No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated.  A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused.  So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there was not.<p>For a small amount of money, it is not worth it to some people to invest the time and money to sue the state to get the money back. For those that can afford a lawyer and a lawsuit, there is (Constitutional) due process.<p>The remedy lies with the legislatures to add a criminal element, to reverse the burden of proof, and to add an interest penalty to losing agencies.<p>As for the article, it is a novel idea.  I would think that the amount and type of official corruption would be a better indicator of a state in decline.