As far as I understand the law, not being an actual lawyer, this is the "rationale" behind asset seizure: prevent a criminal from funding his or her defense wit

As far as I understand the law, not being an actual lawyer, this is the "rationale" behind asset seizure: prevent a criminal from funding his or her defense with the proceeds of criminal activity. Obviously in the poster-child case, they haven't been convicted of anything yet. I'm not defending asset seizure: it's become a way for the government to steal assets without trial. But SBF cleverly made it what lawyers like to call a "close legal question" by funneling the money to his father as a gift.