The paper investigates the evidentiary framework governing extended confiscation in Portugal, Spain, and Brazil. It seeks to answer four central questions: Who bears the burden of proving the unlawful origin of assets? What evidentiary standard is required to establish their illicit provenance? Are prosecutorial authorities capable, in practice, of meeting this burden without undermining the effectiveness of the confiscation regime? And would any reversal of the burden of proof be compatible with fundamental rights and procedural guarantees? The paper’s relevance stems from the global expansion of asset-recovery mechanisms grounded in the premise that crime must not yield economic benefit, particularly in cases involving organised crime. Although Portugal and Spain have developed more mature – though still debated and distinct – regulatory models – such as the presumption under Art. 7 of Portuguese Law No. 5/2002 and the evidentiary require-ments of Art. 127 bis of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Code – significant interpretative uncer-tainties remain. These issues have now re-emerged in Brazil following recent legislative reforms, where jurisprudence and doctrine are still at an early stage. Methodologically, the paper conducts a systematic analysis of the legislation, doctrine, and jurisprudence of the three legal systems, with particular attention to evidentiary standards, statutory presumptions, and debates surrounding potential reversals of the burden of proof. It ultimately argues that shifting this burden to the detriment of the defendant is incompatible with constitutional principles and international human rights guarantees. On this basis, it proposes interpretative solutions capable of reconciling effective asset recovery with the protection of procedural rights.