A more thorough explanation:

Civil forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government, usually the police, to take and keep or sell any property that is believed to be involved in a crime or illegal activity. The owner of the property does not need to be arrested or convicted of a crime for their property to be taken away permanently by the government.

For example, if the police suspect that a car was used to transport drugs, they can seize the car even if the owner was not arrested or convicted of a crime. The burden of proof then shifts to the owner, who must prove that the car was not involved in any illegal activity.

Civil forfeiture is controversial because it is seen as an unconstitutional exercise of government power. Critics argue that innocent owners can become entangled in the process and are presumed guilty instead of being presumed innocent. Critics also argue that the incentives lead to corruption and law enforcement misbehavior and abuse.

The Supreme Court has addressed the constitutional implications of civil forfeiture in several cases. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Austin v. United States that a forfeiture could be considered an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment but declined to establish a multi-factor test to determine whether a forfeiture is constitutionally excessive. Otherwise, the ruling upheld civil forfeiture as a practice, within undefined limits.

Civil forfeiture is codified in 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 983, 984, and 985, as well as in 21 U.S.C. § 881.

Overall, civil forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to seize property that is believed to be involved in a crime or illegal activity. While it is seen as an effective tool against criminal organizations, it is also controversial and has been criticized as an unconstitutional exercise of government power.