That's why the US government employs forensic accountants...and there's a ton of banking regulations that limit someone's ability to pull those kinds of shenanigans when the Feebs are circling.
You don't really understand what you are talking about.Being able to seize those assets before charges are filed means the difference between a bad guy truly being punished for his actions, versus invertors' stolen funds collecting interest in an offshore account-or another fraudmonger walking for lack of evidence.
If a government agency suspects that assets are the instrument of, profit from, or evidence of a crime they can spell out their probable cause and take that to a judge and seize/freeze those assets with a court order...and generally there are criminal charges that go along with that.
The reform here is forbidding federal participation in the kind of side-of-the-road snatching of cash or assets on dubious "probable cause" claims without having actually had to pony up any reasonable argument as to why the money/assets are actually the instrument of, evidence of, or profit from a criminal enterprise. There literally are dudes with badges and guns snatching amounts of money they deem to be "suspicious" with the amount of money in and of itself being the sole basis of suspicion...and no criminal investigation follows, nor do criminal charges result as a part of that action. The IRS will freeze or seize bank accounts solely on the suspicion that someone is "structuring" deposits without any criminal investigation or prosecution resulting. That's bullshit and it needs to stop.
The FBI or SEC's ability to go after white collar crime isn't impacted in the slightest by Holder's decision or by any serious reform efforts. The government doesn't get to take stuff on the basis of "We say so!" or argue that Bernie Madoff is going to get to keep purloined billions if they can't snatch 10 grand from somebody on the side of the road.