"Insufficiently decisive action by the state ultimately leads to the deterioration of assets and the waste of public resources. In addition to the necessary legislative changes, modern information systems need to be introduced to improve transparency and strengthen oversight of seized and forfeited assets," stressed SAO Vice-President Henrieta Crkoňová.

According to her, legislative amendments should simplify and harmonise the way the state manages assets, clearly define responsibilities among the competent institutions, shorten and clarify statutory deadlines, and strengthen the personal accountability of asset managers. "The efficiency of state asset management could also be improved by making greater use of court-ordered liquidation of forfeited or confiscated assets directly in the judgment, which would significantly accelerate the entire process," she added.

The most recent audit, carried out last year, focused on the temporary administration of assets by district offices in regional capitals and revealed that each of the eight audited offices used a different system for keeping records. "Different methods of record-keeping, incomplete and inaccurate data, the absence of a central overview, missing information on asset values, and the failure to reconcile asset records with accounting data all point to significant systemic shortcomings," underlined Vice-President Crkoňová.

At the end of 2024, district offices in regional capitals held more than 17,000 items of movable and immovable state property under temporary administration, with a combined value exceeding EUR 77 million. Between 2021 and 2023, the state transferred assets in 1,564 cases through sales, donations or transfers of administration, representing assets worth almost EUR 13 million.

Assets under the temporary administration of district offices include confiscated, found and abandoned property, as well as assets belonging to deceased persons who left neither statutory heirs nor a will. District offices also manage the property of dissolved state organisations where no legal successor has been designated. They are also responsible for managing assets originating from criminal proceedings that do not fall within the remit of another administrator, such as the Office for the Administration of Seized Assets.

The SAO audited the Office for the Administration of Seized Assets in 2024. The Office manages assets on the basis of court or prosecutorial decisions. However, under the current legislation, such assets cannot be sold without the owner's consent. This issue is particularly evident in the case of seized motor vehicles, whose value depreciates significantly over time. The Office also administers vehicles that already had very low market value when they were seized. The costs of managing these vehicles are therefore likely to exceed the proceeds from any eventual sale following a final conviction and forfeiture order.

By contrast, in the Czech Republic, seized assets such as motor vehicles and electrical equipment may be sold without the consent of the accused. The Office most frequently manages residential and commercial properties, land, motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers. It is also responsible for managing property rights in the form of seized business shares, securities, funds held in bank accounts and virtual currencies. According to its annual report, the Office handled 56 cases when it was established at the end of 2021. By the end of 2025, this number had risen to almost 270 cases involving seized assets.

The auditors also examined the procedures used by customs authorities in managing forfeited state assets originating from customs supervision and tax control. Audits were carried out at eight customs offices and at the Economics Section of the Financial Directorate of the Slovak Republic. During the audited period from 2019 to 2021, the total value of stored seized, confiscated and forfeited assets exceeded EUR 1.7 billion. Based on a representative sample of 446 cases from more than 16,000 customs office cases (representing 2% of the total), the audit confirmed failures to comply with statutory deadlines for seizure, confiscation and forfeiture of goods, inflexible procedures in the management of state assets, and lengthy disposal processes.