Mother of the leader of the opposition movement Progressive Slovakia Michal Šimečka, Marta Šimečková, she published documents on the financial flows of the civil association Projekt Fórum, in which she has been a statutory member for many years. The operation of the association has been under close scrutiny since the politicians of the government Smer drew attention to it. At several press conferences, she and her colleague Andrea Puková were accused of fraud and referred to as prostitutes. This argument was subsequently used in the dismissal of Šimečka from the post of vice-chairman of the National Council of the Slovak Republic.
The PS leader rejected all doubts about the management of the Forum Project and explained them by saying that his mother is a “brothel”. Šimečková and Puková filed a criminal complaint against Smer leader Robert Fico for statements about prostitutes. However, it is gradually becoming clear that the problems with the association’s financial flows may be more serious than the Smer politicians themselves indicated.
This week, the investigation took on a new dimension, as Šimečková published the minutes and a number of statements from the civic association’s account on the Internet after being questioned by the police. They reveal startling findings: the head of the association claims that she did not have control over her organization’s finances for years and does not know how the funds that the association obtained from the state and private donors were handled.
Photo: TASR, Pavel Neubauer
Marta Šimečková Marta Šimečková on the left in a shot from 2018.
At the same time, it neglected not only the control of financial flows and management, but also basic obligations towards the state. Marta Šimečková’s association did not file a tax return for four years, which seems unusual even compared to the normal practice of entrepreneurs or self-employed people. What else do the published documents contain?
Mess in accounting
In front of the investigator, Marta Šimečková stated that Puková made all the payments and accounts of the Forum Project. The charter member of the association did not even have internet banking and only made withdrawals at the branch on behalf of the association. She acknowledges that she is responsible for controlling the finances of the association, but states that she did not deal with it.
“In order for the project to succeed, I needed to concentrate completely on its content. She took over this part of the work, i.e. making payments, contacting the accountant, financial statements, and I was rather grateful to her for that. I would also like to emphasize that neither I nor my colleague were qualified for this work, i.e. the financial part,” the minutes state.
Šimečková further emphasizes that working with finances from various grant and support schemes is not easy at all. However, co-workers approached accounting duties relatively lightly. “You get grants and support at different times and you also have to account for them at different times. While some documents were available to the colleague, some were already processed by the accountant, some have not been processed,” Šimečková described to the investigator how the financial flows were traced.
Part of the association’s accounting documents, especially for the years 2018 and 2019 – that is, the period the police are investigating for suspected subsidy fraud – have disappeared. Šimečková stated that in August 2020, the thieves were to rob the project’s office by breaking and entering, and together with the computers they also took away the files with the accounting. She does not know whether the accountant who provided external services to the association has them. He explains that this woman is “sick” and “out of touch.”
Although the text of the statement shows that Marta Šimečková has little insight into how her civic association was managed, she emphasized to the police officer that “none of the invoices that the association presented in the bills was reimbursed more than once.” Another fact she pointed out is that the total amount of funds provided from the state budget is lower than the total costs of the association.
“As it happened that several invoices ended up in several accounts, I assume that it was primarily due to the total overload of my colleague during this period and her difficult financial situation. That is my assumption, I am not looking for other possible reasons,” said Šimečková.
According to her, the statutory representative of the association came across the problems with billing only at the moment when the Fórum project came under the radar of Smer and the media. At that time, they decided to reconstruct the accounting for the missing years, and the problems were brought to her and Puková’s attention by an external expert who performed this task.
She did not file a tax return
It also follows from the minutes of the interrogation that the civic association did not fulfill its basic obligations for years – it did not send financial statements and did not file tax returns. The investigator pointed out to Šimečková that the Forum Project filed its last tax return in 2021 and no returns were filed for the next four years. “I’m very sorry and I’m sorry that we didn’t fulfill this obligation,” responded the statutory representative of the association.
The police also asked Šimečková to explain why, as a self-employed person, she invoiced the association for services that she is not authorized to provide. In 2021, she issued six invoices to the Forum Project in the total amount of 15,000 euros for the dramaturg’s work. At the same time, only the activity of interpreting is listed in the trade register. She refused to comment on the invoices, saying that it was a question about Puková. According to published statements, the fees paid to Šimečková by the association for the years 2020 to 2022 amounted to approximately 63,000 euros.
At the same time, she explained to the investigator the mechanism by which Puková was supposed to help her gain access to finances while she was in enforcement. In such a period, all income on her account would be blocked immediately. According to her, the solution was to issue invoices so that the money would go to Puková’s account, who then paid the expenses for her.
In her testimony, Šimečková described it as follows: “I didn’t have my account for several years, because Tatrabanka itself canceled it due to numerous and repeated foreclosures. That’s why my invoices allegedly went to Andrea Puková’s account, from which she paid the payments for me,” the minutes state.
However, such a procedure, i.e. channeling income through another person in order to bypass execution, is not in accordance with legal regulations. Concealing assets or income to avoid enforcement may even be considered a criminal offense.
Falsified statements
However, the most fundamental findings are related to statements from the Forum Project’s bank accounts, which Šimečková published together with the minutes of the interrogation. These are two versions of statements that show significant differences – while one comes directly from the bank, the other was provided by her colleague Puková. Between the two versions, there are dozens of discrepancies in amounts, recipients, and the transactions themselves. The differences concern, for example, payments to hotels, shops or cash withdrawals.
Published documents indicate that between 2020 and 2022, Puková sent approximately 233,000 euros from the association to her own account, while part of the payments were not supported by invoices. Some of this money could have gone to Šimečková, who did not have her own bank account and handled part of the expenses through a co-worker. There are also questions as to whether her personal obligations were paid from the association’s funds.
Photo: Pravda
Puck transactions Puková sent payments to her account and also withdrew cash.
Between 2020 and 2022, Puková transferred a total of approximately 233,000 euros from the account of the civic association Projekt Fórum to her personal account. Of this amount, about 151,000 euros were supported by invoicing, while the remaining approximately 82,000 euros went without invoices. She received the highest volume of funds in 2021, when approximately 127,000 euros were transferred to her account.
A smaller part of the funds that were directed to Puková’s account may be related to the repayment of loans that she previously granted to the association. For example, at the end of 2020, she sent two payments to the account of the organization in the total amount of approximately 22,000 euros.
During the interrogation, the investigator also asked Šimečková about possible changes to the bank statements of the Forum Project. In the question, he stated that the same – probably modified – statements were also submitted to the ministries of culture and justice when accounting for the Central European Forum event. Šimečková responded by saying that this information was new to her and referred to Puková again.
Photo: Pravda
Transactions Puková sent payments to her account and also withdrew cash. Marta Šimečková is also mentioned in the reference of some payments.
“It surprised me and I can’t explain it,” she said, adding that the suspicion of changes in statements was conveyed to her by a new accountant who is trying to reconstruct the association’s accounting. “Some adjustments were made by Ms. Pukova,” she added.
Šimečková repeatedly pointed out to the police that she has limited insight into the functioning of the association, which she has led for 16 years. For several questions regarding financial flows, she referred to Andrea Puková as the person who was in charge of these matters.
Cash withdrawals
A comparison of the bank statements that Puková submitted to state institutions with the versions published later indicates interventions in their content. The differences between these documents indicate that the data may have been manipulated. Differences appear in the statements submitted to the state for the years 2020 to 2022 – some amounts are adjusted, selected cash operations are missing, and for some transfers, different names are listed than in the original data.
For example, on June 5, 2020, an amount of approximately 21,000 euros was credited to the association’s account. It was an advance payment from an organization based in Brussels that administers grants from Norway. However, in the subsequent accounting of subsidies, this amount was not recognized in full. According to real bank data, 21,000 euros came into the account, while in the modified version of the statement only the sum of 10,000 is indicated.
Photo: Pravda
Puck transaction Puková withdrew almost EUR 14,000 from the association’s account on the same day that the funds from the Ministry of Justice arrived
An indication that the lower amount is false is that this transaction retained the original payment value in the note. This suggests that the listing may have been subsequently edited, possibly by graphic editing in which the number was overwritten.
On the same day, a cash withdrawal of 10,000 euros took place from the Forum Project account. According to the details of the transaction, this selection was made by Andrea Puková. By default, bank statements contain the name of the person withdrawing cash, as he must prove his identity at the branch with an ID card.
