If you're on trial, there's some significant chance that you're guilty. That's not the same as presuming you're guilty, but it means that you should probably not be allowed to use questionable assets, lest it turns out that you are guilty and the person the crime is perpetrated against is due restitution. I believe there should be some basic limitations on that power, but it makes sense for it to exist in some form. It seems that in this case, the argument is that even if a defendant's assets are frozen, the Court should be required to unfreeze the portion necessary to pay for defense.

There are several negative consequences that arise out of being prosecuted for a crime. I don't think we can say that just because there are some constraints placed on defendants, they've been presumed guilty. If they were presumed guilty, they'd be immediately sentenced and forced to retroactively disprove the claims post-facto.