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".]