This study aims at emphasizing the controversies arising during extended seizure and during thesale of seized assets before pronouncing a final conviction. The study starts from the fundamental differencebetween special seizure and "extended", further corroborating Decision – Framework of European Council onassets confiscation, constitutional provisions that the "the property obtained legally will not be seized and theacquisition legality is presumed", the reverse of proof obligation and the phrase “court may confiscate the"other assets", is easily understandable and interpretable otherwise, that can be seize any property, fromanyone, if the judge is "convinced" that they provide from illicit activities. The method used during the studyis observation. It is required the establishment and use of some ways to protect innocent citizens by thepossibility of reversing proof obligation. Therefore, we believe that regulations on extended seizure aredesigned to unavailable and confiscate properties illegally obtained, but they can leave to increase the Courtcompetence, beyond the real belief and conviction.