> but there are enough plausible reasons why they can't find the money There is a strange presumption in here. It is true that lack of evidence doesn't always

> but there are enough plausible reasons why they can't find the money There is a strange presumption in here. It is true that lack of evidence doesn't always means there's evidence that there was no crime. But that shouldn't matter. A crime should only be prosecutable if it is demonstrable. We shouldn't say "oh, well the prosecution had a really hard case, we should just convict this person anyway because it wasn't fair to those lawyers." That's such a perverse way of reasoning about it.