&gt; That&#x27;s a low standard for the government to meet. &quot;Preponderance of the evidence&quot; means that the government doesn&#x27;t need to prove the property is subject to forfeiture, just show that 50% of the evidence indicates that it could be.<p>Preponderance of the evidence is the standard burden of proof for civil cases, whatever actors are involved -- the side the wins is the side that proves that its position is most likely to be correct.<p>The higher (beyond a reasonable doubt) burden of proof in criminal cases exists as a safeguard because of the greater consequences to liberty of a criminal conviction.<p>Its the same standard used when pretty much <i>anyone</i> wants to use the legal system to take your money or other property via a lawsuit, so I don&#x27;t think its <i>that</i> outrageous that it is used for civil forfeiture cases.