Hungary’s former prime minister Viktor Orbán insists authorities acted without government instructions in the controversial Ukrainian gold convoy case. However, a lawyer representing a senior prosecutor says a motion has been filed to question Orbán as a suspect, as investigators examine alleged misconduct surrounding the operation.
Former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has defended the authorities’ actions in the Ukrainian gold convoy case, saying they acted independently and successfully, and that he would have issued instructions had they been necessary.
His statement, sent to the Hungarian News Agency (MTI), came as the lawyer representing a senior prosecutor involved in the wider affair claimed that a motion had been filed to name Orbán as a suspect. According to the lawyer, the prosecution service has yet to respond to the request.
Orbán has not been formally named as a suspect in the case, according to the report.
The Fidesz party leader described the affair as “Europe’s biggest corruption scandal” and referred to the “financial operations of the Ukrainian mafia”, claiming that these had been stopped and dismantled in Hungary. Those characterisations are Orbán’s own claims; an earlier money-laundering investigation into the shipment was closed without finding a criminal offence.
Lawyer says Orbán’s potential criminal liability should be investigated
Speaking on ATV’s Egyenes Beszéd programme, lawyer Lóránt Horváth confirmed that the proceedings now have five suspects. He represents Pál Fürcht, a senior prosecutor, and said the investigation should examine whether people at higher political levels were involved.
Horváth said a motion had already been submitted seeking to have former prime minister Orbán questioned as a suspect, but that the prosecution service had not yet provided an answer.
According to the lawyer, Orbán could potentially face allegations of abuse of office as a principal offender and of incitement in connection with other suspected offences. These are allegations and legal assessments made by Horváth, not established findings by investigators or a court.
The lawyer also said information had emerged during the investigation that could raise questions about the possible involvement of certain employees of the Office of the Prosecutor General. He claimed that Fürcht had raised concerns with the prosecution service’s leadership as early as May, but that the matter ultimately led to disciplinary proceedings.
Horváth described the transfer of the investigation from the Budapest Regional Investigative Prosecutor’s Office to the Central Investigative Chief Prosecutor’s Office as unusual. In his view, investigators had already interviewed numerous witnesses and gathered substantial evidence.
He suggested that the transfer could either mean the number of suspects would remain at five or that the investigation would expand to include more senior figures. He said he believed the latter course was warranted.
Defence minister demands answers from Orbán
Orbán’s statement also followed a public challenge from Defence Minister Romulusz Ruszin-Szendi on Thursday. The minister called on the former prime minister to clarify whether he had ordered the operation to stop the Ukrainian cash shipment.
Orbán responded that the authorities had acted within their own powers and without government instructions.
“The authorities performed exemplary and successful work, carrying out their duties within their own powers and doing an excellent job without government instructions,” he said, adding that he would have issued the appropriate instructions if necessary.
He also argued that the officials involved deserved recognition and rewards, accusing the current government of putting employees who had served the country’s interests through an ordeal for carrying out their duties.
His statement does not establish who initiated the operation or clarify whether political figures were involved in the decisions surrounding it.
What happened in the Ukrainian gold convoy case?
On 5 March, officers from Hungary’s National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV) and the Counter Terrorism Centre (TEK) seized two vehicles on the M0 motorway near Budapest on suspicion of money laundering.
The vehicles belonged to Ukraine’s state-owned Oschadbank and were transporting cash and gold from Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank to Ukraine. The shipment contained USD 40 million, EUR 35 million and nine kilograms of gold.
Seven Ukrainian nationals travelling with the shipment were questioned and subsequently expelled from Hungary the following day. The crew, reportedly unarmed, later complained of inhumane treatment and violations of their rights.
The operation prompted questions about the role of Hungary’s security services and the legal basis for the seizure. It later emerged that the Constitution Protection Office had filed the report that triggered the authorities’ action, drawing on information gathered from another intelligence agency, the Information Office.
If you missed it: New document links Viktor Orbán to decision behind Ukrainian gold convoy case
Money-laundering investigation closed without finding a crime
A key development in the case is that NAV suspended its money-laundering investigation in June before terminating it in August, citing the absence of a criminal offence.
That decision contrasts with Orbán’s description of the affair as a major corruption scandal involving the Ukrainian mafia. However, the closure of the original investigation does not resolve separate questions about how the operation was conducted or whether officials acted lawfully.
On 2 October, the Central Investigative Chief Prosecutor’s Office took over the investigation into the conduct of officials involved in the case.
The five suspects include János Hajdu, the former head of TEK, István Szatmári, a former senior official at the Constitution Protection Office, and three police officers. According to Horváth, Hajdu is suspected of unlawful detention, Szatmári of incitement to commit document forgery, and the three police officers of document forgery in an official capacity. The lawyer clarified that the police officers had already been named as suspects in July.
