citations omitted). However, “[t]hat the burden is on the government does not change the fact that, if the government meets its burden, it will prevail unless the claimants introduce evidence to support their case” that the property in question is not subject to forfeiture. United States v. $171,206.00 in U.S. Currency, 320 F.3d 658, 662 (6th Cir.2003) (finding “evidence of legitimate income that is insufficient to explain the large amount of property seized, unrebutted by any evidence pointing to any source of legitimate income ... satisfies the burden [for forfeiture] imposed by the statute”). The provisions of CAFRA apply to actions pursued under § 545. See United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton, No. 12 Civ. 4760 PKC, 2012 WL 5834899, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012) (<HOLDING>). Thus, with respect to § 545, it is plaintiff,
holding in a civil forfeiture case under inter alia 18 usc  545 that cafra applies to the two forfeiture statutes invoked by the government that are found in title 18 holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that  545 entitles the government to civil forfeiture of certain funds subject to the eighth amendment holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings