A total of 156 days have passed since the change in government, as of October 12, 2026. If the government changes, will that automatically change who controls the vast fortunes accumulated over the past decade and a half? This question is on the minds of millions in Hungary today. People remember that Simicska’s wealth was taken away from him sooner.

A change in government does not in and of itself mean that businesspeople who grew rich under the previous regime will lose their wealth. After all, the Tisza is not Fidesz. At least so far, the opposite has not been proven. And during a normal change of government, political power may pass into other hands, but companies, real estate, stocks, and bank accounts do not automatically change ownership. This truly requires investigation, evidence, legal proceedings if necessary, and a final, binding decision — not under-the-table deals.

But this is precisely where the real question begins: if so many questions have been raised about the origins of these fortunes, when will we finally receive convincing answers?

Lőrinc Mészáros’s Wealth: Who Owns the Money, and How Was It Accumulated?

The name Lőrinc Mészáros has become closely associated with Hungary’s economy and public procurement system in recent years. Forbes’ 2026 rich list estimated the fortune of Lőrinc Mészáros and his family at approximately HUF 1,785.7 billion. Their reported business interests span construction, energy, agriculture, tourism, and banking.

This is a staggering amount of wealth, and it raises legitimate questions: What economic processes, business decisions, and financing opportunities made the accumulation of such a fortune possible?

According to an analysis published by Transparency International Hungary in 2025, fourteen companies associated with Mészáros won public procurement contracts worth more than HUF 1,090 billion between 2021 and 2023. This represented 8.6% of the total value of the public procurement contracts examined. The organization also raised concerns about market concentration, shortcomings in competition, and the transparency of beneficial ownership structures.

It is important to distinguish between the total value of public contracts and a company’s actual profits. Receiving numerous government contracts does not, by itself, prove that a criminal offence has occurred.

Nevertheless, the questions cannot be ignored. Was competition adequate in every case? Were prices reasonable? Who monitored the use of public funds? And can the ultimate beneficiaries behind complex ownership structures be fully identified?

These questions should be answered not with political slogans, but with contracts, financial records, and independent investigations.

Perhaps the Wealth Does Not Even Belong to Them?

This is one of the most important questions being raised, but it cannot be answered conclusively without evidence.

The legal owner of an asset and the person who ultimately benefits from it are not always the same. A company may be owned by another company, which may itself form part of a complex corporate group. In the case of private equity funds, identifying the ultimate beneficiaries can be particularly difficult when ownership information is not sufficiently transparent.

According to Transparency International’s analysis, companies in which at least one owner was a private equity fund won public procurement contracts worth HUF 980 billion during the period examined, representing 7.7% of the contracts studied. The organization warned that regulatory shortcomings can make it difficult to establish the identities of the ultimate beneficiaries in such cases.

However, this does not prove that Lőrinc Mészáros or any other businessperson is holding wealth on behalf of a politician, or that any individual is merely a nominal owner.

The right question, therefore, is not whether we can declare without evidence that the wealth belongs to someone else. It is whether the authorities can credibly establish the ownership structures, trace the movement of money, and identify who actually controls the assets.

If someone is holding assets on behalf of another person, that must be established through concrete evidence. Likewise, if wealth was obtained through the misuse of public funds, that must be demonstrated through appropriate legal proceedings.

Why Can’t the Billions Simply Be Taken Back?

A new government cannot treat private property as though it belonged to the state. A change of government does not automatically make previous business contracts illegal, nor does it replace the need for due process.

However, when there is suspicion of corruption, breach of trust, fraud, or another criminal offence, it may be justified to investigate contracts, financial transactions, and the circumstances surrounding the accumulation of wealth. Where there is a proper legal basis and sufficient evidence, authorities may also freeze or seize assets and pursue the recovery of property obtained unlawfully.

The real test is whether these proceedings are conducted transparently, lawfully, and independently of political influence.

What About the Other Businesspeople Who Prosperred Under Fidesz Governments?

This issue is about far more than Lőrinc Mészáros alone. Transparency International’s analysis also identified businesses associated with Ferenc Kis-Szölgyémi, László Szíjj, and Gyula Balásy among significant public procurement winners. The organization highlighted market concentration and shortcomings in the rules governing conflicts of interest between the public and private sectors.

Accountability should therefore not be limited to one individual or one political circle. Each case should be examined to determine:

1. • Which government contracts the companies concerned received.
   • Whether competition was fair and contract prices were reasonable.
   • Whether conflicts of interest or unlawful advantages occurred.
   • Who the ultimate beneficiaries are behind companies and investment structures.
   • Whether demonstrable losses were caused to the Hungarian state or the European Union budget.

The size of a fortune is not, in itself, evidence of a crime. Transparency in the use of public funds and consistent investigations into suspected wrongdoing, however, are fundamental requirements of democratic accountability.

The Most Important Question: Will There Be Genuine Accountability?

After a change of government, people expect more than a change of personnel. They want to know what happened to public money, how major government contracts were awarded, and whether assets obtained unlawfully can be recovered.

This requires public access to information, independent investigations, verifiable results, and institutions capable of doing their work independently of political power.

Genuine accountability does not mean declaring someone guilty simply because of their political connections. It means that no one should be exempt from scrutiny because they were close to the previous government.

In the cases of Lőrinc Mészáros and other wealthy businesspeople, the decisive question is therefore not simply how many days have passed since the change of government. It is what verifiable facts have been uncovered during that time, what investigations have been initiated, and what results they have produced.

Public trust is not restored merely by putting new people in government offices. It can be restored when the flow of public money becomes traceable, responsibility is established on the basis of evidence, and the law applies equally to everyone.