However, it is not remotely the same, and you are being dishonest in suggesting it.
Civil forfeiture enables US police to detain any person's property without due process, arguing that it may have been "used" in a crime. It is the responsibility of the owner to provide evidence to those who confiscated it themselves and proven corrupt and lacking adequate regulatory oversight that it was not used in a crime.
This law is a very simple and fair case of "where did you make this money?" "Honestly. Here are some basic legitimate financial records to prove it." "Okay have a nice day"
Or in the case of this lady: "Where did you make this money?" "I'm not telling you." "Well, that's Sus. Seriously, where did you make that money? HMRC has no information about your income or assets." "I'm still not telling you." "Okay, we are starting the process of confiscating your property because you have failed to comply with your legal obligation to tell us where you obtained this property."
There will be another due process before their property is seized. She has had ample opportunity to prove the legitimacy of her property, but has not even given the source of her property, which by its very nature is most likely to violate various other laws.