It will however not going to be interpreted by lawyers and regulators as such. Because a politician, police officer, businessman, corporation all are more of a person in the eyes of law, compared to a simpleton woman charged with distribution.
The rule of the law does not exist.
And it was a jury of her peers that voted to allow the forfeiture. If a politician accepts bribes and buys property with those bribes it is not unreasonable at all to expect that property to be seized.
Up here in the monarchy of Canada unconvicted persons can lose millions
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-administr...
It is common for the civil forfeiture office to attack accused persons prior to trial, denying them access to their own funds for paying a defence attorney. They can remain in pre-trial custody without legal representation for years.
They are currently litigating for seizure of three hells angels clubhouses on the theory they could be used in the future to engage in unlawful activity. 2019 BCSC 1421.