The National Assembly is preparing to debate a bill aimed at combating drug trafficking. A legitimate and necessary objective. However, once again, the temptation of conflation risks dragging a strategic sector into a punitive and unfounded regulatory spiral. Far from targeting only criminals, this text equates all use of crypto-assets with potential support for drug trafficking, thus establishing a generalized suspicion over an entire technological ecosystem.

A Dangerous Conflation and Attack on Fundamental Rights

The proposed law faces criticism for potentially equating all crypto-asset use with support for drug trafficking. The argument that crypto-assets massively facilitate the financing of drug trafficking lacks a solid foundation. All available data shows that cash remains the primary vehicle for these illegal activities. However, the bill introduces a presumption of money laundering for any transaction involving anonymized crypto-assets. This measure reverses the burden of proof and requires users to justify the lawful origin of their funds after the fact, under penalty of sanctions.

Such an approach violates several fundamental principles of law. First, the presumption of innocence, which prohibits suspicion from becoming the general rule. Second, the proportionality of penalties, which requires any restriction to be strictly justified. Finally, equality before the law: why should crypto-asset users be subject to a more restrictive regime than cash transactions, the main channel for money laundering in drug trafficking? It should be remembered that the right to privacy in financial transactions is also protected by several fundamental texts, including Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Undermining Technological Advancement and France's Digital Sovereignty

The notion that crypto-assets escape all control is a fiction. Unlike cash, the blockchain is a traceability tool par excellence. Each transaction is indelibly recorded and accessible. Blockchain analysis technologies make it possible to identify and track suspicious financial flows, offering the authorities a much more effective lever than traditional opaque financial circuits. Instead of exploiting these tools to identify criminals, the text prohibits technologies which, when used properly, are precisely those that will make it possible to combat money laundering more effectively in the future.

Restricting the anonymization of transactions without distinguishing between lawful and unlawful uses creates a dangerous precedent. This approach penalizes law-abiding citizens, including journalists, whistleblowers, and political activists in repressive environments.

As a result, this text protects neither citizens nor the economy, but diverts attention from the real levers for combating crime by weakening a strategic sector. While the fight against drug trafficking is a priority, it must not lead to a leveling down of digital innovation. By reducing Web 3.0 to a caricature of a "no-go zone," France inflicts a double penalty on itself: the loss of economic competitiveness and the weakening of fundamental freedoms. Web 3.0 should not be the scapegoat for criminal excesses when it offers precisely the solutions to combat them better.

A Call for Measured and Constructive Regulation

France has the opportunity to position itself as a European leader in these technologies by developing an intelligent and pragmatic regulatory framework. It is time to support an already highly regulated ecosystem that is only asking to develop with the confidence of the public authorities.

If this text were to be adopted as it stands, it would not fail to be challenged on constitutional grounds, or even before the European courts. Legislation cannot be based on approximations and amalgams: it must be based on objective facts and respect the principles of our rule of law.

Therefore, it is imperative that parliamentarians re-evaluate this text and adopt regulation that is proportionate, effective and in line with European standards. Effective regulation is based on a thorough understanding of the issues and constructive cooperation between private actors and public authorities, not on stigmatization.