Supreme Court Rules Against Freezing Assets Not Tied to Crimes

I see both arguments, and agree with both sides. I think your final assessment is correct though "she still stands to loose everything." It's not like she get's to keep the money. That second pot of money is going to be burned up keeping her out of jail.

Now I realize this is not about "her" but about the "concept" and that's really where I think they made the right call. The Government isn't going to "error on the side of caution." They're going to take it all (rather than just what was "stolen") and then be forced to give everything else back, which is a much bigger problem.

Currently that Power is far more likely to be abused as we've seen with various other Civil Forfeiture and Asset Seizure cases.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I'm no lawyer, but I'd wager that any federal lawyer would know code words to "link" items, or have the ability to "steer" an investigation to where once all of your possessions are taken, you can rest easy knowing you won't see any of it unless you're found not guilty which is rare in federal cases. Apparently the conviction rate is above 90% so I'd wager you're going to loose it all no matter what.

SSG Warren Swan - "Full weight of the US Government" going against you.

The problem/issue/concern is that the Government has unlimited resources whereas the Defendant does not. It doesn't "cost" the the Prosecutor anything to go after someone... and they can back out at any point, and there's no financial repercussions. If you're found not guilty.. you don't get your money back.

Think about that for a second. If you're found not guilty, you spend thousands or millions of dollars and all you get is "financially punished" (assuming you didn't do it).