In a non-criminal context:
If something is confiscated, it is seized.
If something is forfeited (forteiture), you lose it (it is seized) due to the breach of a legal obligation.

I dare say that there is no difference at all. Both terms refer to the deprivation of assets.

In the Council of Europe Convention on "Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime" of 1990, for instance, „forfeiture“ is not mentioned at all, while "confiscation" is defined as „a penalty or a measure, ordered by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence or criminal offences resulting in the final deprivation of property“.

When „confiscation and forfeiture“ is mentioned in other pertinent texts, this is to be seen as a legalese tautology similar to „terms and conditions“.

Procedural details most probably vary from country to country and need not be taken into consideration for the purpose of your enquiry.

Could it be that forfeiture is the consequence for the individual concerned and confiscation the action taken by the judge?

I think it can be reduced to the simple following:

I take = I confiscate
I lose/give away/ allow to be taken away= I forfeit.

neither term is exclusively, or indeed mainly, legal, both being in normal everyday use outside of lawyers' rooms and courtrooms.

RES-can: If I get you right, a forfeiture order is the act of declaring that an individual's property passes into the possession of the government and a confiscation order is the act of telling police to seize it on behalf of the court. This would mean, if police confiscate something a law court has not previously declared forfeited, that may be illegal.

@Alex, this is the way I understand it, and I am not a "legal".
If something is confiscated, it is seized, probably through some kind of order.
e.g., 1)the police seize stolen goods from someone 2) a landlord seizes (confiscates) a tenant's property for failure to pay rent (NB: I don't think this is legal nowadays, but it used to be).
Forfeiture: the bank takes over (seizes) your home because you have failed to make your mortgage payments, i.e., you have not fulfilled your legal obligations regarding your home.

Whatever happened to Oliver and Frank??? - Help

The difference between "confiscation" and "forfeiture" is easily understood from usage. Forfeiture is a "surrender", confiscation a "taking".

One "forfeits" a legal right by one's own breach of a contract or a law. Applied to property, one can forfeit the right of ownership, the right of possession, etc. For example, every car lease recites that the lessor forfeits his right to possess the car if he doesn't honor the terms of the lease, and provides in the contract that the lessor may, without court order, repossess the car. In the absence of a repossession clause in the lease, the lessor would have to sue in court for a judgement which allows repossession. The end-product of the judgment would be an order which effectuates its terms, which would be properly characterized as "an order of forfeiture". Correct usage is "He forfeited possession to the bank".
"Confiscation" is the taking physicial possession by claim of a superior right (which may be a court order, or a statute). For example, "per the statute, the government confiscated (seized) the smuggled goods". In the private sphere, it is correct to say, per above: "The bank obtained a court order of forfeiture (judicial declaration of the activation of the forfeiture clause in the lease and thus the bank's superior right to possession), and then confiscated the car." [more usual in this context is "repossessed" instead of "confiscated".]