Whether a conviction occurs in court is largely irrelevant, because it's in excess of the 3000 limit that this law actually puts in place, and therefore de jure illegal.
In the U.S., no conviction of the owner is even necessary, since the conviction is of the cash itself. This is likely coming to EU as well because it's a easy way for the enforcement state to increase its coffers and, in theory, stop money laundering.
> because it's in excess of the 3000 limit that this law actually puts in place, and therefore de jure illegal.
I don't get it, do you not understand the difference between possessing a certain amount of cash and making a single payment over a certain amount in cash?
How do you make a logical leap from the latter to the former?
Similar laws in the US have readily morphed into we're going to hold it until you prove it's not from illegal sources. Googling it will provide many examples.
How is that unreasonable and more importantly what does it have to do with the €3000 limit discussed in this thread?