Bankruptcy proceedings are all about identify all assets and loans, and figuring out how to recover them maximally in order to distribute whatever's left of them to creditors and owners.
This isn't some arbitrary seizure. Obviously an owner can't be allowed to start drawing gigantic loans from a company they control, declare bankruptcy, and think they get to keep the loan money. (Same thing as how, in a criminal case, a thief can't sell a stolen painting for $10M cash, and then expect to be able to use that cash to fund their defense.) Bankruptcy court rightly has the power to claw back fraudulent transactions such as these.
I'm not saying the government never abuses search and seizure, but in the specific case of bankruptcy, retrieving assets is the whole first half of bankruptcy (with their reallocation being the second). So bankruptcy is basically the worst example you could use for trying to claim abuse of search and seizure.
And from some other comments pointing this out, this seems to be related to the bankruptcy of FTX and a claim to the funds by FTX.
Because SBF allegedly owns the shares. He doesn't own the donation. Unless you want the government to seize whatever goodwill the donation got him.
That would be a fun sheriff's sale. "One lunch with selected congressman, to discuss voting in up to two bills."
It literally does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even putting the specifics here aside, that's not how civil asset forfeiture works. If the government seizes your assets, you can force them to go to court, where they have to establish to a preponderance of the evidence that the seized property was the proceeds of illegal activity. That's the same standard that anyone seeking to sue you and take your money has to meet.
I understand the mental gymanstics used to justify this, in that the property is the defendant in a civil action (for a suspected criminal act by its owner, no less). The end result is what we see here: civil asset forfeiture and absolutely no protection against unlawful seizure.
Now a lot of people won't care about this because it's SBF and it looks pretty likely that he's guilty. At least there's a criminal indictment in this case. If the government has this power (and, again, I think they should not) this use seems appropriate.
But the government doesn't require a criminal indictment at all (let alone a conviction) to use this power. Consider the case of Amy Nelson [1]. At the behest of Amazon, the Department of Justice seized the bank accounts of her, her husband, a bunch of employees of a company and even their lawyers who worked for a law firm, ultimately charging nobody with anything and returning 85% of the money 2 years later once the Nelsons agreed not to sue the government.
Also, SBF gave tens of millions in donations to both parties in the recent midterms. If the Robinhood shares are fair game, why aren't the donations?
[1]: https://www.geekwire.com/2022/former-seattle-entrepreneur-an...