If we want to have a reasonable discussion about this we need to first dis-conflate two things:<p>1. Is pre-emptive asset seizure justifiable to prevent allegedly ill-gotten gains from being hidden away prior to judgement?<p>2. Do such seizures unfairly prevent the accused from hiring the counsel of their choice?<p>My thoughts on #2: If you argue that this will result in an unfair trial and increased likelihood of a false guilty verdict, then what about people who couldn&#x27;t afford to hire their counsel of choice in the first place? Any argument or system where judgements are biased by wealth is fundamentally not justice. In other words, my answer to #2 is no. The ability to hire good counsel should <i>not</i> be dependent upon one&#x27;s assets. The outcomes of trials should not be dependent upon which side has more money. Some alternative systems that would be fairer, in my opinion:<p>A. All counsel is provided by the state and each side gets assigned counsel randomly.<p>B. Each side contributes as much as they want to a pool of funds. Each side gets to spend half of the pool on the counsel of their choice.<p>B is the better solution for a free market-based society.