Freezing Assets Quickly, Recovering Them Slowly: The Challenges of Asset Recovery

Only about 2% of assets proven to be acquired through corruption are successfully recovered in the European Union—this was highlighted during the roundtable discussion titled “Is It Worth Going Down the Wrong Path? Experiences in Asset Tracing and Recovery,” held at the Converging Roads of Integrity 2025 conference. The knowledge-sharing session featured Viktória Angyal (National Bureau of Investigation, Hungary), Valerija Gedeikė (STT, Lithuania), Rob Hanratty (FBI, USA), and Jon Meredith (NCA, UK), moderated by Krisztina Bombera.

Asset Recovery: Making Crime Not Pay

What would be the ideal recovery rate? According to Viktória Angyal, it should be 100%. Jon Meredith from the UK’s National Crime Agency, however, would be satisfied with any improvement over the current situation—even a 20% or 50% recovery rate would be a huge step forward. The proportion of assets that authorities can recover for the public is crucial, as it fundamentally influences the behavior of offenders. Asset tracing and recovery are not only about restoring social justice but also about deterring future crimes. For FBI Special Agent Rob Hanratty, this is the true measure of law enforcement effectiveness.

You Can Lock Up Stolen Assets—Even Before the Offender

It’s a well-known phenomenon in Hungary and elsewhere that corruption cases can drag on for years, often ending with little or no result, or with sentences perceived as too lenient, while the assets vanish without a trace. In the UK, Lithuania, and the USA, such cases can also last 5–8 years. Sometimes, the legal process itself consumes more resources than the value of the assets recovered. Jon Meredith emphasized that the length of proceedings is less important than how quickly authorities can freeze assets once a case breaks. Rob Hanratty agreed, noting that in the US, investigations often run covertly for years to prevent criminals from moving assets abroad or laundering them.

The law allows for the freezing or even confiscation of assets derived from crime before a final conviction. In “non-conviction based asset forfeiture” proceedings, authorities only need to convince the court that the assets likely originate from corruption or other crimes. In this process, it’s not the person but the assets themselves that are “convicted” and seized.

The Key to Success: Cooperation, Information Sharing, Transparency

Viktória Angyal presented a major corruption case in Hungary involving 54 people and about 25 billion forints of EU funds. Authorities managed to freeze assets worth about 1 billion forints—including cash, securities, real estate, and other valuables—even when some assets were registered under family members, distant relatives, or legal entities. Effective cooperation between agencies—tax authority, prosecution, and police—was essential for timely asset freezing.

FBI Special Agent Rob Hanratty highlighted the importance of international law enforcement cooperation and rapid information sharing, especially for recovering assets moved abroad, and praised the work of the FBI’s liaison in Hungary.

The panel agreed that public support for law enforcement can be strengthened by making the fate of seized assets transparent. Often, these assets cannot be returned to victims, so they either go to the state budget or, in some cases, are donated to public benefit organizations or social projects..