Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein. Will the asset-seizure act leave victims behind? To compensate the victims of brokerage scandals this spring the Hungarian Parliament has passed the asset-seizure act. The new act allows a wider range for the seizure of crime related property, thereby suggesting that the victims can enforce their civil claims more effectively. Whether the recently passed law actually protects the injured parties' claim, is questionable. Act XXXI of 2015 i.e. the Asset-Seizure Act sets new rules as compared to the provisions of Act XIX of 1998 on the Criminal Procedure. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the assets of organizations carrying on certain specified activities and persons in connection with them can be seized in a wider range. Based on this, asset-seizure can affect organizations committing property crime, bankruptcy and drawing off funds as defined by the Hungarian Criminal Code. The law establishes the possibility of seizing the assets of persons possessing qualifying holdings or controlling influence, and also those of the chief executive, employee, the manager, a supervisory board member or even the auditor of the organisation as defined by the Criminal Code. Although it may appear that from this time on victims can more efficiently enforce their claims, the reality shows a different picture. According to the Hungarian Criminal Code a civil claim can be enforced only against the organisation suspected in the criminal procedure, i.e. the accused, the cover of which is the asset seized from the accused. As a consequence of which, of all the seized properties, only the asset seized from the accused ensures the recovery of the civil claims. Assets seized from others than the accused - unless provided for by law to the contrary-will become properties of the State. As stated in the Criminal Code a property obtained by the offender in the course of or in connection with a criminal act and also property acquired in the course of or in connection with a criminal act if it served the enrichment of another person can be confiscated. Furthermore, the asset-seizure act fails to answer the question how crime related assets played into the hands of offshore companies either by the organization or a person participating in any of the activities of the organization can be used to compensate for damages. After contracting a third party assets are no longer at the offshore company's disposal, which makes the chances of their recovery slim to none. The burden of proving that the aim of the contract is to draw off funds lies with the damaged party , however regardless of each party being Hungarian due to the formalities of the Civil Code in such cases the applicable law is that of the off-shore companies. It can easily happen that the Hungarian parties have to litigate under the jurisdiction of the British Virgin Islands, where if the drawing off of funds cannot be proved, the fund to meet the claims of the damaged parties further decreases with this amount. Although the Asset Seizure Law allows a wider range for the seizure of crime related property, only a smaller part of the seized property can cover the claims of the damaged parties. Properties seized from other than the accused will become the properties of the State, while at the same time properties disposed of by offshore companies are impossible to recover. In our opinion the Asset-Seizure Law needs to be amended to ensure that the seized property is rendered to the damaged party.