Part I — Situation overview

On 6 July 2026, Ruff Bálint signed the decision winding up the foundation of the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC — a talent-development and higher-education institution which received significant state assets in foundation form); according to the announcement, the foundation will cease to exist on 31 July 2026. On the same day, parliament debated the government’s anti-corruption legislative package, in which Ruff Bálint put it thus: “every single day” he encounters “hundred-billion-scale sleaze schemes”, and the package is needed because, in his view, the former governing circles extracted public assets over sixteen years. In the background stands the National Asset Recovery and Protection Office (NVVH — the new office created to uncover unlawfully extracted public assets and initiate their recovery), whose powers — precisely as a result of the rule-of-law concerns — may be amended by next week. MCC stated in its communiqué that in its view “no unexpected or extraordinary development has occurred”.

The topic is not without precedent. Since the April 2026 change of government, MIAK has dealt in several analyses with the handling of the legacy of the NER (the System of National Cooperation, the colloquial name for the post-2010 governmental and business network of interests) — from document retention to assets moved abroad. The current step is the next phase of that process: a decision must be made on the future of the public assets outsourced into the public-interest asset-management foundations created after 2020 (KEKVA — a foundation form performing public tasks and managing state assets, universities, company stakes). The debate is not isolated: in the same week several high-profile criminal cases are also under way — Bús Balázs, detained in the case around the National Cultural Fund (NKA), was for example not given permission for two weeks to speak with his relatives, and on another thread Hajdu János, former head of the Counter-Terrorism Centre (TEK), was questioned as a suspect. These cases raise sharply the question of proportionality and procedural guarantees.

By MIAK’s reading, the real stake of the news is not whether recovering public assets is a right goal — according to MIAK it is legitimate and necessary — but how it happens. The recovery of public assets is either a rule-of-law act or a political purge; the two are separated by a single thing: the procedural guarantee. Winding up a foundation is in itself a legal act which is not the same as establishing responsibility — the latter can be decided exclusively through an independent prosecutorial and judicial route, with the presumption of innocence. The character of the problem is therefore not “accountability or not”, but whether the accountability retains those guarantees which must protect everyone in the future too — regardless of who is in government.

Part II — Literature foundation

Before turning to MIAK’s proposals, it is worth fixing the conceptual frame. Susan Rose-Ackerman’s Corruption and Government (1999) sharply distinguishes kleptocracy — the arrangement in which corruption is organised at the top level of power, and state power serves systematic private wealth acquisition — from low-level administrative bribery; it further points out that the absence of credible, independent law-enforcing institutions feeds precisely the fear of expropriation, which also deters investors. From this follows the key lesson: the antidote to kleptocratic wealth acquisition is not arbitrary taking-back, but a predictable, rule-of-law procedure. And the formula of Robert Klitgaard’s classic Controlling Corruption (1988) — Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion − Accountability (C = M + D − A) — shows why extractable public assets arose in the first place: where large state assets are transferred to a single organisation shielded from competition, with wide discretionary room and weak accountability, private extraction becomes structurally possible. The common message of both authors is that protection is given not by reversing the direction of power, but by accountability and by narrowing the discretionary room. The detailed literature treatment — by author, with source references — can be found in the 6.4 Literature in detail section.

Part III — MIAK’s concrete proposal

MIAK proposes three measurable measures which channel the recovery of public assets into the bed of rule-of-law procedure instead of political intent, and turn the recovered assets to public purposes.

3.1 The procedural guarantee package of asset recovery: an independent prosecutorial-judicial route, public criteria (within 30 days)

The first and most important step is the clean separation of roles. MIAK proposes that the powers of the asset-recovery office (NVVH) extend exclusively to uncovering, data collection and initiating proceedings — establishing responsibility, ordering asset forfeiture and sanctioning should remain in the hands of an independent prosecutor and court. This is a basic constitutional requirement: the office does not judge, and the courts are independent and subordinate only to the law. This should be joined by a pre-published set of criteria applying equally to everyone about which assets qualify as unlawfully extracted and on what evidence — so that the decision rests not on case-by-case discretion but on a predictable rule. In the Klitgaard C = M + D − A framework (see 6.4.1) this step at once narrows the discretionary room (D) and strengthens accountability (A). The guarantee package builds on the I5 property-rights protection and the I4 judicial independence programme points, and also contains the requirement of proportionality: pre-trial detention or the restriction of contact must not be an anticipated punishment, and may be applied only where the statutory conditions strictly hold.

3.2 A public inventory of KEKVA and foundation assets and a public-purpose reuse plan (within 90 days)

The second proposal concerns the fate of the assets. MIAK asks that an itemised, machine-readable, public inventory be made of the assets of every public-interest asset-management foundation (KEKVA) concerned and of the wound-up foundations — including MCC: what the asset value is, where it comes from, what public task it performs. The inventory should fit into the system of the A1 public-money dashboard, and connect to the clawback logic of the A8 cohesion accountability programme. According to MIAK, the recovered assets must be turned to public purposes — with priority to education and healthcare — in a publicly documented way; educational reuse directly serves the O11 early-development and the O3 data-driven education-development programmes. An important point of legal precision: winding up a foundation is a legal act which does not establish criminal responsibility — therefore the public-purpose reallocation of the assets must happen in such a way that the evidence of ongoing criminal and civil proceedings is not damaged, and those concerned retain their right of appeal.

3.3 Guarantees against retroactive political purges: an independent office and an annual rule-of-law audit (12-month cycle)

The third proposal is about long-term protection. According to MIAK, asset recovery will be durably credible if it is tied not to the political will of the prime minister of the day, but to institutionalised guarantees. We therefore propose setting up the A10 independent Corruption Investigation Office (on the model of Singapore’s CPIB): operationally independent, with its own investigative capacity, but the pronouncement of responsibility remains with the court. In addition, within the A6 strengthening checks and balances programme, MIAK proposes an annual, public rule-of-law audit of the asset-recovery proceedings: in how many cases proceedings were opened, how much pre-trial detention was applied with proportionate justification, and — most importantly — in how many cases the court finally convicted or acquitted. This is complemented by the I3 legislative impact assessment: the law amending the NVVH’s powers should be accompanied by a mandatory, public analysis of what behavioural and rule-of-law risks it carries.

These three proposals are bound together by a single principle: the recovery of public assets is a legitimate goal, but its legitimacy is given not by the outcome but by the procedure. By MIAK’s ideology-free position, the same yardstick applies to every government — the guarantee system which today puts the departing network of interests under proceedings will tomorrow protect anyone, and must therefore be strengthened, not weakened.

Part IV — Expected impacts and risks

Dimension Expected impact Risk
Law / institutions The clean separation of powers (the office uncovers, the court judges) strengthens rule-of-law trust and the unassailability of the proceedings If the office overreaches beyond the uncovering-initiating role, the proceedings fail on appeal, and the recovery of public assets is also delayed
Economy / public assets The public inventory and public-purpose reuse of KEKVA and foundation assets frees up measurable resources for education and healthcare Rushed asset forfeiture carries legal and compensation risk; investor confidence may be damaged if property appears unprotected
Society / political culture The technical, not personal, character of accountability reduces polarisation and sets a precedent for future governments If it becomes fixed in the public mind as “political revenge”, the absence of guarantees can reverse the process, and it can be turned against the next government

The main question to weigh is the tension between speed and guarantee. The recovery of public assets is time-sensitive — assets can be moved, time works for the extractor — yet the rule-of-law procedure is slower than an administrative decision. The proposal works if the office uncovers and freezes quickly (where the law allows), but the final forfeiture and the sanction are in every case pronounced by a court. The tipping point is where proportionality is breached: if pre-trial detention or the restriction of rights becomes practice before proof, the process slides over to the side of the purge — and weakens precisely the rule-of-law yardstick which everyone will need in the coming decade.

Part V — Measurability and summary

5.1 What is worth tracking? (suggested KPIs)

The success of the proposal is worth tracking on the basis of a few suggested performance indicators (KPIs, in English: Key Performance Indicator — indicators that show whether it succeeded):

  • whether the written criteria of asset recovery, applying equally to everyone, are publicly available (suggested target: full, machine-readable publication);
  • what percentage of the office’s substantive decisions came before independent judicial review, and in what proportion the court convicted or acquitted (the rule-of-law yardstick is decided here);
  • whether the itemised, public inventory of the KEKVA and wound-up foundation assets is completed, and how large a share of it goes, in a documented way, to public-purpose (educational, healthcare) reuse;
  • the proportionality indicator: the justification and duration of pre-trial detentions and restrictions of rights in the cases connected to asset recovery.

5.2 Summary

MIAK’s key message: recovering public assets is right and necessary, but its legitimacy is given not by who carries it out, but by whether it retains the rule-of-law guarantees. MIAK asks decision-makers that the asset-recovery office stay within the role of uncovering and initiating, that responsibility be pronounced by an independent prosecutor and court, that a public inventory be made of the recovered assets and their public-purpose reuse also be transparent — and that the whole be governed by a rule laid down in advance and applying equally to everyone, with the presumption of innocence and proportionately. Two MIAK foundational values move together here: accountability, because those who extracted public assets must genuinely be held responsible — but on evidence, not on a name-list; and being ideology-free, because the same guarantee system protects against every government, regardless of who happens to exercise power.

Part VI — Justifications and further sources

6.1 Press framing by spectrum

The liberal-left public-affairs band (444.hu) framed the step as part of the anti-corruption drive: 444.hu carried at once the fact of the winding-up — highlighting that MCC was one of the most important ideological institutions of the former governing side — and Ruff Bálint’s parliamentary appearance, in which he used the narrative of “hundred-billion-scale sleaze” and “sixteen years of theft” to justify the legislative package. On that day 24.hu foregrounded not the winding-up itself but the human-rights edge of the accountability drive: the contact restriction of the detained Bús Balázs and his lawyer’s turning to the prosecution service — this thread sharpens precisely the question of proportionality and the right to defence. The pro-government-conservative band (Magyar Nemzet, Mandiner) built a sharp counter-narrative: Magyar Nemzet described the decision as “yet another political revenge”, while Mandiner — building on a shared Orbán quote — framed it as “Tisza crosses every line: human, moral, rule-of-law”, and announced a demonstration. HVG’s relevant analysis, which discusses the office’s risk of overreach, was behind a paywall (the article was not publicly downloadable), but its title alone echoed MIAK’s concern: the office “can easily overshoot the target”. The spectrum thus largely agrees on the fact (the foundation is being wound up, the office’s powers are contested), and diverges sharply in the conclusion: anti-corruption necessity versus a rule-of-law line-crossing. MIAK’s ideology-free reading adopts neither frame — it traces the question back to a single gauge, the procedural guarantee.

6.2 Facts and data

  • The decision winding up MCC’s foundation was signed by Ruff Bálint on 6 July 2026; according to the announcement the foundation will cease to exist on 31 July 2026 (444.hu, Magyar Nemzet, 6 July 2026).
  • The powers of the asset-recovery office (NVVH) may be amended in the week following 7 July 2026, as a result of the rule-of-law criticism (MIAK press monitor, 7 July 2026).
  • According to MCC’s position, “no unexpected or extraordinary development has occurred” (MCC communiqué, 6 July 2026).
  • The aggregate asset value of the public assets outsourced into KEKVA foundations is, by public estimates, of the order of several thousand billion forints (HVG 360’s earlier estimate; no exact, official aggregate value is publicly available).
  • Hungary’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI — the World Bank’s governance-quality indicators) 2024: control of corruption −0.17; rule of law +0.35; government effectiveness +0.42 (World Bank WGI 2024).
  • Cases marking the proportionality edge of the accountability drive: Bús Balázs, detained in the case around the National Cultural Fund (NKA), was not given a contact permit for two weeks (24.hu, 6 July 2026); in the gold-convoy case Hajdu János, former head of the TEK, was questioned as a suspect (ATV, 29 June 2026).

6.3 Policy aspects

  • Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points) — the gravitational centre of the topic: the procedural guarantees of public-asset recovery, the public inventory of the assets, the public-money dashboard, the cohesion clawback logic and independent corruption investigation;
  • Justice (programme points) — the separation of powers, judicial independence, property-rights protection (the guarantee against politically motivated proceedings) and the impact-assessment obligation;
  • Education (programme points) — since MCC is an educational institution, and one proposed public purpose of the recovered assets is precisely education: financing early development and data-driven education development.

6.4 Literature in detail

6.4.1 Robert Klitgaard: Controlling Corruption

The core of Klitgaard’s corruption analysis is the C = M + D − A formula: corruption flourishes where monopoly position and wide discretionary authority meet the absence of accountability. Drawing on the experience of anti-corruption agencies (for example the Hong Kong and Singapore models), the work shows that control must be strengthened at once by narrowing the discretionary room and by building up accountability — and that such an agency is credible only if it is operationally independent and not politically steered. Translated to the case of the NER assets: the extractable public assets arose exactly where large state assets were transferred to a single foundation shielded from competition, with wide discretionary room and weak public accountability. MIAK’s proposals — the pre-published set of criteria, the public asset inventory, the independent Corruption Investigation Office — target precisely the reduction of D and the increase of A, instead of simply handing the discretionary power to another actor. (The work is protected by copyright; MIAK publishes paraphrase only from it.)

📖 Source: Robert Klitgaard: Controlling Corruption

6.4.2 Susan Rose-Ackerman: Corruption and Government

Rose-Ackerman is a classic of the economic and institutional analysis of corruption. She sharply distinguishes kleptocracy — in which corruption is organised at the top level of power, and “a strong ruler arranges the political system to maximise rent extraction” — from low-level, decentralised administrative bribery. Her key argument is that the absence of credible, independent law-enforcing institutions distorts in itself: out of fear of expropriation and confiscatory taxation, actors switch to short-horizon, “get-rich-quick” behaviour, which damages the whole economy. For MIAK the decisive lesson from this is that the antidote to kleptocratic wealth acquisition is not reversing the direction of power and arbitrary taking-back, but predictable, independent law enforcement — because legal certainty is exactly the value which kleptocracy demolished, and which recovery must restore, not weaken further. Dismantling the NER’s wealth is therefore a cure only if the procedure itself is rule-of-law. (The work is protected by copyright; MIAK publishes paraphrase only from it.)

📖 Source: Susan Rose-Ackerman: Corruption and Government — Causes, Consequences, and Reform

6.5 International comparison

The international practice of recovering unlawfully acquired public assets (asset recovery) shows that legitimacy stands or falls on procedural guarantees and public-purpose reuse. The UN convention against corruption (UNCAC) devotes a standalone chapter to asset recovery, and the joint StAR initiative (Stolen Asset Recovery) of the World Bank and the UN develops precisely the methodology of assets recovered through the courts, in international cooperation — both make the independent judiciary the axis of the process. The United Kingdom, with the institution of the so-called unexplained wealth order, in certain cases places the burden of proof on the person concerned, but the order is still issued and reviewed by a court — here too the guarantee is judicial control. Italy’s anti-mafia practice is the most instructive for public-purpose reuse: the confiscated assets are, by law, reused for social and educational purposes (the “beni confiscati” system), so recovery is not mere forfeiture but the creation of public good. The lesson chimes with MIAK’s proposals: it is not the fact of recovery, but judicial control and public, public-purpose use that make the process rule-of-law.

Transparency and anti-corruption policy

  • A1 — Public-money dashboard
  • A2 — Public-procurement transparency
  • A6 — Strengthening checks and balances
  • A8 — Cohesion-policy accountability
  • A10 — Independent Corruption Investigation Office (CPIB model)

Justice

  • I4 — Protection of judicial independence
  • I5 — Property-rights protection
  • I3 — Legislative impact assessment

Education

  • O11 — Behavioural-science methods in early development
  • O3 — Data-driven education development
  • O5 — Civic and institutional awareness

Suggested new programme point: An asset-recovery procedural guarantee protocol (public set of criteria, proportionality, presumption of innocence, public-purpose reuse) — for the Transparency and anti-corruption policy area.

6.7 Source register

Press sources (MIAK press monitor, 7 July 2026 — topic 4):

Knowledge-base references (literature):

  • 📖 Robert Klitgaard: Controlling Corruption
  • 📖 Susan Rose-Ackerman: Corruption and Government — Causes, Consequences, and Reform

Note: in the blog’s visible text only the author and the title appear for the books; the local file path is an internal matter of generation. Both works are protected by copyright — MIAK publishes paraphrase only from them.

MIAK internal materials:

  • MIAK policy area: Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points; programme point ID: A10)
  • MIAK policy area: Justice (programme points; programme point ID: I5)
  • MIAK policy area: Education (programme points; programme point ID: O11)
  • MIAK press monitor, 7 July 2026 — topic 4, score: 84/100

Additional public data sources:

  • World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) 2024 — control of corruption, rule of law, government effectiveness indicators.
  • UN convention against corruption (UNCAC) chapter V; World Bank–UNODC StAR (Stolen Asset Recovery) initiative — the international methodology of asset recovery.

Generation metadata