3 ms·

False, at least in the US. The government's case is considered to be against the property, not against you. The standard of legal proof is a preponderance of ev

False, at least in the US. The government's case is considered to be against the property, not against you. The standard of legal proof is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. "Assets [are only] returned if [the] owner proves [his/her] innocence". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... for details.

harryh 10y ago
"preponderance of evidence" is still a burden on the plaintiff. It's just a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".
- facetube 10y ago
  In practice in the United States it's been shown to present little to no burden. These cases have been widely covered in the press. Again, see the link.