Gold and silver have been confiscated in the past, but....... Could governments confiscate gold coins which have a denomination. e.g A $200 kangaroo is gold but its also worth $200 as currency. Thoughts?
I'm not sure one foreign national and one Swiss business really counts as government gold confiscation....
This comes up quite a bit. In short... Yes they can, they are a government they can do what they want. The law is already in place. There are a few loopholes. It would be difficult to enforce. There are easier more lucrative targets before personal gold holdings become necessary.
No Aust govt would bother. Easier to increase existing fees, levys and taxes on everybody than chasing down a few thousand odd stackers. If anyone wastes their time worrying about this, they'd be better off stacking firewood than PMs.
If your gold stack is stored within the Commonwealth of Australia, you should know about Section IV from Banking Act (1959). http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00107/Html/Text#_Toc415488556
If gold were to ever pose a risk of undermining the monetary or taxation system then I'm sure the govt. would find someway to discourage ownership, such as GST on precious metals, registration of holdings involving lengthy, costly, draconian bureaucratic procedures, large penalties for not adhering to some arbitrary regulation, extreme penalties, jail time and confiscation as the proceeds of crime because it will be a crime not to declare your holdings, demonization of owners (e.g. associatinon of gold with terrorism), etc.
Maybe you should try the non-fiction section of American history. There was only ever 2 recorded gold seizures under Franky's watch. One a foreign national and the other a Swiss company. That's it
Referring to never used legislation from 55 years ago is a waste of time. Current laws enable the seizure and possible forfeiture of any individuals entire stack (not just the bits with $ signs), as well as their home, vehicles, bank accounts etc, based only on the suspicion they may possibly have been obtained from the proceeds of criminal behaviour. The entire onus is on the individual to prove that isnt the case which, depending on your proof/paper trail, one may or may not succeed. Worst case scenario is being accused of being a towelhead - Any/all assets seized/forfeited and locked up without formal charges based on the premise of being guilty unless/until the individual can prove otherwise. Doesnt take much to get labelled a towelhead by the govt nowadays, posting paranoid anti-govt opinions will do. In reality the govt has so many cheaper and lucrative ways to raise revenue or grab assets or stomp on you.
Here's a good overview of the Australian government's chipping away at this critical cornerstone of our legal system by reversing onus of proof:
Think about it. It is almost impossible to prove that you have not done something. And the claims could easily be expanded on will to include a barrage of nonsense to pull anyone down.
All he'd have to do to prove his innocence is show up at court wearing a bowler hat. He should also take pictures of his bathroom to prove that they keep the towels right where they belong.
