I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the flaw with your argument is that you're presuming the proceeds were acquired illegally before a trial is even condu

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the flaw with your argument is that you're presuming the proceeds were acquired illegally before a trial is even conducted. We don't yet know that what they did was illegal. We don't even know if the right people are being prosecuted in the first place. That's the entire point of the trial. We may not have a perfect system but presumptions that defendants are "obviously guilty" or "don't actually need all that money" defeats the purpose of having a system at all. Like arbitration, there's literally no point-- we're supposed to have progressed beyond kangaroo courts with arbitrary rules weighted in favor of the prosecution.