You still miss the point. The assets are not taken out of punishment, they are taken under the context that it does not legally belong to that person. I understand what you are trying to say: That you think the burden of proof should be the same for both. My response is that doing so would completely negate the definitions of criminal and civil law.

What you are talking about is more like punitive damages, which we also have. You are simply failing to see the difference between taking someone's money because it legally should not belong to them, and taking someone's money in order to dole out a punishment. This asset seizure is not a punishment. It would be a severely bad idea to require evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt in contract law... for the same reason it would be a severely bad idea to hold that burden of proof to asset forfeitures.

I am getting downvoted, because people dont understand that innocent until proven guilty only has to do with an aspect of how court cases are heard, and has nothing to do with the reasonable SUSPICION that a cop needs to arrest you. Dont worry about it, though. I am not here to collect imaginary internet points, it's just sad how many people are that ignorant of the law. Its these same types of people gettimg dragged from their cars when they refuse an officers orders saying they, "know their rights."

I know it doesnt seem right, to you, but can you see that there are definite and clear reasons why we do it this way? Keep in mind, I hate cops... I am not in any way defending cops... and I dont necessarily agree with how our government handles asset seizure/forfeiture. I simply am clarifying the terms we are using. So saying this has anything to do with 'innocent until proven guilty' is simply wrong, and there is a reason why this is a civil issue, and a reason why civil issues do not require the same burden of proof.