Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:27 am
Time: 1:27 am
Results for asset forfeiture (u.s.)
3 results foundAuthor: Williams, Marian R. Title: Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture Summary: This report presents a national study on the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture and the first study to grade the civil forfeiture laws of all 50 U.S. states and the U.S. federal government. Under state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws, law enforcement agencies can seize and keep property suspected of involvement in criminal activity. This incentive has led to concern that civil forfeiture encourages policing for profit, as agencies pursue forfeitures to boost their budgets at the expense of other policing priorities. The results in this study demonstrate not only that federal equitable sharing is a loophole that state and local law enforcement use to circumvent strict state laws but also that pursuit of profit is a significant motivator in civil forfeiture actions. Simply put, when laws make civil forfeiture easier and more profitable, law enforcement engages in more of it. Details: Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice, 2010. 119p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119150 Keywords: Asset Forfeiture (U.S.)Police Ethics |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the United States Marshals Service Complex Asset Team Managment and Oversight Summary: The Department of Justice (DOJ) may seize and then compel forfeiture of assets used in or acquired through illegal activity. Such assets may include cash, bank accounts, vehicles, jewelry, stocks, real estate and operating businesses. The United States Marshals Service (USMS) Asset Forfeiture Division manages and disposes of properties seized and forfeited by federal investigative agencies and U.S. Attorneys nationwide. As of March 2011, the USMS held seized assets estimated to be worth over $3.8 billion, with cash and other financial instruments comprising about 93 percent of these assets’ estimated value. The Complex Asset Team within the Asset Forfeiture Division works with USMS district personnel to help secure, appraise, and dispose of assets requiring specialized commercial expertise, including operating businesses, complicated financial instruments, and large commercial real estate properties. In recent years, the size and complexity of the Complex Asset Team’s asset portfolio have grown with the greater sophistication of multimillion-dollar financial crimes – such as those perpetrated by high-profile, white-collar criminals including Bernard Madoff – that yield forfeitable assets. Mismanagement of these complex seized assets can diminish the value of seized assets, result in excessive asset management costs, and expose the government to lengthy litigation with potential claimants. Any improprieties associated with asset forfeitures also can generate public distrust that can undermine the legitimacy of asset forfeiture as a tool for combating crime. The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently conducted an investigation into an allegation that Leonard Briskman, the lead career official with the Complex Asset Team, owned a private appraisal business that presented a conflict of interest with his official USMS duties, which involved valuing and selling assets. The investigation did not substantiate the allegation made against Briskman, but concerns about potential irregularities in the USMS’s management of complex assets prompted the OIG to conduct this audit of Complex Asset Team operations between 2005 and 2010. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2011. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Report 11-42: Accessed September 19, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/USMS/a1142r.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/USMS/a1142r.pdf Shelf Number: 122778 Keywords: Asset Forfeiture (U.S.)U.S. Marshals ServiceWhite-Collar CrimeWhite-Collar Offenses |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Asset Forfeiture Programs: Justice and Treasury Should Determine Costs and Benefits of Potential Consolidation Summary: Since 2003, the Departments of Justice (Justice) and the Treasury (Treasury) have taken some steps to explore coordinating forfeiture program efforts, including sharing a website for posting notifications and pursuing a contract for seizure efforts abroad. However, limited progress has been made to consolidate the management of their assets. According to department officials, when Congress established the Treasury Forfeiture Fund in 1992, it recognized the differences in the programs' missions, which warranted creating separate programs, and this encouraged independent operational decisions that eventually created differences between the programs. There are some differences between the programs, but both departments seize similar assets such as vehicles. Nevertheless, the departments have not assessed the feasibility of consolidation, including whether such efforts would be cost-effective, and continue to duplicate efforts by separately managing and disposing of their seized and forfeited property. Specifically, Justice and Treasury maintain four separate information technology (IT) asset tracking systems, which perform similar functions to support their respective asset forfeiture program activities. In addition, both departments procure separate national contracts for the management of real property and they separately store assets seized under each program that are in some cases located within the same geographic area. For example, both the United States Marshals Service (Marshals)--the primary custodian of Justice's seized assets--and Treasury maintain vehicle storage facilities, 40 percent of which are within 20 miles of each other. GAO recognizes the separate legal authorities of the asset forfeiture funds, but those authorities do not preclude consolidating certain management activities within the programs. Conducting a study to evaluate the feasibility of consolidation that considers associated costs and benefits, among other things, could help Justice and Treasury effectively identify the extent to which consolidation would help increase efficiency, effectiveness, and cost savings. Both Justice and Treasury operate separate asset forfeiture programs that are designed to prevent and reduce crime through the seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal crimes. Annually, participating agencies within Justice and Treasury seize millions of dollars in assets as a result of their law enforcement activities. In fiscal year 2011, the combined value of assets in these two programs was about $9.4 billion. Beginning in 1988 and through 2003, Congress and GAO have called on Justice and Treasury to consolidate management activities between their programs. GAO was asked to assess the extent to which Justice and Treasury have assessed and acted on opportunities to coordinate or consolidate forfeiture property management activities since 2003 to reduce any duplication and achieve cost savings. GAO interviewed officials to determine actions under way or completed to consolidate their management activities. GAO also analyzed IT asset tracking systems functions and the geographic proximity of contracted facilities that store vehicles, vessels, and aircraft. GAO recommends that Justice and Treasury conduct a study to evaluate the feasibility, costs, and benefits of consolidating their asset management activities. Justice and Treasury concurred with GAO's recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resoruce: GAO-12-972: Accessed October 1, 2012 at: http://gao.gov/assets/650/648098.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://gao.gov/assets/650/648098.pdf Shelf Number: 126529 Keywords: Asset Forfeiture (U.S.)Proceeds of Crime |