[rgraham]

This is a circular argument.

"Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime."

If you don't have to prove there was a crime then how can you claim that the assets were used in the crime? This would mean the government/police could seize assets with nothing more than finger pointing. I'm ignorant of the law here, but I thought you were innocent until proven guilty. Not "innocent sans assets until proven otherwise."

[sneak]

That's how it works, now. There is no burden of proof.

[rdtsc]

Welcome to American-style legal logic.