The problem is in the word "their". If they stole it, it's not theirs. If they bought it with stolen money, again, it's not theirs. Or at least, so goes the legal theory.
It seems straightforward enough, until you realize that it basically shifts the burden of proof for any ownership to you. And that includes the recursive problem of the money you used to buy it, so merely having a receipt doesn't suffice.
In a straightforward sense, it really does turn out to be that the word "their" is more complicated than it seems at first blush. But it's also clear that this complication is easily abused, and has been -- to a degree that courts should have stomped on long ago.
CAF is often used for properties that is theirs, and was bought with valid money, under the ""suspicion"" that the property was used for illegal things.
One case that is an example is a waitress who stored their tips in a jar at home getting all of it seized because 15 years ago she had a marijuana possession charge while in college (which was likely why she's a waitress in the first place (but thats another issue)).
Or people losing their cars because they got lost and drove down a "red light street" twice so they must clearly be looking for street workers.
Not to mention states that border vegas seizing winnings of anybody they can pull over who decided to cash all or part of their winnings in hard cash and make the mistake of letting hte officer see it. (for the meme of it mostly)
It seems straightforward enough, until you realize that it basically shifts the burden of proof for any ownership to you. And that includes the recursive problem of the money you used to buy it, so merely having a receipt doesn't suffice.
In a straightforward sense, it really does turn out to be that the word "their" is more complicated than it seems at first blush. But it's also clear that this complication is easily abused, and has been -- to a degree that courts should have stomped on long ago.