 The district court concluded that the government had not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was a substantial connection between the money and a drug trafficking offense.The court noted that large sums of unexplained currency can be evidence of drug trafficking, and that in this case the money was bundled in an unusual manner.The court also concluded, however, that the claimants had given a "plausible and consistent explanation for [the money's] origin and intended use," (Add.