The harm here refers to whether or not there's a need for interim injunctions to prevent the liquidation or concealment of assets in order to avoid being solvent at the time of judgement. My comment doesn't state anything about asset forfeiture, just the timelines associated with fraud investigations.

And during that timeline, the not-yet-charged family is flat broke because of a logically tenuous action against their assets. An action they were legally unable to contest in a layman’s definition of a reasonable timeframe (like when their next mortgage payment is due).

It’s not your legally narrow definition of harm, or the court’s definition of an unreasonable timeframe… yet it’s undeniably harmful to an innocent family.

We’re still doing that part - innocent until proven guilty - right?

>because of a logically tenuous action against their assets

Generally speaking, in order to get intrusive injunctive relief of this level, you need to have a VERY good record.

Without the ability to freeze assets, someone can defraud you then use the proceeds of fraud itself to fund a legal defense while hiding assets. Or draw out the case and take a decade long vacation in Ibiza on your dime.

Which happens. A lot.

The court isn't going to get it right 100% of the time, but it does the vast majority of times when it comes to these cases - evidentiary standards are so high that people regularly write off MILLIONS of dollars in fraud losses because of how hard these remedies are to get.

Without a desire to understand how the system works on your end, it's impossible on my end to explain WHY these rules exist.