Part I — Situation overview

Accountability after the change of government entered its practical phase in mid-June 2026. Prime Minister Magyar Péter announced that next week the legislation on the asset recovery office will be submitted to the National Assembly — the creation of the institutional framework for asset recovery (recovering, for the public benefit, wealth of state or public-money origin that unlawfully ended up in private hands). At the same time several concrete movements of wealth came to light: according to 24.hu, a downtown property belonging to a former central-bank foundation — the property at Vörösmarty tér 3, in the building of the former Luxus department store — ended up in May at Ádám Matolcsy’s Dubai-based company (Minelley FZCO); the property had five owners over four years. The Hungarian National Bank (MNB, the Hungarian central bank), meanwhile, put three of its luxury properties up for sale, which had been acquired back in the time of the former leadership. Telex reported that Kecskemét had revoked the honorary-citizen title of György Matolcsy, the former central-bank governor.

The broader context of the topic was given by Éva Voszka, full member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, at a professional conference: according to her research, the value of “political property” — formally private wealth created, operated and dissolvable at any time by politics — can be put at between 6,000 and 15,000 billion forints in Hungary, with the most likely estimate at 8,000–11,000 billion forints. Part of this left the state sphere through the public-interest asset-management foundations (KEKVA — privately structured foundations managing a public task, such as a university): more than 3,000 billion forints of state wealth was reallocated into these. The wealth was built up along three main routes — channelling state wealth to actors close to the government, the regulatory squeezing-out of competitors, and through acquisitions by already existing political companies.

By MIAK’s reading the main question is not whether public wealth “must be recovered” — this is justified in economic and legal terms — but whether the recovery takes place in a rule-of-law procedure, respecting property rights, in a manner that holds up in court. The risk is twofold: if the process looks like political revenge, it undermines its legitimacy; and if it does not irreversibly institutionalise transparency, the wealth web can be rebuilt in the next cycle. The character of accountability is decided here: rule-of-law restoration or the continuation of plunder under a reversed sign.

Part II — Literature foundation

Before turning to MIAK’s proposals, it is worth fixing the conceptual frame. Susan Rose-Ackerman (American legal scholar and economist, a leading figure of corruption research) in her work Corruption and Government describes “grand corruption” as a process taking place at the highest level of government, in which the state channels wealth to private actors through high-value projects, concessions and privatisation — and privatisation processes are particularly vulnerable to insider deals. Robert Klitgaard (American economist, the developer of the methodology of anti-corruption institution-building) in his book Controlling Corruption condenses the conditions of corruption into the formula C = M + D − A: corruption flourishes where monopoly (M) and discretion, the freedom of decision (D), meet the absence of accountability (A) — precisely this three-factor frame gives the blueprint of prevention. The detailed literature treatment — by author, with quotations — can be found in section 6.4 Literature in detail.

Part III — MIAK’s concrete proposal

MIAK proposes three measurable measures that make asset recovery a rule-of-law, irreversible reform — not a one-off political act.

3.1 The asset recovery office as a preparatory body — under judicial control (at the adoption of the law)

By MIAK’s reading the legal status of the announced asset recovery office must be fixed precisely: in public-law terms asset recovery is a criminal and civil-law procedure conducted by the prosecution service and the courts — the new office can at most be a preparatory, coordinating and wealth-detection body, and cannot decide on substantive confiscation. The legislation is adopted by the National Assembly on the government’s proposal; the State Audit Office (ÁSZ, the institution auditing state finances) may audit but cannot oblige, while implementation is a judicial-prosecutorial competence. MIAK proposes that the law expressly state: every asset recovery step is subject to judicial approval, and the guarantees of property-rights protection (I5) — independent legal remedy, predictable application of the law — prevail. Thus the process closes not with a political decision but with a final and binding judgment, which protects at once against abuse and against later compensation lawsuits.

3.2 A public asset recovery dashboard and machine-readable asset declarations

Without transparency, the recovery itself breeds distrust. MIAK would extend the logic of the A1 public-funds dashboard to recovery: a public, real-time, machine-readable interface would show what wealth was recovered, on what legal title, at what procedural stage — traceable at project level. This is complemented by the publicity of the A3 asset declarations: politicians’ asset declarations should be available not in PDF but as machine-readable, comparable data, so that the increase in wealth and its sources can be tracked. The case of the Matolcsy property — four years, five owners, a Dubai endpoint — shows precisely why a transparent, searchable register of ownership chains is indispensable: the spiriting-away of wealth takes place in the dark, not before the public.

3.3 Dismantling monopoly and discretion — so that the wealth web cannot be rebuilt

Recovery is lasting only if it eliminates the conditions that created the wealth web. In Klitgaard’s C = M + D − A framework (see 6.4.2) this means: monopoly (M) and discretion (D) must be reduced, and accountability (A) increased. MIAK proposes, along the A2 public-procurement transparency and the I3 legislative impact assessment programme points: that the KEKVA model and the foundations performing a public task be subject to the same transparency rules as budgetary bodies (public reporting, public-procurement obligation, ÁSZ audit), and that every new piece of legislation affecting asset management receive a mandatory, public impact assessment. HVG’s suggestion — that the Hungarian Development Bank (MFB, the state development bank) must be “freed of its skeletons” before EU funds are placed there — illustrates precisely this preventive logic: a clean, audited institutional channel is the precondition for public money not becoming once again the terrain of rent-seeking.

The common principle of the three proposals is that asset recovery is a rule-of-law success if it takes place under judicial control, with a transparent register and the dismantling of the structural conditions of corruption — otherwise the loot changes hands but the system remains.

Part IV — Expected impacts and risks

Dimension Expected impact Risk
Economy Return of public wealth (possibly several thousand billion HUF); cleaner market competition Legal uncertainty toward investors if the procedure is not predictable; protracted lawsuits
Justice A precedent for asset-management accountability; strengthening of judicial control If the office oversteps its coordinating role, a competence clash with the prosecution/courts
Transparency An irreversibly institutionalised public-wealth register The perception of recovery as “political revenge” undermines legitimacy

The main point to weigh is the tension between speed and rule-of-law soundness. Political pressure wants spectacular, fast recovery; rule-of-law logic wants the slower procedure that holds up in court. Where the two collide, the risk is that haste leads to compensation lawsuits and to the harm of property-rights protection — which would weaken precisely the host institutional order (predictable property rights) that the reform seeks to restore. The proposal tips to the risk side if the office is created bypassing judicial control, with direct confiscation powers. It works if its role is strictly preparatory, and every movement of wealth closes with a final and binding judgment.

Part V — Measurability and summary

5.1 What is worth tracking? (suggested KPIs)

The success of the proposal is worth tracking with the following performance indicators (KPIs):

  • Among the recovered wealth, the share of cases closed with a final and binding court judgment (goal: 100% — cases closed by political decision: 0).
  • The share of cases publicly, machine-readably available on the asset recovery dashboard (goal: 100%).
  • The introduction of transparency obligations extended to the foundations performing a public task (KEKVA) (public reporting, public procurement, ÁSZ audit) (goal: comprehensive).
  • The compensation lawsuits launched following recovery procedures and the amounts awarded in them (goal: minimal — the yardstick of procedural soundness).

5.2 Summary

MIAK’s key message is that recovering public wealth is rule-of-law restoration if it takes place under judicial control, respecting property rights and with irreversible transparency — not as political revenge. MIAK asks decision-makers to limit the role of the asset recovery office strictly to a preparatory-coordinating power, to make every movement of wealth subject to judicial approval, and to bind the foundations performing a public task by the same transparency rules as budgetary bodies. In this, two MIAK foundational values move together: transparency, because the fate of public wealth is protected from corruption only by a machine-readable, public register; and accountability, because the legitimacy of recovery is given not by political will but by a documented procedure that holds up in court — this is the only safeguard that the system changes not only owner but also character.

Part VI — Justifications and further sources

6.1 Press framing by spectrum

The left-liberal and public-affairs band focused on the concrete movements of wealth: 24.hu, under the headline “Matolcsy Ádám a kormányváltás után sem állt le”, traced the ownership chain of the downtown property that ended up at the Dubai company; 444.hu brought the listing of the MNB’s three luxury properties; and Telex the revocation of the Kecskemét honorary-citizen title — that is, the parallel of symbolic and material accountability. HVG gave a broader frame: it tied the question of freeing the MFB of its “skeletons” to the safe use of EU funds.

The economic band brought the system-level analysis: Portfolio, under the headline “Így épült fel a NER vagyona – és így lehetne lebontani”, presented Éva Voszka’s research, with the magnitude of political property (8,000–11,000 billion forints) and the dilemmas of dismantling it. This frame is the most useful from MIAK’s point of view, because it focuses not on a single case but on the mechanism.

In the conservative band the topic did not come into top focus on this day as a stand-alone analysis; the conservative papers touched on the Matolcsy affair and asset recovery rather embedded in the “power realignment” frame of topic 2 (the removal of the President of the Republic). From the spectrum as a whole it appears that the facts (a new office, the Matolcsy property) are common, but the meaning — accountability or political reckoning — differs; this is precisely why MIAK places the yardstick of rule-of-law procedure at the centre of the debate, not the attribution of intent.

6.2 Facts and data

Fact Value Source
Estimated value of political property 6,000–15,000 billion HUF (most likely 8,000–11,000) Éva Voszka / Portfolio, 18 June 2026
State wealth reallocated into KEKVAs 3,000+ billion HUF Éva Voszka / Portfolio, 18 June 2026
Ownership changes of the Matolcsy property 5 owners over 4 years 24.hu, 19 June 2026
MNB luxury properties listed 3 444.hu, 18 June 2026
Hungary WGI 2024 — control of corruption -0.17 World Bank WGI

The negative value of the WGI control-of-corruption indicator shows why recovering the wealth is not enough in itself: without dismantling the structural conditions (monopoly, discretion, weak accountability), the indicator — and the reality behind it — does not improve in a lasting way.

6.3 Policy aspects

  • Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points) — the public-funds dashboard, the publicity of asset declarations and public-procurement transparency;
  • Justice (programme points) — the guarantees of property-rights protection and legislative impact assessment;
  • Economy (background material) — the macroeconomic magnitude of political property and the restoration of market competition.

6.4 Literature in detail

6.4.1 Susan Rose-Ackerman: Corruption and Government

Rose-Ackerman describes “grand corruption” as a process taking place at the highest level of government, in which the state channels monopoly profit (rent) to private actors through high-value projects, concessions and privatisation — and emphasises that “privatisation processes are vulnerable to corrupt insider deals”. She also shows that corrupt decision-makers regularly prefer capital-intensive, uncontrollable “white elephant” projects, because skimming profit is easier there. The build-up of the NER’s wealth — channelling state wealth to actors close to the government, the regulatory squeezing-out of competitors — follows precisely this pattern. Rose-Ackerman’s reform proposal is unambiguous: if the decision-maker wants to withdraw from the pressure of political supporters, “bodies with impartial, independent procurement powers must be created” — this is a direct argument for the proposal in 3.1 (an independent, depoliticised institutional framework operating under judicial control).

📖 Source: Susan Rose-Ackerman: Corruption and Government

6.4.2 Robert Klitgaard: Controlling Corruption

Klitgaard condenses the conditions of corruption into a terse formula: “corruption flourishes where monopoly and discretion meet the absence of accountability” — this is the C = M + D − A formula. Monopoly (M) is the position protected from competition, discretion (D) is the uncontrolled freedom of decision, and accountability (A) is the missing control. In the case of the NER’s wealth all three factors were present: the monopoly position of companies close to the government, regulatory and public-procurement discretion, and weak accountability. It follows that recovering the wealth is only the first step; the lasting solution is the change of all three factors of the formula — the reduction of monopoly and discretion, the increase of accountability — otherwise the same structure reproduces itself around the rearranged wealth.

📖 Source: Robert Klitgaard: Controlling Corruption

6.5 International comparison

The international experience of asset recovery is unanimous that the successful cases closed by judicial route, with the guarantees of property rights, in a procedure often lasting years but final and binding — while political acceleration regularly led to compensation lawsuits and the harm of legal certainty. The handling of post-transition privatisation abuses in several Central European countries showed that independent, professional asset-management bodies (bodies not under the direct control of the executive power) were more effective and more legitimate. The practice of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and OLAF (the Union’s anti-fraud office) likewise confirms the priority of documented evidence that holds up in court over political declarations — this is the international confirmation of the proposal in 3.1 (judicial control).

Transparency and anti-corruption policy

  • A1 — Public-funds dashboard
  • A2 — Public-procurement transparency
  • A3 — Publicity of asset declarations

Justice

  • I3 — Legislative impact assessment
  • I5 — Property-rights protection

6.7 Source register

Press sources (MIAK press monitor, 19 June 2026 — topic 3):

Knowledge-base references (literature):

  • 📖 Susan Rose-Ackerman: Corruption and Government
  • 📖 Robert Klitgaard: Controlling Corruption

Note: the book’s local file path does not appear in the blog’s visible text — only the author and the title.

MIAK internal materials:

  • MIAK policy area: Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points; programme point ID: A1)
  • MIAK policy area: Justice (programme points; programme point ID: I5)
  • MIAK policy area: Economy (background material)
  • MIAK press monitor, 19 June 2026 — topic 3, score: 76/100

Supplementary public data sources:

  • ÁSZ reports; MNB foundation wealth data; public-procurement database (EKR); World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators 2024

Generation metadata