在我國，原則上，刑事沒收必須要合併於裁判中宣告，且只得沒收屬於被告之物。也因此，在無法起訴或審判，沒有裁判時，要如何沒收個案中的犯罪所用或供犯罪預備之物或犯罪所得（生）之物，應如何沒收，便成問題。相較之下，美國法制上的民事沒收，有著不以有罪判決為必要、舉證責任較低，以及沒收範圍較大等優點。美國聯邦最高法院針對這一個制度也曾作有數個判決，民事沒收法制亦幾經聯邦國會的修正。在討論美國法制中的民事沒收制度後，我們建議我國也應該採行類似制度，併提出形成相關法規時應注意的地方，諸如：制度運行初期，民事沒收的適用應限制在被告不或無法到庭或所在不明的情形；所沒收的財物不應直接成為執法機關的自身預算，或是將之控制在一合理的比例之內；沒收的範圍應該受到比例原則的控制；檢察官在民事沒收中應負證據優勢或證據明確的說服責任；在一定情形下，財產所有人應享有受律師協助的權利；程序中應採取無辜所有人抗辯及窘困抗辯。

In principle, criminal forfeiture shall be pronounced at the time of the judgment. Additionally, criminal forfeiture applies to the defendant's assets only. Things used in the commission of or preparation for the commission of an offense, or derived from or acquired through the commission of an offense cannot be seized if there is no prosecution, trial, or judgment. Civil forfeiture in the United States legal system does not depend on convictions, has a lower requirement of burden of proof, and wider scope. The Supreme Court of the United States made several judgments with respect to the civil forfeiture, and the Congress has revised relative provisions for a few times. This article recommends that we should adopt civil forfeiture, and provides some suggestions. They includes the new civil forfeiture should apply to cases where the defendants flee or cannot appear at trial; the seized assets should not be the budget of the law enforcement, or should be limited to a reasonable portion; civil forfeiture should be in line with the proportionality requirement; prosecutors should provide preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence in the proceeding; the right to counsel shall apply to the civil forfeiture; and the innocent owner defense and economic hardship defense should also be adopted.