… suppression totale du liquide pour tous les Européens!

Bien entendu, c’est à cause des terroristes islamiques (qui, pour le coup, on bon dos)…

J’ai lu le texte dans les détails, et je peux vous dire que PAS UN EUROPÉEN n’y a participé. Tout a été rédigé par des Américains avec le style juridique TYPIQUE des “american lawyers“. D’ailleurs l’ensemble du texte est à 100% américain, avec même des petites curiosités typiques nationales qui n’ont pas cours en Europe (comme ces gens n’ont jamais habité en Europe, ils ne peuvent pas le savoir).

Bravo la NSA et CIA, vous allez pouvoir contrôler et surveiller chaque citoyen au jour le jour, heure par heure et minute par minute en fonction de ses achats, vu qu’il ne pourra même pas payer un ticket de métro en liquide.

Et comme le précise le texte de saint Jean, en supprimant le compte bancaire lié à la carte Visa d’un citoyen, celui-ci sera “mis à mort socialement“, ne pouvant ni acheter, ni se déplacer ni payer quoi que ce soit.

C’est la mort de toutes nos libertés à laquelle vous assistez chers lecteurs, et une grande tristesse m’envahit en écrivant cette ligne.

C’est un système totalitaire absolu qui se met en place sous couvert de bons sentiments européens bidons, promu par les mêmes qui ont ouvert les frontières pour la grande invasion de barbares avec le masque humanitaire versant une larme.

Votre banquier verra où vous allez, ce que vous achetez chaque jour, quel restaurant, club vous fréquentez, à quel parti politique vous avez adhéré, etc., etc.Note Stopmensonges : Le texte qui suit est un extrait du site de Pierre Jovanovic :

Source :http://www.jovanovic.com/blog.htm


Texte intégral ( en anglais ) : http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/plan_2016_028_cash_restrictions_en.pdf

TITLE OF THE INITIATIVE Proposal for an EU initiative on restrictions on payments in cash
LIKELY TYPE OF INITIATIVE Legislative initiative
INDICATIVE PLANNING Commission initiative in 2018
This Inception Impact Assessment aims to inform stakeholders about the Commission’s work in order to allow them
to provide feedback on the intended initiative and to participate effectively in future consultation activities.
Stakeholders are in particular invited to provide views on the Commission’s understanding of the problem and
possible solutions and to make available any relevant information that they may have, including on possible impacts
of the different options. The Inception Impact Assessment is provided for information purposes only and its content
may change. This Inception Impact Assessment does not prejudge the final decision of the Commission on whether
this initiative will be pursued or on its final content.
A. Context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity Check
The Commission published on 2 February 2016 a Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Action
Plan to further step up the fight against the financing of terrorism (COM (2016) 50). The Action Plan builds on
existing EU rules to adapt to new threats and aims at updating EU policies in line with international standards. In
the context of the Commission’s action to extent the scope of the Regulation on the controls of cash entering or
leaving the Community1
, reference is made to the appropriateness to explore the relevance of potential upper
limits to cash payments. The Action Plan states that “Payments in cash are widely used in the financing of terrorist
activities… In this context, the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments could also be explored.
Several Member States have in place prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold.”
While a number of Member States already have (or have had) in place restrictions to cash payments as a
measure to combat crime, this has not been addressed at Union level.
In its Conclusions on the fight against terrorism, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 12 February 2016
called on the Commission to explore the need for appropriate restrictions on cash payments exceeding certain
Direct linkages exist with other initiatives stemming from the Action Plan to strengthen the fight against terrorism
financing, in particular the Proposal for an amendment of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive2
(COM (2016)
450), which introduced stricter transparency rules and other measures targeted specifically at terrorism financing.
Furthermore, the initiative should be seen in conjunction with the ECB’s decision of 4 May 20163
to discontinue
the production of the EUR 500 banknote and stop the issuance of this denomination by around 2018 to address
concerns that these notes could be used in financing illicit activities.
This initiative is complementary to the amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Directive and shares the Action
Plan’s objective of bearing effect in a short and medium term future. Therefore, any measure restricting cash
payments would be complementary to the specific actions addressed by the review of the AML Directive targeting
risks posed, inter alia, by virtual currencies and prepaid instruments when they are used anonymously.
Existing rules that apply in the Union in closely connected fields include the following instruments.
– Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive covering dealers in high-value goods, such as works of art, precious
stones or auctioneers, which requires that they apply customer due diligence measures, identification of
customers and keeping records of transactions when receiving cash payments of €15,000 or more.

1 Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash
entering or leaving the Community, OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 9.
2 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of
the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012
of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73.
– The Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, adopted in May 2015 and which is due to be transposed by June
2017, confirms the vulnerability of large cash payments to money laundering and terrorist financing and with this
in mind, has extended the scope of application of customer due diligence measures to cash payments of €10,000
or more.
The initiative has also direct linkages with the Proposal for an amendment of the Regulation on the controls of
cash entering or leaving the Community (COM (2016) 825) and both frameworks should be coherent.
In general, it is important to remember that cash is also the most accessible means of payment, and remains
widely used. An important part of the public regards payment by cash as a personal freedom. Any change of
policy would therefore be quite sensitive, and should start from the assumption that many could oppose
restrictions on the use of cash and that such opposition could be built on sensible arguments
Problem the initiative aims to tackle
Cash has the important feature of offering anonymity to transactions. Such anonymity may be desired for
legitimate reason (e.g. protection of privacy). But, such anonymity can also be misused for money laundering and
terrorist financing purposes. The possibility to conduct large cash payments facilitates money laundering and
terrorist financing activities because of the difficulty to control cash payment transactions.
In that context, there remains the lack of readily available and solid evidence on legitimate vs illegitimate cash
transactions. It is difficult to quantify the legitimate or illegitimate use of cash. Information stemming from Law
Enforcement investigations indicates that cash, both for criminal payments and money laundering purposes,
remains the instrument of choice. There are also several studies and academic journals4
that indicate the strong
linkages of criminal activities by organised criminal groups to money laundering and large scale payments in cash.
On the international level, in its October 2015 report Money Laundering Through the Physical Transportation of
, the Financial Action Task Force estimated the amount of money involved as hundreds of billions of dollars
globally. It described cash as ‘the raw material of most criminal activity’ and warned that as anti-money laundering
measures around the world become even more stringent, money laundering through physically moving cash
would become increasingly attractive to criminals.
Potential restrictions to cash payments would be a mean to fight criminal activities entailing large payment
transactions in cash by organised criminal networks. Restricting large payments in cash, in addition to cash
declarations and other AML obligations, would hamper the operation of terrorist networks, and other criminal
activities, i.e. have a preventive effect. It would also facilitate further investigations to track financial transactions in
the course of terrorist activities. Effective investigations are hindered as cash payments transactions are
anonymous. Thus restrictions on cash payments would facilitate investigations. However, as cash transactions
are moved to the financial system, it is essential that financial institutions have adequate controls and procedures
in place that enable them to know the person with whom they are dealing. Adequate due diligence on new and
existing customers is a key part of these controls in, line with the AMLD.
Terrorists use cash to sustain their illegal activities, not only for illegal transactions (e.g. the acquisition of
explosives) but also for payments which are in appearance legal (e.g. transactions for accommodation or
transport). While a restriction on payments in cash would certainly be ignored for transactions that are in any
case already illegal, the restriction could create a significant hindrance to the conduct of transactions that are
ancillary to terrorist activities, but which are in appearance legal and conducted with non-criminal counterparts that
are eager to respect the law.
The existence of cash payments limitations in some Member States, and their absence in other Member States,
creates the possibility for criminals and terrorists to bypass the restrictions by moving to the Member States, which
have not introduced any restrictions, while still conducting their illegal activities in the ‘stricter’ Member State.
Furthermore, such diverging practices among Member States regarding restrictions on cash payments create
an uneven playing field and these differing restrictions create distortions of competition in the internal market,
with some activities moving across border to elude the cash restriction. The lack of approximated measures at
EU level makes the (reinforced) controls by the Member States ineffective.
Subsidiarity check (and legal basis)
Currently, restrictions on cash payments have been implemented independently at national level and such
restrictions are generally considered compatible with Union law. For the euro area, Recital 19 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 974/98 states that ‘limitations on payments in notes and coins, established by Member States
for public reasons, are not incompatible with the status of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins, provided that
other lawful means for the settlement of monetary debts are available’. While it could be indicative that Member
States having introduced restrictions on cash payments have not raised any objection against the Member States
which have not taken such measures or vice versa, it must be observed that the restriction of high value cash
payments in some Member States has mainly been imposed so far to avoid tax evasion.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp8402.pdf, http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/viewArticle/1169.
However, there is a case for action at EU level, as the existence of cash payment limitations in some Member
States, and their absence in other Member States, allows activities to be moved across border to elude the cash
restrictions. Also, the lack of uniform-approximated measures at EU level makes the (reinforced) controls by the
Member States ineffective. Action at EU level is warranted because national initiatives without coordination would
impair effectiveness.
Moreover, citizens and businesses have different options of payments such as electronic means of payments (e.g.
credit and debit cards). Anyhow a measure restricting cash payments would only target higher amounts of
payments. Therefore, such a measure would limit the options for terrorist networks to finance their terrorist
Against this background, (legislative) action at the EU level meets the requirements of proportionality and
subsidiarity as enshrined in Article 5 (4) of the EU Treaty.
The exact legal base will depend on the nature of the action proposed. In case a legislative proposal is put
forward, Article 114 TFEU could potentially be considered as an appropriate legal basis for being the legal base of
the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which pursues similar objectives.
B. Objectives and Policy options
In line with the Commission’s above-mentioned Action Plan, the objective of the initiative is to swiftly reinforce the
EU framework on the prevention of terrorism financing by enhancing transparency of cash payments through an
introduction of a restriction of cash payments or by any other appropriate means.
Organised crime and terrorism financing rely on cash for payments for carrying out their illegal activities and
benefitting from them. By restricting the possibilities to use cash, the proposal would contribute to disrupt the
financing of terrorism, as the need to use non anonymous means of payment would either deter the activity or
contribute to its easier detection and investigation. Any such proposal would also aim at harmonising restrictions
across the Union, thus creating a level playing field for businesses and removing distortions of competition in the
internal market. It would additionally foster the fight against money laundering, tax fraud and organised crime.
Baseline scenario – no EU policy change
In the baseline scenario, the absence of Europe wide restrictions to and controls of cash payments will continue to
facilitate the financing of terrorism and other criminal activities by ensuring the anonymity of these payments in
many Member States, which hinders prevention, investigation and prosecution. Inconsistent national practices will
continue allowing bypassing existing national restrictions, as terrorists or other criminals have the opportunity to
organise their financial transactions in a way that takes advantage of non-existent or lower restrictions in some
Member States. Furthermore, the existence of diverging national legislation complicates compliance by EU
citizens, who need to be aware of the national legislation applicable. Finally, the existence of divergent practices is
detrimental to an even playing field in the Internal Market.
However, it should also be pointed out that the access to unrestricted cash payments also facilitates payments by
EU citizens, who may not always have access to similarly cheap and simple alternatives, implying reliance on
costlier alternatives.
Options of improving implementation and enforcement of existing legislation or doing less/simplifying
existing legislation
At EU level no legislation exists which can be simplified or improved. Some Member States have legislation on
cash payment limits at national level which however differ substantially from one another. Harmonising such
legislation through EU action would certainly constitute a simplification of existing legislation and facilitate
compliance and enforcement at EU level.
Options of a legislative initiative
Restriction versus declaration
As preventing the anonymity linked to cash payments is the main driver, the objective can be attained by
restricting cash payments through an EU legislative instrument, and thereby forcing payments through means that
are not anonymous (bank transfers, checks, etc.). But the same objective could also be attained by, while still
allowing unrestricted cash payments, imposing a declaration to a competent authority. This would allow the
continuous reliance on cash payments, with its benefits in terms of simplicity and cost.
It could also constitute a more effective measure compared to a pure restriction, by inducing declaration by honest
parties to any transaction, if the declaration had to be made independently by all parties to the payments (any
party to a transaction could be enticed to still accept cash under the pressure of the other party, while such other
party would have less control on whether the first party effectively filed a declaration).
However, the obligation of declaration would also have drawbacks.
First, it would impose an administrative burden on businesses and citizens and require organising the treatment of
the numerous declarations (monitoring, investigation, etc.).
Second, it would raise the question of the consistency and redundancy with existing national restrictions on cash
payments, which ideally should be then abolished to still pursue an internal market objective, or with the obligation
to declare cash when crossing borders.
Finally, the obligation to declare payments in cash rather than restricting them has not been implemented by any
MS, nor promoted by the law enforcement community, which could indicate that they consider such measure as
less efficient than a simple restriction.
When considering a restriction or a declaration obligation, the following options are also faced.
Level of the threshold
Existing national restrictions on cash payments vary widely. The higher the threshold, the more the convenience
of cash transaction is preserved, but the higher the risk that criminal cash transactions fall through the net. The
level of the threshold would also depend on whether it relates to a full restriction or only to a declaration obligation,
in which case it could be assumed to be lower.
Single threshold or variable threshold per country within some bandwidth
A single threshold is necessary to simplify existing practices, avoid distortions in the Internal Market and facilitate
compliance by citizens. However, it must be observed that a single threshold may not take into account the
diverging purchasing powers, payments practices and availability of alternative payment means in the EU.
Variable thresholds could be contemplated either directly through the EU initiative, or by setting a highest limit and
allowing Member States to establish lower ones.
Application to all transactions or only to transactions including a business party or specific businesses
While applying restrictions to all transactions would constitute a significant simplification, current national practices
often differentiate transactions between purely private persons, which are sometimes exempted of any restriction,
and transactions that include one or more business parties, or specific business sectors.
Exemption of non-residents
Because a restriction on cash transaction supposes the availability of alternatives means of payments, nonresidents
are sometimes excluded from the restriction because they are deemed not to have easy access to the
domestic banking system.
Alternative policy instrument
Restrictions on conducting large payments in cash could be advocated at EU level through a Commission
recommendation. However, considering the existing divergences, it is doubtful that such recommendation would
lead to an adoption of harmonised restrictions in all EU Member States.
Self-regulation does not appear to be a viable option considering the objectives pursued (fight against criminality
and terrorism). None of the participants to high value cash transactions would have any incentive to adopt such
Alternative policy approach
Abolishing altogether the use of cash would reach the objective pursued, but would lack any proportionality since
cash payments still constitute a major mean of payments firmly grounded in every day’s life, for which alternatives
have all some drawback, in particular for smaller payments. Compatibility of such abolition with current Treaties
could also be challenged.
Restrictions on large payments in cash could also be pursued by withdrawing the availability of high denomination
banknotes, which facilitate the conduct of large cash payments. The ECB has already decided to progressively
phase out the €500 banknote. But as long as cash exists, large payments will remain possible even with lower
denomination banknotes, which only render the transaction more cumbersome, but not impossible.
Options that take account of new technological developments
In view of the development of cryptocurrencies and the existence of other means of payments ensuring
anonymity, an option could be to extend the restrictions to cash payments to all payments ensuring anonymity
(cryptocurrencies, payment in kinds, etc.). On the other hand, restrictions on cash payments could promote the
development of alternative payments technologies compatible with the non-anonymity objective pursued.
Preliminary proportionality check
No preliminary check has been done as there isn’t a previous legislative measure on this issue.
C. Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts
Likely economic impacts
The proposal should not produce any visible global macroeconomic impact. Some specific sectors, relying
significantly on cash payments, could be more impacted, although it is difficult to assess whether the impact will
be permanent or whether the introduction of restriction will just lead to adapting practices. It has to be noted that
the restriction would not apply below the threshold and would thus not affect small traders.
The introduction of harmonised EU wide restrictions should prevent the distortions of competition (uneven playing
field) occurring when restrictions exist only in some Member States and affect businesses unevenly within the
internal market.
Regarding the fiscal policy, the likely positive impact on money laundering and tax fraud is expected to be positive
by increasing fiscal revenues.
Likely social impacts
Receipts of payments in cash constitute a cost-free and credit-risk store of value facilitating people to buy goods
of high value such as cars. Similarly, relying on cash has been shown to limit the risk of excessive spending and
A proposal in this area would also contribute, together with other policies against organised crime, terrorism and
terrorism financing, to the security of European citizens and the European society as a whole.
Likely environmental impacts
Likely impacts on fundamental rights
While being allowed to pay in cash does not constitute a fundamental right, the objective of the initiative, which is
to prevent the anonymity that cash payments allow, might be viewed as an infringement of the right to privacy
enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, as complemented by article 52 of the
Charter, limitations may be made subject to the principle of proportionality if they are necessary and genuinely
meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of
others. The objectives of potential restrictions to cash payments could fit such description. It should also be
observed that national restrictions to cash payments were never successfully challenged based on an
infringement to fundamental rights.
Likely impacts on simplification and/or administrative burden
Approximating restrictions at EU level will remove the burden of having to comply with diverging national
D. Data Collection and Better Regulation Instruments
Impact assessment
An impact assessment is being prepared to support the preparation of this initiative and to inform the
Commission’s decision.
The following DGs will be invited:
o SJ
o SG
Data collection
Data on legitimate and illegitimate use of cash should ideally be collected to substantiate the need of the initiative.
Such information will most certainly come from law enforcement authorities and Europol. However, it should be
understood that, like for all underground and criminal activities, information will not be easily available, and rough
estimates might have to be used.
The initiative will also build on existing evaluations, in particular from a law enforcement perspective. The most
relevant evidence is contained in the Europol report “Why is cash still king?”6
. Other sources include the various
studies, reports and documents conducted and published by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the
regional body, Moneyval7
Consultation strategy
The affected stakeholders are:
 law enforcement, custom and tax authorities, whose action is affected by the use of cash, which allows the
hiding of financial transactions,
 central banks, as the issuers of cash and beneficiaries of seigniorage income,
 businesses and citizens would be impacted by a restriction on cash payments because cash remains a
significant mean of payments for both citizens and businesses.
In order to explore the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments, the Commission carried out three
informal surveys: one addressed to national authorities taking stock in some detail on the existing restrictions to
cash payments at national level and why these were introduced, one addressed to law enforcement authorities on
the issue of crime prevention and enforceability, and a third one on the views of the private sector and
businesses. The latter one was not exhaustive, as only a selected number of stakeholders deemed potentially
most affected were targeted.
A wide-ranging open online public consultation should also be carried out to give all stakeholders the opportunities
to express their view. The launch of this consultation will be announced on the ‘Your Voice in Europe website’
Will an Implementation plan be established?
Depending on the complexity of the final proposal and the legal instrument used, an implementation plan might be

7 The Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism –
(Moneyval) is a permanent monitoring body of the Council of Europe.

Traduction »