"In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed."
In America, when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, if they don't have enough evidence to charge you with a crime, they will charge your possessions with a crime. If you have cash in your vehicle, they can charge the cash with a crime, like being used for drug trafficking. Similarly, they can charge a locked phone with a crime of drug trafficking, without actually having to prove it. Mostly because taking the item means they will begin an "investigation" into whether or not it "committed" a crime.
"In contrast, criminal forfeiture is a legal action brought as "part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant", described by the Latin term in personam, meaning "against the person", and happens when government indicts or charges the property that is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant; the seized assets are temporarily held and become government property officially after an accused person has been convicted by a court of law; if the person is found to be not guilty, the seized property must be returned."
This just sounds like a gateway to the widespread open robbery and stealing that is the corruption plaguing police in 3rd world countries. How could this pass any scrutiny as a valid anti-drug strategy? To dry up funds, the better strategy would have always been, to at least temporary destroy the prices by state-production of drugs.
This protestant mindset regarding vices and how to fight them is really self-destructive to the society it possess, to the point were it creates more corruption and moral decay then the one it fought in the first place. Society was saved, by destroying all of society.
"In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed."
In America, when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, if they don't have enough evidence to charge you with a crime, they will charge your possessions with a crime. If you have cash in your vehicle, they can charge the cash with a crime, like being used for drug trafficking. Similarly, they can charge a locked phone with a crime of drug trafficking, without actually having to prove it. Mostly because taking the item means they will begin an "investigation" into whether or not it "committed" a crime.
"In contrast, criminal forfeiture is a legal action brought as "part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant", described by the Latin term in personam, meaning "against the person", and happens when government indicts or charges the property that is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant; the seized assets are temporarily held and become government property officially after an accused person has been convicted by a court of law; if the person is found to be not guilty, the seized property must be returned."