[0x7E3]

I agree. However, that is the law currently. I'd love to see it changed but until then I don't see why these people should get an exemption just because they are rich.

If I were pulled over with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash I would be expected to prove that it was obtained legally. Unfortunately for the persons involved here the cash was obtained in a manner that is not legal in the United States.

To be clear, I think Civil Asset Forfeiture should be abolished and that all recreational drugs should be made legal. However, that is not the case and I don't think these particular drug dealers should get a pass just because they have more money / political clout than other drug dealers.

[beerandt]

Yea- agree with it or not, technically this is Civil Asset Forfeiture working as intended (Ie not one of the many many abuses of it.):

To make it difficult for drug dealers to continue selling and transporting drugs by seizing proceeds and any property used in those activities, especially in cases where criminal prosecution is impossible or impractical.

I'm on board with abolishing it, but this isn't even a case of a laws unjust, unintended consequences. It's a case of business owners gambling on a known risk and losing.