Thanks for your comment.

Just to clarify, I meant that the government doesn’t have to file charges or hold a criminal trial. They have to convince a judge that the person is probably guilty, but given that legal aid is not available to civil defendants, defending oneself from the power of the state in this instance could be tricky to say the least.

The way I see it, police and prosecutors are weaseling out of their responsibility to prove guilt. If the police suspect someone but can’t put together a solid case, this allows them to go after the person’s property. I don’t know about you but I just don’t trust government with that kind of power.

As for the U.S. example, the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being “deprived of … property, without due process of law.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t “due process” generally understood to include the presumption of innocence?

I have no problem with asset forfeiture per ce, but I think it should be built into criminal sentencing, not used as an excuse to harass and punish potentially innocent people.

You’re wrong that civil forfeiture means the government can take property without a trial. The property holder still has a right to a trial, under the civil process. You are, however, correct that criminal taint only needs to be shown on a “balance of probabilities”, not “beyond reasonable doubt”. However, that’s true of any non-criminal proceeding, including any number that would take away property.

Ireland and the USA both have constitutionally entrenched property rights, and their highest courts have both upheld civil forfeiture of proceeds of crime.