jurisdiction: US

text: b' AUDIT OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT\n\nADMINISTRATION\xe2\x80\x99S ADOPTIVE SEIZURE \n\n PROCESS AND STATUS OF RELATED \n\n EQUITABLE SHARING REQUESTS\n\n\n U.S. Department of Justice\n\n Office of the Inspector General\n\n Audit Division\n\n\n Audit Report 12-40\n\n September 2012\n\n\x0c AUDIT OF THE\n\n DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION\xe2\x80\x99S\n\n ADOPTIVE SEIZURE PROCESS AND STATUS OF\n\n RELATED EQUITABLE SHARING REQUESTS\n\n\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\n\n During law enforcement operations, state and local law enforcement\nagencies often seize assets and proceeds from assets linked to criminal\nactivity. The purpose of the seizures typically is to ensure that criminal\norganizations and individuals do not benefit from illegal activities. State and\nlocal law enforcement agencies may seek to have such assets forfeited\nunder state law or, alternatively, agencies may transfer the seized assets to\nthe Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or another component of the\nDepartment of Justice (DOJ or the Department) for forfeiture under federal\nlaw through the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Asset Forfeiture Program. Transferred\nseizures are referred to as \xe2\x80\x9cadoptive\xe2\x80\x9d seizures because the federal agency\nadopts the seizures made by state and local law enforcement agencies. 1\n\n The DEA Agents Manual states that, in reviewing an adoption request\nfrom state or local law enforcement agencies, the DEA should take into\nconsideration whether:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t state law authorizes the transfer of the asset(s) to the federal \n\n government for forfeiture,\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t state law or procedures are inadequate or forfeiture experience is\n lacking in the state system,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t the appropriate state or local prosecuting official has reviewed the case\n and declined to initiate forfeiture proceedings,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t a "significant amount" (that is, an amount sufficient to warrant federal\n prosecution) of drugs is involved, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t the government is likely to be able to satisfy its requisite burden of\n proof that the asset is subject to forfeiture.\n\n\n\n 1\n Seizures made through the joint efforts of federal, state, local, and foreign law\nenforcement agencies are referred to as \xe2\x80\x9cjoint\xe2\x80\x9d seizures.\n\n\n\n i\n\x0c Federal law authorizes the Department to share with state and local\nlaw enforcement agencies the property and proceeds from adoptive and joint\nseizures forfeited under federal law. This process is called equitable sharing.\nAny property or proceeds transferred to a state or local law enforcement\nagency must have a reasonable relationship to the degree of participation\nthe agency had in the law enforcement effort that led to the seizure.\nEquitable sharing of seized property encourages cooperation among federal,\nstate, and local law enforcement agencies. To receive an equitable share of\nseized property, a participating law enforcement agency must submit an\nequitable sharing request form to the federal agency processing the asset for\nforfeiture. Seized assets and equitable sharing requests are tracked in the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System (CATS).\n\n The objective of our audit was to assess the design and\nimplementation of the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seizure process. We selected the DEA\nAtlanta Division for testing because, within the DEA, the Atlanta Division\nprocessed the largest dollar value of adoptive seizures and testing at the\nAtlanta Division enabled us to make efficient use of time and cost resources.\n\nResults in Brief\n\n We found that the DEA generally complied with its internal controls for\nadoptive seizures that we tested. The DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seizure process was\ndesigned to ensure compliance with laws and regulations except that the\nprocess did not require the DEA to make and preserve records of adoption\nrequests that it denied. 2 Without these records, we could not assess\nwhether the DEA made the appropriate decisions pertaining to denied\nadoptive seizure requests. We also found that the form published by the\nDOJ Criminal Division and submitted to the DEA by state and local law\nenforcement agencies to request a federal adoption should be revised. The\nrevised form should provide DEA managers who approve adoption requests\nwith more information about whether the state and local law enforcement\nagencies followed state forfeiture law, if required, before seeking a federal\nadoption. 3\n\n Nationwide, 9,035 equitable sharing requests estimated at\n$318.8 million were still in a \xe2\x80\x9cpending\xe2\x80\x9d (not paid) status for more than\n\n 2\n 44 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 3101 (2012), requires agencies to make and preserve records\ncontaining adequate and proper documentation of its transactions and decisions.\n 3\n Some states have laws requiring state and local law enforcement to turn over\nseized assets to a state or local prosecutor to decide whether to pursue forfeiture under\nstate law.\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0c4 years after the assets were seized. 4 At the DEA Atlanta Division, we\nexamined a sample of these pending requests and determined that the most\ncommon reasons for the pending status were that the requesting law\nenforcement agency was not in compliance with the Asset Forfeiture\nProgram or the requesting agency had been suspended from receiving\nequitable sharing funds. However, some of these equitable sharing requests\nwere no longer pending, but the CATS records had not been updated.\n\n As a result of our audit, we make three recommendations to improve\nthe DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seizure process and the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Asset Forfeiture\nProgram. First, we recommend that the DEA implement procedures to\ncreate and maintain records pertaining to adoption requests that were\ndenied and the reasons for the denial. Those records could consist of emails\ncontaining details about the seizures and the reasons the DEA denied the\nadoption requests.\n\n Second, we recommend that the DEA coordinate with the Criminal\nDivision, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, to modify the\nadoption request form to include questions pertaining to whether state and\nlocal law enforcement agencies followed state forfeiture laws, if applicable,\nbefore seeking a federal adoption.\n\n Finally, we recommend that the DEA coordinate with Justice\nManagement Division\xe2\x80\x99s Asset Forfeiture Management Staff regarding the\nneed for a system to: (1) identify equitable sharing requests pending for\nmore than 6 months after forfeiture and disposal actions are completed, and\n(2) ensure that the appropriate DOJ component updates CATS as necessary\nfor each pending request.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n According to CATS, 6,453 of the 9,035 pending equitable sharing requests (or an\nestimated $229,085,650 of $318,804,219) pertained to assets that had been forfeited to\nthe United States Government. The OIG analyzed these requests because they represent\nthe oldest pending requests in our data sample. We do not intend to imply that all requests\npending for less than 4 years have been or will necessarily be handled in a timely manner.\n\n iii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nINTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1\n\n Background .....................................................................................1\n\n DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program ............................................................1\n\n Types of Seizures ........................................................................3\n\n Types of Forfeitures.....................................................................4\n\n Equitable Sharing ........................................................................6\n\n Disbursement of Equitable Shares .................................................9\n\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. 12\n\n The DEA\xe2\x80\x99s Adoptive Seizures Process ................................................ 12\n\n The DEA\xe2\x80\x99s Adoptive Seizures Process Testing ..................................... 15\n\n Pending Equitable Sharing Requests ................................................. 18\n\n Conclusion..................................................................................... 23\n\n Recommendations .......................................................................... 24\n\n\nSTATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS...... 25\n\n\nSTATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS............................................ 26\n\n\nAPPENDIX I - AUDIT OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ...... 27\n\n\nAPPENDIX II - REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF STATE OR\n\n LOCAL SEIZURE FORM ............................................................... 31\n\n\nAPPENDIX III - THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION\xe2\x80\x99S\n\n RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT ................................. 33\n\n\nAPPENDIX IV - OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO\n\n CLOSE THE REPORT ................................................................... 35\n\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n\nBackground\n\n State and local law enforcement agencies seize assets and proceeds\nfrom criminal activity during their enforcement operations. The purpose of\nthe seizures typically is to ensure that criminal organizations and individuals\ndo not benefit from illegal activities. State and local law enforcement\nagencies may have the seized assets forfeited under state law or may\ntransfer the seized assets to a federal agency, such as the Drug Enforcement\nAdministration (DEA), for forfeiture under federal law through the\nDepartment of Justice (DOJ or Department) Asset Forfeiture Program. The\nAsset Forfeiture Program helps the DEA strengthen its partnerships with\nother law enforcement agencies. Seizures made by state and local law\nenforcement agencies that are transferred to a federal agency are referred to\nas \xe2\x80\x9cadoptive\xe2\x80\x9d seizures because the federal agency adopts the seizures for\nforfeiture through the Asset Forfeiture Program. Seizures made through the\njoint efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are referred\nto as \xe2\x80\x9cjoint\xe2\x80\x9d seizures.\n\nDOJ Asset Forfeiture Program\n\n DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Criminal Division and the Justice Management Division (JMD)\nmanage the Asset Forfeiture Program. Specifically, the Criminal Division\xe2\x80\x99s\nAsset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) monitors state and\nlocal law enforcement agencies\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with equitable sharing program\nrequirements, coordinates international forfeitures and sharing, develops\ntraining seminars for all levels of government, and provides legal support to\nthe U.S. Attorney\xe2\x80\x99s Office (USAO).\n\n JMD\xe2\x80\x99s Asset Forfeiture Management Staff (AFMS) manages the DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s\nConsolidated Assets Tracking System (CATS) database. Seized assets\nadopted by the DEA are turned over to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and\ndeposited in the Seized Asset Deposit Fund, which is a holding account for\nseized cash pending resolution of forfeiture proceedings. After the DEA or\nthe USAO completes forfeiture actions and the DEA or the USMS disposes of\nthe assets, the proceeds are transferred to the Assets Forfeiture Fund. After\nthe DEA, USAO, or AFMLS approve the equitable sharing request, the USMS\ndisburses the equitable sharing funds to the federal, state, and local law\nenforcement agencies.\n\n AFMS also administers the Seized Asset Deposit Fund and the Assets\nForfeiture Fund. Proceeds from forfeited assets are to be used for law\n\n 1\n\n\x0cenforcement purposes and to administer the Asset Forfeiture Program.\nSeized assets processed through the program are tracked in CATS. The\nGuide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies\nprovides guidance and details about the Asset Forfeiture Program such as\ninstructions on how to participate in the program, minimum value thresholds\nfor adoptive assets, how to apply for an equitable share, how equitable\nsharing amounts are determined, accounting for equitable sharing receipts,\nreporting and audit requirements, and consequences for not complying with\nprogram requirements.\n\n According to the DOJ Criminal Division\xe2\x80\x99s Guide to Equitable Sharing for\nState and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, these five federal agencies that\nparticipate in the DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program may directly adopt seizures\nmade by state and local law enforcement agencies: 1\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Drug Enforcement Administration;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Federal Bureau of Investigation;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 U.S. Postal Inspection Service; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 U.S. Attorney\xe2\x80\x99s Offices.\n\n After an asset is seized, these agencies may process the asset for\nforfeiture under federal law and share the proceeds with the law enforcement\nagencies that participated in the seizure. 2 An overview of the Asset\nForfeiture Program is presented in Exhibit 1.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Other federal agencies participate in the DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program as part of\njoint seizure operations, but they do not directly adopt seized assets. The DOJ Criminal\nDivision\xe2\x80\x99s AFMLS manages the equitable sharing of assets, coordinates international\nforfeitures and sharing, develops training seminars for all levels of government, provides\nlegal support to the USAO, and monitors state and local law enforcement agencies\xe2\x80\x99\ncompliance with equitable sharing program requirements. The U.S. Department of the\nTreasury has a separate asset forfeiture program that processes adoptive seizures. Agencies\nthat participate in the Treasury Asset Forfeiture Program include the Internal Revenue\nService, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,\nU.S. Secret Service, and U.S. Coast Guard.\n 2\n Processing an asset for forfeiture and equitable sharing consists of transferring the\nasset to the USMS for safekeeping, notifying the owners or other interested parties of the\ngovernment\xe2\x80\x99s intent to proceed with forfeiture, taking the legal actions necessary to have\ntitle to the property transferred to the government, and reviewing and approving requests\nfrom law enforcement agencies for a share of the proceeds from the forfeited asset.\n\n 2\n\n\x0c Exhibit 1: Summary of\n the Asset Forfeiture Program\n\n PROPERTY (ASSET)\n\n\n SEIZURE\n\n Adoptive Joint\n\n\n\n REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE SHARES\n\n\n FORFEITURE\n\n Administrative Judicial (Civil and Criminal)\n\n\n DISBURSEMENT OF EQUITABLE SHARES\n State and Local (80% Maximum) Federal (20%)\nSource: Office of the Inspector General (OIG) summary of the Guide to Equitable Sharing\nfor State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies\n\nTypes of Seizures\n\n The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970\nauthorizes federal law enforcement to seize property, including money and\nvehicles, alleged to have facilitated illegal drug transactions or the proceeds\nof such transactions. Federal agencies process seized assets through the\nAsset Forfeiture Program as either adoptive seizures or joint investigation\nseizures.\n\n According to the CATS data, for the period of October 1, 2000, through\nSeptember 30, 2011, the DEA and other federal agencies processed over\n150,644 seized assets valued at about $9.2 billion of which $5.5 billion\n(60 percent) originated from seizures processed by the DEA and $3.7 billion\n(40 percent) originated from seizures processed by other federal agencies. 3\nExhibit 2 shows the value of adoptive and joint seized assets processed each\nfiscal year (FY) by the DEA and other federal agencies.\n\n\n 3\n During this 11-year period, there was an additional $522 million in DEA seizures\nthat had no equitable sharing requests, but we did not include these in our analysis because\nthose seizures were beyond the scope of our audit. The scope of our audit only included\nseizures with equitable sharing requests.\n\n 3\n\n\x0c Exhibit 2: Value of Assets Seized During Fiscal Year 2001 Through\n Fiscal Year 2011 4\n\n\n $1,600\n\n\n $1,400\n Current Asset Value in Millions of Dollars\n\n\n\n\n $1,200\n\n\n $1,000\n\n\n $800\n\n\n $600\n\n\n $400\n\n\n $200\n\n\n $0\n 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011\n\n DEA Adoptive Seizures DEA Joint Seizures\n Other Federal Agencies\' Joint Seizures Other Federal Agencies\' Adoptive Seizures\nSource: DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System\n\n\nTypes of Forfeitures\n\n The DOJ Criminal Division defines forfeiture as \xe2\x80\x9cthe taking of property\nderived from a crime, involved in a crime, or that which makes a crime easier\nto commit or harder to detect without compensating the owner.\xe2\x80\x9d 5 In a\nforfeiture proceeding, if the government is successful, ownership of the asset\nis transferred to the government. Property (assets) can be forfeited through\nthe Asset Forfeiture Program under administrative or judicial (civil or\ncriminal) forfeiture proceedings.\n\n\n 4\n FY 2001 through FY 2010 data is from the CATS records as of October 4, 2011, and\nFY 2011 data is from the CATS records as of October 25, 2011.\n 5\n Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, April\n2009, page 8.\n\n 4\n\n\x0c In an administrative forfeiture action, the federal law enforcement\nagency must, within 60 days after the date of seizure, notify the owner or\nother interested parties of the government\xe2\x80\x99s intent to proceed with the\nforfeiture action. 6 The DEA refers to this as a Notice of Seizure. Interested\nparties have until the date specified in the notice to contest the forfeiture. 7 If\nthe forfeiture is not contested, the DEA issues a Declaration of Forfeiture and\nownership of the property is transferred to the government. If an interested\nparty contests the forfeiture by filing a claim against the property,\nadministrative forfeiture proceedings are terminated, and the government\nhas 90 days to proceed with a civil or criminal forfeiture action or return the\nproperty and initiate forfeiture action at a later date.\n\n During a federal civil forfeiture proceeding, the court hears argument\nand evidence from both the government and all interested parties on the\nforfeiture allegations. The court will determine whether the government met\nits burden to establish that the property is subject to forfeiture. 8 If the\ngovernment meets its burden of proof and no interested parties are\nsuccessful in establishing an innocent owner defense, the court issues a Final\nJudgment of Forfeiture order and ownership of the property passes to the\ngovernment.\n\n Unlike civil forfeiture in which the proceedings are against the property\n(in rem), criminal forfeiture proceedings are against the person\n(in personam). Under criminal forfeiture proceedings, the forfeiture is part of\nthe trial process that targets property named in the indictment. Proceedings\nto determine whether the property will be forfeited take place after, and only\nif, the defendant is convicted. As shown in Exhibit 3, 70 percent of all seized\n\n\n 6\n If the asset was seized by a state or local law enforcement agency and adopted by\nthe government for processing under federal forfeiture law, the adopting federal law\nenforcement agency has 90 days to notify the owner or other interested parties of its intent\nto proceed with forfeiture.\n 7\n According to 18 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 983(a)(2)(B), \xe2\x80\x9cthe deadline may not be earlier than\n35 days after the date the letter is mailed to the owner, except that if that letter is not\nreceived, then a claim may be filed not later than 30 days after the date of final publication\nof notice of seizure.\xe2\x80\x9d\n 8\n As a protection to innocent owners, a person\xe2\x80\x99s interest in the property cannot be\nforfeited if the person can prove the elements of the \xe2\x80\x9cinnocent owner defense\xe2\x80\x9d described in\n18 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 983(d) (2011). That statute defines an \xe2\x80\x9cinnocent owner\xe2\x80\x9d as \xe2\x80\x9can owner who\n(i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or (ii) upon learning of the conduct\ngiving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the\ncircumstances to terminate such use of the property.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n 5\n\n\x0cassets and nearly half of the asset values are processed as administrative\nforfeitures.\n\n Exhibit 3: FYs 2001 Through 2011 Seized Assets\n by Type of Forfeiture 9\n Number of Assets Asset Value (in millions)\n by Type of Forfeiture by Type of Forfeiture\n Administrative Civil Criminal Administrative Civil Criminal\n\n\n\n 21,730\n 14% $2,150\n 23%\n 24,242\n $4,372\n 16% 104,528 48%\n 70%\n $2,696\n 29%\n\n\n\n\n Source: DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System\n\nEquitable Sharing\n\n Federal law authorizes the Attorney General to share with state and\nlocal law enforcement agencies the property and proceeds from adoptive and\njoint seizures. Any property or proceeds transferred to a state or local law\nenforcement agency must bear a reasonable relationship to the degree of\nparticipation the state or local law enforcement had in the law enforcement\neffort that led to the seizure. This \xe2\x80\x9cequitable sharing\xe2\x80\x9d of seized property\nhelps the DEA achieve its mission by encouraging cooperation among federal,\nstate, and local law enforcement agencies.\n\n The DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Criminal Division, AFMLS monitors state and local law\nenforcement agencies\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with equitable sharing participation\nrequirements, coordinates international forfeitures and sharing, develops\ntraining seminars for all levels of government, and provides legal support to\n\n\n 9\n Our analysis includes adoptive and joint seizures processed by the DEA and other\nfederal agencies. Our analysis does not include 144 assets valued at $1.2 million because\nthe DEA terminated forfeiture proceedings on those assets.\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\x0cthe USAO. The USMS disburses the equitable sharing payments and is the\ncustodian for seized and forfeited assets.\n\n To receive an equitable share of adoptive and joint seizures, the\nrequesting law enforcement agencies must submit an Application for Transfer\nof Federally Forfeited Property (Form DAG-71) to the federal agency\nprocessing the asset for forfeiture. 10 If the value of the seized assets in a\nforfeiture proceeding is less than $1 million, equitable sharing requests are\nreviewed and may be approved by the investigative agency if the proceeding\nis administrative, or by the USAO if the proceeding is judicial. If the value of\nthe assets is greater than $1 million, the Deputy Attorney General must\nreview and approve equitable sharing requests, although the Deputy Attorney\nGeneral has delegated this authority to the Criminal Division in situations\nwhere the investigative agency, the USAO, and the Criminal Division\xe2\x80\x99s AFMLS\nagree about the appropriate disposition of the request.\n\n Equitable sharing cannot occur until forfeiture actions have been\ncompleted, the asset has been disposed of, and the sharing of the asset has\nbeen approved by the appropriate federal office. The length of time between\nthe date of seizure and the date that equitable sharing funds are disbursed\ndepends on the type of forfeiture. Exhibit 4 shows the average length of time\nfor completed equitable sharing requests and the percentage completed\nwithin 1 to 4 years.\n\n Exhibit 4: Completed Equitable Sharing Requests\n Type of Average Percent Completed Within\n Time to 1 2 3 4\n Forfeiture\n Complete Year Years Years Years\n Administrative 0.7 years 72% 94% 98% 99%\n Civil Judicial 1.8 years 15% 58% 77% 87%\n Criminal Judicial 1.9 years 18% 55% 77% 87%\n All types 0.9 years 58% 85% 93% 96%\n Source: OIG analysis of the DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System data\n\n\n\n 10\n A request for adoption is different from a request for equitable sharing. A Request\nfor Adoption of State or Local Seizure form (see Appendix II) is used by a state or local law\nenforcement agency to request that a federal agency, such as the DEA, \xe2\x80\x9cadopt\xe2\x80\x9d the asset for\nforfeiture under federal law. There is one adoption request form for each adoptive asset.\nThe form is not used for joint seizures. A request for equitable sharing, Application for\nTransfer of Federally Forfeited Property, Form DAG-71, is used to request a share of the\nproceeds from adoptive and joint seizures forfeited under federal law. There can be multiple\nequitable sharing requests from various law enforcement agencies for a share of each\nadopted or joint seizure.\n\n\n\n 7\n\n\x0c Exhibit 5 shows numbers of equitable sharing requests that were still\npending as of September 30, 2011, and the numbers of years since the\nassets were seized. The requests are associated with assets seized during\nfiscal years 2001 through 2011.11\n\n Exhibit 5: Number of Pending Equitable Sharing Requests\n\n as of September 30, 2011, and Number of Years\n\n Since the Date of Seizure\n\n\n 35,000\n\n 30,000\n\n 25,000\n Nuber of Requests with\n Pending Distributions\n\n\n\n\n 20,000\n\n 15,000\n\n 10,000\n\n 5,000\n\n -\n 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11\n year years years years years years years years years years years\n Number of Years Since the Date of Seizure\n\n From DEA Joint Seizures From DEA Adoptive Seizures\n From Other Federal Agency Joint Seizures From Other Federal Agency Adoptive Seizures\n\nSource: DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System\n\n\n\n\n 11\n There may be pending equitable sharing requests for assets that were seized prior\nto FY 2001, but those seizures were beyond the scope of our audit. The pending equitable\nsharing requests shown in the exhibit are for assets seized during FY 2001 through 2011.\n\n 8\n\n\x0cDisbursement of Equitable Shares\n\n Under the Asset Forfeiture Program, up to 80 percent of the net\nproceeds from the adopted forfeited assets are disbursed to the participating\nlaw enforcement agencies and the federal government keeps the remaining\n20 percent. 12\n\n From FY 2001 through FY 2011, federal agencies transferred almost\n$4.2 billion in equitable sharing money and other assets to 7,270 state and\nlocal law enforcement agencies. Over $3 billion of this originated from the\nDEA\xe2\x80\x99s joint and adoptive seizures. For both the DEA and other federal\nagencies, equitable sharing disbursements more than doubled from FY 2002\nto FY 2011. Exhibit 6 shows the disbursements to state and local law\nenforcement agencies from FY 2001 through FY 2011.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n Under 21 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 881 (2011), the Attorney General is directed to determine the\nvalue of an agency\xe2\x80\x99s participation in the effort that led to the forfeiture. The Attorney\nGeneral\xe2\x80\x99s Guidelines on Seized and Forfeited Property, July 1990, Amended 2005, require\nthat 20 percent of the net proceeds be allocated to the United States. Based on this\nrequirement, state and local agencies may be eligible for up to 80 percent of the total net\nproceeds realized from the disposition of forfeited property. The net proceeds, which is the\namount available for equitable sharing, is the gross amount of proceeds minus expenses,\nsuch as payment of liens on the property, money paid to victims, and federal case-related\nexpenses. See the Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies\nfor more information on expenses used in calculating net proceeds.\n\n\n\n 9\n\n\x0c Exhibit 6: Value of Equitable Sharing Disbursements from Adoptive\n and Joint Seizures Processed by the DEA and\n Other Federal Agencies 13\n\n $700\n EQ Sharing Disbursements in Millions of Dollars\n\n\n\n\n $600\n\n $500\n\n $400\n\n $300\n\n $200\n\n $100\n\n $0\n 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011\n\n From DEA Joint Seizures From DEA Adoptive Seizures\n From Other Fed Agencies Joint Seizures From Other Fed Agencies Adoptive Seizures\n\nSource: DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System\n\n The objective of this audit was to assess the design and\nimplementation of the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seizure process. We focused our audit\non the DEA Atlanta Division because, within the DEA, it processed the largest\nnumber and dollar value of adoptive seizures. The DEA Atlanta Division has\ngeographic responsibility for Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and\nTennessee.\n\n\n\n 13\n The disbursements shown in the chart are all disbursements in a given year,\nwhether derived from assets seized in the current year or prior years. Disbursements\ninclude the value of all money and other assets, such as vehicles, transferred to law\nenforcement agencies. Equitable sharing disbursements are less than the value of the seized\nassets because: (1) there can be a lag time of several years between the seizure and the\ndisbursement of proceeds from the forfeiture, and some assets depreciate over time;\n(2) disposal costs may reduce the amount of proceeds available for distribution; or\n(3) forfeiture proceedings may have been terminated and the asset returned to the owner.\nAlso, pursuant to the Attorney General\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines discussed above, no more than\n80 percent of the net proceeds from forfeited assets may be disbursed to participating state\nand local law enforcement agencies.\n\n\n\n 10\n\n\x0cExhibit 7: Equitable Sharing Disbursements to State and Local Law\n Enforcement Agencies in the DEA Atlanta Division\n (during FYs 2001 Through 2011)\n Amount Amount from\n Percent from\n Disbursed to Adoptive\n State Adoptive\n State Assets\n Assets\n (in millions) (in millions)\n Georgia $204 $53 26%\n North Carolina $128 $74 58%\n South Carolina $45 $18 40%\n Tennessee $57 $5 9%\n Total $434 $150 35%\nSource: OIG analysis of the DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System data\n\n The results of our audit are presented in the following section.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n We found that the DEA generally complied with the internal controls for\n adoptive seizures that we tested. The DEA\xe2\x80\x99s process was designed to\n ensure compliance with laws and regulations except that the process\n did not require the DEA to make and preserve records of adoption\n requests that it denied. We also found that the form published by the\n DOJ Criminal Division and used by state and local law enforcement\n agencies to request a federal adoption does not ensure that DEA\n managers have sufficient information about whether the state and local\n law enforcement agencies followed existing state forfeiture laws prior to\n the request for a federal adoption. In addition, we found a significant\n number of pending requests in CATS, including $2.6 million in equitable\n sharing requests (32 requests) submitted to the DEA Atlanta Division,\n had been in a pending status for 4 to 10 years after the assets were\n seized. Yet further inspection of the requests relating to the Atlanta\n Division determined that the CATS records for some of those requests\n had not been updated and the requests were no longer actually\n pending. Based on these findings, we recommend that the DEA\n implement procedures to create and maintain records of adoption\n requests that it denies. We also recommend that the DEA coordinate\n with the Criminal Division to modify the adoption request form. Finally,\n we recommend that the DEA coordinate with JMD\xe2\x80\x99s AFMS regarding the\n need for a system to: (1) identify equitable sharing requests pending\n for more than 6 months after forfeiture and disposal actions are\n completed, and (2) ensure that the appropriate DOJ component\n updates CATS as necessary for each pending request.\n\nThe DEA\xe2\x80\x99s Adoptive Seizures Process\n\n The DEA has implemented a system of internal controls for adopting\nseized assets from state and local law enforcement agencies and processing\nthe seized assets under federal forfeiture law. 14\n\n The DEA Agents Manual establishes the following requirements:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t State and local law enforcement agencies have 30 days from the date\n an asset is seized to request a federal adoption (Test 2, page 17). If\n the request for adoption is beyond the 30-day time period, waivers of\n the 30-day rule may be approved where the state or local agency\n\n 14\t\n We designed audit test questions for what we consider to be the most important of\nthe DEA\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls described below. The test question numbers are shown in\nparentheses.\n\n 12\n\n\x0c requesting adoption can demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying\n the delay. Requests for waivers must be submitted by the requesting\n agency in writing, explaining the basis for the delay. The Agents\n Manual does not state whether the DEA may verbally approve a waiver\n or whether the approval must be in writing.\n\n According to the Agents Manual, in deciding whether to \xe2\x80\x9cadopt\xe2\x80\x9d a\nseizure made by a state or local law enforcement agency, the DEA Special\nAgent in Charge, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Resident Agent in\nCharge, or Group Supervisor (not below the GS-14 level) should take into\nconsideration whether:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t state forfeiture law allows the transfer of the asset to the federal \n\n government,\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t state law or procedures are inadequate or forfeiture experience is\n\n lacking in the state system, 15\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t the appropriate state or local prosecuting official has reviewed the case\n and declined to initiate forfeiture proceedings, (Test 1, page 15)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t a "significant amount" (that is, an amount sufficient to warrant federal\n prosecution) of drugs are involved, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t the government is likely to be able to satisfy its requisite burden of\n proof that the asset is subject to forfeiture (Test 3 and 4, page 17).\n\n With regard to whether the government is likely to be able to satisfy its\nburden of proof, the Agents Manual states that these DEA officials may deem\nthis consideration satisfied when any of the following factors are present:\n(1) the seizure is based on a federal or state judicial warrant, (2) an arrest\nwas made for a felony violation of the Controlled Substances Act or an\nequivalent state felony charge that would be a felony if pursued under federal\nlaw, or (3) drugs or other contraband associated with a federal felony drug\noffense were also confiscated at the time of the seizure. If none of these\nthree factors are present, the adoption request forms must be sent to DEA\nHeadquarters within 5 working days from the date of the adoption request.\nDEA legal staff then review the request to determine whether other factors\nsurrounding the seizure are sufficient to satisfy the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s burden of proof in\n\n 15\n Forfeiture experience refers to the level of training and experience needed to\ndetermine whether the asset was seized based on sufficient probable cause and familiarity\nwith state procedures for forfeiting the assets.\n\n 13\n\n\x0cshowing that the asset is subject to forfeiture and for approval of the\nadoption request.\n\n DEA Headquarters must notify interested parties in writing within 90\ndays from the date the asset was seized about its intent to proceed with\nforfeiture actions (Test 5, page 18). 16 In addition, pursuant to 44 U.S.C.\n\xc2\xa7 3101, the Department must make and preserve records containing\nadequate and proper documentation of its transactions and decisions.\n\n Although we assessed these controls and found that the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive\nseizure process was designed to ensure compliance with laws and\nregulations, we also found that the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s internal control process did not\nrequire that it retain records of adoption requests that it denied.\n\n Specifically, DEA officials told us that they often receive adoption\nrequests from state and local law enforcement agencies by telephone, but\nthose requests are denied because of insufficient probable cause or because\nthe value of the asset does not meet the minimum threshold for adoption.\nHowever, the DEA does not document the details about these adoption\nrequests or the reasons for the denials. Without these records, we were\nunable to assess the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s decisions pertaining to these adoptive seizure\nrequests.\n\n In light of the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s statutory obligation to make and preserve records\ncontaining adequate and proper documentation of its transactions and\ndecisions and because the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s not doing so precluded our review of its\nhandling of some adoptive seizure requests, we recommend that the DEA\nimplement procedures to create and maintain records relating to all adoption\nrequests, including those that are denied. A record of each denied request\ncould consist of an email summarizing the request and the reasons for the\ndenial.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n Interested parties are those who appear to have an interest in the seized property.\nThe DEA has established timeframes for completing various forms and steps in the seizure\nprocess in order to meet this 90-day requirement.\n\n\n\n 14\n\n\x0cThe DEA\xe2\x80\x99s Adoptive Seizures Process Testing\n\n We also assessed whether the DEA had properly implemented its\nadoptive seizure process to ensure compliance with the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s internal control\npolicies for adoptive seizures by testing whether the DEA followed those\npolicies. We performed detailed audit testing on a sample of 63 seized assets\nadopted by the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s Atlanta Division for forfeiture through the Asset\nForfeiture Program. The adoptive assets we tested were seized in Georgia,\nSouth Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee. 17 Our audit objective, scope,\nand methodology are described in more detail in Appendix I.\n\n We found that 62 of 63 adoption requests we tested were properly\napproved as adoptive seizures by DEA managers at the Atlanta Division or by\nDEA Headquarters legal staff, and the DEA gave public notice within 90 days\nafter seizure of its intent to proceed with forfeiture. 18 For 62 of 63 adopted\nassets, the state and local law enforcement agencies requested the adoption\nwithin 30 days from the date of seizure. For one adoption request, the DEA\nwaived the 30-day requirement in writing.\n\n However, we also found that the form published by the DOJ Criminal\nDivision and used by state and local law enforcement agencies to request a\nfederal adoption does not ensure that DEA managers have sufficient\ninformation about whether a state or local prosecutor declined to proceed\nwith forfeiture under state law prior to the request for a federal adoption. 19\n\n Details of each of our audit tests are explained below.\n\nTest 1: Did a state or local prosecuting official review the case and decline to\ninitiate forfeiture proceedings?\n\n According to the DEA Agents Manual, before deciding whether to adopt\na seizure made by a state or local law enforcement agency, DEA managers\nshould consider whether the state or local prosecutor has reviewed the case\n\n 17\n The DEA Atlanta Division has geographic responsibility for Georgia, South Carolina,\nNorth Carolina, and Tennessee. North Carolina does not have state civil asset forfeiture\nlaws. Generally, under North Carolina forfeiture law, the property owner must be convicted\nof a crime before the asset can be forfeited to the government.\n 18\n One seized asset we examined should not have been recorded in CATS as an\nadoptive seizure because the DEA was involved in the events that led to seizure.\n 19\n Our audit sampling methodology, described in detail in Appendix I, does not permit\nus to project our audit test results to all adoptive seizures.\n\n\n\n 15\n\n\x0cand declined to initiate forfeiture proceedings under state law. 20 The\nadoption request form requires the state or local law enforcement agency\nmaking the adoption request to provide the following information: 21\n\n Has a state or local prosecutor declined to proceed with forfeiture under\n\n state law? ( ) Yes ( ) No\n\n\n Provide the name of the prosecutor and declination date.\n ______________________ ________________\n Name\t Date\n\n On 23 of the 63 adoption request forms we examined, the law\nenforcement agency answered \xe2\x80\x9cNo\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x93 a state or local prosecutor did not\ndecline to proceed with forfeiture under state law. However, this question is\nnot applicable because the seizures we tested were seized in states that did\nnot require the seizing law enforcement agency to check with a state or local\nprosecutor before seeking a federal adoption. Staff at the DEA Atlanta\nDivision told us that the law enforcement agencies that completed the\nadoption request form answered \xe2\x80\x9cno\xe2\x80\x9d because either:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t the state or local prosecutor did not decline to proceed with forfeiture, 22\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t there was not a sufficient amount of drugs associated with the seized\n asset to warrant presenting the case for forfeiture under state law, or\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t the state or local prosecutor only handles cases involving criminal\n prosecution. Most of the adopted assets we tested were forfeited under\n federal administrative procedures or federal civil statutes.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n At the time of our audit, 13 states had laws requiring the seizing law enforcement\nagency to check with the state or local prosecutor before seeking a federal adoption of the\nseized assets. The 63 adopted seizures we tested were seized in states that did not have\nthis requirement.\n 21\n See Appendix II for a copy of the Request for Adoption of State and Local Seizure\nForm.\n 22\n We believe this could also indicate that the case was not presented, or state law\ndid not require that the case be presented, to a prosecutor to decide whether to proceed with\nforfeiture under state law, which was not required in the states where the assets were\nseized.\n\n\n\n 16\n\n\x0c We concluded that the adoption request form should be revised so that\nthe question can be answered \xe2\x80\x9cYes,\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9cNo,\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cNot Applicable\xe2\x80\x9d and that a line\nshould be added to capture the reason for the answer. 23\n\nTest 2: Did the state or local law enforcement agency request the adoption\nwithin 30 calendar days from the date of seizure?\n\n We found that for 62 of 63 adopted assets, the law enforcement\nagencies requested the adoption within 30 days from the date of seizure. For\none adoption request, the DEA waived the 30-day requirement in writing.\n\nTests 3 and 4: Did local DEA managers consider whether the government is\nlikely to be able to satisfy its requisite burden of proof that the asset is\nsubject to forfeiture?\n\n As discussed above, according to the DEA Agents Manual, the DEA\nshould consider whether the government is likely to be able to satisfy the\nrequisite burden of proof that the asset is subject to forfeiture before\napproving a request for adoption.\n\n We tested 63 adopted assets and found that the 22 adoption request\nforms approved by managers at the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s Atlanta Division were based on at\nleast one of the three factors identified in the DEA Agents Manual as\nsufficient for such approvals. 24 The remaining 41 adoption requests were\napproved by DEA Headquarters staff. We did not test whether DEA\nHeadquarters\xe2\x80\x99 approvals were based on sufficient probable cause for making\nthe seizure because our review was focused on field office operations and we\ndid not test DEA Headquarters operations.\n\n 23\n Subsequent to the issuance of our draft audit report, an AFMLS official told us that,\nin the view of the AFMLS, a \xe2\x80\x9cNot Applicable\xe2\x80\x9d choice should not be provided because\ncommunication should take place with local prosecutors to ensure proper coordination. The\nAFMLS official agreed that a line should be added to the form requiring an explanation any\ntime a \xe2\x80\x9cNo\xe2\x80\x9d answer is selected.\n 24\n As noted above, those factors are: (1) the seizure was based on a federal or state\njudicial seizure warrant; (2) an arrest was made for a felony violation of the Controlled\nSubstances Act or an equivalent state felony charge that would be a felony if pursued under\nfederal law; and (3) drugs or other contraband associated with a federal felony drug offense\nwere also confiscated at the time of seizure.\n\n We reviewed the police reports and other supporting documentation to determine\nwhether there was a record that probable cause had been established in the manner\nprescribed by the DEA Agents Manual, but we did not try to make a determination of whether\nthe reasons recorded as establishing probable cause were legally sufficient.\n\n\n\n 17\n\n\x0cTest 5: Did the DEA give notice of its intent to proceed with forfeiture within\n90 calendar days from the date of seizure? 25\n\n We consider this internal control to be one of the most important\ninternal controls in the adoptive seizure and forfeiture process. If the DEA\ndoes not meet this 90-day requirement, the asset must be returned to the\nowner. For all 63 assets we tested, the DEA gave public notice within 90\ncalendar days from the date of seizure of its intent to proceed with forfeiture\nactions. 26\n\nPending Equitable Sharing Requests\n\n To participate in the equitable sharing program, state and local law\nenforcement agencies must be in compliance with equitable sharing\nparticipation requirements and must submit annual reports to the Criminal\nDivision\xe2\x80\x99s AFMLS. To receive a share of the proceeds from federally forfeited\nassets, the law enforcement agency must submit an Application for Transfer\nof Federally Forfeited Property (DOJ Form DAG-71), including the sharing\npercentage requested.\n\n Equitable sharing decisions are made by either the investigative\nagency, such as the DEA, the USAO, or the Deputy Attorney General. In\nadministrative forfeitures of less than $1 million, the investigative agency\ndetermines the amount to be shared. In judicial forfeitures of less than\n$1 million, the U.S. Attorney determines the amount to be shared. In\nadministrative and judicial forfeitures of $1 million or more the Deputy\nAttorney General determines the appropriate equitable share. 27\n\n As noted in the Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law\nEnforcement Agencies, forfeitures, like all legal proceedings, take time, and\n\n 25\n The DEA must, within 90 calendar days from the date of seizure (or 60 calendar\ndays in joint seizure cases), send a Notice of Seizure to the owner and all interested parties\nby certified mail and through advertisement in a nationwide publication.\n 26\n During our testing of the adoptive seizures, we identified one seized asset that was\nincorrectly recorded in CATS as a joint seizure. The CATS record was incorrect because\ndocumentation maintained by the DEA showed that the seizure was the result of a joint\ninvestigation between the DEA and the law enforcement agency that made the seizure. For\njoint seizures, the DEA has 60 calendar days to complete the noticing requirement. The DEA\nnotified interested parties within 40 days from the date of seizure.\n 27\n The Deputy Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Assistant Attorney\nGeneral of the Criminal Division in cases where the seizing agency, the U.S. Attorney, and\nthe Criminal Division\xe2\x80\x99s AFMLS agree on the allocation of the forfeited property.\n\n\n\n 18\n\n\x0cequitable sharing can only occur after the federal forfeiture process has been\ncompleted, the property has been disposed of, and a final sharing decision\nhas been made. After these actions are completed, the USMS, as the\ncustodian of seized and forfeited assets, transfers the equitable sharing\npayments to the law enforcement agencies. We completed analysis of all\nequitable sharing requests for FY 2001 through FY 2011 and found that 96\npercent of equitable sharing requests were completed in 4 years or less. 28\n\n To better understand the 4 percent of equitable sharing requests not\ncompleted in 4 years, we analyzed the CATS data as of October 2011 and\nfound that the data contained 9,035 equitable sharing requests totaling an\nestimated $318.8 million that had been in a pending status for 4 to 10\nyears. 29\n\n Exhibit 8 shows the equitable sharing requests for adoptive and joint\nseizures processed by the DEA and other federal agencies that have been\npending over 4 years.\n\n\n\n\n 28\n For judicial forfeitures (civil and criminal), 87 percent of the equitable sharing\nrequests were completed within 4 years. For administrative forfeitures, 99 percent of the\nequitable sharing requests were completed within 4 years. For all forfeitures, 96 percent of\nthe equitable sharing requests were completed within 4 years. The OIG analyzed requests\npending longer than 4 years because they represent the oldest pending requests in our data\nsample. We do not intend to imply that all requests pending for less than 4 years have been\nor will necessarily be handled in a timely manner.\n 29\n Pending equitable sharing requests are only an estimate because asset disposal\ncosts and claims against the asset may reduce the amount of proceeds available for\ndistribution. Also, according to CATS, 6,453 of the 9,035 pending equitable sharing requests\n(or an estimated $229,085,650 of $318,804,219) pertained to assets that had been forfeited\nto the United States Government.\n\n\n\n 19\n\n\x0c Exhibit 8: Estimated Equitable Sharing Requests for Adoptive and\n\n Joint Seizures Processed by the DEA\n\n and Other Federal Agencies that Have Been Pending Over 4 Years 30\n\n Adoptive Seizures Joint Seizures\n Fiscal\n Year of Other Other Total\n Seizure DEA Federal DEA Federal\n Agencies Agencies\n $3,166,690 $247,433 $3,736,649 $11,096,700 $18,247,472\n 2001\n 86 requests 21 requests 396 requests 766 requests 1,269 requests\n $1,313,936 $48,708 $2,648,932 $11,729,319 $15,740,895\n 2002\n 62 requests 7 requests 847 requests 325 requests 1,241 requests\n $291,566 $139,931 $3,272,088 $36,050,878 $39,754,463\n 2003\n 15 requests 14 requests 373 requests 444 requests 846 requests\n $114,168 $312,074 $2,660,544 $12,680,828 $15,767,614\n 2004\n 18 requests 12 requests 356 requests 275 requests 661 requests\n $249,296 $181,194 $20,702,022 $69,423,556 $90,556,068\n 2005\n 32 requests 12 requests 660 requests 619 requests 1,323 requests\n $2,263,436 $1,106,959 $11,749,539 $31,544,151 $46,664,085\n 2006\n 83 requests 28 requests 812 requests 471 requests 1,394 requests\n $1,609,728 $209,633 $48,732,539 $41,521,721 $92,073,621\n 2007\n 67 requests 26 requests 1,502 requests 706 requests 2,301 requests\n $9,008,820 $2,245,932 $93,502,313 $214,047,153 $318,804,218\n Total\n 363 requests 120 requests 4,946 requests 3,606 requests 9,035 requests\nSource: DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System\n\n At the DEA Atlanta Division, we identified $2.6 million in equitable\nsharing requests (32 requests) associated with adoptive assets seized during\nFYs 2001 through 2007 that have been pending for over 4 years. 31 As of\nOctober 2011, these equitable sharing requests were still pending. Exhibit 9\nshows the amount, the number of requests, and the reasons the requests\nwere still pending. 32\n\n\n\n\n 30\n The amount of pending equitable sharing requests may be different than the\namount disbursed because equitable sharing funds available for disbursements are based on\nthe net proceeds after forfeiture. Net proceeds take into account any valid claims against\nthe assets, payments to victims, federal case-related expenses, and any property\nmanagement and disposal costs. Also, federal law mandates that sharing is discretionary.\nAny equitable sharing payments of less than $50 scheduled for disbursement are\n\xe2\x80\x9cextinguished,\xe2\x80\x9d and the funds remain in the Assets Forfeiture Fund.\n 31\n The equitable sharing requests we examined at the DEA Atlanta Division were\nselected from the CATS data as of February 12, 2011. In October 2011, we updated our\nCATS data through FY 2011. At that time, 32 of the equitable sharing requests we examined\nwere still in a pending status.\n 32\n Eleven of the requests were also pending awaiting a sharing decision by the\ninvestigative agency (1 request) or the U.S. Attorney\xe2\x80\x99s Office (10 requests).\n\n 20\n\n\x0c Exhibit 9: Estimated Value and Number of Equitable Sharing\n\n Requests Pending Over 4 Years as of October 4, 2011\n\n (DEA Atlanta Division - Adoptive Seizures)\n\n Year Asset was Seized\n Current FY FY FY FY FY FY FY\n Total\n Status 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007\n Pending.\n Agency\n was not in\n compliance $287 $40,464 $7,616 $48,367\n with the 1 request 10 requests 1 request 12 requests\n Asset\n Forfeiture\n Program.\n Pending.\n Agency is\n suspended\n from the\n equitable $1,624,004 $672,650 $270,102 $8,399 $2,575,156\n sharing 1 request 9 requests 6 requests 1 request 17 requests\n program\n and all\n sharing is\n on hold.\n $2,623,523\n Subtotal\n 29 requests\n Pending.\n Forfeiture $8,260 $8,260\n actions not 2 requests 2 requests\n completed.\n Pending.\n There are\n $4,160 $4,160\n no 1 request 1 request\n proceeds\n to share.\n $1,628,451 $713,115 $270,102 $7,616 $16,659 $2,635,943\n Total 3 requests 19 requests 6 requests 1 request 3 requests 32 requests\nSource: DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking System\n\n Most of these equitable sharing requests (29 of the 32 requests,\n accounting for all but $12,000 of the requested funds) were pending because\n the requesting law enforcement agencies were not in compliance with the\n equitable sharing program (9 agencies, 12 sharing requests) or equitable\n sharing was on hold because an agency was suspended from the program\n and was not eligible to receive equitable sharing funds (2 agencies, 17\n sharing requests). 33 Two of the 32 sharing requests totaling $8,260 were\n\n 33\n Fourteen pending equitable sharing requests are from a law enforcement agency\n that is suspended from the Asset Forfeiture Program and is currently not eligible to submit\n equitable sharing requests or receive the funds. Three other equitable sharing requests are\n from an agency that participated in the seizures with the suspended agency. Equitable\n sharing is on hold for all 17 requests.\n\n\n\n 21\n\n\x0cpending because forfeiture actions had not been completed and 1 of 32\nequitable sharing requests for $4,160 was pending because there were no\nproceeds to share. 34\n\n Before the status of these pending requests can be updated, one or\nmore of the following actions must be completed: (1) the requesting law\nenforcement agencies must submit a written certification to the AFMLS that\nthey will comply with the equitable sharing program requirements; (2) the\nDEA or the USAO must complete the relevant forfeiture actions; (3) the DEA\nor the USAO must approve the equitable sharing request; or (4) the USMS\nmust update the CATS record for the seized asset indicating that there are no\nproceeds available for sharing. 35\n\n We discussed the pending equitable sharing requests issue with the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s Criminal Division. The Assistant Deputy Chief of the AFMLS,\nwhich monitors law enforcement agencies\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with equitable sharing\nparticipation requirements, told us that the equitable sharing funds\nassociated with the forfeited assets cannot be put to use for law enforcement\npurposes until they are paid. These pending requests represent millions of\ndollars that are not being used to control and prevent crime.\n\n The Assistant Deputy Chief, AMFLS, also told us that most law\nenforcement agencies considered to be out of compliance with the equitable\nsharing program are in that condition because the agency has not submitted\nits required annual certification report to the AFMLS. 36 The AFMLS official\nalso told us that at any one time there may be hundreds of agencies that are\nnot in compliance, but within about 30 days the agencies submit the reports\nand are taken off the non-compliance list and are eligible to receive\n\n 34\n For the forfeited asset with no proceeds to share, a Justice Management Division\nofficial told us that the USMS did not complete a \xe2\x80\x9cRejected \xe2\x80\x93 No proceeds\xe2\x80\x9d memo to\ncomplete the equitable sharing process.\n 35\n We note that the DEA appears to have taken steps to resolve some of these\npending cases. Specifically, we noted that the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s seized asset files contained letters\nnotifying the non-compliant law enforcement agencies that their equitable sharing requests\nwere pending because they were not in compliance with the equitable sharing program.\n 36\n For an agency to remain in compliance, it must submit the Equitable Sharing\nAgreement and Certification Form annually, as required by the Guide to Equitable Sharing for\nState and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. The agreement and certification form reports\nthe amount of equitable sharing funds an agency received and expended, by category, in the\nprior fiscal year. Failure to file the form within 60 days of the end of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s fiscal year\nresults in an agency becoming non-compliant and unable to receive additional equitable\nsharing until the required paperwork is properly submitted.\n\n\n\n 22\n\n\x0cpayment. 37 The AFMLS official stated that the equitable sharing requests\nthat were pending because of non-compliance probably should have been\n\xe2\x80\x9cextinguished,\xe2\x80\x9d meaning a decision was made that a previously approved\nequitable sharing request would not be paid. When a request is\nextinguished, the asset is still forfeited, but the funds remain in the Asset\nForfeiture Fund. However, the AFMLS official told us that the CATS records\nmay be incorrect because of timing differences between the equitable sharing\npayment date and the dates the agencies were in or out of compliance with\nthe sharing program or a backlog in the payments process. Consequently,\nthese pending requests may have been paid, but the CATS records were not\nupdated.\n\n The Assistant Deputy Chief, AFMLS, told us that investigative agencies\nshould have a process to identify equitable sharing requests that are in\npending status for more than 6 months after forfeiture actions have been\ncompleted and, if needed, update the CATS records.\n\n During discussion of our results regarding pending assets, DEA officials\ntold us that a large number of DEA assets shown as pending in CATS cannot\nbe updated by the DEA because other DOJ components must take actions\nand update the CATS records. For example, a litigating component may need\nto update the status of civil or criminal actions pertaining to an asset. DEA\nstaff do not have the capability to update CATS for another component\xe2\x80\x99s\nactions.\n\nConclusion\n\n We found that the DEA generally complied with the internal controls for\nadoptive seizures that we tested. The DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seizure process was\ndesigned to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, except that the\nprocess did not require that the DEA to make and preserve records of\nadoption requests that were denied. We also found that the adoption request\nform published by the Criminal Division and used by state and local law\nenforcement agencies to request a federal adoption should be revised to\nprovide DEA managers with better information pertaining to whether the\n\n 37\n The Assistant Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division\xe2\x80\x99s AFMLS said that although the\nDivision maintains the date of the most current change to each law enforcement agency\xe2\x80\x99s\ncompliance status, it does not maintain historical information about the dates that law\nenforcement agencies were in and out of compliance with the equitable sharing program. If\nlaw enforcement agencies fail to become compliant within one year, their previously\napproved equitable sharing requests may be \xe2\x80\x9cextinguished\xe2\x80\x9d and the corresponding money\nmay remain in the Assets Forfeiture Fund.\n\n\n\n 23\n\n\x0cstate or local law enforcement agency making the adoption request checked\nwith a state or local prosecutor, if required, before seeking a federal\nadoption. We also found that as of October 2011 there were 9,035 equitable\nsharing requests totaling an estimated $318.8 million that were still in a\npending status for 4 to 10 years after the assets were seized. 38 This\nrepresents a significant amount of resources that are not being used to\ncontrol and prevent crime. The pending requests were from all federal\nagencies that participate in the Asset Forfeiture Program. At the DEA Atlanta\nDivision, 29 of those requests totaling $2.6 million were still pending because\nthe requesting law enforcement agency was not in compliance with or was\nsuspended from the equitable sharing program.\n\n An official from the Criminal Division told us that the funds associated\nwith pending equitable sharing requests cannot be put to use for law\nenforcement purposes until they are disbursed to the law enforcement\nagencies. The DEA needs to coordinate with JMD\xe2\x80\x99s AFMS to identify long-\npending requests and ensure CATS is updated.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the DEA:\n\n 1. Implement procedures to create and maintain records of adoption\n requests that were denied. Those records could consist of emails\n between the DEA and the law enforcement agency requesting the\n adoption with all relevant details about the seizures and the reasons\n the adoption requests were denied.\n\n 2. Coordinate with the Criminal Division, AFMLS, to modify the Request for\n Adoption of State or Local Seizure form so that the question \xe2\x80\x9cHas a\n state or local prosecutor declined the case?\xe2\x80\x9d can only be answered\n \xe2\x80\x9cYes,\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9cNo\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cNot Applicable,\xe2\x80\x9d and add a line to capture the reason for\n the response.\n\n 3. Coordinate with JMD\xe2\x80\x99s AFMS regarding the need for a system to:\n (1) identify equitable sharing requests pending for more than 6 months\n after forfeiture and disposal actions are completed, and (2) ensure that\n the appropriate DOJ component updates CATS as necessary for each\n pending request.\n\n\n 38\n According to CATS, 6,453 of the 9,035 pending equitable sharing requests (or an\nestimated $229,085,650 of $318,804,219) pertained to assets that had been forfeited to the\nUnited States Government.\n\n 24\n\n\x0c STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH\n\n LAWS AND REGULATIONS\n\n\n As required by Government Auditing Standards, we tested a sample of\nassets seized by state and local law enforcement agencies and adopted by\nthe DEA for processing under federal forfeiture law through the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\nAsset Forfeiture Program. 39 We completed these tests to obtain reasonable\nassurance about the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with laws and regulations that, in our\njudgment if not complied with, could have a material effect of the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s and\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s operations. In planning our audit, we identified the following\nlaws and regulations that were significant within the context of our audit\nobjective:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Federal seizure and forfeiture laws;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t State seizure and forfeiture laws;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The DEA Agents Manual;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement\n Agencies, April 2009;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The Attorney General\xe2\x80\x99s Guidelines on Seized and Forfeited Property,\n July 1990 (amended November 2005); and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual (published by the Department).\n\n Except for any instances of noncompliance identified in the Findings\nand Recommendations section of this report, we did not identify any other\ninstances of noncompliance with the laws and guidelines we reviewed.\n\n\n\n\n 39\n Our methodology for selecting a sample of seized assets for testing is described in\ndetail in Appendix I, Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology.\n\n 25\n\n\x0c STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\n As required by the Government Auditing Standards, we tested, as\nappropriate, internal controls significant within the context of our audit\nobjective. A deficiency in an internal control exists when the design or\noperation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the\nnormal course of performing their assigned functions, to timely prevent or\ndetect: (1) impairments to the effectiveness and efficiency of operations,\n(2) misstatements in financial or performance information, or (3) violations of\nlaws and regulations. Our assessment of the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls was not\nmade for the purpose of providing assurance on its internal control structure\nas a whole. The DEA\xe2\x80\x99s management is responsible for the establishment and\nmaintenance of internal controls.\n\n As noted in our report, the DEA needs to implement internal control\nprocedures to create and maintain documentation of adoption requests that\nwere denied.\n\n Because we are not expressing an opinion on the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s internal control\nstructure as a whole, this statement is intended solely for the information and\nuse of the auditee. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of\nthis report, which is a matter of public record.\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n\n AUDIT OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nObjective\n\n The objective of this audit was to assess the design and\nimplementation of the Drug Enforcement Administration\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seizure\nprocess.\n\nScope and Methodology\n\n We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally\naccepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we\nplan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to\nprovide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our\naudit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable\nbasis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objective.\n\n To assess the design and implementation of the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seizure\nprocess, we identified applicable federal and state seizure laws, reviewed the\nDEA\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls for adoptive seizures, and interviewed officials at DEA\nHeadquarters, the Department of Justice\xe2\x80\x99s Criminal Division, the DOJ Justice\nManagement Division, and at the DEA Division office in Atlanta, Georgia,\nwhere we conducted detailed audit testing. 40 We also tested those internal\ncontrols that we considered significant within the context of our audit\nobjective.\n\n We selected the DEA Atlanta Division for testing because within the\nDEA\xe2\x80\x99s 21 field divisions the Atlanta Division processed the largest dollar value\nof adopted seized assets and testing at that location enabled us to make\nefficient use of time and cost resources.\n\n We obtained the universe of adopted seizures from which we selected\nour sample by downloading from the DOJ\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Assets Tracking\nSystem (CATS) assets seized from October 1, 2000, through February 12,\n2011, and adopted by the DEA for processing under federal forfeiture law. To\ncompile the universe, we used two datasets with different date ranges for the\nseizure dates. One dataset contained the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seized assets from\nFY 2007 through February 12, 2011 (the date we downloaded the data). In\norder to capture adoptive assets with older pending equitable sharing\n\n 40\n We did not interview state and local law enforcement officers.\n\n 27\n\n\x0crequests, we used a dataset with the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s adoptive seized assets from\nseizure date FY 2001 to February 12, 2011.41\n\n To develop our sampling plan we performed descriptive statistical\nanalysis on different data variables that included the DEA division offices, the\ncurrent value of the seized assets, the number of equitable sharing requests,\nequitable sharing requests that were in a pending status, and the dates of\ndifferent events associated with the adoptive seizures process.\n\n Analysis of the adoptive seized assets indicated a wide variation\nbetween the status of requests for equitable sharing and the processing of\ndifferent seized assets. To capture the maximum information on several\naspects of the adoptive seizure process, we used multiple criteria to select\nour judgmental sample. We employed multiple tests to assess various\naspects of the process from adoption to disbursement of the equitable\nsharing proceeds associated with the adoptive seizures. We used the\nfollowing information-based criteria to select our sample of adoptive assets\nfor testing.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Adoptive seized assets with pending equitable sharing requests\n\n (FY 2001 through February 12, 2011),\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Adoptive seized assets with equitable sharing requests that were \n\n disbursed and equitable sharing requests that were rejected\n\n (FY 2007 through February 12, 2011),\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Adoptive seized assets with equitable sharing requests that were\n\n disbursed and equitable sharing requests that were still pending \n\n (FY 2007 through February 12, 2011), and\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Adoptive seized asset records with data anomalies such as the date the\n asset was adopted by the DEA is more than 30 days after the date the\n asset was seized (FY 2007 through February 12, 2011).\n\n Using these criteria, we selected a preliminary sample of 82 seized\nassets (with 133 associated equitable sharing requests) adopted by the DEA\nAtlanta Division office in Atlanta, Georgia. We performed limited testing on\n58 of the 82 sample assets and eliminated those 58 assets from our detailed\naudit testing. The results of our preliminary judgmental sample detailed\n\n 41\n In October 2011, we obtained updated CATS records through the end of FY 2011\nto capture 11 complete years of historical information on seizures and equitable sharing\nrequests. The seizures and equitable sharing requests after February 12, 2011, were not\npart of our detailed audit testing.\n\n 28\n\n\x0ctesting showed that there were few exceptions for the compliance tests we\nconducted.\n\n After reviewing the preliminary results of our detailed audit testing at\nthe Atlanta Division office on 24 adoptive assets, we selected another\njudgmental sample from the remaining 15 offices within the DEA Atlanta\nDivision. Our second judgmental sample included 39 adopted assets from\nFY 2007 through February 12, 2011. We selected these adoptive assets\nrandomly from the remaining offices after allocating the sample proportional\nto the number of adoptive seizures at the respective offices. Our second\njudgmental sample of 39 adoptive assets had 62 requests for a share of the\nproceeds and covered DEA field offices in the states of Georgia, North\nCarolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Our sampling design and\nmethodology does not permit us to project our audit test results to the\nuniverse of adoptive assets from which we selected our sample.\n\n Overall, we conducted detailed audit testing on 63 assets seized by\nstate and local law enforcement agencies and adopted by the DEA Atlanta\nDivision office in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee for\nprocessing through the DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program.\n\n For each of the seizures sampled, we interviewed DEA officials and\nreviewed documentation from the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s seized asset files to determine the\nfollowing:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t If required, did a state or local prosecutor decline to proceed with\n\n forfeiture under state law?\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Did the state or local law enforcement request DEA approval of the\n adoption within 30 days from the date the asset was seized?\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t For adoption requests approved by DEA managers in field offices, was\n one of the sufficient probable cause factors, as defined in the DEA\n Agents Manual, documented in the police report or other\n documentation from the seizing agency?\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t If the seizure was not based on sufficient probable cause for DEA\n managers in field offices to approve the adoption request form, was the\n request sent to DEA Headquarters legal staff for review and approval\n within 5 days from the date of the adoption request?\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Did the DEA give notice within 90 days from the date of seizure of its\n intent to proceed with forfeiture?\n\n\n\n 29\n\n\x0c We also referred to the: (1) Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and\nLocal Law Enforcement Agencies, (2) The Attorney General\xe2\x80\x99s Guidelines on\nSeized and Forfeited Property, (3) the DEA Agents Manual, (4) the Asset\nForfeiture Policy Manual published by the DOJ and (5) the DEA\xe2\x80\x99s training\nmaterial on adoptive seizures as needed to complete this audit.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\n\x0c APPENDIX II\n\n REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF STATE OR\n LOCAL SEIZURE FORM\n Request for Adoption of State or Local Seizure\n\n\n Federal Use Only \xef\x81\xae Request must be submitted to the federal investigative\n Asset Identifier: agency within 30 calendar days of state and local\n seizure date unless circumstances merit a waiver.\n Agency Case Number:\n\n Seizure Date: \xef\x81\xae Federal investigative agency shall review all requests\n Judicial District: for adoptions.\n\n Date Request Received:\n \xef\x81\xae U.S. Marshals Service must be consulted for purposes\n of pre-seizure planning prior to adoption\n\n\n\n\nName of Requesting State or local Agency:\nContact Person: TelephoneNumber (: )\nDate of Seizure:\n\nDate of Request:\n\nDelay Requested in Processing: Yes ( ) Reason:\nNo ( )\n\nCriminal Case:\n\n State ( ) Case # District Attorney Assigned:\n Federal ( ) Case # Assistant U.S. Attorney:\n\n \xef\x81\xae Was Property Seized Pursuant to State Warrant:\xef\x81\xae State Forfe iture Action Initiated:\n\n Yes ( ) Attach Copy No ( ) Yes ( ) No ( )\n\nIf yes, explain circumstances:\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\n\x0c\xef\x81\xae Has a State or local prosecutor declined to proceed with forfeiture under State law?\n\n Yes ( ) No ( )\n\n\xef\x81\xae Please provide name of state or local prosecutor and declination date:\n\n\nName \t Date\n\n\n\xef\x81\xae Has another Federal Agency been con tacted, and declined to proceed with this forfeiture under\n Federal law? Yes ( ) No ( )\n\n\n\xef\x81\xae Have you attached copies of pertinent investigative or arrest reports and copies of any affidavits\n filed in support of a seizure warrant? Yes ( ) No ( )\n\n\n To be Completed by Federal Investigative Agency\n\n\xef\x81\xae Recommend Adoption: [ ] Adoption is in accord with general and local policy.\n\n\n\xef\x81\xae Decline Adoption: [ ] Reason for declination:\n\n\n\n\nInvestigative Agency Reviewing Official:\n\n\n\nSignature Date\n\n\nImmediate Probable Cause Review needed if following factors are not present:\n\n\n\xef\x81\xae seizure was based on judicial warrant\n\n\xef\x81\xae arrest made in connection with seizure\n\n\xef\x81\xae drugs or other contraband were seized from the person from whom the property was seized\n\nInvestigative Agency Headquarters Approval:\n\n\nSignature\t Date\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\n\x0c APPENDIX III\n\nTHE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION\xe2\x80\x99S RESPONSE\n TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT\n\n\n\n U. S. Department of Justice\n Drug Enforcement Administration\n\n\n\n\n www.dea.gov Washington, D.C. 20537\n\n\n\n SEP 2 0 2012\n MEMORANPUM\n\n TO: Fenis B. Polk\n Regional Audit Manager\n Atlanta Regional Audit Office\n Office of the Inspe<:tor General\n\n FROM: KevinM. Foley~#,~/\n Deputy Chief Inspector\n Offiu ofTn"peclioM\n\n SUBJECT: P EA\'s Response to the O IG\'s Draft Report: Audit of the Drug Enforcement\n Administration \'$ Adoptive Seizure Proceu and Status of Related Equitable Slwring\n Requests\n\n The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has reviewed the Department of Justice (DOJ),\n Office of the Inspe<:tor General\'s (010) draft audit report, entitled: Audit of the Drug Enforcement\n Administration\'s Adaptive Seizure Process and Sta/IU of Related Equitable Sharing Requests, DEA\n acknowledges OIG\'s efforts in conducting a review ofDEA \'s adoptive seizure process of forfeited\n assets under state law or under federal law through the Department\'s Asset Forfeiture Program.\n DEA is committed to coordination with federal, state, and local law enforcement officials on mutual\n drug enforcement efforts to address drug-related crime and help loca1law enforcement agencies\n confront drug trafficking to ensure that criminal organizations and indi viduals do not benefit from\n illegal activity.\n\n PEA appreciates that the draft audit report indicates PEA\'s Adoptive Seizure Program generally\n complied with its internal controls for adoptive seizures. While DEA remains committed to process\n improvements and will work to implement the recommendations made by the OIG, the report\n identifies areas in which coordination and action from other components and the Department is\n "\xc2\xabdol.\n\n DEA provides the following response to the OIG\'s recommendations:\n\n Rece mmendation 1_ Implement procedures to (rute aDd main tain RCords of adoption\n requests tbat were denied. nose ~ords \xc2\xabluld consist of emaUs between tbe DEA and tbe\n law enfor<:ement a,eoC)\' requestln, tbe adopdon with aU rekvaDt details about tbe s~i%ures\n and the reasons tbe adoption requests were denied.\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\n\x0cFerris B. Polk, Regional Audit Manager Page 2\n\n\n DEA concurs with the recommendation. DEA will infonn all field offices to maintain records of\n instances in which adoptions were denied. These records will include the date of the request, the\n description of assets seized, and the reason for denial. DEA \'s Divisional Asset Removal Group\n Supervisors will be responsible for maintaining and submitting reports of adoption requests that\n were denied quanerl y to the Office of Operations Management, Asset Forfeiture Section.\n\n RecommeDdatioD 2. Coordioate with the CrimiDal Division, AFMLS. to modify the\n Request for Adoption of State or Local Seizure form so that tbe question "Has a state or\n local prosetutor detlined the case?" CIID only be answered "Yes," "No" or "Not\n Applkable," and add a line to CIIpture the reason for tbe t\'Hponse.\n\n DEA concurs with the recommendation. DEA will coordinate with AFMLS to modify their\n "Request For Adoption Of State And Local Seizure Fonn" requesting that their question "has a\n state or local prosecutor declined to proceed with forfeiture under State law?" be modified to\n allow a "Yes", "No" or "Not Applicable" answer with an added line to capture the reason for the\n response.\n\n RecommendatioD 3. Coordinate witb JMD\'s AFMS regarding tbe Deed for a system to: (I)\n ideatity equitable sbariDg requests pendlDg for more than 6 months after forfeiture aDd\n disposal actions are completed, and (2) ensure tbat tbe appropriate DOJ component\n updates CATS In Detessary for each pending request.\n\n DEA concurs with the recommendation. DEA will coordinate with AFMS in requesting CATS\n system enhancements to identify equitable sharing requests pending for more than 6 months after\n forfeiture, and that the disposal actions are completed/updated in CATS by the DOJ component\n as necessary.\n\n Documentation detailing DEA\'s efforts to implement each of the recommendations noted in this\nrepan will be provided to the OIG on a quanerly basis, until all corrective actions have been\ncompleted. If you have any questions regarding DEA\'s response to the OIG\'s recommendations.\nplease contact the Audit Liaison Team at (202) 307-8200.\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\n\x0c APPENDIX IV\n\n OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS\n\n NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT\n\n\n The Office of the Inspector General provided a draft of this audit report\nto the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA response is\nincorporated in Appendix III of this final report. The following provides the\nOIG analysis of the response and summary of actions necessary to close the\nreport.\n\nRecommendation Number:\n\n1.\t Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation to implement\n procedures to create and maintain records of adoption requests that\n were denied. The DEA stated in its response that it will inform all field\n offices to maintain records of instances in which adoptions were denied.\n These records will include the date of the request, the description of\n assets seized, and the reason for denial. DEA\'s Divisional Asset\n Removal Group Supervisors will be responsible for maintaining and\n submitting quarterly reports of adoption requests that were denied to\n the Office of Operations Management, Asset Forfeiture Section.\n\n This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that the\n DEA implemented procedures to create and maintain records of\n adoption requests that were denied.\n\n2.\t Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation to coordinate\n with the Criminal Division\xe2\x80\x99s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering\n Section (AFMLS) to modify the Request for Adoption of State or Local\n Seizure form so that the question \xe2\x80\x9cHas a state or local prosecutor\n declined the case?\xe2\x80\x9d can only be answered \xe2\x80\x9cYes,\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9cNo\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cNot\n Applicable,\xe2\x80\x9d and add a line to capture the reason for the response. The\n DEA stated in its response that it will coordinate with the AFMLS to\n appropriately modify the Request For Adoption of State and Local\n Seizure form. As noted on page 17 of this report, an AFMLS official told\n us that, in the view of the AFMLS, a \xe2\x80\x9cNot Applicable\xe2\x80\x9d choice should not\n be provided because communication should take place with local\n prosecutors to ensure proper coordination. We believe that this point\n should be resolved through discussion between the DEA and AFMLS.\n\n\n 35\n\n\x0c This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence the DEA\n has coordinated with AFMLS to modify the Request for Adoption of\n State or Local Seizure form.\n\n3.\t Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation to coordinate\n with the Justice Management Division\xe2\x80\x99s Asset Forfeiture Management\n Staff (AFMS) regarding the need for a system to: (1) identify equitable\n sharing requests pending for more than 6 months after forfeiture and\n disposal actions are completed, and (2) ensure that the appropriate\n DOJ component updates the Consolidated Asset Tracking System\n (CATS) as necessary for each pending request. The DEA stated in its\n response that it will coordinate with AFMS in requesting needed CATS\n enhancements.\n\n This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence the DEA\n has coordinated with AFMS to identify long-pending requests and CATS\n enhancements.\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\n\x0c'


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 13.6.2015
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 148/11
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2015/908 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 11 юни 2015 година
 за изменение във връзка с високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците на приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 по отношение на вписването за Канада в списъка на трети държави, територии, зони или компартменти, от които могат да бъдат внасяни и да преминават транзитно през територията на Съюза определени стоки, получени от домашни птици
 (текст от значение за ЕИП)
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Директива 2002/99/ЕО на Съвета от 16 декември 2002 г. за установяване на ветеринарно-санитарни правила, регулиращи производството, преработката, разпространението и пускането на пазара на продукти от животински произход за консумация от човека (1), и по-специално член 8, уводното изречение, член 8, точка 1, първа алинея, член 8, точка 4 и член 9, параграф 4, буква в) от нея,
 като взе предвид Директива 2009/158/ЕО на Съвета от 30 ноември 2009 г. относно ветеринарно-санитарните изисквания за вътреобщностната търговия и вноса от трети държави на домашни птици и яйца за люпене (2), и по специално член 23, параграф 1, член 24, параграф 2 и член 25, параграф 2 от нея,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 В Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 на Комисията (3) се определят изисквания за ветеринарно сертифициране при внос и транзит през територията на Съюза, включително съхраняването по време на транзит, на домашни птици и продукти от домашни птици („стоките“). В него се предвижда, че стоките могат да бъдат внасяни и да преминават транзитно през територията на Съюза само от третите държави, територии, зони или компартменти, изброени в колони 1 и 3 от таблицата в част 1 от приложение I към регламента.
 (2)
 В Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 също така се установяват условията, при които дадена трета държава, територия, зона или компартмент следва да се смята за свободна/свободен от високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците.
 (3)
 Канада фигурира в част 1 от приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 като трета държава, от която вносът и транзитът през територията на Съюза на стоките в обхвата на посочения регламент са разрешени за някои части от територията ѝ, в зависимост от наличието на огнища на високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците. Тази регионализация бе утвърдена с изменението на Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008, внесено с Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2015/198 на Комисията (4) вследствие на появата на огнища на високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците в провинция Британска Колумбия.
 (4)
 В споразумение между Съюза и Канада (5) („Споразумението“) се предвижда незабавно взаимно признаване на мерките за регионализация в случай на поява на огнища на болест в Съюза или в Канада.
 (5)
 На 8 април 2015 г. Канада потвърди появата на огнище на високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците от подтип H5N2 по домашните птици в провинция Онтарио. Ветеринарните органи на Канада незабавно преустановиха издаването на ветеринарни сертификати за пратки от стоки, предназначени за износ за Съюза от цялата ѝ територия. С цел борба с високопатогенната инфлуенца по птиците и ограничаване на нейното разпространение Канада пристъпи към изпълнението на политика за унищожаване на птиците.
 (6)
 Вследствие на появата на това огнище в провинция Онтарио Канада представи актуализирана информация за епидемиологичната обстановка на своята територия и за мерките, предприети за предотвратяване на по-нататъшното разпространение на високопатогенната инфлуенца по птиците. Тази информация бе оценена от Комисията. Въз основа на тази оценка, както и на ангажиментите, установени в Споразумението, и гаранциите, предоставени от Канада, е целесъобразно да се допусне, че налагането на ограничения за въвеждането на стоките в Съюза само по отношение на засегнатата от високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците зона, по отношение на която ветеринарните органи на Канада са наложили ограничения поради огнищата на високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците, би следвало да е достатъчно като мярка за посрещане на рисковете, свързани с въвеждането на стоките в Съюза.
 (7)
 Канада освен това съобщи за приключването на мерките за почистване и дезинфекция след унищожаването на птиците в стопанствата, където между декември 2014 г. и февруари 2015 г. в провинция Британска Колумбия са установени огнища на болестта. Поради това е целесъобразно да се посочат датите, на които частите от територията, които са били поставени под ветеринарни ограничения във връзка с огнищата, могат отново да се считат за свободни от високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците, а вносът в Съюза на определени стоки, получени от домашни птици, с произход от тези зони, следва да бъде разрешен.
 (8)
 Поради това вписването за Канада в списъка в част 1 от приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 следва да бъде изменено с цел да бъде отчетена настоящата епидемиологична обстановка в тази трета държава.
 (9)
 Поради това приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 следва да бъде съответно изменено.
 (10)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Постоянния комитет по растенията, животните, храните и фуражите,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Част 1 от приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 се изменя в съответствие с приложението към настоящия регламент.
 Член 2
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на третия ден след деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 11 юни 2015 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) ОВ L 18, 23.1.2003 г., стр. 11.
 (2) ОВ L 343, 22.12.2009 г., стр. 74.
 (3) Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 на Комисията от 8 август 2008 г. за установяване на списък от трети страни, територии, зони или компартменти, от които са разрешени вносът и транзитът през Общността на домашни птици и продукти от домашни птици, и относно изискванията за ветеринарно сертифициране (ОВ L 226, 23.8.2008 г., стр. 1).
 (4) Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2015/198 на Комисията от 6 февруари 2015 г. за изменение във връзка с високопатогенна инфлуенца по птиците на приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 по отношение на вписването за Канада в списъка на трети държави, територии, зони или компартменти, от които могат да бъдат внасяни и да преминават транзитно през територията на Съюза определени стоки, получени от домашни птици (ОВ L 33, 10.2.2015 г., стр. 9).
 (5) Споразумение между Европейската общност и правителството на Канада относно санитарните мерки за защита на общественото здраве и здравето на животните по отношение на търговия с живи животни и животински продукти, одобрено от името на Общността с Решение 1999/201/ЕО на Съвета (ОВ L 71, 18.3.1999 г., стр. 3).
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ
 В част 1 от приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 798/2008 вписването за Канада се заменя със следното:
 Код по ISO и име на третата държава или територия
 Код на третата държава, територия, зона или компартмент
 Описание на третата държава, територия, зона или компартмент
 Ветеринарен сертификат
 Специални условия
 Специални условия
 Статус на наблюдението по отношение на инфлуенцата по птиците
 Ваксинационен статус по отношение на инфлуенцата по птиците
 Статус по отношение на контрола на Salmonella
 Образец/образци
 Допълнителни гаранции
 Крайна дата (1)
 Начална дата (2)
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 6A
 6Б
 7
 8
 9
 „CA — Канада
 CA-0
 Цялата страна
 SPF
 EP, E,
 S4
 CA-1
 Цялата територия на Канада с изключение на зона CA-2
 BPR, BPP, DOC, DOR, HEP, HER, SRA, SRP
 N
 A
 S1, ST1“
 WGM
 Зона VIII
 POU, RAT
 N
 CA-2
 Територията на Канада, отговаряща на:
 CA-2.1
 „Основна зона за контрол“, очертана от следните граници:
 —
 на запад — Тихия океан,
 —
 на юг — границата със Съединените американски щати,
 —
 на север — магистрала No 16,
 —
 на изток — границата между провинциите Британска Колумбия и Алберта.
 WGM
 Зона VIII
 P2
 4.12.2014 г.
 9.6.2015 г.
 POU, RAT
 N, P2
 CA-2.2
 Зона в провинция Онтарио, очертана от следните граници:
 —
 от County Road 119, пресечката с County Road 64 и Line 25;
 —
 северно по Line 25 до пресечката с Road 68, източно по Road 68 до следващата пресечка с Line 25, като се продължава на север по Line 25 до 74 Road
 —
 източно по 74 Road от Line 25 до Line 31;
 —
 северно по Line 31 от 74 Road до 78 Road;
 —
 източно по 78 Road от Line 31 до Line 33;
 —
 Line 33 северно от 78 Road до 84 Road;
 —
 източно по 84 Road от Line 33 до магистрала 59;
 —
 южно по магистрала 59 от 84 Road до Road 78;
 —
 източно по Road 78 от магистрала 59 до Line 13;
 —
 южно по Line 13 от 78 Road до Oxford Road 17;
 —
 източно по Oxford Road 17 от Line 13 до Oxford Road 4;
 —
 южно по Oxford Road 4 от Oxford Road 17 до County Road 15;
 —
 източно по County Road 15, като се пресича магистрала 401, от Oxford Road 4 до Middletown Line;
 —
 южно по Middletown Line, като се пресича магистрала 403, от County Road 15 до Old Stage Road;
 —
 западно по Old Stage Road от Middletown Line до County Road 59;
 —
 южно по County Road 59 от Old Stage Road до Curries Road;
 —
 западно по Curries Road от County Road 59 до Cedar Line;
 —
 южно по Cedar Line от Curries Road до Rivers Road;
 —
 югозападно по Rivers Road от Cedar Line до Foldens Line;
 —
 северозападно по Foldens Line от Rivers Road до Sweaburg Road;
 —
 югозападно по Sweaburg RoadWest от Foldens Line до Harris Street;
 —
 северозападно по Harris Street от Sweaburg Road до магистрала 401;
 —
 западно по магистрала 401 от Harris Street до Ingersoll Street, (County Road 10);
 —
 северно по Ingersoll Street (County Road 10) от магистрала 401 до County Road 119;
 —
 по County Road 119 от Ingersoll Street (County Road 10) до началото, където се пресичат County Road 119 и Line 25.
 WGM
 Зона VIII
 P2
 8.4.2015 г.
 POU, RAT
 N, P2
 CA-2.3
 Зона в провинция Онтарио, очертана от следните граници:
 —
 Twnshp Rd 4, западно от пресечката му с магистрала 401 до Blandford Road;
 —
 северно по Blandford Road от Twnshp Rd 4 до Oxford-Waterloo Road;
 —
 източно по Oxford-Waterloo Road от Blandford Road до Walker Road;
 —
 северно по Walker Road от Oxford-Waterloo Road до Bridge St;
 —
 източно по Bridge St от Walker Road до Puddicombe Road;
 —
 северно по Puddicombe Road от Bridge St до Bethel Road;
 —
 източно по Bethel Road от Puddicombe road до Queen Street;
 —
 южно по Queen Street от Bethel Road до Bridge street;
 —
 източно по Bridge Street от Queen Street до Trussler Road;
 —
 южно по Trussler Road от Bridge Street до Oxford Road 8;
 —
 източно по Oxford Road 8 от Trussler Road до Northumberland Street;
 —
 южно по Northumberland St от Oxford Road 8, който продължава по Swan Street/Ayr Road до Brant Waterloo Road;
 —
 западно по Brant Waterloo Road от Swan St/Ayr Road до Trussler Road;
 —
 южно по Trussler Road от Brant Waterloo Road до Township Road 5;
 —
 западно по Township Road 5 от Trussler Road до Blenheim Road;
 —
 южно по Blenheim Road от Township Road 5 до Township Road 3;
 —
 западно по Township Road 3 от Blenheim Road до Oxford Road 22;
 —
 северно по Oxford Road 22 от Township Road 3 до Township Road 4;
 —
 западно по Township Road 4 от Oxford Road 22 до магистрала 401.
 WGM
 Зона VIII
 P2
 18.4.2015 г.
 POU, RAT
 N
 P2