The defendant was the money. Read the decision.
About the third time I've seen that one. You've demanded the person in question demonstrate the money was not obtained illegally. He gave explanations. Meanwhile, the government failed to connect the money to criminal activity, and failed to reach the evidentary standard of preponderance of the evidence. So the court simply threw out it's own precedent to lower that standard.
This decision is a lovely bookend to Kelo for you statist types.