First, the reason to be concerned about civil forfeiture is well stated at <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;uclawreview.org&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;29&#x2F;criminal-forfeiture-is-taking-the-just-out-of-justice-kaley-v-united-states&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;uclawreview.org&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;29&#x2F;criminal-forfeiture-is-tak...</a>.  The problem is that we introduced it for a specific purpose, and over time the laws <i>have been used expansively and creatively against an ever growing category of people and businesses many of which bear no obvious relationship to organized crime.</i><p>I believe that this long ago crossed the line to being actually used as civil rights abuse.<p>On this case, you&#x27;re mostly right.  The seizure happened under civil forfeiture law, a the second paragraph of The Economist article makes that clear.  So this really is a question about civil forfeiture law.  But it is tied to a potential criminal civil forfeiture.