The reversal of the burden of proof in wealth – attack on fundamental principles

The introduction of the reversal of the burden of proof of wealth brings a dramatic shift in the constitutional balance. The obligation to prove the legality of property no longer only affects people with suspicions, but can affect the entire citizen. It is sufficient that authorities classify the origin of credit, real estate or other assets as unclear – thenthe person concerned is forced to prove, often under conditions that are hardly fulfillable. This practice undermines the presumption of innocence and makes everyone a potential suspect. The trust that a conviction will only recognize guilt is undermined by preventive access to private property. The citizen no longer stands before the state as a free person, but asDefender of his living conditions against blanket assumptions.

Arbitrary and economic risks through premature measures

The authorities are given the opportunity to freeze or confiscate assets if they are suspected. The system threatens to become a machine of arbitrariness: estimates and assumptions of the state often replace a well-founded test. This practice is particularly problematic if the reversal of the burden of proof also affects small credits or reserves – such as gifted money, cash fromLong-term savings or inheritances from countries with other legal standards. The consequences are serious: Access to funds is restricted, financial security breaks away, while the legal dispute about the origin is often lengthy and incriminating. The economic hardship can reach for those affected until their existence is at risk.

Rule of law imbalances and everyday problems

The new logic weighs on the individual to a degree that hardly seems fair. The authorities have far-reaching investigative powers and access data, while citizens are faced with complete demands for evidence and uncertain assessment standards. The risk of incorrect assessments and overdrafts is increasing rapidly, because administrative simplifications or flat rates can be regulatedreal living conditions are outside. If you cannot prove your assets completely and comprehensibly, you will lose it – often without having ever committed a crime. The reversal of the burden of proof is not only criminals, but also innocent savers and heirs. In this way, practice clouds the image of legal certainty in everyday life.

Democratic and constitutional consequences – crisis of confidence and shift in power

The reversal of the burden of proof represents a fundamental system break: control of economic freedom and property is deprived of the individual and placed in the hands of the authorities. Preventive interventions become normality, rule of law becomes an exception. The state claims a right to distrust that damages democracy at its core and powersstrengthens – the consequences are severe loss of trust and an atmosphere of insecurity. Anyone who owns property is under pressure to justify themselves, and the presumption of innocence is undermined. This paradigm shift deprives society of a central pillar: the certainty that freedom and property remain protected.