Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ffhhttt 1026 days ago
So you need to be convicted by a court and the government needs to be able prove the money was obtained from illegal sources?

How is that unreasonable and more importantly what does it have to do with the €3000 limit discussed in this thread?
2 comments
gunapologist99 1026 days ago
It can simply be seized.

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.

link
input_sh 1026 days ago
> 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?

link
frumper 1026 days ago
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.
link
ffhhttt 1026 days ago
I don’t care about examples from the US. How is that relevant or at all related to this specific ban?
link
frumper 1026 days ago
> So you need to be convicted by a court and the government needs to be able prove the money was obtained from illegal sources?

The way you read laws isn't how the enforcers need to read it. That isn't a US specific issue.

link
frumper 1026 days ago
Follow up, the EU is pretty much on the same page as US authorities. No convictions needed.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1acd50be-5237...

link