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.

> 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.

I don’t care about examples from the US. How is that relevant or at all related to this specific ban?

> 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.

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...