Hajdu János, former TEK Director General, was questioned as a suspect in the gold convoy case

In early June 2027, János Hajdu, the former head of Hungary's Counterterrorism Center (TEK), was questioned as a suspect in connection with the "gold convoy" incident involving Ukrainian cash transporters. This development came after an investigation launched by the Budapest Investigative Prosecutor's Office into alleged unlawful detention and mistreatment of the Ukrainian nationals involved. Hajdu, who had been relieved of his duties as TEK chief in late May 2027, faced accusations of seven counts related to the unlawful detention and mistreatment of the individuals. He reportedly denied the allegations and made a formal statement in response to the charges, maintaining his innocence while asserting his right to remain free pending the outcome of the investigation.

The central issue revolves around an operation conducted in March 2026, when TEK officers intercepted two Ukrainian cash-in-transit vehicles carrying significant amounts of gold and foreign currency. At the time, the vehicles were traveling from Austria through Hungary toward Ukraine. According to official statements, Hajdu, then serving as TEK director, issued directives under the request of the National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV). During a briefing on March 4, 2026, Hajdu instructed that the vehicles should be stopped and their occupants detained on suspicion of criminal activity. His orders included the use of handcuffs and blindfolds—devices typically used to prevent escape or resistance—but applied in a manner that deviated from standard procedures.

On March 5, 2026, at the Alacska rest stop along the M0 motorway, TEK officers executed the operation. They compelled the seven Ukrainian citizens aboard the vehicles to exit, restrained them with handcuffs, and placed blindfolds over their heads. These blindfolds were manipulated in a way that obscured their vision significantly, going beyond their intended use. Hajdu was present at the scene and directly oversaw the operation. Following the arrest, the vehicles and detainees were moved to the TEK facility, suspending an ongoing inspection initiated by NAV financial investigators.

According to internal reports compiled by TEK, the detainees were transferred to NAV authorities within two hours. However, the prosecution noted discrepancies between these records and actual events. While the reports suggested that the individuals were handed over to NAV for further legal proceedings, it became evident that NAV treated them as witnesses rather than suspects. Consequently, the Ukrainians remained in TEK custody despite being formally cleared of criminal liability. The tax authority repeatedly requested the removal of handcuffs from the individuals, emphasizing that no further legal actions were planned. Nevertheless, Hajdu did not comply with these requests, allowing the detainees to remain in custody for extended periods.

The investigation highlighted concerns regarding the prolonged detention of individuals who were legally categorized as witnesses. TEK officers, following Hajdu's directives, kept the detainees in custody for at least nine hours, using restraints and blindfolds in ways deemed degrading to their dignity. Prosecutors argued that such treatment amounted to mistreatment and unjustified restriction of personal freedom. Despite these allegations, Hajdu was allowed to remain free due to the conclusion that he posed no immediate threat to the investigation, given that he had been aware of the probe for months and had no apparent intention to evade legal scrutiny.

The broader context of the incident involves multiple layers of inter-agency coordination and oversight. The initial interception of the Ukrainian cash transporters was prompted by intelligence gathered by the Constitutional Protection Service (Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal), which informed the government of potential illegal activities. The decision to conduct the operation was reportedly made at the highest levels of the Hungarian administration, including Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whose involvement was acknowledged by the Constitutional Protection Service itself. This raised questions about the chain of command and the extent to which higher-level decisions influenced the execution of the operation.

The legal ramifications extend beyond the immediate incident. Internal investigations were initiated by both the NAV and TEK, alongside broader inquiries led by the Central Investigative Chief Prosecutor. These probes aimed to assess whether any legal violations occurred during the handling of the case, particularly concerning the treatment of the Ukrainian nationals. Additionally, several complaints were lodged against Hungarian authorities, prompting the Prosecutor's Office to launch a formal investigation in April 2027. The complexity of the situation is compounded by the involvement of multiple agencies and the potential overlap of jurisdictional responsibilities.

As the investigation progresses, the focus will likely shift towards verifying the accuracy of the claims made by both the prosecution and the defense. Key areas of interest include the legality of the initial interception, the appropriateness of the methods used during the detainment, and the subsequent handling of the detainees by different agencies. The outcome of the investigation could influence future policies regarding the treatment of individuals during law enforcement operations and the coordination between various governmental bodies. Given the high-profile nature of the case and its implications for international relations, the resolution of this matter is anticipated to be closely watched by both domestic and international observers.