Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (highly unlikely) event that he is found innocent, wouldn't that mean that the Silk Road assets need to be returned to him? How then can they sell them now?
Take a look at this well written article by the New Yorker Taken: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...
Its a case where Ulbricht chose to assert a claim on certain seized property and not on others, either because he is not, in fact, DPR (which is what he claims) and didn't want to steal property that wasn't his, or because he is actually is DPR but admitting that he owned the Silk Road servers and bitcoins would make his conviction more likely because it would make it harder for him to deny being the guy behind Silk Road.
-They operate from fixed headquarters
-Some of them are elected
-They have a complaints department
-Certain social services are provided
Allowing forfeiture statutes of this nature likely motivates departments to increase their usage to get more revenues.
It is a disgusting practice and can only lead to something bad.
If they aren't his bitcoins, why would they return them to him? The assets they are selling aren't the ones he has claimed a property interest in, they are the ones that were unclaimed (by him or anyone else) when the forfeiture action was initiated.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/Silk...
You can try to prove your innocence but it doesn't really work in practice.
Again, there are obviously situations where civil forfeiture is improperly utilized. This is not one of them, in my opinion.
You can't have a trial with only one party.
The owner of the bitcoins had an opportunity to contest the forfeiture, and didn't step forward to do that. Given the value of the bitcoins and the public nature of the seizure and forfeiture actions, its hardly likely that that was due to lack of effective notice, or it not being worth expending effort to protect the assets.
My bet would be that Ulbricht has denied any connection to those servers as part of his defense since claiming to own/control them would make it too easy for the government to prove its case. If, at this point, those servers belong to anyone else, they're free to come forward and claim to own them...that would stop the sale.
So if no one claims to own them, they're fair game for the government to sell.
The process here was that government announced forfeiture action, people were given a chance to claim a property interest and fight the forfeiture, and no one chose to do so.
Ulbricht was clearly aware of it, and did assert a claim to other property that was the subject of the same forfeiture action. The seizure was a default judgement because there was no property owner to contest the forfeiture.
What additional process is due, and to whom is it due?
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the bitcoin sitting inside the silkroad wallets was free for the taking by U.S. authorities.
Whether or not Ross Ulbricht's wealth is owed to the U.S. government they're not sure, so they're keeping them until the trial has completed.
I guess the law would see that as belonging to the business holding them, but I'm not sure that's morally correct.
And if it's the property of Silk Road, then no matter what their deal was with the users, when it closes shop then the due process generally doesn't involve giving parts of their assets to users or creditors - the due process is to auction off those assets (as they're doing now) and settle those liabilities with US dollars; so again, people can claim that Silk Road owes them bitcoins, and they can get paid an appropriate share of this sale.
However, if he is found not guilty, then the presumption is that he was not involved and therefore would not be the "rightful owner" of the seized property anyway.