New Twist in Hungary’s “Gold Convoy” Case Could Further Improve Relations with Ukraine

Prosecutors’ latest findings cast new doubt on one of the most controversial actions of Hungary’s election campaign

One of the most contentious episodes of Hungary’s 2026 election campaign was the dramatic March 5 raid in which officers from Hungary’s Counter Terrorism Centre (TEK) stopped seven Ukrainian nationals and seized gold and cash worth more than HUF 27 billion (approximately €67 million) that they were transporting from Austria to Ukraine.

At the time, the Orbán government and media outlets aligned with it suggested that the shipment might be linked to money laundering and even speculated—without presenting evidence—that the funds could somehow be connected to Hungary’s opposition Tisza Party. Two months later, the legal basis for that operation appears increasingly fragile.

Prosecutors: National security concerns were not properly substantiated

According to the law firm representing the couriers, the deputy chief prosecutor of Budapest concluded that Hungary’s Constitution Protection Office failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that the seven Ukrainian citizens posed a national security risk. That conclusion strikes at the core justification for the raid, the subsequent detention of the couriers, and their expulsion from Hungary.

In a further development, Hungary’s National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing has already withdrawn the expulsion orders and entry bans imposed on the seven men after the Constitution Protection Office formally retracted its earlier recommendation.

Kyiv always insisted the transfer was legitimate

From the outset, Ukraine maintained that the shipment was part of a routine interbank transfer between Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank International and Ukraine’s state-owned Oschadbank. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha described the seizure as “state banditry,” and Kyiv summoned Hungary’s ambassador to explain the operation.

After Hungary returned the assets in early May, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Hungary for what he called a “constructive approach” and a “civilized step.”Sybiha said the decision demonstrated the new Hungarian government’s willingness to rebuild bilateral ties on the basis of mutual respect and pragmatic cooperation. Today’s prosecutorial finding may become another confidence-building gesture

The latest statement from prosecutors carries significance well beyond the courtroom.

While it does not by itself determine criminal liability, it suggests that Hungarian institutions are prepared to revisit one of the most politically sensitive and internationally scrutinized actions of the previous government.

For Kyiv, that matters.

It reinforces the impression that Hungary’s new leadership is willing not only to correct past decisions, but also to acknowledge when official justifications were inadequately supported.

A chance to turn the page

Hungarian–Ukrainian relations have been strained for years over issues ranging from minority rights and energy security to broader disagreements over Russia’s war in Ukraine. The “gold convoy” affair became a particularly symbolic dispute because Ukrainian officials saw it as the politicization of what they insist was a lawful financial transfer.

The return of the seized assets, the lifting of expulsion orders, and now the prosecution service’s conclusion that the alleged national security threat was not properly substantiated together suggest that the case is moving toward resolution.

For both Budapest and Kyiv, that may offer more than legal closure. It could provide another step toward rebuilding trust and opening a more stable and constructive chapter in bilateral relations.