Pál Fürcht, the former head of the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office in Hungary, was suspended from his position after he made public information about the investigation into the confiscation of money and gold transport intended for Ukraine, in March 2026.
Nearly seven months after the operation that caused tensions between Budapest and Kiev, the scandal of the confiscation of money and gold transport continues to have repercussions in Hungary. This time, at the center of attention is none other than one of the prosecutors who had responsibilities in the case, Pál Fürcht, whom the leadership of the Prosecutor’s Office accuses of violating the confidentiality obligation.
The suspension comes into effect on Friday, October 16, and was decided by István Lajtár, the deputy prosecutor general who exercises the duties of the head of the Prosecutor’s Office, who also announced that a new disciplinary procedure has been opened against the former chief prosecutor, reports Kontroll.
Resignation and accusations of pressure on justice
Pál Fürcht resigned from the leadership of the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office on June 8, after his relationships with his superiors deteriorated. He remained a prosecutor, but began to publicly speak about alleged political interventions in sensitive investigations, which the new leadership of the Prosecutor’s Office denied.
In an open letter published at the end of September, Pál Fürcht claimed that prosecutors had determined as early as May that the investigation into the transport of money and gold was subject to political pressure.
Furthermore, he claimed that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán had allegedly ordered the intelligence services to detain the Ukrainian couriers as early as March 3. The operation took place two days later, on March 5, 2026, when Hungarian authorities confiscated the transport and detained the Ukrainian citizens accompanying it.
The former chief prosecutor also argued that individuals from the Prosecutor’s Office intervened in the investigation without following official procedures and bypassed him in making some decisions, thus the interventions would have hindered the investigation into the role of the intelligence services in the operation.
Furthermore, Pál Fürcht also brought up another “heavy” case, known as the Gundalf-Henry, in which IT specialists allegedly associated with the Tisza party are involved, suggesting that there might have been political influences on the prosecutors’ activities in this case as well.
Details, HERE