NKA and Volánbusz cases: Two former ministers held

Two former ministers, Balázs Hankó and Miklós Seszták, were remanded in custody in autumn 2026. According to suspicions reported by the media, Hankó’s case concerns funding decisions by the National Cultural Fund, while Seszták’s is linked, among other matters, to procurement by Volánbusz.

The two proceedings concern different allegations and individuals, but both raise the question of how decisions on the distribution of public funds and procurement by state-owned companies can be scrutinised. It is important, however, to note that remand in custody is not a punishment and does not constitute a finding of guilt: only a final court judgment can determine that.

Two separate proceedings involving different allegations

According to a report by Portfolio, Balázs Hankó is suspected of breach of fiduciary duty committed as part of a criminal conspiracy and causing particularly substantial financial loss. The publication says the proceedings centre on funding decisions made by the National Cultural Fund’s Temporary Board for Priority Cultural Programmes.

The allegations in Miklós Seszták’s case concern a different matter. According to a report by Telex, the former minister is suspected of accepting bribes in an official capacity. The publication reported that the suspicion concerns the acceptance of more than HUF 11 billion in unlawful benefits from companies under contract with Volánbusz, with the period under investigation running from 2015 to 2018.

These are details reported by the media about suspicions formulated by the investigating authority and the prosecution. The authorities must prove their claims during the proceedings, while the accused may challenge the allegations and present their defence.

What is alleged about the NKA grants?

According to Portfolio’s report, the prosecution alleges that between September 2025 and March 2026, grants worth a total of approximately HUF 17.3 billion were awarded in 1,079 cases without substantive assessment. According to the authorities’ position as described by the publication, part of the money may have been used for campaign financing and part for private purposes.

Balázs Hankó disputes the allegations. According to a report by 444, the former minister denied guilt in his testimony; the essence of his defence was that the decisions complied with the relevant rules and government resolutions.

One of the central questions in the case may therefore be whether the funding decisions had a genuine, documented professional basis, whether decision-making rules were followed, and whether beneficiaries spent the grants on the approved purposes. Assessing this requires scrutiny not only of the individual decisions but also of application documents, decision-making powers, financial transactions and accounts.

The Volánbusz case and disputed financial transactions

According to media reports, the proceedings against Miklós Seszták are examining the links between companies contracting with the state-owned company, procurement and contractual decisions, and the financial transactions allegedly connected to them. According to a report by 24.hu, other business figures were also remanded in custody during the proceedings.

Claims about safes found in Seszták’s home in Kisvárda received particular public attention. According to a report by mfor.hu, investigators found two large safes. Claims about valuables previously stored in them cannot, however, be regarded as proven facts. According to a report by HVG, Seszták’s lawyer denied the claim that cash had been stored there and said that the safes contained documents.

The existence of the safes does not in itself prove either corruption or the origin or amount of the alleged money. From a criminal-law perspective, what may be significant is whether the authorities find a verifiable link between a specific asset, a particular decision and the alleged unlawful benefit.

Why can someone be detained before trial?

Remand in custody is a procedural coercive measure, not an advance punishment. At this stage, the judge does not decide whether the accused is guilty, but whether restricting their personal liberty is necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings.

According to a report by Forbes, in Seszták’s case the authorities cited the risk of absconding and interference with evidence, while applications for bail were rejected. According to a report by Telex, the former minister was remanded in custody by an investigating judge at the Central District Court of Buda.

According to Portfolio’s article of 28 October 2026, Balázs Hankó’s remand in custody was later extended until 1 February 2027. The extension likewise does not amount to a finding of guilt; it means that, at that stage of the proceedings, the court continued to consider the coercive measure justified.

Suspending parliamentary immunity cleared the way

According to reports by Portfolio and Telex, on 28 September 2026 Hungary’s National Assembly suspended the parliamentary immunity of Balázs Hankó and Miklós Seszták at the prosecution’s request. This allowed procedural measures against them to proceed without the obstacle of parliamentary immunity.

The suspension of parliamentary immunity is not a finding on a suspect’s guilt. It is a procedural decision allowing criminal proceedings against a member of parliament to continue. Likewise, being named as a suspect, being taken into custody and being remanded in custody are distinct procedural stages; none is equivalent to a final conviction.

What do the cases reveal about oversight of public funds?

The NKA and Volánbusz cases concern different areas, but raise similar risks from an oversight perspective. Where a small number of people decide on large sums of public money, predetermined criteria, management of conflicts of interest, detailed documentation of decisions and subsequent audits are particularly important.

In grant schemes, publicly disclosing the beneficiary’s name and the amount awarded may not in itself be sufficient. Meaningful transparency also requires it to be possible to trace the purpose for which the money was awarded, who made the decision and on what grounds, how the beneficiary accounted for the funds, and what consequences followed any irregularity.

For procurement by state-owned companies, genuine competition, scrutiny of relationships between decision-makers and bidders, and monitoring of contract performance are similarly important. Criminal proceedings are not the only means of reducing corruption risks: traceable and regularly audited decision-making processes designed for prevention are at least as important.

Further proceedings may resolve the disputed questions

In the next stage of the investigation, the assessment of documents, witness testimony, electronic data and financial transactions may be decisive. It will also be important to establish what evidence the authorities can use to substantiate the personal responsibility of each individual and what counter-evidence the defence presents.

At present, the authorities’ suspicions as reported by the media, the defence’s position and proven facts must be kept separate. Until a final judgment is delivered, both Balázs Hankó and Miklós Seszták are entitled to the presumption of innocence. At the same time, the cases are already of public significance because they concern the scrutiny of large sums of public money and state decision-making systems.