**Congressional Submission**

**U.S. Department of Justice**

**Assets Forfeiture Fund**

**FY 2008 PERFORMANCE BUDGET**

# Table of Contents

Page No.

**I. Overview** 1

**II. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language**
6

III\. Decision Unit Justification 7

A. Assets Forfeiture Fund

1\. Program Description

2\. Performance Tables

3\. Performance, Resources, and Strategies

a\. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes

b\. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes

I**V. Exhibits**

A.  Organizational Chart

> B. Not Applicable
>
> C. Not Applicable

D.  Resources by DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective

E.  Not applicable

F.  Crosswalk of 2006 Availability

G.  Crosswalk of 2007 Availability

H.  Summary of Reimbursable Resources

I.  Not applicable

J.  Not applicable

K.  Not applicable

L.  Summary of Requirements by Object Class

> M. Not applicable......

I.  **Overview for Assets Forfeiture Fund**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  Introduction

The Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF or Fund) was created by the
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473, dated October 12,
1984) to be a repository of the proceeds of forfeitures under any law
enforced and administered by the Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C.
524(c)).

The primary purpose of the Fund is to provide a stable source of
resources to cover the costs of an effective asset forfeiture program,
including the costs of seizing, evaluating, inventorying, maintaining,
protecting, advertising, forfeiting, and disposing of property seized
for forfeiture. Prior to creation of the Fund in 1985, costs of these
activities had to be diverted from agency operational funds. The more
effective an agency was in seizing property, the greater the drain on
its appropriated funds. Creation of the Fund is responsible, in large
measure, for the growth in the Department\'s forfeiture program over the
past decade. A secondary benefit of an aggressive and well-managed
forfeiture program is the production of surplus revenues to assist in
financing important law enforcement programs. If the forfeiture program
ceases to function effectively in its primary role, these surplus
revenues will not be generated.

The AFF's mission has as its primary strategic goal to enforce Federal
laws and prevent and reduce crime by disrupting, damaging and
dismantling criminal organizations through the use of civil and criminal
forfeiture. The program attempts to remove those assets that are
essential to the operation of those criminal organizations and punish
the criminals involved by denying them the use of the proceeds of their
crimes.

Table 1 below displays the functional activities of the participating
agencies. These agencies investigate or prosecute criminal activity
under statutes, such as the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
statute, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Money Laundering Control
Act, or provide administrative support services to the program.

##### Table 1. Asset Forfeiture Program Participants by Function [^1]

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 27%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Function</td>
<td>AFMLS</td>
<td>AFMS</td>
<td>ATF</td>
<td>DEA</td>
<td>DS</td>
<td>EOUSA</td>
<td>FBI</td>
<td>FDA</td>
<td>USDA</td>
<td>USMS</td>
<td>USPS</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><img src="media/image1.wmf"
style="width:0.67153in;height:0.83403in" />Investigation</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Litigation<img src="media/image2.wmf"
style="width:0.8875in;height:0.97847in" /></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><img src="media/image3.wmf"
style="width:1.09375in;height:1.01111in" /></p>
<p>Custody of Assets</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Management<img src="media/image4.wmf" /></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

The Department of Justice is requesting \$676,787,000 for expenses of
the Assets Forfeiture Fund for 2008 to support the Department's
Strategic Goal 2, to enforce Federal laws and represent the rights and
interests of the American People, and Strategic Goal 3, to assist state,
local, and tribal efforts to prevent or reduce crime and violence. AFF
spending also supports the President's Management Agenda to improve
financial performance and expand electronic government (e-gov) (e.g., in
security and cost savings), and the Attorney General's Management Agenda
to streamline, eliminate or consolidate duplicative functions and
utilize technology to improve government.

As an outcome of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) joined the Fund on
January 25, 2003. In addition, the Act transferred the forfeiture
functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on March 31, 2003. On October 1,
2004, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Department of State (DS),
joined the AFF. The Fund subsequently includes seizures and forfeitures
resulting from investigations of passport and visa fraud.

It is increasingly important to recognize that the benefits to be
achieved through inter-departmental cooperation and standardization of
policies and procedures are enormous, not only from a program management
perspective, but also from the perspective of preserving the due process
rights of citizens. The significant effect of a less than aggressive
forfeiture program is that criminal organizations have hundreds of
millions of dollars more in their coffers to support their illicit
operations each year.

In summary, the asset forfeiture program not only represents an
effective law enforcement tool against criminal organizations but also
provides financial support to other federal law enforcement efforts.
Without this resource, agency funds would be seriously taxed to maintain
and preserve seized assets and liquidate forfeited assets, and law
enforcement projects supported by the Fund could not be undertaken or
would have to await the possibility of funding through other avenues.
Continuing to support aggressive training, case evaluations, funds
management, and contract support are keys to extracting the greatest
benefit to our society from application of the asset forfeiture
sanction.

No program within the AFF has been selected for review under the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process.

Beginning in FY 2007, electronic copies of the Department of Justice's
congressional budget justifications and Capital Asset Plan and Business
Case exhibits can be viewed or downloaded from the Internet using the
Internet address:
[**[http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/]{.underline}**](http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/).

B.  Trends, Issues, and Outcomes

Although the Fund's mission and objectives will not change in FY 2008,
the challenges it faces will. The Fund's budget is integrated with the
Department's Strategic Goals and Objective, and it is aligned with the
President's Management Agenda.

Following is a brief summary of the Department's Strategic Goals and
Objectives, in which the Fund plays a role.

DOJ Strategic Goal 2: Enforce Federal Criminal Laws and Represent the
Rights and Interests of the American People (\$348,983)

-   Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal
    drugs by identifying, disrupting, and dismantling drug trafficking
    organizations (2.2) []{.mark}

DOJ Strategic Goal 3: Assist State, Local and Tribal Efforts to Prevent
or Reduce Crime and Violence (\$327,804)

-   Improve the crime fighting and criminal justice system capabilities
    of state, tribal, and local governments (3.1)

C. Full Program Costs

The Fund is a fee-based program. Receipts are available to pay program
operations expenses, i.e., mandatory expenses of the forfeiture program,
such as recognizing the equity of innocent third parties and lien
holders; program investigative expenses, such as recognizing the efforts
of state and local law enforcement agencies that helped produce the
forfeitures; and other authorized expenses of the Fund.

For 2008, the Department is estimating \$676,787,000 for mandatory and
investigative expenses. Included in this amount, providing net receipts
support this expense level, is \$47.0 million to pay overtime expenses
and other costs of state and local law enforcement officers engaged in
joint operations with federal law enforcement agencies participating in
the Fund. The Department\'s authority to incur program operations
expenses, including recognition of the equity interests of others and
the efforts of law enforcement agencies, is limited only by the level of
receipts deposited into the Fund. To the extent that receipts exceed the
amounts necessary for mandatory program expenses, the Fund may be used
for discretionary investigative expenses.

Full program costs are identified in Section II by decision unit.
Mandatory expenses increase or decrease relative to seizure and
forfeiture activity, and the program is executed by its member agencies.

1.  Performance Challenges

    The challenges that impact achievement of Fund goals are complex and
    dynamic. New legislation and case law, technological developments,
    changing demographics, political decisions, and international
    criminal organizations are only a few factors that impact the assets
    forfeiture program and pose challenges that demand attention. The
    following situations are challenges that the Fund is facing.

**External Challenges**

-   International money laundering and forfeiture investigations
    continue to target millions of dollars in illegal proceeds that have
    been secreted overseas. The repatriation of foreign assets is
    potentially a significant source of the Fund receipts as
    demonstrated by the \$89 million in Nasser-David funds deposited
    in 1999. As more and more countries enact legislation providing
    authority to assist in and undertake forfeiture and money laundering
    investigations, more of these funds will be subject to repatriation
    and forfeiture. The United States currently has a Mutual Legal
    Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which facilitates forfeiture cooperation,
    with 51 countries. In addition, more than 172 countries are parties
    to the Vienna Convention which provides, [inter alia]{.underline},
    for forfeiture assistance in drug and drug-related (i.e., money
    laundering) cases. The Department has made significant progress in
    recent years convincing foreign governments that such cooperation is
    in their best interest. The Department shares a significant part of
    any repatriated funds with its international partners. For example,
    since 1989, the United States has shared more than \$226 million
    with 33 jurisdictions and countries. These cases are very difficult
    to negotiate and often take years to come to fruition. However, the
    forfeiture parts of several major cases are ongoing and should be
    concluded in the next few years.

-   With the reorganizations of major component agencies, the financial
    mid- and long-term effects are difficult to quantify; however,
    revenues in 2007 and 2008 are expected to increase from prior year
    levels. The fiscal resources of the AFF must first cover the
    business or operational expenses of the asset forfeiture program.
    The Fund is not allowed to operate at a deficit.

**Internal Challenges**

The Fund faces many internal challenges in FY 2008, primarily in
enhancing its financial and property management capabilities.

-   Data Quality: The 2006 AFF/Seized Asset Deposit Fund (SADF)
    financial statements received an unqualified opinion; however, the
    independent auditors noted, as in 2005, a reportable condition in
    information system controls. The auditors identified weaknesses that
    exist in the information system controls environment. The AFF/SADF
    uses the Financial Management Information System (FMIS2) accounting
    system maintained by the Finance Staff (FS), Justice Management
    Division (JMD). As a result, the control improvements needed in the
    FMIS2 accounting system, also impact the AFF/SADF. This reportable
    condition and related recommendations were addressed to JMD, which
    has primary responsibility over FMIS2. Accordingly, no
    recommendations for this reportable condition were addressed to the
    AFF/SADF management. Additionally, management is implementing
    appropriate security measures in CATS.

> A new reportable condition, internal controls over status of valuation
> of seized and forfeited property need reinforcement, was noted by the
> auditors. AFMS is working with participants to establish and enforce
> corrective actions in a timely manner.

-   Technological Developments: The Consolidated Asset Tracking System
    (CATS) concluded a technology refresh of the legacy architecture,
    infrastructure, and user interface in 2005. The refresh project was
    initiated to enhance the system's ability to accommodate the
    requirements of the AFP participants, exploit emerging technologies
    by implementing a modern and efficient operating environment, and
    reduce overall operation and maintenance costs. While this
    enhancement will increase efficiency and reduce overall costs in the
    next few years, the need for enhancements, based on technological
    changes, remains a constant challenge.

**II. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language**

**Appropriations Language**

*[For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c) (1) (B), (F), and (G),
\$20,990,000 to be derived from the Department of Justice Assets
Forfeiture Fund.]{.underline}*

*[(cancellation)]{.underline}*

*[Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
\$240,000,000 is permanently cancelled.]{.underline}*

**Analysis of Appropriations Language**

Language has been included that proposes the permanent cancellation of
\$240,000,000 of unobligated balances available in the Assets Forfeiture
Fund.

**III. Decision Unit Justification**

**A. Assets Forfeiture Fund**

  ------------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------------
  Assets Forfeiture Fund TOTAL          Perm.     FTE       Amount
                                        Pos.                

  2006 Enacted w/ Rescissions and                           1,143,153
  Supplementals                                             

  2007 Estimate                                             552,274

  2007 Changes in the Estimate                              159,213

  2007, Estimate, Revised                                   711, 487

  Adjustments to Base and Technical                         0
  Adjustments                                               

  2008 Current Services                                     676,787

  2008 Program Increases                                    0

  2008 Offsets                                              0

  2008 Request                                              676,787

  Total Change 2007-2008                                    -34,700
  ------------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------------

  ------------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------------
  Mandatory Expenses, Indefinite        Perm.     FTE       Amount
  Authority TOTAL                       Pos.                

  2006 Enacted w/ Rescissions and                           1,121,959
  Supplementals                                             

  2007 Estimate                                             531,063

  2007 Changes in the Estimate                              159,434

  2007, Estimate, Revised                                   690,497

  Adjustments to Base and Technical                         0
  Adjustments                                               

  2008 Current Services                                     655,797

  2008 Program Increases                                    0

  2008 Offsets                                              0

  2008 Request                                              655,797

  Total Change 2007-2008                                    -34,700
  ------------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------------

  ------------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------------
  Appropriated Expenses, Definite       Perm.     FTE       Amount
  Authority, TOTAL                      Pos.                

  2006 Enacted w/ Rescissions and                           21,194
  Supplementals                                             

  2007 Estimate                                             21,211

  2007 Estimate Changes                                     -221

  2007, Estimate, Revised                                   20,990

  Adjustments to Base and Technical                         0
  Adjustments                                               

  2008 Current Services                                     20,990

  2008 Program Increases                                    0

  2008 Offsets                                              0

  2008 Request                                              20,990

  Total Change 2007-2008                                    0
  ------------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------------

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.992361111111111in"
height="6.019444444444445in"}

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.990972222222222in"
height="7.100694444444445in"}

1\. Program Description

Current Services Program Description

A. Mandatory Expenses, Indefinite Authority

1.  Management and Disposal of Seized Assets

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

> \$44,000,000 \$44,000,000 \$0
>
> While seizures are increasing and there may be some accompanying
> increases in the costs of asset management and disposal, efficiencies
> will be sought to contain costs. The primary purpose of the Fund is to
> ensure an adequate and appropriate source of funding for the
> management and disposal of property seized for forfeiture, as well as
> forfeited assets, which would otherwise be paid by seizing agencies
> out of operating budgets funded by taxpayer dollars. The Fund puts
> criminals\' money to work for the taxpayer. Other costs may also
> increase because of higher rates for services and the movement to more
> comprehensive management and maintenance services. Also, funding is
> required for the assessment, containment, removal and destruction of
> hazardous materials seized for forfeiture, and hazardous waste
> contaminated property seized for forfeiture. The USMS and DEA will
> continue to utilize the Fund for disposal of toxic and hazardous
> substances when necessary for forfeiture or the disposition of
> forfeited property. Under this category and Other Program Management,
> approximately \$9.0 million are provided to the USMS for the cost of
> administrative personnel associated with the forfeiture program and
> \$6.0 million for non-personnel administrative costs.

2.  Other Asset Specific Expenses

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$199,787,000 \$88,000,000 -\$111,787,000

> This category includes payments to satisfy third-party interests,
> including lien holders and other innocent parties, pursuant to 28
> U.S.C. § 524(c)(1)(D); payments in connection with the remission and
> mitigation of forfeitures, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1)(E); and
> direct expenses incurred in perfecting the forfeiture. Also included
> in this expense category are expenses associated with the prosecution
> of a forfeiture case or execution of a forfeiture judgment, such as
> advertising, travel and subsistence, court and deposition reporting,
> courtroom exhibit services, and expert witness costs. In appropriate
> cases, the services of foreign counsel may be necessary. In this area,
> the costs of advertising are a major expense. Under current law, the
> Department must advertise each seizure three consecutive weeks in a
> newspaper of general circulation in the area of the seizure. In
> addition, the Department must also incur the cost of providing
> personal notice, by certified mail or other means, to all individuals
> or entities identified as having a potential legal interest in the
> property. If a claim is filed and the forfeiture process is converted
> from an administrative process to a judicial process, the entire
> notice and advertising process is repeated\--doubling the cost. This
> expense is directly related to the volume of seizures and claims. It
> is essential that these expenses be met in order that the asset title
> conveys properly, while ensuring due process rights of citizens. The
> 2007 estimate includes over \$100,000,000 in accrued liabilities for
> payments to victims of a major fraud case. Forfeited assets from this
> case were deposited in the AFF during 2006. For FY 2008, a more normal
> rate of activity is anticipated.

3.  Special Contract Services

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$62,000,000 \$62,000,000 \$0

> The Department of Justice asset forfeiture program is extensively
> using contract personnel to manage the massive paper flow associated
> with forfeiture, including data entry, data analysis, word processing,
> file control, file review, quality control, case file preparation and
> other process support functions. These workers have become an integral
> part of the asset forfeiture program. Without this contract support,
> it would be impossible to maintain the automated databases, process
> the tens of thousands of equitable sharing requests, and maintain the
> tens of thousands of forfeiture case files.

4.  Investigative Expenses Leading to Seizure

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$15,000,000 \$15,000,000 \$0

> Investigative expenses are those normally incurred in the
> identification, location, and seizure of property subject to
> forfeiture. These include payments to reimburse any Federal agency
> participating in the Fund for investigative costs leading to seizures.

5.  Contracts to Identify Assets

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$8,000,000 \$8,000,000 \$0

> Investigative agencies use these funds for subscription services to
> nationwide public record data systems, and for acquisition of
> specialized assistance, such as reconstruction of seized financial
> records. Demand for these services will increase as more agents
> graduate from the training programs and use the asset forfeiture
> sanction in their cases; however, it is anticipated that costs will be
> controlled through volume economies. Resources requested will be used
> to identify assets during the investigative stage of the case, where
> such research will enhance effective use of the asset forfeiture
> sanction. If the government can improve upon the identification of
> ill-gotten assets, the insidious nature of the criminal wrongdoing can
> be better demonstrated and reinforced before the jury. Such evidence
> results in stiffer penalties for hard-core criminals who may have
> dodged such penalties in the past by successfully concealing such
> assets, only to be released to finance further criminal activities
> with such assets. It is this kind of \"criminal financing\" that the
> forfeiture laws are intended to derail.

5\. Awards for Information Leading to Forfeiture

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$8,000,000 \$8,000,000 \$0

Section 114 of Public Law 104-208, dated September 30, 1996, amended the
Justice Fund statute to treat payments of awards based on the amount of
the forfeiture the same as other costs of a forfeiture. Historically,
this authority represented less than 10 percent of award payments.

> 6\. Automated Data Processing (ADP)
>
> [FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
> [Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$15,500,000 \$15,500,000 \$0

> CATS (Consolidated Asset Tracking System) was initiated in 1990 and
> fully implemented in 1997. The year 1997 was a major milestone for the
> asset forfeiture program. CATS began providing nationwide processing
> capabilities that tied together all agencies involved in the
> Department of Justice asset forfeiture program. Agency legacy data
> bases were converted to CATS, operating procedures updated, and system
> users retrained. For the first time, on a full-year basis in 1997, the
> Department of Justice prepared complete reports on all asset
> forfeiture activity on a real time basis; investigative and judicial
> agencies had available the actual results of their efforts; and
> office, agency and Department managers were able to assess the
> efficiency of the forfeiture program and estimate future program
> results in a more informed manner.
>
> CATS enables more than a thousand locations access to a central
> database to perform full asset forfeiture lifecycle tasks more
> efficiently; eliminates redundant data capture, and provides
> consistency and standardization for agencies performing similar
> functions. The system provides current information to field personnel
> on the status and results of cases; integrates limited financial
> analysis capabilities into the inventory management process; provides
> a rational process for the estimation of program income and expenses;
> provides a formal basis for the assessment of staffing requirements;
> and provides the capability for agency and Department managers to
> review and assess program activity dynamically.
>
> Resources will provide for recurring costs for telecommunications
> support; recurring costs for system and equipment maintenance; costs
> for user support and help desk; data center charges in support of
> CATS; software maintenance; user training; and equipment.

7\. Training and Printing

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$15,500,000 \$15,500,000 \$0

> This category funds expenses for training personnel on aspects of the
> federal forfeiture program as well as other training necessary to
> maintain the competency of federal and contractor personnel dedicated
> to performing federal forfeiture functions. Printing costs reflect the
> continuing need to provide current legal advice and support. Expenses
> include updating and distributing manuals and pamphlets directly
> related to forfeiture issues, policies, and procedures.

8\. Other Program Management Expenses

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$23,000,000 \$23,000,000 \$0

> This category includes several types of expenses that are important to
> the overall management of the asset forfeiture program: management
> analysis, performance assessment, problem analysis, requirements
> analyses, policy development, and other special projects designed to
> improve program performance. This funding will provide travel and per
> diem funds for temporary duty assignments needed to correct program
> deficiencies. Other activities funded under this heading include the
> annual audit of financial statements of the Assets Forfeiture Fund and
> the Seized Asset Deposit Fund by an independent accounting firm, and
> special assessments and reviews. This category also finances the AFMS,
> JMD and, since 2001, USMS headquarters administrative personnel and
> non-personnel costs associated with the forfeiture program.
>
> 9\. Storage, Protection, and Destruction of Controlled Substances

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$3,600,000 \$3,600,000 \$0

> These expenses are incurred to store, protect and/or destroy
> controlled substances. In 2006 and 2007, provided sufficient receipts
> are available, \$4 million per year are proposed for this expense
> category.

10. Equitable Sharing Payments

> [FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
> [Increase/Decrease]{.underline}
>
> \$308,345,000 \$270,108,000 -\$38,237,000
>
> The equitable sharing activity in 2008 is expected to be less compared
> to 2007. These funds are reserved until the receipt of the final
> forfeiture orders that result in distributions to the participants.
> Equitable sharing payments represent the transfer of portions of
> federally forfeited cash and proceeds from the sale of forfeited
> property to state and local law enforcement agencies and foreign
> governments that directly assisted in targeting or seizing the
> property. Most task force cases, for example, result in property
> forfeitures whose proceeds are shared among the participating
> agencies.

11\. Joint Federal/State and Local Law Enforcement Operations

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$47,000,000 \$47,000,000 \$0

> Public Law 102-393, referred to as the 1993 Treasury Appropriations
> Act, amended Title 28 U.S.C. 524(c), enacted new authority for the
> Fund to pay for \"overtime, travel, fuel, training, equipment, and
> other similar costs of state or local law enforcement officers that
> are incurred in a joint law enforcement operation with a federal law
> enforcement agency participating in the Fund.\" Such cooperative
> efforts have significant potential to benefit federal, state, and
> local law enforcement efforts.

B. INVESTIGATIVE EXPENSES

[Definite, Appropriated (discretionary) Authority]{.underline}

1\. Awards for Information and Purchase of Evidence

[FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$19,985,000 \$19,985,000 \$0

> Awards payable from the Fund directly support law enforcement efforts
> by encouraging the cooperation and assistance of informants. The Fund
> may also be used to purchase evidence of violations of drug laws,
> Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), and criminal
> money laundering laws. Payment of awards to sources of information
> creates tremendous motivation for individuals to assist the government
> in the investigation of criminal activity and the seizure of assets.
> Many cases would be impossible to bring to trial without the
> information from cooperating individuals. Even when the government has
> reason to believe criminal activity is occurring, an inside informant
> can facilitate the cost-effective deployment of investigative
> resources to obtain the greatest results. These expense categories are
> used in support of the Attorney General\'s highest priority programs,
> and represent resources that become increasingly precious as law
> enforcement budgets are curtailed to meet deficit reduction goals.

2\. Equipping of Conveyances

> [FY 2007 Estimate]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
> [Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\$1,005,000 \$1,005,000 \$0

This category provides funding to equip vehicles, vessels or aircraft
for law enforcement functions, but not to [acquire]{.underline} them.
Purchased equipment must be affixed to the conveyance and used
integrally with the conveyance. This funding is used for emergency and
communications equipment, voice privacy and surveillance equipment,
armoring, and engine upgrades and avionic equipment for aircraft. It is
only through Fund resources that many of these surveillance vehicles are
available to the field districts that need them. DEA uses surveillance
vans as stationary and mobile platforms to conduct surveillance and
gather intelligence, the cornerstone of cases against most major drug
violators. In addition, evidence obtained through the use of such
surveillance often provides the audio and video documentation necessary
for conviction.

C. RESCISSION/CANCELLATION

[]{.mark}

[FY 2007]{.underline} [FY 2008 Estimate]{.underline}
[Increase/Decrease]{.underline}

\- \$153,787,000 -\$240,000,000 -\$86,213,000

[]{.mark}

For 2007, a rescission of \$120,000,000 in unobligated balances
available (Super Surplus) in the Assets Forfeiture Fund was proposed in
the President's budget; however, operating under 2007 continuing
resolutions, at the lower of 2006 or House mark, \$153,787,000 in
unobligated balances is unavailable. For 2008, a permanent cancellation
of \$240,000,000 in unobligated balances is proposed.

![](media/image7.wmf)

![](media/image8.wmf)

[Data Definitions]{.underline}

FTE. See Note C for AFMS FTE information. The AFF also reimburses the
USMS for the salaries of administrative personnel responsible for the
AFF's property custodial functions, but their associated FTE's reside in
the USMS accounts.

Funding. The source of AFF funds is from the receipts realized by the
AFF in the respective years. Because the AFF is a permanent indefinite
fund, however, it may fund its activities from the unobligated balances
carried forward from prior years.

Workload. One of the tasks of the Fund managers is to project Fund
activities. As a result of a reevaluation of the Fund's performance
measures, in 2001 the indicators were changed to more accurately reflect
the activities of the Fund administrators rather than the Fund
participants.

Performance Measure 1. CATS is available to participating AFF customers
from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through
Friday, excluding all Federal holidays and/or local government closures.
Normally scheduled maintenance outages are conducted during
non-operational hours (weekends, holidays, and off-hours). Emergency
outages and system failures occurring during the core operational hours
will impact CATS availability to its customer base. For calendar year
2008, the total number of core supported hours is approximately 3,000.
The goal is to provide 99.8 percent availability to customers.

**2008 Performance Plan**. The 2008 plan entails supporting law
enforcement authorities in the application of specific forfeiture
statutes to prevent and reduce crime by the efficient and timely
allocation of resources to cover the costs of an effective asset
forfeiture program.

**2. Performance, Resources, and Strategies**

**The Fund contributes to the Department's Strategic Goal 2: Enforce
federal laws and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American
People and Goal 3: Assist state, local, and tribal efforts to prevent
and reduce crime and violence.**

To better manage resources, the asset forfeiture program's strategic
approach will continue to (1) require a strong intelligence function
that provides all-source information on target organizations to permit
the assessment of vulnerabilities and the identification of key
structural assets; (2) transcend specific cases to coordinate and target
enforcement actions against the vulnerabilities of the underlying
criminal organization; and (3) focus on removal of the assets that are
key to the functionality and viability of the criminal organization.
Special emphasis is placed on creative ways to use the proceeds of asset
forfeiture, in conjunction with other funds available to our
investigative and prosecutive offices, to support operations that focus
on the disruption and destruction of criminal organizations and not
merely on the conviction of individuals and forfeiture of their personal
property.

**a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes**

As illustrated in the preceding Performance and Resources Table, the
performance measures only address performance by the AFMS. While the
performance measures are internal to the AFMS, Strategic Goals 2 and 3
are the Fund's supra-objectives. Through stakeholder meetings, employee
meetings and internal reviews, the Fund has identified many of the
issues that must be addressed to enable it and the nation's law
enforcement community to meet the challenges of the war on drugs.
Continued progress towards implementation will enable the Fund to
improve the nation's war on drugs efforts.

The challenge of using the asset forfeiture sanction more fully requires
the dedication of greater human resources to the development of the
financial aspects of criminal operations. Continuing education in
conducting financial investigations, tracing assets, presenting
financial evidence in court, and managing and disposing of sophisticated
properties is needed to develop and support experienced law enforcement
professionals capable of dismantling criminal enterprises. The
increasing use of sophisticated technology by criminals and the relative
ease of operating across international boundaries also present special
challenges for law enforcement that must be met if the power of the
asset forfeiture sanction is to be realized. The Department will
continue to seek opportunities to use asset forfeiture funds to advance
the ability of our investigators, prosecutors, and other professionals
to meet these challenges successfully.

**b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes**

The performance indicators are for the AFMS, the participant with
management control of the Fund. In its role, AFMS supports law
enforcement authorities in their seizure and forfeiture activities by
providing funding for their accessibility to CATS. The asset forfeiture
program is executed by its member agencies and its performance is
reported under their leadership's guidance.

**c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

Programs within the Fund have not been selected for review under the
PART process.

**EXHIBITS**

![](media/image9.wmf){width="7.5in" height="5.452083333333333in"}

![](media/image11.wmf){width="9.397222222222222in"
height="4.727083333333334in"}

![](media/image12.wmf){width="9.397916666666667in"
height="5.215972222222222in"}

![](media/image13.wmf){width="9.393055555555556in"
height="2.647222222222222in"}

![](media/image14.wmf){width="7.866666666666666in"
height="6.996527777777778in"}

[^1]: ^^ The participants include the Asset Forfeiture and Money
    Laundering Section, Criminal Division (AFMLS); Asset Forfeiture
    Management Staff, Justice Management Division (AFMS); Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA); Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Department of
    State; Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA); Federal
    Bureau of Investigation (FBI); Food and Drug Administration (FDA;
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); United States
    Marshals Service (USMS); and United States Postal Service (USPS).