Civil forfeiture has always been mired with contradictions. It is considered a civil proceeding, while it aims to combat criminal offences. It is praised for its highefficiency and high-effectiveness, while it is challenged and criticised for the violation of human rights, precisely, the right to fair trial and the right to property. It has flourished and was promoted by States and international organization, while it has been abolished by other States. The thesis inquiries into those contradictions. For this purpose, the thesis contests the civil nature of civil forfeiture, and the limitations to the right to fair trial and the right to property. It is found that civil forfeiture is a civil proceeding because of its purpose of preventing, rather than punishing, crimes. Nevertheless, the unfair procedures disproportionally limit the individual’s rights and violate human rights law. In order to address those contradictions and achieve the balance between the general interests in combatting crimes and individual’s rights, it is proposed to provide the property owners with criminal procedural guarantees in civil forfeiture.