I don't disagree with your definitions here. However, for the purpose of understanding the 'interests' of the incentive makers, it's notable that we're talking

I don't disagree with your definitions here. However, for the purpose of understanding the 'interests' of the incentive makers, it's notable that we're talking about executive action, pursuant (however shakily) to law passed by congress, pertaining to the specific act of seizure ("forfeiture") of property. The 'interest' (or, more charitably, the 'intention') is to combat crime. Thus, if law enforcement has an incentive to do something other than combat crime, which again, I don't think anyone disagrees they do under such a framework, then the incentive is indeed perverse. The only way that this incentive is consonant is if the original intention was to enrich law enforcement agencies, which nobody claims was the impetus for these policies.