I wouldn't be surprised if they are specifically barred from doing this to avoid having defendants liquidate their assets right before the confiscate order comes through.

It's not like the only options are "take the money" and "let the customer liquidate it".

The middle ground is "notify the customer and freeze the accounts while they're responding".

Which is no different than just taking the money. You can't get a loan against a frozen account, you can't use a frozen account to buy groceries or pay your mortgage, and you can't get an extension on your credit cards because your account is frozen.

Swap out "took my money" with "froze my account" in the article and 90% of the comments here would be identical.

It is substantially different.

One is an administrative hold that can be lifted by the bank. The other is an inter-bank transfer process that maybe has to go through the courts. The reason the person in this article has had such a hard time is that he has to convince more than just his bank that they screwed up because they don't have his money any more.