It's always the same game: as soon as the state wants to introduce new control instruments, organized crime is put forward as a justification. And now it's happening again - with the planned reversal of the burden of proof for assets, initiated by CSU politician Alexander Dobrindt. Officially, the idea is to "put a stop to criminal clans". In reality, it is about something completely different: the creeping transition from a constitutional state to a control state.

The trick with the cloak

Who could be against taking money away from criminals? Nobody. That is precisely why this narrative works so well. But behind the façade lurks a dangerous precedent: if you can no longer prove that your assets were acquired "legally", the state will be allowed to confiscate them. This is not a fight against the mafia - it is a general suspicion of the entire population.

And you don't need much imagination to guess where this will lead: Today it hits "clans". Tomorrow, the entrepreneur with cash reserves. The day after tomorrow, the citizen who has simply saved too much - and whose account movements appear "unusual".

From the rule of law to the state of suspicion

The presumption of innocence is the foundation of every constitutional state. To overturn it means turning the relationship between citizens and the state on its head. The state no longer has to prove that you are guilty - you have to prove that you are innocent. This turns a legal system that protects freedom into a system that controls property.

You can already see where the journey is heading:

• Cash is being abolished bit by bit.
• Banks will automatically report "conspicuous" transactions.
• Property is being increasingly regulated and registered.
• With the coming digital identity and CBDC currency, every asset will be technically controllable.

The reversal of the burden of proof is just another building block - elegantly packaged as a "measure against crime".

The real goal: access to your assets

Anyone who believes that such laws only affect criminals has learned nothing from history. As soon as the state has the legal basis to confiscate assets of unclear origin, it is no longer your actions that decide, but your ability to provide evidence.

And evidence can disappear, be lost or be questioned years later. What begins today as a "special right" quickly ends up as the new normal.

Politicians have long since recognized that direct tax increases are unpopular. Instead, indirect expropriation is used: through inflation, control, bureaucracy - and now through the legal reversal of evidence.

Resist the beginnings

This is not about clans, but about principles. It is about the question of whether citizens own property - or whether they merely manage it - with the acquiescence of the state.

The liberal constitutional state lives from the fact that the state is accountable - not the citizen. If this relationship is reversed, the rule of law is history.

Conclusion

The biggest mistake is to believe that such laws affect "the others". Once the state has the tool, it will use it - whenever it suits it. The reversal of the burden of proof is not a fight against crime, but an attack on the freedom of every individual. And those who remain silent now will later realize that they no longer need to prove anything - because nothing belongs to them anymore.