Who owns money (EUR) as a thing in the EU? The European Central Bank prints money (EUR) and puts it into circulation. It is therefore the first owner. Are persons who take possession of the money also owners at the same time? I am talking here about possession and ownership. Or does the ECB remain the owner?
A possessor in good faith owns currency Currency is owned by the person who has it provided they came into possession legitimately. Currency is a small category of goods, known as negotiable instruments, where the person who has it, owns it. Unless, they came into possession in an illegitimate way, such as by stealing it or finding it (and not handing it in to the authorities). If they received it in the course of a legitimate transaction - wages, payment for goods or services, etc. - then they own it even if the currency was previously tainted. Contrast this with, say, a car, where the legitimate owner remains the legitimate owner no matter who is in possession. Now, there are usually laws that prohibit the destruction of currency even if you own it, but that doesn’t change the fact that you own it. For comparison, there are laws against dumping your car in the river but it’s still your car.
Yes, you can borrow tax-free Bitcoin (or really, any currency not your home currency) is a security like a stock or bond. Whenever you take a loan using a security as collateral, that is not a taxable event, and so you do not owe taxes on the money you borrowed. Perfect world, you pay it back and this is not taxable either: the loan/repayment is a non-event to the tax authorities. (Although interest might be tax deductible). When this goes wrong: you default If you default and keep your collateral, at some point, the lender decides you'll never pay, and forgives aka &quot;writes off&quot; the loan. This forgiveness is considered ordinary income and it is taxable in the year forgiven. In the US this is waived if you can show that you were insolvent at the time of default. When this goes wrong: forced sale of collateral The collateral is still your property. The bank just has a lien on it or other form of control, like it's in your brokerage account in their bank such that they can flag it, force sale, and intercept funds. When the bank forces sale of your collateral to pay your debt, that is a sale of the security for tax purposes. The proceeds go to you (as far as the tax person is concerned), even though the bank certainly will intercept the proceeds. So the tax liability goes to you. Note that standard capital gains rules apply, so if you owned it less than 1 year when you signed up for the loan, yet the bank forced the sale after 1 year of ownership, then it counts as holding the security longer than 1 year for tax purposes. (e.g. qualifying for the lower &quot;long term capital gains&quot; rate in the US).
In the Netherlands, this qualifies as a deceptive trade practice (misleidende handelspraktijk) and is therefore directly illegal. It's likely also an unfair trade practice, (oneerlijke handelspraktijk) as the claim appears intended for end consumers. This means that the seller cannot count on the consumer knowing anythong about stuffase. It is a dutch implementation of EU directive 2005/29/EG, so similar laws apply in other EU countries. But the illegal per se part might vary.
In the US, a house Title determines ownership, the name on the mortgage determines who owes the bank money. But a new mortgage will need the title holder to be on the document, because you cannot use someone else's real property as collateral. As to who can evict someone, it's the property owner, not the mortgage holder.
If only the tip is left in such "fake" money, it would not be theft as there is no legal obligation to leave a tip at all (except in those establishments that add a tip or "service charge' to the bill.) If the "money" is not an attempt to imitate real cash, it wouldn't be counterfeiting (leaving monopoly money for example would not be counterfeiting). The server would be understandably angry. The restaurant might refuse to seat the people who left the "fake" another time, if the servers identified them to the manager, but nothing would require them to do so. This is all on a US basis, I have no idea if tips might be legally required in other countries.
This (as always) depends on jurisdiction, but usually - No, just taking the money is not legal.. In most jurisdictions, if you have a claim (the rent, in your case) against a debtor , and the debtor does not pay, you are not allowed to take any enforcement action (taking property, coercing the debtor) yourself. Instead, you must obtain a court or administrative judgement confirming your claim. Even then, often only a court officer or the police may actually enforce payment of the debt. This is mostly to protect the debtor from unwarranted enforcement action (such as taking more than you are owed, or collecting a disputed debt). For example, in Germany, to enforce a debt the creditor must first obtain what is called a Vollstreckungstitel or just Titel (title) - an official document confirming that there is an outstanding claim. This is on top of any contracts already existing. A Titel is obtained either through a regular court judgment, or through an abbreviated, administrative process called Mahnverfahren (essentially, you ask the court to send the debtor a letter about your claim, and if the debtor does not file an objection, you get the Titel). Once you have a Titel, the creditor can enforce it any time they choose (with a Titel, the statute of limiation is extended from the usual three years to 30 years). However, actual enforcement must be performed by an officer of the court (Gerichtsvollzieher). Only they may do things such as collecting the debtors property, force open doors and even imprison uncooperative debtors. I don't know the exact situation in the USA, but I believe it is roughly similar. For example, the equivalent of a Vollstreckungstitel is a Writ of execution.
The document involves the bank cancelling the deed of trust (i.e. basically the mortgage) that you gave to the bank for the loan, because it was paid in full. In a deed of trust, the legal fiction is that you transfer the property to a trustee for the benefit of the bank. The bank was a grantee of an equitable interest in the property and a beneficiary of the trustee of the deed of trust. You were the grantor in the original transaction, giving the property to the trustee of the deed of trust, in which the bank and the trustee were grantees. Now, the bank is the grantor giving back to you what you gave up when the deed of trust was created, and you are the grantee of the rights that the bank acquired under the deed of trust. This is a routine document with nothing that seems to be amiss or needs to be clarified. It just means that the deed of trust is gone and that the property is now free and clear again. Depending upon local real estate practice, it may need to be recorded to establish that fact in the public record.
No GDPR applies to people (not just citizens) who are in the EU. It has no applicability if both parties are not in the EU.