You are seriously misreading the story at hand. https://www.fox46.com/news/investigations/government-seizes-billions-in-cash-from-air-travelers-without-ever-fi

You are seriously misreading the story at hand. https://www.fox46.com/news/investigations/government-seizes-billions-in-cash-from-air-travelers-without-ever-filing-a-criminal-charge/ https://www.fox46.com/news/investigations/government-seizes-... The threatened "investigation" in was the civil asset forfeiture procedure. They were asking him to voluntarily surrender the money, or else they would initiate civil asset forfeiture. In other words, law enforcement officers offered the victim a choice between plans A and B. Plan A was the extra-legal course: give us your money, and we'll forget we ever had this discussion. This was the officer's preferred outcome. Free money, minimum paperwork. Plan B was what actually happened: the civil asset forfeiture process. The victim refused to sign the papers, so everything goes to court, and then the government has to come up with something, at least a notional reason, to take the money. However you read the laws around civil asset forfeiture, I am pretty sure that "plan A" was not an intended part of the picture.