That&#x27;s not necessarily a bad argument, but the theoretical basis of the criminal burden of proof is that the kind of <i>consequences</i> resulting from criminal conviction are different than mere property (which is routinely at issue in civil cases).<p>So, the principle on which the <i>existing</i> distinction is based really doesn&#x27;t support it being applied to forfeiture actions.<p>And, while there might be a good argument for <i>changing</i> the principle underlying the distinction, I don&#x27;t see a clear reason for applying specifically the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to forfeiture (or even a higher standard that would apply in any other civil claim.)