If you don't have civil forfeiture and the former Amazon employee ends up indeed guilty, it could be after decades of court battles that are literally paid for with money obtained through fraud, and during which time the family enjoys the benefit of the money (using it up on vacations, depreciating assets, etc) and the real victim is deprived of it permanently.
On the other hand, if you do have civil forfeiture and the Amazon employee is found not-guilty, then not only are they deprived of those years of enjoying their justly earned capital, they are also disadvantaged during trial by not being able to afford appropriately skilled representation.
In summary, if you do civil forfeiture then some not-guilty will have their assets unjustly seized and held. If you don't do civil forfeiture, then real victims of theft and fraud will be deprived of their property.
It seems to me though, that if a judge determines you have a high likelihood of success in a court of law, that can and should be used to take some advance – yet reversible – action, such as happens with court injunctions. And then save the final decision for the complete trial.