[ncallaway]

In a criminal context the burden of proof would rest on the prosecution to prove a nefarious purpose.

This is because—as in all criminal cases—we presume innocence and put the burden of proof on the prosecutor.

[valuearb]

This isn’t true when the prosecution can bankrupt the defendant by seizing their businesses working capital even before the trial.

[throwawaydojcmt]

This is certainly the standard practice. However, there's a recent case, Luis v. US (2016), challenged on 6th amendment grounds (right to counsel) that permits a Defendant to use funds that have no reasonable connection to the crime. Of course, in practice, they'll seize your assets or restrict your use (via pretrial conditions), and you'll need those funds to engage your attorney to move for the modification in the first place.