Yes, of course. Civil forfeiture can be (and is!) abused, especially by local jurisdictions, but it's often a very boring tool used to facilitate victim restitution.
IIRC, the original point of civil forfeiture was to remove the possibility of the accused, between the start of a criminal suit (or even before) and the outcome of the trial, from moving their assets to somewhere beyond the reach of the court.
The goal itself seems reasonably (though not perfectly) noble.
The use of this ability in the real world though ... not so much.
Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of real ones. Humans can be absolute trash, and most authoritarians have no problem, finding "justification" for their iron fists.
But we tend to think that unusual events are far more common than they actually are, and they use that to manufacture outrage and justification.
I don't remember what the term is, but this fallacy is a known one.
E.g. look at that famous chart showing 'the police steal more than criminals': https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/11/...
Nearly $2B of that 2014 total was JP Morgan having their funds 'civilly forfeit' to directly pay restitution to the Madoff victims (https://www.nathanslaw.com/articles/bank-to-pay-almost-2-bil...).