If you don't seize it ahead of time, or at least place the asset on some form of escrow depriving the owner of its use, it's not going to be there to be there to seize at the end of the case.

I am entirely willing to run that risk. I really don't care if the government profits from criminal convictions. I probably prefer that it doesn't, in fact. But if the government is going to seize assets for its own profit, I think it should absolutely have to wait until a criminal conviction has been achieved. If they miss out on some loot, I simply don't care.



Being acquitted; found not guilty, is not the same as being found innocent. The distinction becomes important in federal habeas appeals and in particular death penalty litigation.

I understand. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the discussion, I think it's a distinction without a difference. (Or should be.) The government should not be allowed to seize property from a citizen who has not been convicted of a crime.

Subject to bail, unless there's some reason to deny bail, yes. And they can hold some property as evidence until the case is heard, and they can confiscate contraband. None of that is what we're talking about here.

Subject to bail, unless there's some reason to deny bail, yes. And they can hold some property as evidence until the case is heard, and they can confiscate contraband. None of that is what we're talking about here.

While I find asset forfeiture without due process disturbing, does no one see an issue with a President threatening to "destroy" another person's ( or your could say American's) career?