It is that the asset can be forfeit before a judicial decision. And as a second, that there is no requirement to involve the asset owner in a judicial proceeding.
Civil forfeiture is a hot topic all over the world. But the US has Executive forfeiture in practice.
One of the differences is that the US has PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), that in practice we have a clue. Since the 80s. It adds up.
Is it the standard of proof?
Preponderance (US), Balance of Probabilities (CA, UK, Ireland, SG, AU, NZ, PH, SA, NG), extinción de dominio (MX, CO, BR)?
It is that the asset can be forfeit before a judicial decision. And as a second, that there is no requirement to involve the asset owner in a judicial proceeding.
Civil forfeiture is a hot topic all over the world. But the US has Executive forfeiture in practice.
> in practice
One of the differences is that the US has PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), that in practice we have a clue. Since the 80s. It adds up.