Right, but they should have to prove that the home was paid for with crime, and not the other way around.

And since the forfeiture sought here is criminal forfeiture, they will have to prove that.

Welcome to the debate on pretrial freezing of untainted assets. Some justices agreed with your point given the fungibility of money and all but the majority disagreed in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_v._United_States. The houses that were seized were probably not their primary residences and may be returned if they win at trial (they probably won’t given that they have nearly every major player in the indictment on tape acknowledging that they have received stolen property).

Because of Blackstone’s ratio.

Nobody has been convicted of criminal activity yet, that's for a court to decide.

I see your point, but imagine a situation where I robbed bank for a million dollars. Should I be able to use that million to pay a really good lawyer to defend me in court? And then after I'm feeling guilty I just throw my hands up and say "well I don't have that million anymore, good luck collecting it from me while I'm in jail."

At the very least, I believe the assets would be returned to them if it turns out they are found not guilty. So they are seized but not gone for good.

At the federal level, that’s typically what is done.

The money won't go to repay any victims.

Civil forfeiture is lawless.

> Civil forfeiture is lawless.

Civil forfeiture may be unjust, but it is definitely a product of, and tightly governed by, law.

It is also irrelevant to this case, in which criminal, not civil, forfeiture is sought.

Civil forfeiture is a euphemism for theft by authorities.