&gt; Their argument dealt only with the Sixth Amendment — that while the government can seize untainted assets before trial, it must allow a defendant access to enough of his untainted assets to pay for his own defense.<p>However, in this case it seems to me the defendant is guilty of defrauding the govt. to the tune of $40M. The possible outcome of the trial would be forcing them to pay back + penalties perhaps. Had this been a trial about something else (murder for ex.) govt might not have fought much to freeze the assets.<p>EDIT: The problem is of course with the word assets. Are we talking about physical assets? Probalby not. Otherwise say they stole 5 apples from the govt and they also happen to have 10 bananas of their own. Govt comes and take away the apples and bananas. So one can say ok these apples are stolen, only get those back, but should not take the bananas. Now imagine the assets is money (as it probably is in this case). Can a thief steal a bag with $100 bills, change them all to $20 bills and then tell teh govt, don&#x27;t take my $20 bills, these are not the assets I stole. I only stole $100 bills but those are gone now.  It doesn&#x27;t work that way of course.