1) Civil asset forfeiture was created to seize the assets of drug cartels where the believed owner of the property in possession is in another country and has a modest army preventing extradition to stand trial. However, any government entity seeks to expand it's revenue first and foremost and this is a tremendous way to do that and it's being(predictably) abused.
2) Every country has a narrative about itself that isn't 100% correct, consistent or logical. That isn't how people work. Hopefully this ideal will help the revocation of civil asset forfeiture soon. The trend seems to be going that way.
> Civil asset forfeiture was created to seize the assets of drug cartels where the believed owner of the property in possession is in another country and has a modest army preventing extradition to stand trial.
No, it wasn't. In the early US (which imported the legal concept from British maritime law) it was first used as a means to assure collection of customs duties. It expanded during prohibition, but even then was deployed primarily against domestic bootleggers, not kingpins residing in a foreign country with protection against extradition.
