[HideousKojima]

The only steelmanned argument for civil asset forfeiture goes back to its origins, when it was used to seize smuggled goods on ships. Since the ship's owner was almost always a wealthy person living in a different country making them almost impossible to go after, and the smuggled goods were missing tax stamps etc. making it clear that they were being illegally smuggled, the government would simply seize the goods. That's literally the origin of civil asset forfeiture in the US, and all of the horrible and unjustifiable examples of it that we see nowadays grew out of that much more limited and justifiable example.

[tialaramex]

Seems to me in the specific case of wealthy foreigner owns smuggled good a better (more just) arrangement accuses them not the goods, but with the mechanism that if they for some reason don't want to attend court (maybe because they're super guilty?) their goods are seized but the crime still exists.

There are some nuances to work out to ensure cops can't accuse say Vladimir Putin of a crime involving the $8000 they found in your house, and then since Putin doesn't show up they keep your money, but the general idea seems more sound than civil forfeiture.

[ummonk]

What if they don’t know who it belongs to?

[cmeacham98]

If they reasonably cannot determine its owner, they get to seize it, but if you show up with proof it's yours they have to give it back (and go through the normal process).