Photo: ODS website
Mr President, honourable Members, honourable Members,
to the "case" of the Business Credit Union I have expressing in detail in the past few days. I completely understand, unlike some other politicians, that the media are doing their jobthey find out things that seem strange to them, they ask about it. I don't blame them. That's why I've also repeatedly answered all the questions of the editorsthat were heard, even very detailed, even technical ones, including questions from editors from the publishing house MAFRAwhose motivation, timing I have reasonable doubts about. But even they got answers to all the questions they asked me.
The question was raised several times in my speakers' speeches as to why the media is not reporting more about this. Well, they do not write about it because there is nothing to write about, there is no case.
However, what is actually essential is what I want to talk about.
I have repeatedly acknowledgedthat I made a mistake in the past when filling out the conflict of interest form. I said that this I'll correct the errorand that's what I did.
I'm not accused of anything, I'm not under investigation in any way. There is no case, there is a presumption that I have made a mistake in the past in filling in one of the items in the assets declaration - and I accept that.
Although I am not accused of anything, I am not under investigation, there is no case, so I am here today. I'm not complainingI sit here ready to repeat everything I have said in public. I have always tried and I am trying to be a politician who speaks factually and also Openly. And I won't make an exception in this case.
Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, honourable Members, I will not give you any surprising information on the whole matter caused by a mistake in filling in the forms. I have repeatedly commented on this. I honestly do not know what else I can add to all this. However, I will repeat some of the facts and comment on some of the theses that are being put forward in the public domain.
I had a deposit in the credit union your moneyfrom June 2015 to November 2020. I have transferred a total of CZK 950,000 to this account without cash. These transactions can be easily verify in statements from the accounts. It wasn't new income, it wasn't third-party money, it was my own moneythat I previously had in my accounts at Komerční banka.
My motivation for opening accounts at the Business Credit Union was Diversification savingsI've had all my money in one bank all my life, which, as we know, is not recommended. And in 2015 I decided to change that and put some of my money elsewhere.
I will rise above the opposition's attacks on financial literacy and similar nonsense. I think that says a lot about you and nothing about me. You also need to look at how deposits are insured. But I don't think you only consider diversifying your savings when you have reached the upper limit. But I don't really want to talk about that here, because it's basically ridiculous.
When choosing a banking institution, I took the recommendation of a good friend of mine - because I didn't want to go into detail - whom I trusted and who recommended the Business Credit Union. You can question Dr Miloš Růžička a thousand times here, who, above all, is in the stomach of President Andrej Babiš. I know that, and I have no problem with it or have come to terms with it over the years. I would just like to point out that Miloš Růžička is, of course, a student and friend of mine and undoubtedly makes his living in the PR field, so you can call him a lobbyist. But he was also in the top management of Komerční banka as a director for several years. So it's not so strange that I asked this particular person what financial institution he would recommend to me. But I'll just add that as an aside, Mr. Ruzicka certainly doesn't need me to defend him here.
I didn't end up using the pawn shop no special financial products over and above the current account. I only had money deposited there in the current account. So I decided. I was also thinking of using some products where I would have to exceed the saved amount of one million crowns according to the internal rules of this Credit Union. But the moment I started thinking about it seriously, my wife and I decided that we buy an apartment in Brno. So I cancelled the account, transferred the money back to Komerční banka and then put it into the purchase of the apartment.
In the end, I would consider buying a condo to be our investment strategy with my wife. We ended up buying two apartments. We bought the first one in the size of 2+1 in 2021, using our savings. Then last year we bought another apartment of the same size, for which we are now largely paying off the mortgage.
I consider it responsible. I think that one should prepare for old age, and that is what we are doing. We have three children, so I think it's a reasonable, responsible approach on our income, and I'm prepared to explain it at any time.
I'm quite conservative when it comes to handling money - as I am in other things - I don't make any bold investments, I don't do any business with my money, I have it in savings accounts or mutual funds in the bank, and I'm glad that I was able to put my family savings into buying an apartment.
I mention this because I have been asked by journalists for very detailed information about my assets, which I have never made any secret of and have never kept secret. In recent days I have had to answer very detailed, repetitive questions from Mladá fronta DNES editorial teamthat questioned, among other things, whether I was in 2021 he could have had enough money to buy a condo. I documented and explained which specific accounts or products from Komerční banka the money came from. And I also documented that I had proven in previous years that I had a high enough income, even an income that is set by law, to be able to do these things.
I would just add to that that I have been in leadership positions for years, in public office. I've been working for 35 years and 20 of those years I have served in top public positions - dean, rector, minister, deputy speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, prime minister. These positions come with not-so-small salaries, often directly set by law, so anyone can see that it is not that difficult to get a small apartment after 30 years of marriage on the public income that my wife and I have. Which makes me different from some of you, and some of you can't even understand that.
I've never run a businessI had no income from the business. Our family budget significantly my wife contributeswho I apologize for what they have to endure because of my political career. My wife has had a successful career, for which I admire her. I admire what she has achieved in her profession in bringing up our three children. We've gained a lot together in our own by working and saving. A large part of the property we also inherited from parents who have sadly left us. Everything I have is documentable documents, notarial deeds, non-cash receipts and expenditures.
When someone asks me about my financial circumstances, I have no problem talking openly about them. Moreover, from the point of view of transparency, I do not even limit myself to the information that is given by law. About your income I'm consistently outspoken. I realize that what I have is from public sources. I can prove it.
You can find my comments for Mladá fronta DNES in November 2021, for Seznam Zprávy in May 2022 or recently. It's easy to check. There is information everywhere that goes beyond what the law requires us politicians to do in our confessions.
Analyzing my financial situation is not based on anything real, but it is an attempt by the political opposition to manufacture a case at any cost. But it is not the core of the problem, it is not the official reason why we are here today. The only thing that is really real, there is an error in the conflict of interest disclosure. Unfortunately, I did not realize until I was contacted by reporter Janek Kroupa that a credit union account - unlike a regular bank - is is linked to the share ofeven if only a token share. When I became interested in it, my share in the Business Credit Union was 0.09, nine hundredths of a percent. That was "my" decision-making ability. It was an inadvertent omission that I didn't put it on the forms. Once it was brought to my attention, I tried to fix.
I've spent a lot of time in the past few days going through completed documents, I tried to eliminate all possible and potential flaws.
Since, and this is just a little disclaimer, there are different interpretations of what all can or should be filled in on which type of return, especially for different financial products, I have subsequently consulted with experts from the public administration on the correctness of its action.
Ultimately, the result is more change. I've tried to fill everything in to fill the the strictest possible interpretation what the law requires us to do. That's why I added my long-standing pension plan.
Without wishing to abdicate responsibility, it has to be said that if you want to get everything meticulously right, it's not that simple, and even the advice of a lawyer may not help. You really need to turn to the experts in government. This is just a comment also to get us all in order if necessary. I am not in any way trying to relativise the mistake that I have admitted, that I have made and that I have corrected.
There has also been speculation in the media on the reputation of the Business Credit Union, we have heard that several times here, from which the editors directly or indirectly inferred that I had some undeclared intentions with my money. I had no undisclosed intentions.
As for the Credit Union itself. By the way, not to confuse the public, according to the information available to me, it is still a normal financial institution licensed by the Czech National Bank. So even now it is not a mafia association, as has been implied here. But as far as this Credit Union is concerned, it is true that the Czech National Bank and the Financial Analytical Office have granted the Credit Union fine. But that's what happened at a time when I didn't have an account there.
For as long as I've been a client of the Business Credit Union, on the other hand. no indications have emerged of neglecting her duties in any way. The Institute had and still has, to my knowledge, a standard license. All deposits are insured just like a standard bank and just like any other institution.
After further details I never thought to look and not at all interested in who all uses the credit union's services. I think that the vast majority of clients who send their money to a financial institution licensed by the Czech National Bank - I stress this again - do the same.
It has been said several times here that I should have known that, that Mr Bahbouh is - I apologise to the engineer if I am not pronouncing his name exactly - that Mr Bahbouh is a problematic figure, that I should have known that I was giving funds to an institution run by someone who is problematic. If I, who was putting my funds into a financial institution with a banking licence, should have known that, then those who were managing our public funds at the time should have known that even more. And they didn't know it either. Are you seriously telling me, Representatives of the YES movement, that I should have known in 2015 that Engineer Bahbouh was a problematic figure? Which, by the way, is the question of whether he is still a problematic figure now. I don't know. That there are problems around him, and on that basis I should have decided not to put money into the Credit Union? Okay, I'll take it. Let's accept this thesis that it was discoverable and that I should have known in 2015.
In that case, I ask you why you did not know this in 2018, when the authorities under your leadership gave the companies of Mr Bahbouh, as a member of the board of directors with the right to sign contracts, public contracts, on behalf of the company. Why did you not know that? Why did you not know in 2018, for example, in the Ministry of the Interior under Minister Metnar, that you could not award the public contract 'Training - Creation of Security Operation Center' to a company represented by Mr. Engineer Bahbouh? Why did you not know at the Ministry of Regional Development, which was headed by Minister Klara Dostálová in July 2018, that you cannot award a contract under the public procurement for the service of a cyber security auditor in the amount of 600,000 to a firm in which Mr. Engineer Bahbouh is the managing director? How is it that you did not know in 2018 at the Ministry of Defence that you were entering into a CZK 6 million contract for IT security training with a company whose managing director is Mr Bahbouh, an engineer? How come you did not know at the Office of the Government under Prime Minister Babiš that a company in which Mr Bahbouh is a key figure is involved as one of the contractors in the restoration of the façade and fencing?
I should have known in 2015, when I transferred 700,000 crowns to the Business Credit Union as a legal, normally functioning banking institution, that there was some problem around Engineer Bahbouh? But you must not have known anything like that in 2018 when you awarded him public contracts?
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't blame you. I understand that you didn't know. Because the information just wasn't known at the time. It wasn't known to you. And it wasn't known to me. But don't hypocritically pretend that I should have known and you didn't. On the contrary, if anyone should have known, it should have been someone who handles public money. And here it is quite obvious that you did not do that at the time.
I would like to comment briefly on the attacks on the Center for the Study of Democracy and Culture. And to what President Andrej Babiš keeps repeating here. Before I entered politics. worked in academia as a scientist, as a teacher, as a manager, and it was my only source of income. I have never had any income from business.
In the 1990s, when many of my opponents and many of my colleagues were trying their luck in business in various ways, I was doing something else. I co-founded a nonprofit, by definition a nonprofit corporation, Center for the Study of Democracy and Culture. And the Center for the Study of Democracy and Culture has been involved from the beginning in things like studying the quality of democracy, democratic culture, the development of democratic integration, and many other things. CDK has published hundreds of publications, is now a renowned publishing house and has also developed a number of research and educational projects, often in collaboration with large universities with renowned departments. There was a lot of work behind him.
Of course, those projects were financed with funds raised in public tenders, they were properly accounted for, their results were transparently published in the relevant registers and the news. Thirty years of CDK also means 30 years of going through various thorough checks and audits. Every project we have had from public funds, and these were far from the only funds, every single penny had a predetermined purpose, they were strictly audited by the ministries. If anyone here is saying that these projects were fraudulent, they do not know what they are talking about.
There have been repeated lies about the project in Burma. According to disinformation and pro-Russian websites, even President Babiš likes to repeat them. I will just say that this was a completely transparent project to promote democracy in Burma. The disinformation writers wrote about millions of dollars. The CDK was left with around CZK 200 000 a year for the entire administration, otherwise the rest went directly to Burma, to the Burmese training centre. I myself did not participate in this, I did not receive a single crown of this money and I never thought it would be otherwise. Again, this is documented in the accounts, the interim reports to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The project has been audited four times in total, and it has been fulfilled as flawless in every respect.
I'm just giving a few examples here or responding to the most outrageous claims. Yes, these are activities that I have engaged in that have enriched me, but only mentally. I never got anything out of them materially. I understand that this is hard to understand, for some it is absolutely impossible, but I am one of those people who do not hesitate to build something, to devote my time to it not to get some money, but simply because it brings me joy and it gives me meaning. If you see this as an effort to divert, abuse and tunnel money, that says a lot more about you than it does about me.
I will comment on one more thing - your accusations. But I take it with a smile and a light touch, and it doesn't affect me personally. The former Minister of Finance - and I emphasise that deliberately - of Finance, emphasised my illiteracy and said how I could have made a lot of money at the Commercial Bank if I had left the money there. Madam former Minister of Finance, when you talk about illiteracy, do not prove it yourself. Look at public sources, what were the interest rates in the banks then? In Commercial Bank in 2015, I could get 0.1 % and only by some accumulation of other activities in that bank could I get to 0.6 % under certain conditions. That was the interest then. And the fact that I withdrew money from the Business Credit Union after five years and gained nothing from it? That's awfully strange that I didn't gain anything in 2020? What were the interest rates at those standard banks in 2020? Let's look again at the official information on the Commercial Bank: 0.01 % on money over 200k and a maximum of 0.8 %, I could have gained at most, if I handled it perfectly, up to one percent. About some 20 % profit and what you said here is complete, absolute nonsense! Of course I thank you for caring where I put the money and that I got little from it and how I could have saved it so stupidly. I'd expect that from my wife. She doesn't tell me. You take care of my money, thank you. Maybe I'll come to you for advice on where to put the money. But listening to you saying that you have an idea that I could have had 20 % in Commercial Bank in 2015, I'd rather not ask you anything about finances.
Just a few more words about the whole affair. We have to realize one thing. There's something to the fact send the money to a legitimate bank or credit union, there is nothing strange. What's so weird about that? Nothing! And do people check who all is a shareholder, a client of their financial institution? The vast majority of people don't check, and some of that information isn't even public. That information is not public, and it's a good thing that most of that information is not public. We have bank secrecy and we have other rules of the game.
Therefore I reject as utterly absurd the construction that by merely sending money to the Pawnbroker I have done something of which I should now have to confess or be ashamed. I really don't. I have nothing to be ashamed of, I have nothing to explain in this matter. In my opinion, this is a good example of how the whole artificial "cause"how somebody's just trying hard trying to put things together that are unrelated, and making a jigsaw puzzle out of things that don't actually fit together.
Ladies and gentlemen, of course everyone makes mistakes. Those who are blameless, cast a stone. I make mistakes. And when a man makes a mistake, he should own up to it and try to correct it. And that's what I did. I want to emphasize three things in this connection.
- First of all, sending your hard-earned money to any bank or credit union is not a crime, it is not immoral, it is not dishonest.
- Second, the only mistake I made was an omission on the form. It was an unintentional mistake, it was my mistake, which I admitted, corrected and that's the end of it.
- Third. I would also like to remind you that I'm as well as other officials, politically exposed persons very closely monitored. Under the law, we are subject to a special regime regarding the recording and reporting of all transactions, which the banks comply with in their own interest. I think all of you know that.
Under this law, banking and other institutions apply enhanced anti-money laundering measures to politically exposed persons, intensively investigating, for example, the origin of assets used in a given business relationship and all assets of a politically exposed person, even if they are not related to the business case. The independent Czech National Bank and the Financial Analytical Office supervise the compliance of banks and other financial institutions.
Moreover, the risk-based approach applies an even stricter control regime to the most important public officials than to ordinary politically exposed persons. I have no doubt, therefore, that my complete transaction history, like yours, has been verified by the relevant authorities on more than one occasion in recent years and there has never been the slightest indication that I have done anything unusual, let alone illegal.
I have nothing to hide, from the very first moment, as I said at the beginning, I speak openly with the media, I answer all questions and explain publicly, without excuses and excuses, because I think this is the right way.
I have corrected the mistake I made and I am convinced that I have nothing to be ashamed of. If I am fined by the authorities, I will not hesitate to pay. If it turns out that - and this is a possible interpretation - my misconduct is already time-barred, I will donate the maximum amount of the fine - 50 000 - to charity. I have already made that public.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all I can say.
However, President Babiš began his speech in the Chamber of Deputies with a debate on our security, on ensuring the security of our country and our citizens. Allow me, at the end of my speech, to respond briefly to this.
It wouldn't be Andrej Babiš if he hadn't used a thousand refuted lies and inaccuracies in his speech. He is clearly trying to cover up his statements and those of other leaders of the ANO movement, which are damaging the security and credibility of our country. So let us remind ourselves again here.
When Andrej Babiš ruled with the ČSSD and the Communists and did not have enough votes in 2020 to pass the 2021 budget with a deficit of CZK 320 billion, he gave in to the Communists and cut the defence budget by CZK 10 billion. Security was therefore not a priority for his government, and that is one of the problems that we now have to catch up with.
Now let us recall 2023 and the pre-election debate in the presidential election:
Moderator: "My question is - if Poland or the Baltic states were attacked, should we honour our allied commitments and send troops there?"
Andrej Babiš: "I was not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Yeah, if I was."
Moderator: "Yes, if you were, not that you were."
Andrej Babiš: "Definitely not, definitely not, I think we need to talk about peace. Mr. General is talking about war. The government is talking about war."
And the chairwoman of the ANO parliamentary club recently spoke about the fact that there is no need to invest in our defence. Alena Schiller: "We don't want to prepare for war, we want peace." That's a quote.
To make matters worse, Andrej Babiš is questioning the purchase of the most advanced and in the future most widespread aircraft in the North Atlantic Alliance, the F-35, and even threatening to withdraw from the contract.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear fellow citizens, these words should not be forgotten because they threaten the security of the Czech Republic and jeopardise our credibility in the eyes of our allies.
That is why I call on Andrej Babiš, who started the debate on security here, to stop it and not to threaten the security of our country.
Thank you, Petr Fiala
https://www.ods.cz/clanek/25283-projev-premiera-petra-fialy-na-mimoradne-schuzi-poslanecke-snemovny
English 
Czech