How on Earth is this possible?  If you read <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;wex&#x2F;forfeiture" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;wex&#x2F;forfeiture</a> closely, you&#x27;ll find an explanation.<p><i>Although the conviction requires the government to prove guilt &quot;beyond a reasonable doubt,&quot; the forfeiture is subject to a lower burden--preponderance of the evidence.</i><p>This case demonstrates the real-life consequence of this difference in standards.  In this case the government could not establish &quot;beyond a reasonable doubt&quot; but the accused could not demonstrate &quot;preponderance of the evidence&quot; for innocence either.  So the accused don&#x27;t go to jail but still lose their house.<p>And here we get to the real problem with how civil forfeiture is actually used today.  How do you establish a &quot;preponderance of the evidence&quot; when no specific crime was ever alleged?  It is effectively impossible!  The TSA can always allege &quot;a smell of marijuana&quot; and claim probable cause for the seizure.  They have a direct financial incentive to do so, and you have no way afterwards to prove that they were lying.