Berlin advances law to seize criminals’ luxury assets
On Tuesday the Senat approved a draft to reverse the burden of proof so prosecutors can more easily seize high-value items such as PS‑strong cars, villas and large bank accounts from suspected serious criminals, an initiative driven by Justice Senator Felor Badenberg (CDU). The move reveals berlin will submit a Bundesratsinitiative to introduce a Beweislastumkehr similar to the rule used in Italy.
Felor Badenberg’s burden shift
The confirmed development is that Justice Senator Felor Badenberg wants suspects to have to prove the legal origin of their assets rather than the state proving illegality; the draft seeks a Beweislastregelung under § 76a Strafgesetzbuch. The pattern suggests lawmakers intend to lower the evidentiary hurdle prosecutors face now, because existing practice leaves prosecutors unable to show a specific predicate crime even when assets starkly mismatch declared income.
Berlin starts Bundesratsinitiative on seizure
The Senat decided to forward a Gesetzentwurf to the Bundesrat, and the draft is to be introduced there; in the Abgeordnetenhaus the parties were broadly supportive aside from detailed criticism. The figures and votes point to political momentum inside berlin institutions: cross‑faction backing in the Abgeordnetenhaus, even if qualified, increases the likelihood the measure will reach the Bundesrat for formal consideration.
BER discovery of 100, 000 euros
Everyday enforcement examples underline the stated problem: at the BER airport officials found banknotes worth 100, 000 euros sewn into a coat while the traveler maintained only a long‑standing mini job; in another case Grenzbeamte found about 150, 000 euros and Swiss francs in a passenger’s luggage on an ICE; and police seized valuable jewelry from a man with prior weapons convictions who lives on social benefits. Current law allows the Staatsanwaltschaft to seek a selbstständige erweiterte Einziehung, but if prosecutors cannot tie the items to a specific crime the assets must often be returned. The analysis suggests these cases expose an evidentiary gap—suspects can invoke the right to refuse testimony and prosecutors frequently cannot prove the unlawful source, so property returns to individuals despite implausible income explanations.
The next confirmed step is that the Senat’s Gesetzentwurf will be brought into the Bundesrat for consideration; if the Bundesrat adopts a Beweislastumkehr as proposed, prosecutors would be able to demand that suspects explain their wealth, which would likely reduce the number of high‑value assets returned when a predicate crime cannot be shown.
