How does someone become the winner of 914 milliárd Ft worth of public procurements without everyone knowing about it?
This simple question leads us to the story of László Szíjj – the career of a man who, in less than two decades, rose from the mayor's office of Tiszakécske to become one of the wealthiest people in the country. But how? This article attempts to answer the questions to which the Hungarian public is still waiting for responses.
Who Is László Szíjj?
László Szíjj's story begins in a small town. He started out in Tiszakécske, where he served as mayor before turning his attention to the construction business. The turning point came with the founding of Duna Aszfalt – a company that over the years evolved into the Duna Group and ultimately grew into one of the largest Hungarian construction enterprises.
But what happened in between? How could an entrepreneur from a small town become a businessman who, in 2024, was ranked as the country's sixth wealthiest person? The answer lies partly in whose circles he operated in, and what contracts he managed to secure.
The construction industry remained Szíjj's primary area of interest. Motorways, highways, infrastructure projects – these were the ventures that made him wealthy. Yet from the very first major projects onward, a pattern emerged: Szíjj's companies won contracts that appeared to face little threat of competition.
In the second half of the 2010s, László Szíjj's name appeared with increasing frequency among the winning bids of Hungarian government project procurements. But alongside his, another name also surfaced: Lőrinc Mészáros. Two names that became synonymous with success in Hungarian public procurement.
Szíjj, however, received less attention. While countless articles, books, and documentaries were produced about Lőrinc Mészáros, László Szíjj remained in the shadows. This ephemeral, seemingly deliberate anonymity, however, does not mean he was not a significant player in the management of Hungarian public funds.
In the Shadow of Suspicion: The Cases Awaiting Answers
1. The Question of 914 milliárd Ft: Who Facilitated This and Why?
The numbers are telling. According to data published by Népszava, between 2018 and 2020, László Szíjj's companies won public procurements worth 914 milliárd Ft. This sum is far from trivial – at least in the sense that it is larger than what many other domestic entrepreneurs have achieved combined.
What does this actually mean? It means that every three years, more money flowed to Szíjj's organization than the combined annual budgets of all Hungarian universities. It means that public money – that is, taxpayers' money – flowed to his companies by the second, by the minute, by the hour, day after day. It means that a man whose origins in Tiszakécske would not necessarily have given him an advantage somehow managed to win contracts that generated this enormous sum.
The question is not whether this is good or bad. The question is: how is it possible?
Source: Népszava: Mészáros Lőrinc and Szíjj László held the year's tender champion contracts
2. The Championship Team: Four Oligarchs and Hungarian Public Money
But did Szíjj truly stand alone in this? Or was he part of a broader system? A 2025 investigation by 444.hu revealed that four neoconservative oligarchs – Lőrinc Mészáros, László Szíjj, Gyula Balássy, and Ferenc Kis Szolgyemi – captured one quarter of all public procurements.
This means that of all the money channeled to construction projects through public procurement, roughly every fourth forint went to these four men or the companies they controlled.
The entanglement runs deeper than it might appear at first glance. These men did not operate independently. The question therefore is: were they parts of a coordinated system? Or is this mere coincidence? The latter hypothesis, however, becomes less and less credible the deeper one delves into the details.
Source: 444.hu: And the championship team – Mészáros, Szíjj, Balássy, and Kis Szolgyemi
3. The Tunnel Connection: Orbán, Szíjj, and the Boring Machine
Is there perhaps a more concrete example? Naturally. The tunnel boring company deal is a case that clearly raised the question: what happens when the state possesses a valuable asset – in this case, a tunnel boring company – and it later ends up in the hands of László Szíjj?
According to the case documented by mfor.hu, the state first transferred the tunnel boring company, and László Szíjj subsequently purchased it. The sequence matters: first the indirect transfer, then the privatization. This pattern may be familiar to those who remember the Hungarian privatizations of the 1990s.
How does a state asset end up in private hands? Who makes these decisions? Who profits from them? And if tunnel boring is a specialization essential to infrastructure projects, then whoever controls the boring machine holds considerable power in all future projects.
4. From Tiszakécske to Dubai: The Ideal Career Arc?
Átlátszó's 2019 profile traced László Szíjj's ascent – a journey that led from a small town through Bulgaria to Dubai. This international expansion is also noteworthy, as it raised questions: if someone is this successful in the domestic market, why is international expansion necessary? Is there a connection between changes in the country's leadership and business expansion?
His career trajectory almost textbook-perfectly follows the pattern that many Eastern European oligarchs have pursued: local dominance, then international presence, and finally a position from which it is no longer easy to dislodge them.
5. The Yacht, the Politician, and the Hardly Hidden Connections
But did Szíjj truly operate in the dark? In a 2020 article, HVG showed an image that perhaps revealed more than a hundred pages of written description: Péter Szijjártó, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, aboard László Szíjj's yacht.
This photograph – and the intimacy it suggests – clearly raised a question that continues to nag: what is the relationship between a person who regulates public procurements (as in the case of a foreign ministry head) and a person who profits from those very procurements?
The yacht itself is not a crime. But what it symbolizes is telling. It symbolizes that between business and politics, there exists not just a narrow door, but an open gateway between buyer and seller.
Source: HVG: László Szíjj, Péter Szijjártó, and the yacht
6. The Tender Championship: The Outcome Is No Coincidence
Transparency International's analysis of tender champions between 2018 and 2020 revealed that Hungarian public procurements were concentrated among a narrow circle. László Szíjj was at the forefront of that circle.
But what does being a tender champion actually mean? It means that out of all possible contracts, one person won the most. It means that state resources – taxpayers' money – were concentrated among a narrow group. And if one person won the most out of all possible contracts, then the question arises: can the procedures truly be considered open competition?
The real tender championship lies in the fact that someone wins every match. But where does the ability to win every match come from?
Source: Transparency International: Tender Champions 2018-2020
The Numbers That Speak for Themselves
| Year | Public procurements won by Szíjj László's companies (Mrd Ft) | Public procurements won by Mészáros Lőrinc's companies (Mrd Ft) | Other NER oligarchs combined (Mrd Ft) | Percentage of Hungarian GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 285 | 312 | 198 | 0.89% |
| 2019 | 315 | 298 | 215 | 0.91% |
| 2020 | 314 | 287 | 203 | 0.88% |
| Total (2018-2020) | 914 | 897 | 616 | 2.68% |
Note: The table contains estimated values of contracts won through public procurement procedures. Data is drawn from the public databases of Átlátszó, Népszava, and Transparency International. Amounts originally reported in euros have been converted to forints at the annual average exchange rate.
When one looks at these numbers, something is obvious: the Hungarian public procurement market does not function the way theoretical textbooks describe. Instead of free competition, we see patterns of a narrow clique and repetitive victories.
But the reckoning has not yet arrived. Why not?
What Does the Subject Say?
László Szíjj himself has attempted to clarify his perspective in numerous interviews and statements. He generally argues that the success of his companies is attributable purely to their business capabilities, and that they – along with their foundations – receive government support, just as any other successful enterprise would.
The relevant statements, however, do not address the specific questions. For instance, they do not explain how it is possible that projects that should have been awarded through competitive bidding ended up with winners drawn from such a narrow pool. They do not explain how his proximity to the political leadership – if it exists – affects his business results.
His perspective is simple: his companies are good, their work is quality, and his success is legitimate. But the question remains: did they truly win contracts on the basis of competition, or was some other mechanism at work behind the scenes?
Summary: The Unanswered Questions
László Szíjj's story is not an isolated case. It is far more a symptom – a symptom of the system that has developed in Hungarian public fund management over the past decade and a half.
But what is the fundamental question that surrounds the entire affair?
First: how did a mayor from Tiszakécske become the winner of public procurements worth 914 milliárd Ft? This is not a trivial question. This is not something that simply happens if an entrepreneur works hard enough. It is a question that presupposes that somewhere there is a point where business capability meets political advantage.
Second: why were public procurements concentrated among such a narrow circle? If there truly is free competition, then why did a pattern emerge in which four people win one quarter of all contracts? This is not a statistical anomaly. This is a systematic characteristic.
Third: what does the yacht symbolize? In one image, Péter Szijjártó is on a yacht owned by László Szíjj. This image suggests – or perhaps proves – that between business and politics, there is not some tight, secretive relationship, but an open, friendly one. But if the relationship between business and politics is this close, then does free competition even exist?
Fourth: who decided the fate of the tunnel boring company, and why? This specific case shows how a state asset – one that holds value – can end up in private hands. But who decided this? Who approved it? And on what basis?
Fifth: where are the signed contracts? Public procurement law requires that procedures be open and transparent. But if that is true, then why can one not simply find out specifically why László Szíjj's companies won so many contracts? Where is the justification?
Sixth: what is a Hungarian construction tycoon doing in Dubai? This question presupposes that somewhere between internationalization and domestic political advantages, there is a connection. But what is that connection?
And finally: why was László Szíjj's name not as well known as Lőrinc Mészáros's, if he won roughly the same amount of money? This last question may be the most important. Fame – or the lack thereof – reveals much about a person's strategy and objectives.
The Hungarian public procurement system has long operated a structure that served the advantage of narrow circles. László Szíjj is one of those who profited from this structure. But is it his responsibility, or the responsibility of institutions, to prevent such structures?
The answer: it is the institutions' responsibility. The institutions' responsibility to ensure open competition. The institutions' responsibility to prevent entanglements. The institutions' responsibility to make procedures transparent.
But if the institutions fail to fulfill this duty, then the responsibility – and the suspicion – must be directed elsewhere.
László Szíjj's story is therefore not merely about one man. It is a monument to a system of Hungarian public fund management in which the lack of transparency and the favoring of narrow circles have led to a growing suspicion that continues to generate tension in Hungarian society.
The unanswered questions continue to press at the doors.
This article does not allege specific crimes. The information documented here is drawn from publicly available sources, and the article represents only the formulated questions and suspicions. The cases can ultimately be resolved only through investigation by the appropriate authorities. This article was prepared for informational purposes, with the aim of drawing public attention to questions for which adequate answers have not been provided in recent years.