Asset Forfeiture Programs Identified as High-Risk

In January 1990, the Comptroller General identified seized and forfeited assets as a high-risk area because it had been characterized by mismanagement and internal control weaknesses. The OIG also said that $2.5 million of the excessive costs and lost revenue resulted from a lack of effective Marshals Service oversight of real property management. In our February 1995 report, we stated that while its efforts are commendable, Customs must establish and implement additional policies and procedures, such as periodically summarizing and assessing the results of its seizure efforts and making significant enhancements to its seized property tracking system to ensure proper accountability for and stewardship over seized property. Property Management Consolidation Efforts Unsuccessful

In addressing the issue of duplication of effort, one of the provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 required the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to develop and maintain a joint plan to coordinate and consolidate postseizure administration of property seized for drug-related offenses. Accordingly, there are no plans for consolidation of asset management and disposition functions. Further Action Needed

As we have reported, Justice and Treasury have made many improvements to their asset forfeiture programs over the years. However, enhancements to seized property tracking systems and development and implementation of additional policies and procedures are needed to help ensure adequate accountability and stewardship over seized property. High-Risk Series: Asset Forfeiture Programs (GAO/HR-93-17, Dec. 6, 1992). Asset Forfeiture: U.S.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO discussed the Departments of Justice's and Treasury's asset forfeiture programs.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the asset forfeiture programs present a high risk for abuse and fraud because of program mismanagement and internal control weaknesses; (2) Marshals Service mismanagement, ineffective oversight, slow disposition, and poor recordkeeping of seized property has resulted in excessive costs and millions of dollars in lost revenue; (3) the Justice asset forfeiture program lacks closing procedures to ensure the proper recording of all seized property in its property management system; (4) the Customs asset forfeiture program lacks adequate safeguards over seized property and has incomplete and inaccurate accounting and reporting of seized property; (5) the agencies have made many improvements to their asset forfeiture programs, agencies need to additionally enhance their tracking systems and to develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure proper accountability for and stewardship over seized property; and (6) although consolidating the management and disposition of seized assets could reduce administrative costs and duplicative efforts, the agencies cite legislative acts and federal reporting requirements as barriers to developing a joint plan for consolidation.