leave Macedonia, right?
21
here that will allow us to have testimony by video.
22
it in a criminal trial last month.
23
MR. BUEHLER:
I have this great gadget

I just did
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

(212) 805-0300
10
F3kgstrc
1
resolved before he testifies.
dispositive summary judgment motions on all of the claims and
we do feel that Mr. Bogoevski's testimony is really the only
possible way that the SEC could dispute the issues that we
would be seeking summary judgment on, we do think those issues
should be resolved before the summary judgment process.
7
8
9
10
THE COURT:
And since we would like to make
But those issues are the hearsay issues,
right?
MR. BUEHLER:
THE COURT:
That is correct, your Honor.

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
14
MR. BUEHLER:
Your Honor, that's true, but Rule 56
does talk in terms of the admissibility of evidence.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. BUEHLER:
Right.
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.
19
testimony that is consistent with trial.
20
21
22
THE COURT:
It is not
It could not be used.
If he testifies live, then there's no
issue, right?
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

(212) 805-0300
11
F3kgstrc
1
issue.
record, that he will ever agree to testify, but if he did, that
would be dealt with at another time.
I think it's highly unlikely, if your Honor reviews the
We'd also argue, your Honor, that even then, we would
have been deprived of our right to depose him in a proper
fashion consistent with Rule 30, and we would object to his
even appearing, even if he did walk in the door.
THE COURT:
MR. BUEHLER:
10
13
I would say depose in the most loosest
of terms possible.
11
12
You did depose him, right?
THE COURT:
How many hours did you have with the
witness?
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.
22
he still clearly had testimony to provide.
23
dictated the terms of how, when, where and on what subjects he
24
would be questioned.
25
And he abruptly ended the deposition when

He basically
So, were we able to pose some questions to him?

(212) 805-0300
Yes.
12
F3kgstrc
1
Did it constitute a proper deposition or proper
cross-examination?
3
4
We think it was far from that.
THE COURT:
It sounds like you want to brief this
further.
Mr. Dodge, I'll give you a chance to respond to what
Mr. Buehler just said, but I think it's likely we're going to
have to delve into this in a little more detail.
letters are designed to help tee up an issue.
designed to replace a brief.
The premotion
They're not
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.
16
both sides, and it should be briefed fully before the Court
17
rules.
18
It's an important issue for
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.

(212) 805-0300
13
F3kgstrc
1
Are you planning to do that?
MR. DODGE:
Our expectation, your Honor, is that yes,
we will; that he made a statement that was subsequently adopted
during his deposition.
THE COURT:
I get that, but it's a little cute, right?
It's a little cute that you could have a deposition at which
they can object and they can say things like, whoops, wait a
minute, wait a minute, not a good question.
do that here.
10
11
12
They didn't get to
MR. DODGE:
I don't think it's cute at all, your
THE COURT:
Let me just finish.
Honor.
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.
16
time at a deposition doing your debrief, right, normally?
17
it were a normal witness?
And you're not going to spend any

If
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?
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
If you've met with a

(212) 805-0300
14
F3kgstrc
1
at it.
broad cross-examination, but you're not necessarily going to be
asking a ton of questions at that deposition, right?
And they effectively do cross-examination in probing,
MR. DODGE:
Exactly.
That assumes, of course, that
the witness will be available for trial.
And in this case, our
expectation was that we have no confidence that he will be.
THE COURT:
Why can't we get him here on this screen?
MR. DODGE:
Well, he'll be in prison.
THE COURT:
So?
10
MR. DODGE:
That may or may not be allowed by the
11
12
We take him out for a day.
authorities.
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.
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:
And then
We can make that request and we are
19
certainly prepared to do that.
20
amount of confidence that it will be granted.
21
any control over the authorities in Macedonia.
22
cooperation we have received over there has not been high from
23
the government.
24
25
THE COURT:
I cannot have an enormous

We don't have
The level of
In the videotaped meeting that you had
with him, the interview, who posed the questions to the

(212) 805-0300
15
F3kgstrc
1
witness?
MR. DODGE:
I did.
THE COURT:
You did?
MR. DODGE:
Yes.
So you were allowed to do
that?
5
6
Okay.
I was allowed to fly into the
country and meet with the witness; yes.
THE COURT:
So, is there any reason to think that you
wouldn't be allowed to do that again, this time with defense
counsel and do the whole thing there with us watching on a
10
11
screen?
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:
15
16
Was he in custody at the time you
interviewed him?
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
20
21
22
23
THE COURT:
Frankly, I think it is quite doable.
don't know about Macedonia.

MR. DODGE:
I hope it is doable, and if it is doable,
we'll certainly do it.

THE COURT:
I just don't know if it is.
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.

(212) 805-0300
16
F3kgstrc
1
MR. DODGE:
There are several aspects to his testimony
that really not hearsay at all.
personal knowledge with respect to, for example, his handling
of key documents relating to the bribe scheme that he had in
his possession, his authentication of those documents, and his
delivery of those documents to us.
The witness testified from
He also discussed or testified about his role in the
bribe scheme, his role in terms of giving legal advice on
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
21
during the conspiracy and part of it.

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.
24
have to see the statements and assess based on what he said in
25
the deposition.
The devil's in the details.

(212) 805-0300
17
F3kgstrc
1
MR. DODGE:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Do you agree?
MR. DODGE:
Yes.
Exactly.
Those issues need to be
resolved.
questions, particularly about second-level hearsay and a
statement made by a coconspirator in furtherance of the
conspiracy, I think it probably makes sense to give us a chance
to designate what testimony we intend to use before going
through every single line of all of his testimony.
10
11
Our suggestion is, when it comes to specific
THE COURT:
this motion?
12
What do you propose for the purposes of
You would do that?
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.
15
make sense --
What I think does
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.
23
deposition designations.
24
That's an objectionable question or answer and I shouldn't
25
allow it.
That's when I get it.
They want to use these
They can't.
That's clearly hearsay.
That's typically what happens.

(212) 805-0300
18
F3kgstrc
1
Here, you're asking me to do it because it's relevant
to your motion and I guess the defense's motion ultimately for
summary judgment as to whether certain evidence is admissible.
And if it is admissible, then maybe I decide that summary
judgment motion one way and if it's not admissible, maybe it
goes the other way.
MR. DODGE:
Right?
We're not asking the Court to decide this
issue now.
We do view it as a motion in limine and something
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.
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.
25
properly a motion in limine subject.
But we don't think it makes sense to go
I don't think that makes sense.

(212) 805-0300
That's
19
F3kgstrc
1
THE COURT:
Mr. Buehler, it sounds like you're planning to do a
I think this is helpful.
line by line.
MR. BUEHLER:
That's correct.
Under Rule 56, parties
can only rely on evidence that's admissible.
not we do this at trial, whether or not we do this on summary
judgment, they have to have admissible testimony.
not going to rely on Mr. Bogoevski's testimony in response to
our summary judgment motion, that would be one thing, but we
10
13
If they're
don't understand that to be the case.
11
12
So, whether or
THE COURT:
Your motion is to strike his testimony as
a whole.
MR. BUEHLER:
I would say that's certainly the
14
ultimate goal, your Honor.
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.
We think we have ample grounds to
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.
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

(212) 805-0300
And
20
F3kgstrc
1
motion for summary judgment.
You're asking me to do all of that in advance as part
of a motion to strike, and then if you don't win on the motion
to strike, I'll do it again on a motion for summary judgment?
MR. BUEHLER:
No, your Honor.
I think we view it as,
and this I think is a great way to lay it out, we do not plan
on doing it again for summary judgment.
though, that given the breadth of the issues here, and there
are significant ones, that we should do that in the course of a
We do not think,
10
summary judgment motion.
11
but I don't think it's going to be a particularly good way to
12
tee it up for the Court.
13
would be the most sufficient way to deal with the issue.
14
I don't want to speak for the Court,
It is certainly not what we think
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.
19
judgment is really simplified.
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
If your Honor says it's in, then summary
THE COURT:
If your Honor says it's out, we
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

(212) 805-0300
21
F3kgstrc
1
purposes of trial; and if they're not, then they won't be
considered and summary judgment will be effected.
MR. BUEHLER:
I think the admissibility issue is not
just based on the rules of evidence.
the very nature of whether or not Mr. Dodge is able to
essentially conduct the deposition in violation of Rule 30.
THE COURT:
We think it does go to
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it seems
to me that the motion that we ought to be focused on now is
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.
16
are the kinds of arguments that I would generally consider on a
17
motion to strike the entire deposition.
18
Those
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.
23
will be if I'm doing that.
24
pieces:
25
struck because of the irregularities or the improper methods by
I can only imagine how long this motion

So why don't we do it in two
Broad argument that the entire deposition should be

(212) 805-0300
22
F3kgstrc
1
which it was conducted, which means either I strike it or I
give you another opportunity to depose him, perhaps.
alternative resolution.
do this.
arguments about which particular parts of it that they're
relying on or would need to rely on for their causes of action
are inadmissible.
8
9
10
That's an
I think that's the way I'm inclined to
And then if I don't strike it, then you can make
That's I think part of summary judgment.
MR. BUEHLER:
the defense.
I think that's absolutely acceptable to
We would like the opportunity to do that.
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.
17
the great thing about being a judge.
18
all the time, but I don't mean to be rude.
19
to be more clear about what I'm asking.
I'm sorry.
That's
I get to interrupt people

I just mean I want
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?

(212) 805-0300
23
F3kgstrc
1
2
MR. DODGE:
Principally, not exclusively, but
principally his testimony.
THE COURT:
Now, if I strike, if I were to grant the
defense's motion to strike his testimony, his deposition is
out, can't rely on it, there's other bases that would support
the changes that you're proposing for your amendment?
MR. DODGE:
We would have a circumstantial argument
that the bribe scheme began at an earlier point.
The state of
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.
12
clearest evidence of actual bribery would have supported a
13
statement that bribes were made beginning in May of 2005.
14
believe they were made earlier, but we didn't have hard
15
evidence of that.
16
were made earlier, but Mr. Bogoevski testifies that, no, the
17
bribes were first explicitly offered in January of 2005.
18
19
THE COURT:
22
We
You can make a circumstantial case that they
Are there any other amendments that you're
contemplating?
20
21
The
MR. DODGE:
No.
It's very, very narrow.
It's simply
THE COURT:
I guess we can do this two ways:
that.
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.
25
is pretty low for that.
Usually the standard
And then if I end up striking, you'll

(212) 805-0300
24
F3kgstrc
1
have a heck of a tough time proving the conduct that took place
before March or May of 2006 or '05?
2006?
I'm trying to remember.
MR. DODGE:
2005.
THE COURT:
2005.
MR. DODGE:
I guess my suggestion would be that you
simply let us amend, but I know the defense has objected to
that.
THE COURT:
I want to hear what they have to say, but
10
I don't see what the big deal is.
11
prejudiced by this.
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
15
MR. DODGE:
I don't know how they're
If it turns out that the evidence you are
Well, it may be that we make allegations
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:
24
you're on this one?
25
Who is covering this?
MR. SULLIVAN:
Mr. Sullivan,
Thank you, your Honor.

(212) 805-0300
As the SEC has
25
F3kgstrc
1
effectively conceded, an amended complaint would uniquely rely
on the representations of Mr. Bogoevski.
THE COURT:
I'm not sure he did concede that.
I think
he suggested that there was other evidence that would support
an inference of an earlier start date but that Bogoevski is
sort of the direct evidence.
MR. SULLIVAN:
Right, and without the direct evidence,
no inference would lie.
We think it makes much more sense, as
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.
17
read his evidence that way.
18
THE COURT:
Can I interrupt you.
We simply don't
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:
22
THE COURT:
That's correct.
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?
(212) 805-0300
26
F3kgstrc
1
MR. SULLIVAN:
Absolutely right, and that leads me to
the second point, which is, as you noted earlier, that you may
strike this, so it may not be in play at all; and, therefore,
there wouldn't be anything to rely upon substantively or
inferentially; and, third, prejudice would accrue to the
defense.
THE COURT:
MR. SULLIVAN:
9
10
11
12
13
What prejudice?
Again, another public pronouncement of
an illegal act through the outlining of it yet again in a

complaint, the potential to do extra discovery and to draw -THE COURT:
What extra discovery is going to be needed
based on this amendment, March 2005 back to January 2005?

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.
19
do that now.
We'll have to go and
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.
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
It seems premature in

(212) 805-0300
27
F3kgstrc
1
schedule, it may eliminate this person's purported evidence
entirely rendering this early exercise unnecessary and
uneconomical frankly.
THE COURT:
If I rule against you and the defendants
on the motion to strike, then you have no objection to them
amending?
they're joined at the hip.
8
9
In other words, you think they're tethered, that
MR. SULLIVAN:
I don't want to commit right here.
I'd
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.
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.
18
agree, that the direct evidence relies on the admissibility of
19
what Mr. Bogoevski purports to offer.
20
THE COURT:
There may be other grounds that
The inference is, and I think we can all
Mr. Dodge, are you prejudiced by waiting
21
until I resolve the motion to strike as to when you amend?
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.
25
your Honor.
I would make two observations,
The first is that even if a motion to strike were

(212) 805-0300
28
F3kgstrc
1
granted, as the Court has already pointed out, Mr. Bogoevski is
potentially available as a live witness at trial.
availability as a live witness at trial, even if that's
uncertain, gives us a basis to amend the complaint regardless
of how the Court rules on a motion to strike.
THE COURT:
I don't know.
And his
If I'm striking his
deposition testimony finding, in essence, that he wasn't
available to be deposed, do you think you'd nonetheless just
get to call him at trial?
10
11
MR. DODGE:
We would certainly ask the Court for leave
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.
21
motion to strike, that could be resolved in any number of
22
different ways it seems to me.
23
THE COURT:
But what happens on a
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

(212) 805-0300
29
F3kgstrc
1
you, there's still a chance that you'd have a basis to amend.
MR. DODGE:
That's exactly right.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. DODGE:
The second point finally with respect to
prejudice to us and what the SEC's motivation is seeking to
amend the complaint in the first instance, one of the causes of
action in the case involves lying to auditors and that cause of
action is subject to Rule 9 of the federal rules.
it involves allegations of fraud, we have to plead that with
And because
10
particularity.
11
the statements that we allege are fraudulent.
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
So, it's necessary for us to identify each of
THE COURT:
And for that
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?
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.
Then you know what
As currently laid out,
22
the motion to amend is not particularly major.
It's a handful
23
of dates here and there changed.
24
understood previously from a prior iteration that the SEC was
25
looking to amend.
It's much less than what we
At this point, the upshot, while I'm not

(212) 805-0300
30
F3kgstrc
1
standing up here conceding or consenting to anything, I'm
willing to admit it's not a massive change to what we would be
facing.
issue here and that's certainly what we're going to be focusing
on.
We really do think the motion to strike is the key
THE COURT:
MR. SULLIVAN:
unnecessary step.
refined.
Mr. Sullivan.
For Mr. Balogh's part, we think it's an
The issues will be very well framed and
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.
14
contested issue.
15
accurate in connection with discovery that has been adduced in
16
this case.
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.
22
Right now, that is a
Right now, the amendment as stated is
We would have an extra step to deal with if the
It's an extra step.

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.
25
they just have to have basically a good-faith basis to change
A motion to amend,

(212) 805-0300
31
F3kgstrc
1
it.
And then they have to demonstrate it wasn't done in bad
faith, it's not a dilatory motive, no undue prejudice to the
defendants or futility, but futility of the amendment means
that it basically can't pass the 12(b)(6) standard, so there's
no point in allowing an amendment because it still fails to
meet 12(b)(6).
alleged that could support the cause of action, but that's not
what we're talking about here.
On its face, there wouldn't be sufficient facts
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.
13
going to prove this at trial.
14
whether they're acting in bad faith or by whether you are going
15
to be unduly prejudiced.
16
point.
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
I don't think I get into, well, how are you

I think I'm really focused on
And I don't see any of those at this
And since the standard is that these things should be
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.
25
certainly do intend to move to amend the complaint.

(212) 805-0300
And we
32
F3kgstrc
1
MR. SULLIVAN:
My final point, and then I'll defer
with the Court's indulgence to Mr. Koenig, my final point is at
this stage, I think the prejudice occurring to the defendants
outweighs and overwhelms --
THE COURT:
What's the prejudice?
That there's going
to be another document that sort of sullies the reputation?
that what you mean?
MR. SULLIVAN:
THE COURT:
10
11
Is
That's part of it.
But I don't think that's ever part of the
analysis for purposes of a motion to amend.

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.
17
There will be additional discovery required.
THE COURT:
That's an argument of undue prejudice, it
18
seems to me, which hasn't been developed.
19
to be suggesting that it wasn't going to be prejudicial.
20
is the prejudice?
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
25
Mr. Buehler seemed
What would you need to do?
MR. SULLIVAN:
What
Assuming the
It was after May instead of January,
and now it's linked back to May when we thought it was

(212) 805-0300
33
F3kgstrc
1
substantially later in the year, and now the inference is it
may even go back as early as January.
timing steps that we're going to have to pursue and investigate
that was not part of this case before purely on what we
consider to be unsubstantiated hearsay evidence of this
gentleman produced in a way that's procedurally deficient.
THE COURT:
Those are two additional
But they're allowed to.
They're allowed
to amend the complaint before there's even been a deposition.
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:
13
yes.
14
Mr. Koenig.
Based on a good-faith understanding,
I'm not sure they have that here.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. KOENIG:
Yes.
I'll defer to
He looks like he has good stuff.
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.
20
question to any of the people who were the auditors about any
21
of the times the SEC now wants to add in.
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.
25
have been able to answer questions about the relevant time
That's the prejudice.
We didn't ask any
So we have been
The key people who might

(212) 805-0300
34
F3kgstrc
1
period -- unless we want to redepose 20 people again and go
back, that is what the prejudice is.
3
4
THE COURT:
That would be the kind of prejudice that a
motion to amend is focused on.
MR. KOENIG:
THE COURT:
Precisely.
Everybody was very slow to get to that.
It seemed a minute ago, nobody was too worried about that, but
if that's a real concern, let's brief that as well.
brief on the two motions and a section with respect to the
I want one
10
prejudice that will be felt by the defendants as a result of
11
this amendment.
12
January 2005; is that right?
13
MR. DODGE:
14
the March date at one point.
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.
It's two months, right?
March 2005 to
I don't have them in front of me.
I think the original complaint does use

But your Honor, with respect to
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

(212) 805-0300
35
F3kgstrc
1
light to all parties, which was that the first discussion of
explicit bribery took place earlier than any of the parties
earlier knew.
the way through.
It happens in discovery.
THE COURT:
I get it.
You learn facts all
Let me cut you off.
You folks
can brief this.
I can't imagine I'm not going to let them
amend if I deny the motion to strike.
that the standard is, as I said, very different than a summary
judgment standard and it's very difficult for me to imagine
I just can't imagine
10
that there's going to be the kind of prejudice here that would
11
preclude an amendment of this modest a nature.
12
going to rule today.
13
arguments, but I wouldn't bet the house on it if you're a
14
betting man.
15
But I'm not
I'll give you a chance to flesh out these
I think that's what I wanted to cover.
16
other issues that we need to address?
17
bumping along, right?
18
MR. DODGE:
It is.
Are there
Expert discovery is just
I think we have some scheduling
19
issues with respect to summary judgment briefing that the
20
parties are not in sync on.
21
outstanding paper discovery issues that we wanted to bring to
22
the Court's discussion.
23
issues for us, but there are some paper discovery issues.
24
25
THE COURT:
issues.
And I think there are also some
Mr. Bednar is going to handle those
I thought I had resolved the discovery
What are the paper discovery issues that I'm missing?

(212) 805-0300
36
F3kgstrc
1
MR. BEDNAR:
They are relatively discrete and
hopefully they'll take care of themselves.
an update today.
that have been outstanding since August with respect to
defendants Balogh and Straub.
interviews that both defendants had with the Hungarian National
Police regarding events central to this case.
8
9
We're hoping to get
We have two aspects of discovery requests
They regard minutes of
We have received an update from defendant Straub that

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.
12
with respect to defendant Balogh, so we're hopeful his counsel
13
could update the Court today.
14
having to involve the Court in resolving those issues.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. BEDNAR:
17
We don't know where we stand
Again, we're hoping to avoid
You and me both.

But they have been open since August, so
we're hoping to get an update on where we stand.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. BUEHLER:
That's right with respect to Straub?

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.
23
locate those records.
24
the National Bureau of Investigation in Hungary.
25
were unable to respond with any specificity as to where these
They indicated they were unable to

We also made an oral request to the NBI,

(212) 805-0300
They also
37
F3kgstrc
1
minutes were.
So we have followed up with a written request,
but I did want to let you know it wasn't just earlier this
month that we first tackled this issue.
with it for a while.
THE COURT:
Mr. Sullivan, how are you doing?
MR. SULLIVAN:
8
9
10
We have been dealing
So you get an "A." very good, Mr. Buehler.
Very well.
Happy to address this
issue.
THE COURT:
Let's see if you're going to get an "A."
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
15
16
THE COURT:
Right.
I think we have covered all of
that, right?
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:
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. SULLIVAN:
In writing.
When was that?

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.
25
individuals at these agencies are either no longer there or
The contact

(212) 805-0300
38
F3kgstrc
1
have had our mail returned to us for no apparent reason.
Moreover, in the final roadblock we were evaluating,
your Honor, and we don't believe we really have the obligation
to pursue this, the Hungarian Financial Supervisory Authority
has advised us that for purposes of addressing our written
request, we need to proceed through local counsel by way of a
power of attorney.
engage the services of a local Hungarian lawyer for the
purposes of executing a power of attorney to be submitted to
10
This is going to require my client to
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
23
24
25
THE COURT:
Mr. Buehler, did you have to do a power of
attorney thing?
MR. BUEHLER:
Mr. Straub happened to have local
counsel in Hungary, so he was able to handle that on

(212) 805-0300
39
F3kgstrc
1
Mr. Straub's behalf.
2
3
THE COURT:
local counsel, would that solve the problem?
4
5
And if the SEC were to cover the cost of
MR. SULLIVAN:
I think that would be very helpful.
We'd welcome that solution.
MR. BEDNAR:
In addition, we have proposed, and we're
still willing, if defendant Balogh would prefer to execute a
very limited power of attorney, we have a local counsel who can
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.
15
to get this done with a minimal amount of back and forth and
16
briefing and getting the Court involved, seems to me.
17
say that with admiration, Mr. Sullivan, you have no idea how
18
much.
19
20
21
So, I think it probably behooves everybody
MR. SULLIVAN:
And I
As long as that's on the record, and I
believe it is, I'm very pleased.

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.
24
any helpful suggestions on the part of the SEC, but we're happy
25
to work with them.
And we have not had

(212) 805-0300
40
F3kgstrc
1
THE COURT:
over there.
issue.
I can't help you.
I don't know anybody
Colombia would be a different story, so that's one
What else?
MR. BEDNAR:
Your Honor, we had intended to discuss
scheduling issues with the Court because of very different
summary judgment schedules that we proposed.
been overtaken by how the Court has proposed to handle the
different briefing issues here, so we'll defer to the Court on
scheduling for those.
10
Of course our preference is to begin and
complete the briefing in an expeditious manner.
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. BEDNAR:
13
motion to strike --
14
THE COURT:
For summary judgment?

For summary judgment, as well as for any
We're going to set a schedule now for the
15
motion to strike, right?
16
to wait until the end of discovery.
17
inclined to do now.
18
19
20
I think that's
Summary judgment, I think we're going

That's what I would be
The motion to strike, how long do we need to brief

that, Mr. Buehler?
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

(212) 805-0300
41
F3kgstrc
1
2
Honor rules on the motion to strike.

THE COURT:
Yes, because otherwise we would be
spending a lot of time on facts and statements they're not
planning to rely on, and it's just irrelevant.
MR. BUEHLER:
sure we were on the same page.
THE COURT:
MR. BUEHLER:
No.
Understood.
I just wanted to make
We're on the same page, you and I.

Your Honor, I think in our letter that
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
14
15
16
17
18
19
THE COURT:
That's fine with me.
And how
long for -MR. BUEHLER:
If your Honor would indulge, since we
submitted that, my schedule had changed a little bit.

THE COURT:
If I had said it like this, ah, April 3,
all right, I guess, then you would just shut up?

MR. BUEHLER:
20
Court, your Honor.
21
be appreciated.
I was always taught to try to read the
If we can get a little more time, it would
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. BUEHLER:
24
THE COURT:
25
April 3.
What day do you want?

If we can have one week more.
April 10.
That's my birthday, so I'm
bound to be in a good mood that day.

(212) 805-0300
42
F3kgstrc
1
2
MR. BUEHLER:
Honor.
3
4
THE COURT:
Always thinking of me.
Thanks,
Mr. Buehler.
5
6
That would be our gift to you, your
What sort of birthday gift would you like to give me,

Mr. Dodge?
MR. DODGE:
I think the schedule that the defense
initially proposed, the increments of time seem fine with us.
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
16
MR. DODGE:
We'll stick with May 11 for our
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?
19
talking to the defendants.
20
21
Mr. Buehler, May 11, are you going to have this

response?
How long do you need for a reply?
22
MR. BUEHLER:
23
THE COURT:
24
25
I'm
A week is fine.
I'll give you two weeks.
Let's do it
before Labor Day, okay?

MR. BUEHLER:
Great.

(212) 805-0300
43
F3kgstrc
1
THE COURT:
MR. BUEHLER:
THE COURT:
May 25.
Perfect.
I will issue an order or a minute entry
that lays out these dates, just if there's any question, okay?
Is there anything else we need to cover today?
MR. DODGE:
Yes.
THE COURT:
The answer I was looking for was "no."
MR. DODGE:
I apologize, your Honor.
9
10
the motion to amend, am I to assume that would follow the same

schedule?
11
12
The briefing on
THE COURT:
This is going to be a consolidated
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.
17
tomorrow if you want, but let's just have their opposition and
18
then your reply as it were.
19
20
MR. DODGE:
issues.
21
You can file your motion to amend
One set of briefs that deal with both
That's our preference, too.

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.
24
deny the motion to strike.
25
amend even if I grant the motion to strike.
I'm going to grant the motion to amend for sure if I

I'm likely to grant the motion to
I can't imagine

(212) 805-0300
44
F3kgstrc
1
that the prejudice is going to be such here that it causes me
to say no, you can't amend.
counsel an opportunity to brief this with respect to prejudice.
I think that's the only issue that's up for grabs.
think there's bad faith.
purposes of delay.
prejudice is the only issue, and I'll let them develop it, but
you just need to respond to that.
of briefs on that.
But I'm going to give defense
I don't
I don't think it's being done for
Futility is not the issue.
I think
I don't want a separate set
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.
13
mean that sincerely.
14
Thank you for your time.
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
19
20
Thanks.
snow.
Have a nice day.
Get out of here before the
Happy spring.
(Adjourned)
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300

Bogoevski - Svedok PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bogoevski - Svedok PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

No. 11 Civ. 9645 (RJS)

DECLARATION OF LISA J. FRIED

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

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.

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

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 166

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

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.

____ /s/ Lisa J. Fried______

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 4 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 5 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 6 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 7 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 8 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 9 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 10 of 166

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

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 12 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 13 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 14 of 166

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

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 16 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 17 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 18 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 19 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 20 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 21 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 22 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 23 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 24 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 25 of 166

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

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 27 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 28 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 29 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 30 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 31 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 32 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 33 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 34 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 35 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 36 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 37 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 38 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 39 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 40 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 41 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 42 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 43 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 44 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 45 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 46 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 47 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 48 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 49 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 50 of 166

Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 206 Filed 08/26/15 Page 51 of 166

/s/ Lisa J. Fried__