you apparently don't understand the levels of proof in the court system.
I do understand that the burden of proof is lower in a civil case than it is a criminal case..Which is why its used to literally steal property without actually charging the owner of the property of any actual crime. In a criminal forfeiture case the property is seized, but if the owner is not guilty the property is returned to that owner.In a civil forfeiture case the property itself is charged and the owner has to prove innocence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture
Civil versus criminal forfeiture
Civil procedure cases generally involve disputes between two private citizens, often about money or property, while criminal procedure involves a dispute between a private citizen and the state, usually because a law has been broken. In legal systems based on
British law such as that of the
United States, civil and criminal law cases are
handled differently, with different tests and standards and procedures, and this is true of forfeiture proceedings as well. Both civil and criminal forfeiture involve the taking of assets by police.
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.[SUP]
[1][/SUP]
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 which is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant;[SUP]
[1][/SUP] 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.
The tests to establish the
burden of proof are different;[SUP]
[14][/SUP] in civil forfeiture, the test in most cases[SUP]
[20][/SUP] is whether police feel there is a
preponderance of the evidence suggesting wrongdoing; in criminal forfeiture, the test is whether police feel the evidence is
beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a tougher test to meet.[SUP]
[5][/SUP][SUP]
[14][/SUP]
If property is seized in a civil forfeiture, it is "up to the owner to prove that his cash is clean."[SUP]
[5][/SUP] Normally both civil and criminal forfeiture require involvement by the judiciary; however, there is a variant of civil forfeiture called
administrative forfeiture which is essentially a civil forfeiture which does not require involvement by the judiciary, which derives its powers from the
Tariff Act of 1930, and empowers police to seize banned imported merchandise, as well as things used to import or transport or store a controlled substance, money, or other property which is less than $500,000 value.[SUP]
[1][/SUP]