Not entirely sure I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe that's the how it works. Civil forfeiture is currently allowed because the property is "c

Not entirely sure I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe that's the how it works. Civil forfeiture is currently allowed because the property is "charged" with a "crime", and because it's not a person it doesn't have the same protections as people (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). So the "innocence" of the property can't be proven, and thus it is forfeited. So rather than "He still could have gotten the $5000 from a crime", they're saying "The $5000 could still have been transacted in a crime", and the guilt or innocence of the person it was taken from is considered irrelevant.