[mistercow]

So in this case he probably is DPR and probably is guilty of at least most of what he's accused of. But because they don't have to prove guilt before seizing assets, they could easily just grab some random person, say "You ran this online drug ring, so we're seizing all of your assets" and then leave you with a public defender.

And that's pretty messed up. It's also messed up that being stuck with a public defender is messed up, but that's another issue. The concept of assuming guilt before trial with respect to your finances is obviously a violation of the spirit - if not the actual letter - of the Fifth Amendment.

[refurb]

I'm not going to argue that the asset forfeiture laws in the US are completely fair, but that's not how it works.

First off, you can't just arrest anyone without going in front of a judge and getting an arrest warrant (unless of course a police officer has evidence you committed a crime). Second, they need to identify your assets and then prove that they are proceeds from illegal activities. Do they just say "all of it is"? Probably and the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

[mistercow]

Yes, it is more complicated than simply arresting someone and taking all of their stuff, but it's not right to say that they need to "prove that they are proceeds from illegal activities". Proving that you are involved with illegal activities is what a trial is for. If you haven't been tried yet, they haven't proven anything.