Not new rules, but effective enforcement
The chairman of the customs police union, Frank Buckenhofer, has sharpened the debate: rather than placing a greater burden on those who earn and declare their income and assets legally, the state must be far more resolute in seizing criminally acquired assets.
The wording is provocative. However, the underlying question is a valid one: does the state deploy its resources where they yield the greatest benefit in terms of the rule of law and the economy?
Asset confiscation is not budgetary policy
The confiscation of criminally obtained assets must not become a tool for arbitrary budgetary consolidation. It falls under criminal law and is subject to the requirements of the rule of law. This is precisely why the debate must be conducted properly. Where these conditions are met, however, the consistent confiscation of assets is a particularly effective tool. Organised crime is often economically motivated. Those who permanently deprive it of its financial foundations strike not only at individual perpetrators, but also at the economic structure of criminal organisations.
A look at Italy
Italy is frequently cited in the current debate. There, the seizure of assets has for decades been part of the toolkit for combating mafia-like structures. Such a comparison certainly cannot be applied one-to-one to Germany. Different constitutional and procedural frameworks set different limits. Nevertheless, it is worth asking whether Germany is making consistent use of its existing instruments, both organisationally and in practice.
The real problem: acceptance of the rule of law
Citizens and businesses face a problem of acceptance when they see their economic activities being documented, monitored and sanctioned in ever greater detail, whilst at the same time substantial criminal assets remain visibly within the economic cycle. This does not mean downplaying tax evasion or breaches of compliance. Tax integrity and business practices that comply with the rules are the foundations of a functioning society. But the rule of law does not consist solely of an ever-increasing number of new regulations. It is equally evident in the state’s ability to actually enforce existing law.
What businesses should learn from this
This discussion also has direct implications for businesses. Anti-money laundering measures, due diligence on business partners and compliance systems are not merely regulatory burdens. They are designed to prevent legitimate businesses from becoming part of criminal financial flows. Precisely for this reason, the state must, for its part, ensure that the measures required of businesses are embedded within an effective state prosecution and enforcement framework.
Conclusion
Germany does not need to choose between tax compliance and the fight against crime. The two go hand in hand. Anyone who demands ever greater transparency from law-abiding citizens and businesses must, at the same time, demonstrate that breaking the law does not pay. A more rigorous asset recovery programme can make an important contribution to this.
Key points in brief
- Consistently confiscating criminally acquired assets strengthens the rule of law and crime prevention.
- Asset recovery is not a means of balancing the budget, but is subject to clear conditions under the rule of law.
- More regulation is no substitute for effective enforcement. – Businesses need clear rules and a government capable of taking action.
