this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
6618 readers
14 users here now
Europe
Rules:
- All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
- Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
- No personal attacks
- Posts in English, translations allowed
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Guilty until proven innocent, then?
Freezing accounts is a preventative measure. The German government must have evidence that there's likely criminal proceeds on these accounts, plus a real risk that these funds would be transferred elsewhere. A court case usually follows fairly quickly.
If a billionaire is accused of fraud, you wouldn't want to allow them to transfer all their wealth out of the country before you can fine them, right?
Yeah, if the German government persecutes someone, that means they must have evidence to justify it...
You don't understand anything about this case or about how sanctions work.
There are no "criminal proceeds" because they have not committed any crime, and they have not been accused of any crime. There is no investigation and no court case. Their accounts were frozen because the EU imposed sanctions on them. He was sanctioned for his journalism and she was sanctioned for "helping him circumvent sanctions" by paying the bills when he no longer could because his accounts were frozen. They are not allowed to contest the sanctions in court because the sanctions are not a legal measure, they are an administrative measure applied by Brussels which the German government supports and complies with.
He is allowed to withdraw enough funds to cover the basic bills. She was sanctioned because he got a new car insurance in his name and used her account to pay for it.
There has been an investigation, and a ruling from the European Commission. He has also appealed that decision, which failed.
And the idea that they can't challenge the sanctions in court is utter bullshit. You absolutely can challenge them before the GCEU/ECJ, which has made several rulings on applied sanctions in the past.
Again, you are clearly a child and have never had to pay bills if you think that the tiny amount they are allowed to withdraw is enough even to pay rent and food for a family with children.
More importantly it doesn't matter that they are being allowed a tiny amount of their own money. This is not stolen money, they have committed no crime, and they have not been accused of a crime. The crime is denying them their own money.
And no, there has not been an investigation or a court case, because, and I don't know why you seem incapable of understanding this simple fact: THEY DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME! Paying bills is not a crime.
The sanctions come from the European Commission. Oh, wow, so you mean to tell me the EC said We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong? Shocker. Appealing to them is like appealing to Hitler to ask that you be released from the concentration camp.
Except the only courts they can challenge this in are in Brussels and the sanctions ban them from traveling outside of Germany. Are you being purposely obtuse or are you just that dense that you don't understand how this is deliberately set up so they can't do anything?
They are accused of A) violating sanctions placed on Russia and B) attempting to circumvent sanctions. Since these are part of the European sanctions programme, sanctions are the punishment. These sanctions are put in place after an investigation by the EC.
The ECJ is located in Luxembourg, not Brussels. You also do not need to physically travel there to start a court case. You can either attend digitally, or you can simply travel there since travelling to- and from a court case is exempt from any travel restrictions; this stems from the same right that allows a prisoner to attend their court case or to sue, despite not being allowed to leave prison.
Oh btw, another fun tidbit: any contracts signed before the sanctions may still be paid with funds from the frozen accounts. In other words: if he signed his lease before the asset freeze, he may freely use those funds to make rent. German social programmes can help take care of food.
Again, these sanctions certainly aren't fun, but if he or his kids are going to starve because of them, that's entirely voluntary. They can still make rent, they can still feed their kids. That's why he's still posting away on X instead of living under a bridge. These are sanctions designed to prevent asset flight, not starve someone.
Yeah, it prevents you from living
It doesn't, he's explicitly allowed to withdraw enough money to cover basic needs. Dogru confirmed this in one article on this, but he's also dishonest about it in his tweets where he suggets he's not allowed to withdraw anything.