[zeveb]

> Even if the court cannot figure out exactly who owns the money, it can determine by a preponderance of the evidence that nobody has a legitimate property interest in it because it's more likely than not the proceeds of a crime. Same thing if the property is contraband (drugs, automatic firearms, child porn etc.).

That really shouldn't be the standard of proof. After all, if the property does belong to someone, then to keep it would amount to a hefty fine — to impose it a criminal standard of proof should be required.

If the property itself is contraband and thus inherently illegal, then merely finding that it is itself contraband (to a criminal standard, of course) should be sufficient for the State to keep or destroy it.

If the property is legitimate (e.g. money), though, the State should only be permitted to retain it a) if the owner does not claim it or b) if it can be taken from the owner in a criminal proceeding.