The issue with CAF is not forfeiture of assets without evidence of a crime; with CAF there is evidence of a crime, but not necessarily evidence that the forfeit

The issue with CAF is not forfeiture of assets without evidence of a crime; with CAF there is evidence of a crime, but not necessarily evidence that the forfeited asset is related to the crime, with little or difficult legal recourse to recover the assets. Sometimes the case is never brought to trial [1]; in other cases the owner of the assets is never even charged with a crime [2]. When the forfeiture creates a financial burden [3] or the asset has the potential for depreciation [3], the accused may have even a financial incentive to settle rather than go to trial. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31446215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31446215 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8588268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8588268 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10365463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10365463 [4] https://cre.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/37_2_3_Federal_Forfeiture.pdf https://cre.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/37_2_3_Federal_Fo...