&gt; Also, having a bank account does not matter.<p>Bill, being unbanked, does not have the benefit of bank paper trails to prove where his money came from if challenged.  It&#x27;s also the reason that he to keeps, transports, and transacts with cash.<p>Being a banked white person, almost all of my money has a paper trail closely associated with it.  If I ever have a wad of cash, I can point to records showing where I got it.<p>So, being banked or unbanked matters here, since it speaks to the existence of 3rd party evidence that can be use to back up claims about the source of the money.<p>&gt; No need for loads of evidence - opposing counsel likely cannot refute anything he says. A judge would then order his money returned. It is that simple.<p>What if he can&#x27;t show up in court for whatever reason?  He loses his sized cash, right?<p>Someone made a good point upthread: these seizures end up reversing the traditional burden of proof: they money is assumed to be &quot;guilty&quot; until proven &quot;innocent&quot; (even if that burden of proof is really low).  If someone has their money seized, the burden of proof should be on the state to connect them to a crime and charge them to justify the seizure, if it can&#x27;t do that, the state should hand-deliver the money back to the person it was seized from.