EU Ends the Separation of Power by Creating a New 'Authority' to 'Combat Terrorism'

The scope of AMLA is so vast that it will provide the foundation for the digital gulag, EU Style™, set to be fully operational by 2027 or 2028

Prelim: sometimes I’d like to tell you ‘told you so’, but that’s both absurd and besides the point. Today is such a day, though, and if you care to remember how we looked at the technical™ = legal™ shenanigans the EU Commission adopted to pervert the EU Treaties half a year ago, you’ll find the below piece quite…well, something to behold.

EU Commission Declares War 'Sustainable'

This isn’t to gloat, but to keep you informed about stuff that’s not readily available in English.

The below piece appeared in the Swiss weekly magazine Weltwoche, which is closely affiliated with the Swiss People’s Party (orig. Schweizer Volkspartei, or SVP), which is Switzerland’s largest faction, dislikes the EU as a matter of principle, and is thus considered ‘national-conservative’ and ‘right-wing populist’ (Wikipedia entry). As always, it’s also heavily dominated by a few oligarchs (they’re also, of course, called ‘far-right’ by Wikipedia), yet their main policies are quite conventional, if I may say so, that is, if your Venn diagram dates from the 1970s or the like.

Anyways, some of their Zurich-based sympathisers and politicos also run Die Weltwoche (Wikipedia entry) founded in the early 1990s and run, since 2006, by Roger Köppel. Hilariously in light of the preceding paragraph, Wikipedia writes as follows about what’s in Die Weltwoche (references omitted):

The magazine’s regular columnists include the former president of the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland, Peter Bodenmann, as well as Christoph Mörgeli MP, a leading figure of the right wing Swiss People's Party, and cultural and social commentator Alexander, Count von Schönburg-Glauchau.

The magazine's editorial stance under Köppel is considered to range between economic liberalism and conservatism—regularly along the lines of the Swiss People’s Party, as critics allege.

While there are (s)elective affinities between the magazine’s stance(s) and the SVP (it’s a free country), the Weltwoche has become one of the premier outlets among German-language (alt) media orgs—rather: orcs—featuring more than one side, that is, except for its consistent adversarial stance vs. the globalist agenda™, emanating from Brussels (EU) and Mons (NATO), as well as from London (City), New York (Wall Street), and Washington, D.C.

With that being said, here’s what they just wrote about the future of Europe, which kinda confirms what I’ve been writing about (I could very well do without that kind of honour™)—and shows the mainstreaming of my critique.

Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.

---

Save Yourself Who Can

The EU is Gearing up to Become a Totalitarian Surveillance State and is Preparing Expropriations—with the help of the [German] Gov’t

By Hans Kaufmann, Die Weltwoche, 19 April 2025 [source]

The new German government wants to improve the supervisory authority AMLA (Anti-Money Laundering Authority). This is stated in the coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and the SPD. AMLA is a new EU authority for combating money laundering and crime. It has recently opened for business in Frankfurt’s prestigious Messeturm and is expected to employ around 500 people when completed [official website; and the underlying EU Regulation™ 2024/1620 (decree)]. The final launch is planned for 1 January 2028. Frankfurt was probably awarded the location because the federal government, together with the state of Hesse and the city of Frankfurt, will provide financial support for the AMLA over a period of five years [that only works if you’re a fellow quasi-gov’t agency or a too big too fail/oligarch-owned business™, never for small and medium-sized enterprises].

Many CDU voters and politicians behind the coalition agreement are probably unaware of what the expansion of the AMLA means for them personally. Although it is ostensibly about combating money laundering and financial crime, it is also primarily about locating existing assets across Europe in order to be able to confiscate them at a later date as a tax substrate in one form or another [Von der Leyen infamously held the following:

It’s not hyperbole of the Weltwoche to hold this point of view]

The proposal by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a one-off wealth tax of ten per cent during the 2008/2009 financial crisis shows that such plans are not pure fantasy. In October 2013, the idea was taken up in an IMF discussion paper as part of the Fiscal Monitor [which is the IMF’s in-house magazine, and that issue, although not linked in Mr. Kaufmann’s piece, can be found here—if you’re considering the IMF your friend, here’s from its abstract: ‘Can countries tax more, better, more fairly?’], where such a tax was mentioned as a way of reducing debt in European countries. It was about a one-off tax on assets to reduce government debt [somehow I don’t understand how the people who fail at, you know, adhering to any standards while in office, are hectoring Jane and John Q. Public about responsible™ spending—if you’d ever need any more proof that gov’t is fundamentally incompetent, look at their overspending].

Following the abolition of banking secrecy [across the EU bloc, which pertains also to Switzerland, although it was the US gov’t that instigated this circa 2012—it means Switzerland is no longer a safe haven and/or a neutral country], the introduction of a global automatic exchange of information in tax matters (AEOI), money laundering regulations, and withholding taxes, the EU now also wants to record all the assets of honest citizens in a wealth register [background via this enquiry and the EU Commission’s reply; for the ‘legislative’ (sic) ‘package’, see here]. This project has been underway since 2021 and aims to use a gigantic centralised database to record, consolidate, and monitor all assets of legal and natural persons in the EU [what can go wrong?] This heralds the end of privacy [also coming to a jurisdiction near you very soon as putting data into this registry will become the precondition for doing business with the EU].

For EU Commission President Von der Leyen, such an asset register is the starting point for future EU initiatives for a standardised legal basis, common instruments and, above all, joint action by EU countries against the migration of assets across EU borders to countries that still offer good opportunities to hide private assets from the tax authorities in the country of origin [quod erat demonstrandum].

The collected asset data is to be centrally networked by bringing together the beneficial ownership registers in the EU member states at the AMLA [do they have ‘backdoors’ for the intel community™?], including account and safe deposit box registers, centralised access to national property registers, etc. [while I’m not saying the EU is like the Bolsheviks c. 1918, I will note that Lenin’s cash-strapped régime tried very hard to physically access all safe deposit boxes and bank vaults back then…]. AMLA is to coordinate, manage, and monitor the register and penalise breaches of the reporting obligation [note that the ‘monitoring’ (law enforcement) agency is also to ‘penalise breaches’ (judiciary) of ‘reporting obligations’]. Financial assets such as bank accounts and data from the last five years, shareholdings, company shares, bonds, crypto, and other financial instruments are to be recorded [as long as it’s possible, buy gold and silver and pay in cash; it’s probably also a good idea to have a few bottles of brandy and cigarette boxes stashed away at home to barter]. AMLA can impose penalties of at least [!!!] one million euros. For banking institutions, the penalties amount to at least ten million euros. AMLA can block transfers and accounts, demand the surrender of documents, and request tax and law enforcement authorities and customs to conduct house searches [would they require, say, a warrant signed by a judge based on ‘reasonable suspicion’? This is in Art. 6 on ‘Powers of the Authority’; see also Art. 22 and 23].

Ultimately, the aim of asset mapping is to create the basis for future wealth redistribution [sounds plausible]. Such data collections are the preliminary stage for government fundraising [sic], as it is foreseeable that the rampant debt creation will lead to unsustainable interest burdens for the states [which will lead to joint EU Bills & Bonds used to ‘bail out’ wayward member-states]. They are used to confiscate assets, be it in the form of a ‘one-off’ wealth tax’, ‘compulsory war bonds’ [like in World War One, i.e., it depends on the result of said war], or currency reforms [that’s the most insidious issue here, I surmise]. This is also intended to prevent the migration of assets to countries without total citizen surveillance [if these institutions know everything about you, you’re not a free man or woman but a slave].

As accompanying measures, cash transactions over 10,000 euros are to be banned, although the upper limit can be reduced [it’s already bad enough as, e.g., my father-in-law recently tried to pay a few thousands of euros in cash—for the ‘servicing’ of his car: it was almost impossible to do so]. This will practically force citizens to carry out financial transactions via bank accounts, which in turn can be used to introduce a Europe-wide financial transaction tax [remember the so-called Tobin Tax? Here’s Wikipedia on it:

originally intended to penalize short-term financial round-trip excursions into another currency. By the late 1990s, the term Tobin tax was being applied to all forms of short term transaction taxation, whether across currencies or not. The concept of the Tobin tax is being picked up by various tax proposals currently being discussed, amongst them the European Union Financial Transaction Tax…]

Gaps in the transparency register are to be closed. If one or more beneficial owners cannot be identified, legal transactions by legal entities that exceed a net amount of EUR 10,000 may not be carried out by persons subject to money laundering obligations. The EU asset register is to be supplemented by national asset registers for individual assets over 200,000 euros, whereby the upper limit can also be reduced . Yachts, cars, watches, paintings, other works of art, jewellery, gold and other precious metals are to be recorded in this register. Crypto transactions are to be regulated and an electronic euro (CBDC) created.

Internationally active private individuals from EU countries are also obliged to declare assets held abroad [like the US that also taxes Americans living abroad]. The data will be collected by the respective national authorities of the EU countries. These authorities will be obliged to transmit the information to the EU’s central reporting centre (AMLA) or to grant direct access to the national registers. In order to perfect monitoring, the AMLA is also to have access to citizenship and civil registers, social security registers, weapons registers, financial data, customs databases, cross-border travel and vehicle registers of all nation states [what could will go wrong?]

And what seems even more worrying is that the EU wants to allow access to the EU asset register not only to authorities but also to people with a legitimate [sic] interest, including journalists, civil society organisations, NGOs, universities, insurance companies and international organisations such as the OECD, the FATF [Financial Action Task Force], and the UN. An exact date for the entry into force of the EU asset register has not yet been set. It is likely to be introduced in 2025 or 2027 at the earliest, as technical, legal and political challenges still need to be clarified [and then there’s the issue of, say, pitchforks]. The CDU/CSU are actually supporting the creation of a totalitarian surveillance state like the former GDR and instead of reducing administration, as announced before the elections, a new costly bureaucracy is to be created.

---

Bottom Lines

Given the way the EU is organised™, it’s safe to assume that what happens in Germany won’t stay confined to Germany.

Among the most worrying parts of this abomination of a regulation™ is certainly Art. 21, which describes the ‘Administrative Measures’ (i.e., that shit for which no judge, prosecutor/defence attorney, and jury is required):

[title] 1. the Authority shall have the power to apply the administrative measures…to require any selected obliged entity to take the necessary measures where

There follows a veritable laundry list of actionable…well, what exactly? Reasonable suspicion? A warrant signed by a judge? A court order?

None of the above. Here’s what’s required for AMLA to spring into action:

(a) the selected obliged entity is found to be in breach of the Union acts and national legislation referred to in Article 1(2)

(b) the Authority has sufficient and demonstrable indications that the selected obliged entity is likely to breach the Union acts and national legislation referred to in Article 1(2) and the application of an administrative measure can prevent the occurrence of the breach or reduce the risk thereof

This is so elastic, there’s literally no way of ever defining anything.

Here’s Article 1(2), by the way:

The Authority shall act within the powers conferred on it by this Regulation, in particular those set out in Article 6, and within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2023/1113, Directive (EU) 2024/1640 and Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, as well as all directives, regulations and decisions based on those acts, of any further legally binding Union act which confers tasks on the Authority, and of national legislation transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1640, and other directives conferring tasks on supervisory authorities.

Oh, look, it’s a Matryoshka kind of ‘refer to Art. 1(2)’—Art. 6 outlines the Powers of the Authority (‘as specified in Articles 17 to 21’), and it does so ‘in the area of AML/CFT under the applicable Union law, unless otherwise provided for by this Regulation’.

See what I mean?

It all looks and certainly feels like ‘by the book’ and ‘it’s all there in writing’.

And in reality, it’s obfuscation, vague formulations, and cross-references.

Here’s some more exemplary verbiage from Art. 22:

1. the Authority may impose pecuniary sanctions where a selected obliged entity breaches, whether intentionally or negligently, a requirement of Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 or Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, or does not comply with a binding decision referred to in Article 6(1) of this Regulation [are you keeping score of these additional requirements?]

2. Where the Executive Board of the Authority finds that a selected obliged entity has, intentionally or negligently, committed a serious, repeated or systematic breach of directly applicable requirements contained in Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 or Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, it shall adopt a decision imposing pecuniary sanctions, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.

Do you see it now?

It’s the domestic™ equivalent of a supranational authority (sic) that may or may not add regulations, treaty provisions, and what have you to the laundry list of intentional or negligent—what’s the fuckin’ different, eh?—‘breach’.

Punishment is via ‘administrative measures’, hence it’s all outside the legal system and beyond the expectable separation of powers, esp. between the executive branch and the judiciary.

In 2027/28, once AMLA goes ‘live’, the digital gulag is complete.

For the external side of this totalitarian nightmare, see this:

The Great Sorting is Here

Further background via the EU’s normalisation of the Covid Passport beyond any Covid- or otherwise Pandemic™-related bullcrap (apologies to cattle), see:

EU Institutionalises Covid Passports: No More Emergency = Continued Emergency Measures

Bye-bye freedom. Welcome tyranny.

Sic semper tyrannis.