The NVVH defended the tracking dog from Miklós Seszták and his team

The National Asset Recovery and Protection Office responded to claims by Miklós Seszták's defense regarding the significance of a search dog’s alert during a raid. They argued that the dog’s signal is a valid piece of evidence in criminal proceedings. Seszták's lawyer suggested that the court might have made a different decision on extending his detention if the expert opinion had been presented earlier. However, the NVVH emphasized that the relevant government decree categorizes the use of search dogs as part of evidentiary procedures. They maintained that the court's decision to extend Seszták's detention was justified by ongoing risks of evidence tampering and the lack of success in tracing illicitly obtained funds.