[Res Nullius]

Seized assets are only forefeited after the owner [or other party claiming an interest] has had an opportunity to appear in court and challange the forfeiture.

Criminals are prosecuted under the criminal rules of procedure wherein the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Forfeiture occurs under the civil rules where the burden is a preponderence of the evidence, as in any other civil proceeding.

A criminal prosecution may go awry for a number of reasons - usually suppressed evidence. However, evidence suppressed in a criminal case may very well be admitted in a civil proceeding brought against the property.

[Star Traveler]

You said — Criminals are prosecuted under the criminal rules of procedure wherein the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Forfeiture occurs under the civil rules where the burden is a preponderence of the evidence, as in any other civil proceeding.

—

And it’s *right there* that there’s a *gap* big enough to drive millions of dollars through using the biggest Mack truck you can drive... LOL...

Hooray for the “inventiveness” of capitalism and the legal profession — at work in our country, funding the police departments... :-)

[Dayman]

Contesting the seizure often requres the victim post a bond which can be thousands of dollars, depending on the value of the property stolen.

[MileHi]

Disgusting.

Life, Liberty or Property. Not, if we can’t nail the prick at least we can make him poor and drive his car.

Defend it if you will. Makes you small.

[Still Thinking]

You say that like it’s a good thing. ;-)

[Library Lady]

If there was not enough evidence to arrest the person, then there was not enough to evidence to take property. IMHO.