The present analysis is based on the problems of the reversal of burden of proof regarding the lawful origin of the public person’s property. It also emphasizes that according to the constitutional presumption referring to the property’s lawful origin, proving the opposite is the exclusive prerogative of the state’s organs. In the absence of such presumption, the goods owner would be exposed to a permanent insecurity, due to the fact that whenever will be invoked the illicit obtaining of the goods, the burden of proof will be in the charge of the goods owner and not in the charge of the person who makes the statement. Not least, is released the conclusion that „the sacrifice” of this guarantee for the public persons do not represent the pledge solution for combating corruption, but rather defies the fundamental freedoms and rights.