The Debrecen Court of Justice delivered its verdict on November 18, 2025, in the case of three defendants. The primary defendant—B. L., the former mayor of Tetétlen, initially independent and later affiliated with Fidesz—participated in the evaluation of grant applications submitted by two companies by the local review committee and voted to approve their applications, despite having requested an unlawful advantage and thus violating his duty of impartiality.
The court found the primary defendant guilty of accepting a bribe committed through dereliction of duty. He was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months of imprisonment, and was also fined HUF 400,000 and ordered to forfeit assets worth HUF 2.4 million.
The second defendant was found guilty of accepting a bribe committed through dereliction of duty as an accomplice, while the third defendant was found guilty of bribery. Accordingly, the second defendant was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months in prison, suspended for 3 years, and the third defendant to 1 year in prison, suspended for 2 years.
According to the court, under the Rural Development Program, regional business development grants were announced, and specific associations were responsible for the related tasks. The offender was a member of the review committee of one such association linked to Nyíradony. The committee, composed of five members, was responsible for the final evaluation of applications submitted under the association’s program and scored and ranked by an internal action group.
In October 2021, two companies submitted applications for a regional business development grant. The director of one company, who was previously acquainted with the offender, provided him with the application ID number, asking for intervention in the evaluation process in exchange for 5–10% of the grant amount. After winning the grant, HUF 2,400,000 was transferred to the offender’s bank account with the assistance of the accomplice, based on a performance certificate established between them.
Regarding the second company’s application, its director asked a mutual acquaintance to seek help from the offender for a favorable evaluation. After providing the offender with the application ID, he contacted the intermediary, promising action in exchange for 5–10% of the grant amount. The company’s application was later approved by the review committee, of which the offender was a member, even though he was not allowed to participate or vote under the relevant conflict-of-interest rules.
In the sentencing explanation, Judge Pál Virágh stated that the aim of criminalizing corruption was to maintain the integrity of public life, the economy, and social relations. The defendants had no prior criminal record and had previously led blameless lives. However, the court considered that corruption crimes pose a danger to society, and law enforcement authorities continually fight against them in their daily work.
The verdict is not final. The prosecution reserved three working days to submit a statement of appeal, while the first and third defendants and their lawyers appealed primarily for acquittal and secondarily for mitigation. The second defendant and their lawyer accepted the decision.
