In State v. Seven Thousand Dollars, 136 N.J. 223, 238, 642 A.2d 967 (1994) in the context of cash apportionment, Justice Clifford there stated that "once the State demonstrates that the seized money has a direct causal connection to unlawful activity, the burden shifts to the person challenging the forfeiture, the 'owner,' to show what portion of the money, if any, the court should ascribe to legitimate uses." Ibid. If the owner can present enough credible evidence "to allocate the funds between legal and illegal purposes, the court must limit forfeiture to only those funds connected with illegal activity." Ibid. We see no need to limit the equitable allocation procedure to cash seizures only, as the prosecutor urges here. We recognize that "forfeiture statutes are generally disfavored in the law," and are "strictly construed against the State." Ibid.