It doesn't, for two reasons. One, it has no particular connection to corporate personhood. Two, a case like that is called a proceeding in rem, which is literally 'against a thing.' It used to be called an 'impersonal' action, but my law dictionary says that term's deprecated.
Proceedings in rem are usually for the purpose of determining whether there's sufficient evidence to decide that a piece of property is a component in or the proceeds of crime, even if nobody has been caught. An example would be a drug bust where the criminals flee but leave behind a brick of cocaine and a suitcase full of cash. The government can't just seize the money and spend it; it has to come up with some objectively reasonable argument for why the valuables would be forfeit.
They do publish details of upcoming hearings in advance, so if you see that the government is trying to keep your stuff and you have a really good explanation for why you should get it back (eg it was stolen but you didn't call it in because you were in a coma following the robbery), then you can turn up at the hearing and get custody back.
Proceedings in rem are usually for the purpose of determining whether there's sufficient evidence to decide that a piece of property is a component in or the proceeds of crime, even if nobody has been caught. An example would be a drug bust where the criminals flee but leave behind a brick of cocaine and a suitcase full of cash. The government can't just seize the money and spend it; it has to come up with some objectively reasonable argument for why the valuables would be forfeit.
They do publish details of upcoming hearings in advance, so if you see that the government is trying to keep your stuff and you have a really good explanation for why you should get it back (eg it was stolen but you didn't call it in because you were in a coma following the robbery), then you can turn up at the hearing and get custody back.