&quot;They&#x27;re not saying he&#x27;s presumed guilty, they&#x27;re just trying out various scenarios to illustrate the effects of the laws.&quot;<p>Yes, but the important point is that the courts can only act with what they know at the time, not how some eventual case will come out.<p>If you expect the court to act under the &quot;well sure, he&#x27;s presumed innocent, but we have to cover the case where he&#x27;s guilty too&quot; theory, then we&#x27;re expecting the courts to somehow figure out all of the possible combinations of actions in the future that might affect the money.<p>So let&#x27;s take Alito&#x27;s argument. We arrest a couple of brothers in suspicion of bank robbery. At the same time the bar owner opens a civil case for damages done to his bar during their party. Their criminal lawyer, getting a feeling he might not be paid (which sounds like a pretty good feeling to have) files a civil suit for his money.<p>Now we&#x27;re having to ask the court to make a decision today about monies to maybe be spent or not sometime next year. This is ludicrous.<p>Yes, the money might be able to get away. But you&#x27;ve arrested the person, and that&#x27;s all you get. Aside from the due process problems here, it&#x27;s quite disturbing to see the government seemingly much more interested in the money than the crime. Something&#x27;s wrong there.