Here we go again with your circular arguments (I think this is the fourth time I've been by this point. I believe "So what?" comes next in your routine).
He wasn't charged with a crime. There was absolutely no linkage of this money to a crime. By the court's own precedent, they did not make a nexus between the money and criminal activity. Therefore, by their own precedent the money should have been returned.
A minute ago you claimed it wasn't a "significant" nexus.
Having trouble keeping your story straight?
"Here we go again with your circular arguments (I think this is the fourth time I've been by this point. I believe "So what?" comes next in your routine)."
What's the name of the guy on second base.