The government cannot keep civilly forfeited assets unless it wins a civil case in court, the same process by which anyone can sue and take everything to your name if they win. It also has a long pedigree, being in continuous use before, during, and after the founding era, making it unlikely that it would violate the 4th Amendment.
Civil asset forfeiture is a very specific legal process that can only be initiated by the government against assets seized in the alleged commission of (or derived from) criminal activity.
Private citizens cannot use civil forfeiture against other private citizens.
However, you are correct that the underlying legal theory has been around in some form for hundreds of years dating back to medieval England.
That is such crap. Everyone knows a lot of the people they target can not afford a legal battle and will simply walk away and count their loses and the people doing the taking know this.
It's worse than that. The government has essentially unlimited (time and money) resources to throw into a civil case. Even the most wealthy individuals are at a severe disadvantage.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I find it bizarre the government can bring civil cases against individuals and corporations. They also do this to enforce environmental measures, a laudable goal. But as an ignorant layperson I prefer the government stick to defining and prosecuting what is illegal and stay our of civil law.
