
Britain's unexplained wealth orders give the state too much power - protomyth
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/britains-unexplained-wealth-orders-give-the-state-too-much-power
======
fao_

        The kicker: The burden of proof falls on you,
        not the government. If you don't prove the funds
        were clean, Her Majesty may be presumed entitled
        to keep the goodies.
    

That doesn't sound too goo- oh,

    
    
        The asset must be worth at least £50,000
    

Given that the average annual income of someone in the UK is 22,000£, and
there are currently 4 million children in the UK that _cannot afford to eat_
([https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/05/four-
million...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/05/four-million-uk-
children-too-poor-to-have-a-healthy-diet-study-finds)), with a preliminary
study from the UN claiming that 8.4 million people in the UK are affected by
food shortages, this just falls under 'rich people problems'.

Besides, if you buy something that is over 50,000£, surely you would keep the
reciept for insurance reasons, or just plain book-keeping. If you don't, and
the taxman shows up and asks where you got it, then that's your fault for not
having possession of those records. If you can afford to buy a single thing
that is _twice the average salary_ , then you can afford to pay someone to do
that book-keeping for you, _surely_.

~~~
nickthemagicman
That 50k is an arbitrary number and can be lowered at any moment. Rich
people's problems may one day be everyone's problems. This is a scary law on
my limited understanding.

~~~
heraclius
The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they need to show that the
initial step taken somehow leads to the bad outcome mentioned. The obvious
solution is to stay at 50k. I think that the political situation still would
create a huge uproar if it were lowered significantly.

~~~
deogeo
So for a slippery slope argument to be valid in this case, you would have to
show that governments (or the UK government specifically) tend to slowly
expand their repressive powers?

~~~
fao_
You can use the exact same argument to argue that the speed limit will
decrease forever.

------
tlb
At some level, this law is a response to how slow the courts are in enforcing
other laws. In the case described, the money is surely the proceeds of a
crime. But it might take 10 years to prosecute that crime, given multiple
jurisdictions and a well-lawyered defendant. Meanwhile, the money causes harm
by distorting the economy.

So I understand the desire to do something in the meantime. But let's not lose
sight of the proper solution: swift justice for the actual crime.

------
NeedMoreTea
Ugh, that seems very biased given the extensive cases of money laundering that
led to UWOs coming into law in the first place.

"Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute"

Ah, the Cato institute who would like states to have no power to speak of, on
anything much.

This seems a more balanced brief overview of UWOs, which notes they're not
being used often enough yet:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/vishalmarria/2018/10/25/how-
the...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/vishalmarria/2018/10/25/how-the-
unexplained-wealth-order-combats-money-laundering/)

------
moneytide1
I immediately thought of an excerpt from "Empire of Things" by Frank
Trentmann. It is somewhat out of context, considering the parent article
describes the legal validation of economic gains displayed as luxury assets,
whereas the following excerpt describes the states attempt to preserve the
economic virtues of the populace:

“In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Venice senate passed more than a dozen
laws and regulations against [sumptuous lifestyles]. Lavish weddings and
expensive fur-lined coats made visible inequalities in wealth and status that
threatened the republic’s ideal of equality and restraint. They also triggered
a competitive spending spree which pushed some citizens into debt.”

------
muro
When growing up in post-communist eastern Europe, I was a huge fan of such
laws. Ill-gotten gains, many rich people with unexplained wealth. Partially
tax evasion, but largely theft and receiving bribes. Especially for corrupt
politicians, I think such law is necessary.

The problem is selective enforcement.

~~~
esarbe
Selective enforcement could indeed be a problem.

