The assessment of drug-related crimes in Hungary has traditionally been strict. However, recent legislative changes and evolving judicial practice pose new risks that even a significant part of the legal profession is only now becoming familiar with. Of particular concern is the convergence of penalties for possession and trafficking, as well as the stricter system of conditions for diversion.
In this article, we summarize why an occasional consumer is now at greater risk than before, and why legal consultation before making an initial statement is crucial.
One of the most fundamental principles of criminal law is proportionality; however, the legislative intent regarding drug abuse clearly points toward zero tolerance. One of the greatest dangers of the new regulatory directions for consumers is that the penalties for the basic case of possession have practically merged with the penalties for drug trafficking.
In practice, this means that if someone is found with more than a small quantity of a substance, the prosecution is highly likely to motion for an effective prison sentence – even if the person is "only" a first-time offender consumer. The stakes are therefore no longer just a fine or probation, but the risk of actual deprivation of liberty.
However, the playing field has become more difficult even in cases involving small quantities, making life harder for occasional consumers as well. The cause for termination of culpability, commonly known as diversion, previously served as a relatively automatic escape route for them. With the changing legal environment, however, this gate seems to be narrowing.
The condition for participating in diversion is no longer merely admitting the fact of consumption; one must also reveal the circumstances of the commission and make it possible to establish the identity of the person selling the drugs.
Here we arrive at the most critical grey zone of current judicial practice. Is revealing the circumstances sufficient in itself, or must the identity of the dealer actually be made knowable? Unfortunately, due to imprecise legislative phrasing, it cannot be clearly determined whether the two conditions must be met jointly or if these are alternative conditions.
A common defense strategy – or often the actual reality – is that the suspect claims to have bought the drugs at a club or party from an unknown person, providing only a physical description (e.g., "tall, dark-haired man"), but not knowing their name or contact details.
Currently, this is the greatest uncertainty in the legal situation.
If the authority accepts that these are alternative circumstances and evaluates this statement as "revealing the circumstances," the suspect may participate in diversion and be exempted from punishment.
However, if the authority judges that these conditions must be met jointly, they may deny the possibility of diversion.
Since there is no established judicial practice regarding the new regulation yet, suspects are currently "test subjects" of the new system. Those who phrase things poorly or fail to build their testimony correctly may lose the chance for exemption and face the severe penalties brought by the new regulation.
It is clear from the above that the attitude of "I'll just tell the truth and they'll let me go" is extremely risky today. One wrong sentence, an incomplete admission, or inadequate clarification of circumstances during the police interrogation can have irreversible consequences.
Since the first such cases are still ongoing, only those who have up-to-date legal representation and are aware of the authorities' current expectations can feel safe.
If proceedings have been initiated against you or a relative for drug-related offenses contact our law firm for expert legal assistance! do not make a statement without consultation!
Our office follows the changing judicial practice with special attention, and we help build a defense strategy that offers the best chance of avoiding or minimizing punishment.
