United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

FEDERAL TRANSIT 

BENEFITS PROGRAM 

Ineffective Controls Result 

in Fraud and Abuse by 

Federal Workers 

Statement of Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director 

Forensic Audits and Special Investigations 

John J. Ryan, Assistant Director 

Forensic Audits and Special Investigations 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

 

GAO-07-724T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 24, 2007

FEDERAL TRANSIT BENEFITS PROGRAM

Ineffective Controls Result in Fraud and 

Highlights of GAO-07-724T, a testimony Abuse by Federal Workers 

before the Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate 

Under the federal transit benefits 

program, federal employees receive 

transit benefits (e.g., Metrocheks)

to encourage them to commute to 

work via public transportation. 

Based on information provided by

the Department of Transportation, 

as of July 2006, the National Capital 

Region had 120,000 participants

claiming roughly $140 million in 

benefits. Recently, inspectors 

general (IG) of various agencies 

have found numerous prior 

instances of fraud, waste, and 

abuse in this federal program. 

Based on both the significance of

these IG findings and the amount of

federal money spent on transit 

benefits, GAO was asked to 

(1) investigate allegations that 

federal employees in the National 

Capital Region are involved in 

fraud and abuse related to the 

transit benefits program, 

(2) identify the potential causes of

any fraud or abuse that is detected,

and (3) estimate the magnitude of 

fraud and abuse in the National

Capital Region in 2006. 

To address these objectives, GAO 

identified federal employees selling

their transit benefits on the 

Internet and obtained additional 

data from these sellers’ employing 

agencies to determine whether 

more widespread problems existed. 

GAO also obtained the policies and 

procedures governing the transit

benefits program at each of the

employing agencies. 

After investigating just 3 days of sales, GAO confirmed that at least 20

federal employees were fraudulently selling their Metrocheks on eBay. For 

example, one GS-14 Department of the Treasury employee drove to work, 

parked for free in agency-provided parking, and was still able to collect $105

per month in Metrocheks—most of which he sold on eBay. Posing as buyers, 

GAO investigators also purchased Metrocheks from 3 federal employees 

fraudulently selling their benefits on Craigslist, a popular community Web 

site. These employees are likely the tip of a much larger number of violations 

of law. 

 

GAO investigations revealed additional examples of federal employees 

inflating their transportation expenses on their transit benefit applications. 

Many of them admitted to intentionally falsifying their benefit applications to

receive excess benefits. For example, a GS-11 Department of Transportation 

employee admitted to claiming the maximum allowable benefit of $105 per 

month when his actual commuting cost was only $54. 

Weaknesses in the design of program controls at the Departments of 

Commerce, Transportation, State, Homeland Security, Defense, and 

Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Patent and Trademark 

Office, and the U.S. Coast Guard can be associated with the fraudulent and 

abusive activity we identified. Although GAO did not conduct a 

comprehensive review of each agency’s controls, the results from 

investigations illustrate flaws in the design of the controls. For example, 

GAO identified four employees who continued to receive transit benefits 

even though they were on extended absences from work, but none of the 

agencies had written policies requiring adjustment of benefits because of 

leave or travel. 

Back of Metrochek with Warning Language 

Using transit benefits records from seven of the nine agencies GAO 

reviewed, GAO determined that the amount of potentially fraudulent 

transit benefits claimed during 2006 in the National Capital Region was at 

least $17 million and likely more. This fraudulent amount could be 

millions more if a similar magnitude of fraud exists in the dozens of 

agencies GAO did not review, or if the other types of fraud GAO 

identified in this investigation could be quantified. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-07-724T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Gregory Kutz at 

(202) 512-9505 or kutzg@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss allegations of fraud and abuse 

related to the federal government’s transit benefits program. This program 

was established by executive order in April 2000, and is intended to reduce 

federal employees’ contribution to traffic congestion and air pollution and 

to expand their use of public transportation. In the Washington, D.C., 

National Capital Region,1

 federal agencies are required to offer employees 

tax-free2

 transit passes for public transportation, to be used exclusively to

cover their actual out-of-pocket commuting expenses. In 2006, employees 

could not receive more than $105 per month in transit passes.3

 

Agencies in the National Capital Region can either distribute these transit 

passes directly to employees or contract with the Department of 

Transportation for distribution. Based on information provided by 

Transportation, as of July 2006, the portion of the program they administer 

had approximately 250,000 participants who claimed about $250 million 

worth of benefits. The National Capital Region constituted the largest part 

of this program, with 120,000 participants claiming roughly $140 million 

worth of benefits. These numbers do not include agencies that do not 

contract with Transportation and administer their own programs.4

 As 

shown in figure 1, the transit passes themselves are issued by the 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in the form of 

 1

 Executive Order 13150 defines the National Capital Region as “the District of Columbia; 

Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Frederick Counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax,

Loudoun, and Prince William Counties in Virginia; and all cities now or hereafter existing in

Maryland or Virginia within the geographic area bounded by the outer boundaries of the 

combined area of said counties.” 

2

 As discussed later in this testimony, transit benefits used for commuting purposes by the

intended recipient are tax free. However, income derived from the sale of transit benefits

would be considered taxable income; sellers would be required to report these sales as part 

of their gross income. 

3

 Pub. L. No. 109-59, §3049 (Aug. 10, 2005). 

4

 Agencies that administer their own programs purchase Metrocheks or SmartBenefits

directly from WMATA and manage the distribution in-house. If an agency contracts with 

Transportation, then Transportation obtains Metrocheks from WMATA and distributes the 

passes to employees or initiates the SmartBenefits deposit on an employee’s SmarTrip 

card. Transportation charges a fee of nearly 5 percent for each dollar administered, with 

additional fees charged for in-building distribution, shipping, and vendor fees. 

Page 1 GAO-07-724T 
either Metrocheks, which are paper fare cards, or SmartBenefits,5

 which 

are electronic deposits to a transit debit card (called a SmarTrip card). 

Figure 1: WMATA-Issued Metrochek and SmarTrip Card

Source: GAO.

Metrochek front Smartrip front

Metrochek back (including warning)

Metrocheks may be used or exchanged for WMATA or 

non-WMATA fares only by the person to whom it is validly 

issued. Only employers or WMATA-approved agents may 

issue valid Metrocheks and only directly to qualified 

employees. The use, sale, or exchange of Metrocheks by 

any other person makes the Metrochek invalid, and is 

therefore, illegal and subjects the person to arrest and/or 

prosecution.

Warning language:

 5

 Slightly more than half of federal agencies in the National Capital Region participate in 

the SmartBenefits Program (i.e. give employees the option of receiving their benefits 

directly on their SmarTrip cards), and only three federal agencies require enrollment in

SmartBenefits as part of the transit benefits program 

Page 2 GAO-07-724T 
As shown in the figure, WMATA labels paper Metrocheks with a warning 

indicating that they may only be issued to qualified employees by 

approved employers and that resale is illegal; SmarTrip cards are printed 

with a similar warning. The inspectors general (IG) of various agencies 

have identified numerous problems related to the transit benefits program, 

including ineligible employees receiving benefits and a lack of policies and 

procedures essential to preventing fraud, waste, and abuse.6

Based on both the significance of these IG findings and the amount of 

federal funds spent on transit benefits, you asked us to (1) investigate 

allegations that federal employees in the National Capital Region are 

involved in fraud and abuse related to the transit benefit program, 

(2) identify the potential causes of any fraud or abuse we detected, and 

(3) estimate the magnitude of fraud and abuse in the National Capital 

Region during 2006. 

To conduct our work, we investigated allegations of Internet sales of 

transit benefits by federal employees in the National Capital Region. We 

confirmed selected sellers’ federal employment status in consultation with 

federal IGs or offices of investigation and through Internet payment 

records. We interviewed a nonrepresentative selection of the sellers, 

examined their transit benefit applications, and prepared case studies 

detailing our findings. To determine whether other individuals at the 

sellers’ employing agencies were fraudulently using their benefits, we data 

mined a nonrepresentative selection of transit benefit records, compared 

employee home and work addresses, conducted further interviews, and 

prepared additional case studies. To identify the potential causes of the 

fraud and abuse we detected, we reviewed the written transit policies and

procedures at all the case study individuals’ employing agencies. While we

were unable to develop a precise estimate of the magnitude of the 

potentially fraudulent transit benefit payments that occurred in the 

 6

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, The Administration of the Public 

Transportation Subsidy Program Can Be Improved, 2006-10-062, March 2006; Federal

Communications Commission Office of the Inspector General, Report on Audit of the FCC 

Transit Benefit Program, 04-AUD-02-02, September 27, 2004; National Archives and 

Records Administration Office of the Inspector General, Audit of NARA’s Transit Benefit 

Program, Audit# 04-07, March 31, 2004; Department of Defense Office of the Inspector 

General, Financial Management: Allegations Concerning Controls Over DoD Transit 

Subsidies Within the National Capital Region, D-2004-009, October 14, 2003; U.S. 

Government Printing Office of the Inspector General, Report on Improving Controls over 

the Administering of GPO’s Transit Benefit (Metrochek) Program, 03-07-156, September 

30, 2003. 

Page 3 GAO-07-724T 
National Capital Region, we used available data to develop an order of 

magnitude estimate. Specifically, we analyzed limited data from the case 

study individuals’ employing agencies and records from the National 

Finance Center. For more information on the data used to develop our 

calculations, see appendix I. It is important to note that we did not 

conduct a comprehensive audit of the federal transit benefits program. 

Rather, our investigation of allegations concerning individuals selling their 

benefits over the Internet led us to conduct limited investigations at 

specific agencies. Although we conducted corrective actions concerning

our investigative findings with these agencies, as discussed later in this 

testimony, we are not issuing recommendations. We conducted our 

investigative work in accordance with standards prescribed by the 

President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and conducted our audit 

work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Our investigation confirmed allegations that federal employees in the 

National Capital Region committed fraud by deliberately requesting 

benefits they are not entitled to and then selling or using these benefits for 

personal gain.7

 These employees could be subject to prosecution for 

unlawful conversion under 18 U.S.C. §641. In addition, because the 

employees we investigated signed certifications8 stating that they will only 

use their transit benefits to cover actual out-of-pocket commuting costs, 

they could be subject to criminal prosecution under the False Statements

Act, 18 U.S.C. §1001. As described below, our case studies demonstrate 

abusive and potentially fraudulent activity by individuals employed at the 

Departments of Commerce, Transportation, State, Homeland Security, 

Defense, and the Treasury and at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the

Patent and Trademark Office, and the U.S. Coast Guard.9

Summary 

• After investigating just 3 days of sales on the Internet auction site eBay, 

we identified 58 individuals selling Metrocheks,10 selected 20 for 

 7

 The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners defines occupational fraud as “the use of 

one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication 

of the employing organization’s resources or assets.” 

8

 As discussed later in this testimony, four Transportation employees who we investigated 

claimed that they did not sign transit benefit certifications. 

9

 IRS, Patent and Trademark, and the Coast Guard are subcomponents of Treasury, 

Commerce, and Homeland Security, respectively, but we investigated them separately 

because they administer their transit benefits programs separately. 

10 This number includes individuals identified by the subcommittee. 

Page 4 GAO-07-724T 
investigation, and determined that these 20 were in fact federal 

employees. Collectively, these 20 federal employees have fraudulently 

sold more than $21,000 worth of Metrocheks on eBay over the past 2 

years. In subsequent interviews with 13 of the 20 eBay sellers, we found 

cases where federal employees received parking benefits in addition to 

Metrocheks, were on extended leave from work, or did not even use 

public transportation to commute to work. One GS-14 information 

technology specialist for IRS drove to work, parked for free in agencyprovided parking, and was still able to collect $105 per month in transit 

benefits—most of which he sold on eBay. In addition, none of the 13 

individuals we interviewed reported income earned from Metrochek 

sales on their federal tax returns. 

• Posing as buyers, our investigators purchased $840 worth of benefits 

from three federal employees fraudulently selling their Metrocheks on 

Craigslist, a popular community Web site. For example, one of our 

investigators purchased $420 worth of Metrocheks for $350 from an Air 

Force captain who advertised on the site. The captain corresponded 

with our investigator using his military e-mail address and told our 

investigator that he would show up at the designated meeting spot in 

his “Air Force service dress uniform.” Our investigator tried to get the 

captain to sell him the benefits for less money, but the captain refused 

and told our investigator that his wife had gotten angry at him for 

accepting less than the agreed-upon fee the last time he sold his transit 

benefits. After our investigator completed the purchase, the captain 

explained that he usually “slugs” (i.e., rides for free with another driver, 

thus incurring no commuting costs) to work and therefore does not use 

his transit benefits. He indicated that this was not the first time he had 

sold his benefits and he offered to enter into an ongoing “partnership” 

with our investigator to sell his benefits on a quarterly basis. 

• Further investigation at the agencies where the eBay and Craigslist 

sellers worked also demonstrated that federal employees are not using 

their transit benefits to cover actual out-of-pocket commuting costs. 

Through data mining of information submitted on transit benefit 

records, we found many employees who appeared to provide 

inaccurate and inflated commuting cost information on their transit 

benefit applications and we developed case studies on 23 of these 

individuals. Specifically, based on a comparison of their home and 

work addresses, these 23 individuals claimed more benefits than they 

needed to commute to work. During our interviews, 11 admitted to 

deliberately falsifying their applications in order to obtain excess 

transit benefits for personal use. One GS-11 associate director at 

Transportation admitted to claiming the maximum transit benefit of 

Page 5 GAO-07-724T 
$105 per month when his actual commuting cost was only $54 per 

month. This individual, who received his benefits on a SmarTrip card 

under the SmartBenefits program, admitted to using the excess $51 per 

month for personal travel. 

• Although our objective was to investigate allegations related to federal 

employees, our data mining revealed other troubling information 

related to the abuse of the transit benefit program by nonfederal 

employees. For example, we identified 28 individuals who have 

received transit benefits from federal agencies even though they do not 

appear to work for these agencies, 9 individuals who separated from 

the agencies but did not return their unused benefits, and 4 former 

federal employees who continued to receive benefits after leaving their 

respective agencies. For example, one Commerce employee left the 

department in 2001, but records indicate that Commerce mailed her 

$65 per month in transit benefits until she moved to a new address in 

2006. 

Weaknesses in the design of program controls at Commerce, 

Transportation, State, Homeland Security, Defense, Treasury, IRS, Patent 

and Trademark, and the Coast Guard can be associated with the 

fraudulent and abusive activity we identified. Each of these agencies has 

its own process for management and oversight; there are no 

governmentwide policies or standards establishing internal controls for 

the federal transit benefits program. Although we did not conduct a 

comprehensive review of each agency’s controls, the results from 

investigations illustrate flaws in the design of the controls. For example, 

we developed case studies on four employees who admitted that they 

continued to receive transit benefits even though they were on extended

absences from work. However, none of the agencies adjust benefits 

because of leave or travel. In addition, we developed case studies on two 

employees who admitted that they receive both parking and transit 

benefits, but only three agencies established control procedures intended 

to ensure that transit benefit recipients were not also receiving parking 

benefits. 

Finally, using transit benefits records from seven of the nine agencies11

reviewed, we determined that the amount of potentially fraudulent transit 

benefits claimed during 2006 in the National Capital Region was at least 

 11 Commerce, Transportation, Homeland Security, Defense, Treasury, IRS and the Coast 

Guard.

Page 6 GAO-07-724T 
$17 million and likely more. This fraudulent amount could be millions 

more if a similar magnitude of fraud exists in the dozens of agencies we 

did not review, or if the other types of fraud we identified in this 

investigation could be quantified. 

Despite signing certifications stating that they will only use their transit 

benefits to cover actual out-of-pocket commuting costs, federal employees 

in the National Capital Region are committing fraud or violating the False 

Statements Act12 by requesting benefits they do not need and then selling 

or using these benefits for personal gain. Specifically, we developed case 

studies on individuals employed at Commerce, Transportation, State, 

Homeland Security, Defense, Treasury, IRS, Patent and Trademark, and 

the Coast Guard.13 These case studies illustrate how federal employees 

fraudulently sold Metrocheks on eBay and Craigslist. Our case studies also 

illustrate how federal employees requested benefits in excess of their 

actual commuting costs, based on a comparison of their home and work 

addresses. In addition, during the course of our investigative work, we 

found evidence indicating that a number of individuals are in possession of 

federal transit benefits even though these individuals do not appear to 

work for the federal government. 

Case Studies Illustrate 

Fraudulent and 

Abusive Activity 

Associated with 

Federal Transit 

Benefit Program 

Federal Employees Must 

Certify That They Are 

Eligible for Benefits and 

Will Not Sell Benefits or 

Overstate Commuting 

Costs 

Employees at all of the agencies at which we conducted our investigative 

work are required to sign a certification statement as part of the transit 

benefit application process. As shown in figure 2, this certification 

typically confirms that the employee is eligible for benefits, will not sell or 

transfer the benefits, and is not requesting more than the needed amount 

of benefits. Some certifications also require employees to confirm that 

they do not have federally subsidized parking permits. In addition, the 

applications contain a false statement warning to inform employees that 

any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements on their signed applications 

and may subject them to criminal prosecution. 

 12 18 U.S.C §1001. 

13 IRS, Patent and Trademark, and the Coast Guard are subcomponents of Treasury, 

Commerce, and Homeland Security, respectively, but we investigated them separately 

because they administer their transit benefits programs separately. 

Page 7 GAO-07-724T 
Figure 2: Examples of Transit Benefit Certifications and False Statement Warning

Page 8 GAO-07-724T 
If requesting SmartBenefits, employees must provide the serial number of 

their WMATA-issued SmarTrip card so that their benefits can be directly

deposited to the card. If employees receive paper Metrocheks, they are 

required to sign another document when they pick up the Metrocheks. 

This form reiterates that the employee will not sell or transfer the 

Metrocheks and will not claim excess benefits. In addition, as shown in 

figure 1, Metrocheks are labeled with a warning indicating that they may 

only be issued to “qualified” employees and that resale is illegal. SmarTrip 

Cards feature a similar warning. 

Case Studies Illustrate 

Fraudulent Sale of 

Metrocheks on eBay 

We identified 58 individuals14 selling Metrocheks on eBay on July 24, 

August 7, and August 23, 2006, and confirmed that at least 20 of these 

individuals were in fact federal employees. Collectively, these 20 

employees fraudulently sold more than $21,000 worth of Metrocheks over 

the last 2 years and could be subject to prosecution for unlawful 

conversion under 18 U.S.C. §641. In addition, because the employees we 

investigated signed certifications15 stating that they will only use their 

transit benefits to cover actual out-of-pocket commuting costs, they could 

be subject to criminal prosecution under the False Statements Act, 18 

U.S.C §1001. In subsequent interviews with 13 of the 20 eBay sellers, we 

found instances where federal employees received parking benefits in 

addition to Metrocheks, were on extended leave from work, or did not 

even use public transportation to commute to work. In addition, none of 

the individuals we interviewed reported the income generated from the 

illegal sale of Metrocheks on their tax returns and they would be required

to report these sales as part of their gross income. Table 1 highlights the 

information we obtained on 8 of these individuals through eBay, PayPal 

(an Internet payment service), and our interviews. More detailed 

information on 4 of the cases follows the table. For a list of all 20 federal 

employees selling Metrocheks on eBay, see appendix II. 

 14 This number includes individuals identified by the subcommittee. 

15 As discussed later in this testimony, four Transportation employees who we investigated 

claimed that they did not sign transit benefit certifications. 

Page 9 GAO-07-724T 
Table 1: Case Studies of Federal Employees Who Fraudulently Sold Metrocheks on eBay 

Case 

Seller’s 

employing 

agency 

Salary 

level 

Number of sales over 

the past 2 years

Face value of

Metrocheks sold Case details 

1 Transportation GS-14 12 $1,080 Does not always use public transportation 

2 Treasury GS-14 6 1,380 Does not always use public transportation 

3 IRSaGS-14 3 930 Receives parking benefits

4 CGbGS-12 3 900 Uses public transportation, but claims more 

benefits than needed for commute to work 

5 Transportation GS-14 6 789 Received benefits while on maternity leave 

6 State GS-12 10 1,500 Received benefits while on travel; does not 

always use public transportation 

7cDefense E-6

8cDefense GS-7 

61 6,000 Do not always use public transportation 

Source: GAO. 

a

IRS administers its own transit program and has different processes for management and oversight 

than Treasury as a whole. 

b

The Coast Guard administers its own transit program and has different processes for management 

and oversight than Homeland Security as a whole.

c

Cases 7 and 8 are a married couple selling their Metroheks from the same eBay account. See details

below. 

Case 1: Seller has been employed as a GS-14 specialist at Transportation’s 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration since 1990. Seller has 

received the maximum amount of transit benefits since he first entered the 

transit benefit program in November 2004. Seller explained that he 

accumulated excess benefits over time by using other means of 

transportation to and from work, including “slugging,” riding with a 

neighbor, and driving his motorcycle. Seller readily admitted to selling his 

transit benefits on eBay on multiple occasions for personal gain (12 lots of 

Metrocheks valued at a total of $1,080), but stated that he did not know it 

was illegal to sell his transit benefits—despite the warning printed on 

every Metrochek and the certification statement he signed on his 

application and each time he picked up his benefits. 

Case 3: Seller is a GS-14 information technology specialist and has been 

employed by IRS since 2003. Seller has received the maximum amount of 

transit benefits since he first entered the transit benefit program in 

February 2004. Seller also receives parking benefits from IRS and 

accumulated excess benefits over time by driving to work and parking in 

an agency-owned parking space for free. Seller admitted to selling his 

transit benefits on eBay for personal gain on multiple occasions (three lots 

Page 10 GAO-07-724T 
of Metrocheks valued at a total of $930). Seller’s eBay account history also 

reflected the sale of computers, and after some questioning by

investigators, seller confessed that he had stolen numerous computers and 

computer parts from IRS, which he subsequently sold on eBay. We 

referred the case to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration. The employee has since been placed on administrative 

leave indefinitely and without pay and was indicted for theft of 

government property on February 7, 2007. 

Case 5: Seller is a GS-14 attorney for the Federal Highway Administration 

and has been employed at Transportation since 1990. Seller confirmed that 

she has received the maximum benefit since first entering the program in 

1999. She explained that she accumulated excess benefits in two ways: 

(1) she continued to claim transit benefits while on maternity leave and 

(2) she works from home at least 1 day a week. Although she has recently 

been working from home more frequently, she still claims the maximum 

benefit. Seller admitted to selling her transit benefits on eBay on multiple 

occasions (six lots of Metrocheks valued at a total of $789), but stated that

she did not know it was illegal to sell her transit benefits—despite the 

warning printed on every Metrochek and the certification statement she 

signed on her application and each time she picked up her benefits. 

Cases 7 and 8: These sellers are a married couple both working for 

Defense. The wife, an administrative leading petty officer, has been 

receiving almost $100 per month since first entering the program in 

September 2005. The husband, a financial technician, has been receiving 

the maximum benefit since first entering the program in March 2003. Both 

sellers acknowledged that they accumulated excess benefits over time by

driving to work. The husband admitted to selling his transit benefits on 

eBay on multiple occasions (61 lots of Metrocheks valued at a total of 

$6,000). The wife, although she admitted she used her transit benefit for 

personal travel, denied selling her benefits on eBay. However, the names 

of both spouses appear on the eBay account selling Metrocheks. 

Investigations Show 

Federal Employees

Fraudulently Sold 

Metrocheks on Craigslist 

Posing as buyers, our investigators purchased $840 worth of benefits from 

three federal employees fraudulently selling their Metrocheks via 

Craigslist, a popular community Web site. First, investigators purchased 

$210 worth of Metrocheks for $160 from a GS-12 State Department 

employee who posted on the site. The seller also asked to be paid with 

cash because she wanted to buy Christmas presents for her friends. After 

purchasing the Metrocheks, investigators identified themselves as a 

federal agents conducting investigation and reminded the seller that she 

Page 11 GAO-07-724T 
had signed certifications stating that she would not sell transit benefits. 

The seller insisted that she did not know it was illegal to sell benefits and

also stated that she was selling extra Metrocheks left over from a previous 

government job. However, in e-mail correspondence prior to the sale, the 

seller told one of our investigators that she would be able to sell him 

benefits on a continuing basis, four times per year. We confirmed that she 

receives $255 in Metrocheks four times a year from the State Department. 

Investigators next purchased Metrocheks from an Air Force captain who

advertised on the site. The captain corresponded with our investigator 

using his military e-mail address, as shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3: E-mail Correspondence from Air Force Captain 

Source: GAO.

I’ll hold all $450 worth of MetroCheks for you at a price of $360.

I did not bring them to work with me today. I’ll bring them tomorrow. As far as the hand-off 

goes, I have to be in the Reagon Building at 4:30 for a presentation. I should be done with 

that at 5:00. I will go to the L’Enfant Metro and then Metro to where you want to meet.

So, let’s meet between 5:15 and 5:30 at a Metro of your choosing tomorrow. I will be in my Air 

Force service dress uniform. It is the Air Force’s version of a business suit, but it has all the 

awards and everything on it. You should be able to spot me pretty easily.

< @pentagon.af.mil>

When our investigator arrived at the meeting spot, he told the captain that

he only had $350 and asked if that would be enough to purchase the entire

$450 worth of Metrocheks. The captain said no, and told our investigator

that his wife had gotten angry at him for accepting less than the agreedupon fee the last time he sold his transit benefits. Ultimately, our 

investigator purchased $420 worth of benefits for $350. After the 

exchange, the captain explained that he usually “slugs” to work and 

therefore does not use his transit benefits. He also offered to enter into an 

ongoing partnership with our investigator to sell his benefits on a quarterly 

basis. Our investigator did not identify himself as a federal agent because 

the Air Force Office of Special Investigations indicated that it would like 

to continue to develop a case against this seller. 

Finally, our investigator purchased $210 worth of Metrocheks for $190

from a former GS-11 international trade specialist with Commerce. This 

employee resigned from Commerce on and then arranged to sell her 

Page 12 GAO-07-724T 
benefits to our investigator one week later. After our investigator 

purchased the Metrocheks, the seller explained that she was moving 

overseas and would no longer be collecting benefits. She also explained 

that she had typically walked to work at Commerce, so she did not really 

need the benefits in the first place. Our investigator did not identify 

himself as a federal agent because the IG at Commerce wanted to pursue

further action against this seller by withholding her final paycheck. 

Other Investigative Case 

Studies Illustrate How 

Federal Employees Abuse 

the Transit Benefit 

Program 

Further investigation at the agencies where the eBay and Craigslist sellers 

worked also demonstrated that federal employees are not using their 

transit benefits to cover actual out-of-pocket commuting costs. Through 

data mining of information submitted on transit benefit applications, we 

found many employees who appeared to provide inaccurate and inflated

commuting cost information on their transit benefit applications. We 

developed case studies on 23 of these individuals. Specifically, based on a 

comparison of their home and work addresses, these 23 individuals 

claimed more benefits than they needed to commute to work. Eleven of 

these individuals admitted to deliberately falsifying their applications in 

order to obtain excess transit passes for personal use. Table 2 highlights 

the information we obtained on 10 of these cases through our data mining 

and interviews. More detailed information on 3 of the cases follows the 

table. For a list of all 23 individuals, see appendix III. 

Page 13 GAO-07-724T 
Table 2: Case Studies of Federal Employees Providing Inaccurate and Inflated Commuting Cost Information on Their 

Applications

Case 

Applicant’s employing 

agency Salary level 

Excess benefits 

claimed per year Case details 

1 Commerce GS-5 $480 Refused to tell investigators what excess benefits

were used for 

2 IRS GS-13 612 Used benefits for personal travel 

3 Treasury GS-8 660 Purchased transit tokens for son; sold benefits to 

contractors and friends

4 Treasury GS-14 540 Gave benefits to visiting friends

5 Transportation GS-13 444 Stored excess benefits at home 

6 Transportation GS-11 612 Used benefits for personal travel 

7 Defense Not available 660 Used benefits for personal travel; received parking 

benefits

8 Defense Not available 660 Used benefits to pay for transportation of her

children to daycare 

9 Coast Guard GS-9 228 Gave benefits to family and friends; used benefits

for personal travel; accumulated excess benefits

during extended absences from work 

10 Homeland Security Not available 228 Refused to tell investigators what excess benefits

were used for 

Source: GAO. 

Case 3: Employee is a GS-8 secretary at Treasury. She has participated in

the transit benefits program since September 2000 and admitted to 

knowingly providing false information on her transit benefit application by 

claiming the maximum benefit of $105 per month when her actual 

commuting cost is $50 per month. As provided on the application signed 

by the employee, this false statement may constitute a violation of 18 

U.S.C §1001 and renders the employee subject to criminal prosecution. 

She further admitted to using her $55 in excess Metrocheks each month to 

purchase transit tokens for her son to use to travel to school. Employee 

also admitted to selling her excess benefits to Treasury contractors (who 

are not eligible to receive federal transit benefits) and to friends in her 

community. Employee stated that she deliberately overestimated the 

amount of money she needed to commute to and from work on her transit 

benefit application in order to have excess benefits to sell to friends. 

Case 4: Employee is a GS-14 deputy director at Treasury. Employee has

participated in the transit benefits program since 2003 and admitted to 

knowingly providing false information on his transit benefit application by

claiming the maximum benefit of $105 per month when his actual 

Page 14 GAO-07-724T 
commuting cost is $60 per month. As provided on the application signed 

by the employee, this false statement may constitute a violation of 18 

U.S.C §1001 and renders the employee subject to criminal prosecution. 

Employee stated that he distributed some of his excess Metrocheks to 

friends visiting Washington D.C. 

Case 9: Employee is a GS-9 working in the Health and Safety Division at

the Coast Guard. Employee has participated in the transit benefits 

program since 1996 and admitted to knowingly providing false information 

on her transit benefit application by claiming the maximum benefit of $105 

per month when her actual commuting cost is $86 per month. She also 

admitted that she accumulated excess benefits by continuing to receive

benefits even though she has been taking extended amounts of leave. As 

provided on the application signed by the employee, this false statement 

may constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C §1001 and renders the employee 

subject to criminal prosecution. She also acknowledged that she 

intentionally abused her benefits by using them for personal travel and

distributing them to her sister and friends. 

Nonfederal Employees in 

Possession of Transit 

Benefits 

Although our objective was to investigate allegations related to federal 

employees, our data mining revealed other troubling information related 

to the abuse of the transit benefit program by nonfederal employees. 

Specifically, through our data-mining efforts, we were able to identify 

employees at Commerce, Coast Guard, Treasury, IRS, and Homeland 

Security who may have collected transit benefits even though they did not 

currently work for the federal government. We requested additional 

identification information on these individuals from the agencies and 

subsequently found 28 individuals who have received transit benefits even 

though they do not appear to work for the agencies, 9 individuals who left 

their agencies but did not return their unused benefits, and 4 former 

federal employees who continued to receive benefits after leaving their 

respective agencies. 

• Commerce confirmed that one of the individuals we identified 

continued to receive transit benefits after separating from the agency. 

Records indicate that this employee left the department in 2001, but 

Commerce continued to mail her $65 per month in benefits until she 

moved to a new address in 2006. Commerce also confirmed that three 

of the other individuals we identified separated from the agency, but 

did not return their unused transit benefits. For example, one 

Commerce employee picked up $300 worth of benefits on July 3, 2006, 

and then left the agency on July 5, 2006. 

Page 15 GAO-07-724T 
• The Coast Guard confirmed that one employee we identified picked up

transit benefits after separating from the agency. In addition, one of the 

individuals we asked the Coast Guard to identify has never worked 

there; the agency could find no employment records on this individual 

even though he picked up transit benefits under Coast Guard’s transit 

program. 

• Treasury confirmed that one employee we identified picked up benefits 

at least five times after separating from the agency. In addition, 

Treasury confirmed that another employee picked up benefits and then 

separated from the agency the very next day, and another picked up 

benefits and left the agency 9 days later. Neither of these individuals 

returned any of their unused benefits to Treasury. Finally, 25 of the 

individuals we asked Treasury to identify have never worked there; the 

agency could find no employment records on these individuals even 

though they picked up transit benefits under Treasury’s transit 

program. 

• IRS confirmed that four of the employees we identified picked up 

benefits and left the agency shortly thereafter without returning 

benefits. For example, one employee picked up the $315 worth of 

benefits on July 6, 2006, and then left the agency on August 4, 2006. In 

addition, one of the individuals we asked IRS to identify has never 

worked for IRS; the agency could find no employment records on this 

individual even though he picked up transit benefits under IRS’s transit 

program. 

• We did not receive a response from Homeland Security by the close of 

our investigation. 

Weaknesses in the design of program controls at Commerce, 

Transportation, State, Homeland Security, Defense, Treasury, IRS, Patent 

and Trademark, and the Coast Guard can be associated with the 

fraudulent and abusive activity we identified. Each of these agencies has 

its own process for management and oversight; there are no 

governmentwide policies or standards establishing internal controls for 

the federal transit benefit program. Although we did not conduct a 

comprehensive review of each agency’s controls, the results from our 

interviews and data mining illustrate flaws in the design of the controls. 

Figure 4 details the critical elements included in each agency’s written 

policies and procedures. 

Weaknesses in 

Program Controls 

May Contribute to 

Fraud and Abuse 

Page 16 GAO-07-724T 
Figure 4: Comparison of Written Transit Benefit Program Controls

Note: State, in its protocols, indicates that supervisors have the option of requesting additional 

information from employees to verify their commuting costs (but this is not a requirement). Defense,

in its protocols, indicates that component agencies should set up offices to establish and implement 

internal controls, but we did not receive any documentation indicating that these offices were set up 

or that internal control procedures were set at the component-agency level.

The following are examples of our investigative findings illustrating 

weaknesses in the design of agencies’ transit benefit controls. 

Page 17 GAO-07-724T 
• We interviewed 23 individuals who provided inaccurate commuting costs 

on their applications, based on a comparison of their home and work 

addresses. However, none of the agencies had written policies in place at 

the time of our review requiring an approving official to verify that 

employees provided accurate commuting costs. Transportation, Treasury,

State, and Defense do not even require employees to provide their home 

addresses on their applications, which may make it even more difficult to

determine whether commuting costs are valid. Furthermore, only three 

agencies (IRS, Commerce, and Patent and Trademark) require employees

to provide a commuting cost breakdown to demonstrate that they are

entitled to the benefits they are requesting. 

• Four employees admitted to us that they continued to receive transit 

benefits even though they were on extended absences from work. 

However, none of the agencies use information that employees provide in

the normal course of working for the government—such as changes of 

address on their W-2 forms, taking annual leave, or traveling on business—

to adjust benefits because of leave or travel. In addition, only three 

agencies (Transportation, IRS, and State) have an approving official 

review employees’ eligibility to receive benefits. 

• Two employees admitted to us that they received both parking and transit

benefits, but only three agencies (Transportation, Homeland Security, and 

Defense) had a process in place to ensure that transit benefit recipients 

were not also receiving parking benefits. 

• We identified four former federal employees who continued to receive

transit benefits even after they left their agencies. However, only two 

agencies (Transportation and IRS) ensure that employees who leave the 

agencies are removed from the transit benefits distribution list. 

• We found 28 individuals who have received transit benefits from federal 

agencies even though they do not appear to work for these agencies. 

However, only three agencies (Transportation, IRS, and State) verify 

employee eligibility. 

• As discussed earlier in this testimony, figure 4 shows that all the agencies

required applicants to sign a written certification stating that they are 

eligible to participate in the transit benefits program, that they do not 

receive parking benefits, and that their transit benefits will be used for 

their work commute only. However, during the course our investigations,

we interviewed four employees at Transportation who all claimed that 

they were only asked to provide an oral estimate of their commuting costs. 

None of the employees recall filling out or signing an application form. We 

Page 18 GAO-07-724T 
asked Transportation to provide us with copies of these applications in 

order to validate the employees’ claims. In response, the department 

provided us with electronic copies of the applications in question, but 

these applications do not contain employee signatures. 

Using limited employee data and transit benefit records, we determined 

that the amount of potentially fraudulently transit benefits claimed during 

2006 in the National Capital Region was at least $17 million and likely 

millions more. This magnitude is based on the roughly $70 million in 

transit benefits claimed by employees at Commerce, Transportation, 

Homeland Security, Defense, Treasury, IRS, and the Coast Guard.16 The 

total amount of fraud could be millions more if a similar magnitude of 

fraud exists in the dozens of agencies that we did not review, or if the 

other types of fraud GAO identified in this investigation could be 

quantified. 

Our investigations and audit work revealed that many of the employees at

these seven agencies provided inaccurate commuting cost information on 

their transit benefit applications. We determined this by examining transit 

benefit data for about 4,000 individuals working at the headquarters 

offices of these seven agencies and claiming roughly $4 million worth of 

benefits. Specifically, we identified a set of zip codes for each of the seven 

agency headquarters buildings and found that employees living within 

these zip codes could not legitimately claim the maximum allowable 

benefit of $105 per month, no matter what combination of Metrobus and 

Metrorail they used to commute to their places of employment. Based on

this analysis, we determined that the 4,000 individuals we examined were 

not entitled to the maximum transit benefit amount. However, we found 

that hundreds of these individuals did in fact request this maximum 

amount, claiming more benefits than they needed to commute to work. 

Although these individuals may have been eligible for a portion of the 

transit benefits they requested, their applications should not have been 

approved because they signed certifications stating that they would not 

request benefits in excess of their monthly commuting costs (see figure 2). 

As provided on the applications submitted by these employees, such 

overstated requests constitute a potential violation of the False Statements

Federal Employees 

Likely Made More 

than $17 Million in 

Potentially Fraudulent 

Transit Benefit Claims 

 16 We could not include State or Patent and Trademark in this part of the investigation for 

the following reasons: (1) State does not provide adequate data to either Transportation or

the National Finance Center databases and (2) Patent and Trademark does not use 

Transportation to administer its transit benefit program. 

Page 19 GAO-07-724T 
Act, 18 U.S.C. §1001. Because of these overstatements, we found that 

$1million of the transit benefits that these individuals claimed were 

potentially fraudulent. This $1 million represented about 25 percent of the 

$4 million claimed by the 4,000 individuals we examined at these seven 

agencies. We then applied this fraudulent claim rate to the roughly $70 

million claimed by employees participating in the transit benefits program 

at the seven agencies in the National Capital Region during 2006. 

Based on this collective audit and investigative work, we found that the 

seven agencies could have made potentially fraudulent payments totaling

more than $17 million. Given the number of agencies not covered by our 

analysis, it is likely that this amount is significantly understated and could

be millions more. In particular, the $17 million in potentially fraudulent 

claims does not include the other agencies that contract with 

Transportation for distribution or the agencies that administer their own 

transit benefits programs. Moreover, this order of magnitude only includes 

individuals who work at the headquarters offices of the aforementioned 

seven agencies and who claimed the maximum benefit per month. It does

not include individuals who work at offices other than headquarters or 

who have potentially made fraudulent claims for less than the maximum 

amount. The order of magnitude also excludes many of the other types of 

fraud and abuse we reported in our case studies, such as individuals who 

claim benefits but do not use them because they use agency parking or 

“slug” to work, or individuals who received federal transit benefits even 

though they do not work for the federal government. For more 

information on the data used to develop our calculations, see appendix I.

During the course of investigation, we communicated the results of our 

work to the IGs and/or the offices of special investigation at Commerce, 

Transportation, State, Homeland Security, Defense, Treasury, IRS, Patent 

and Trademark, and the Coast Guard. At the close of our investigation, we 

referred the individuals we identified as fraudulently selling Metrocheks 

on eBay and Craigslist to the appropriate agency IG and/or office of 

investigation for criminal and/or administrative action. We similarly 

referred the individuals who provided inaccurate and inflated commuting 

cost information on their applications, the individuals who have received

transit benefits from federal agencies even though they do not appear to 

work for the agencies, the individuals who left their agencies but did not 

return their unused benefits, and the former federal employees who 

continued to received benefits after leaving their respective agencies. In

addition, we held corrective action briefings on April 4, April 17, and April 

Corrective Actions 

Page 20 GAO-07-724T 
18, 2007, to provide the agencies with an overview of our investigation and 

our findings. 

WMATA now plans to eliminate the Metrochek program and offer only 

SmartBenefits by January 2008. Because SmartBenefits are less negotiable

than paper Metrocheks, this action may stop some federal employees from 

fraudulently selling their transit benefits. But a switch to SmartBenefits 

will not prevent the other types of fraud and abuse we identified. As 

shown by our investigation, federal employees have taken advantage of 

the lack of effective management, oversight, and control of the program. 

For example, unless commuting costs are verified, employees may still 

request and receive more benefits than they need. Moreover, as 

demonstrated by individuals we interviewed who admitted to deliberately 

falsifying their applications for benefits, federal workers can commit 

transit benefit fraud without suffering any adverse consequences. 

Agencies should take aggressive actions against employees who we 

identified as committing fraud, and look to put reasonable controls in 

place that can minimize fraud and abuse in this program. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my 

statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other 

members of the subcommittee may have at this time. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Gregory D. 

Kutz at (202) 512-6722 or kutzg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this testimony. In addition to the individual named above, Valerie 

Blyther, Shafee Carnegie, Jennifer Costello, Paul Desaulniers, Craig 

Fischer, Janice Friedeborn, Dennis Fauber, Matthew Harris, Adam Hatton, 

Jason Kelly, John Kelly, Barbara Lewis, James Madar, Andrew McIntosh, 

Richard McLean, Gertrude Moreland, Crystal Lazcano, Jennifer Leone, 

John Ryan, Viny Talwar, Walter Vance, and Tami Weerasingha. 

Conclusion 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 21 GAO-07-724T 
Appendix I: Potential Magnitude of 

Fraudulent Payments 

Page 22 GAO-07-724T 

Appendix I: Potential Magnitude of 

Fraudulent Payments 

To provide an order of magnitude of the employees fraudulently claiming 

transit benefits within the National Capital Region, we identified a 

selection of federal employees who met a specific set of criteria and 

evaluated the validity of their transit benefit application data. First, we 

narrowed our scope to seven agencies—Commerce, Treasury, IRS, 

Defense, Homeland Security, Coast Guard, and Transportation—where we 

identified employees selling their transit benefits on the Internet and for 

whom we had sufficient data.1

 We further narrowed our scope by limiting 

our analysis to federal employees working at the headquarters buildings of 

these seven agencies. We then identified a set of zip codes for each of the

seven agency headquarters buildings. Employees living within these zip 

codes could not legitimately claim the maximum allowable benefit of $105 

per month, no matter what combination of Metrobus and Metrorail they 

used to commute to their places of employment. We identified

approximately 4,000 federal employees at the seven agencies that lived 

within these zip codes, and determined that approximately 19 percent of 

them may have fraudulently claimed the maximum benefit by providing 

false statements on their applications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 

These potentially fraudulent claims represent about 25 percent of the $4

million claimed by the total selection of 4,000 employees. We then applied 

this fraudulent payment rate to the roughly $70 million spent by the seven 

agencies on the transit benefit program in the National Capital Region 

during 2006 and determined that the possible magnitude of potentially 

fraudulent transit benefit payments was more than $17 million. 

In this analysis, public transportation costs were calculated as the actual

costs incurred as a result of utilizing a combination of Metrobus and/or 

Metrorail to commute to and from a place of employment. We used peak 

fares (as opposed to nonpeak fares) for our calculations, because we 

assumed that transit benefit participants were working during normal 

business hours. We also assumed that the employees did not take any sick

or annual leave and worked at their headquarters offices five days per 

week. In other words, we assumed that the employees did not have 

alternative work schedules (i.e., they did not work four 10 hour days) and 

they did not telecommute. 

 1

 We could not include State or Patent and Trademark in our analysis for the following 

reasons: (1) State does not provide adequate data to either Transportation or the National

Finance Center databases and (2) Patent and Trademark does not use Transportation to

administer its transit benefit program.
Appendix I: Potential Magnitude of 

Fraudulent Payments 

We used information from the Department of Transportation (which is 

responsible for administering the program for the selected agencies) and

the National Finance Center to identify employees from the seven selected 

agencies whose homes of record are located within our defined area and 

who were also claiming the maximum benefit. To confirm our conclusions 

concerning these individuals, we tested a nonrepresentative selection of

our potentially fraudulent cases, identified their home address, and used 

the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s online Trip Planner 

to determine the participant’s actual daily, and then monthly, public 

transportation costs. We interviewed these participants and confirmed 

that the individuals we selected were not entitled to the maximum benefit. 

Page 23 GAO-07-724T 
Appendix II: Federal Employees Fraudulently 

Selling Metrocheks on eBay 

Page 24 GAO-07-724T 

The table below provides a complete listing of information on all the 20 

eBay sellers we identified as federal employees. Note that we did not 

interview sellers 14-20. 

Table 3: Federal Employees Fraudulently Selling Metrocheks on eBay 

Case 

Seller’s employing

agency Salary level 

Number of 

sales over the 

past 2 years

Face value of

Metrocheks sold Case details 

1 Transportation GS-14 12 $1,080 Does not always use public 

transportation 

2 Treasury GS-14 6 1,380 Does not always use public 

transportation 

3 IRSaGS-14 3 930 Receives parking benefits

4 Coat GuardbGS-12 3 900 Uses public transportation, but claims

more benefits than needed for

commute to work 

5 Transportation GS-14 6 789 Received benefits while on maternity 

leave 

6 State GS-12 10 1,500 Received benefits while on travel; does

not always use public transportation 

7 DefensecE-6 

8 DefensecGS-7 

61 6,000 Does not always use public 

transportation 

9 Commerce GS-14 11 420 Claims that Metrocheks sold on eBay 

were purchased from a third party and 

not obtained from the federal 

government; we could not validate 

these claims

10 Patent and

Trademarkd

GS-9 4 417 Received parking benefits in addition to 

transit benefits

11 Defense E-6 8 2,370 Does not always use public 

transportation 

12 Defense GS-12 12 1,090 Does not always use public 

transportation 

13 Patent and

Trademarkd

GS-7 1 400 Claims that Metrocheks sold on eBay 

were purchased from a third party and 

not obtained from the federal 

government; we could not validate 

these claims

14 Defense We did not obtain 

this information. 

2 230 We did not interview this seller 

15 State We did not obtain 

this information. 

4 120 We did not interview this seller 

16 Defense We did not obtain 

this information. 

7 825 We did not interview this seller 

Appendix II: Federal Employees Fraudulently 

Selling Metrocheks on eBay 
Appendix II: Federal Employees Fraudulently 

Selling Metrocheks on eBay 

Case 

Seller’s employing

agency Salary level 

Number of 

sales over the 

past 2 years

Face value of

Metrocheks sold Case details 

17 Labor We did not obtain 

this information. 

10 1,180 We did not interview this seller 

18 Defense We did not obtain 

this information. 

4 600 We did not interview this seller 

19 IRSaWe did not obtain 

this information. 

4 360 We did not interview this seller 

20 Defense We did not obtain 

this information. 

3 378 We did not interview this seller 

Source: GAO. 

a

IRS administers its own transit program and has different processes for management and oversight 

than Treasury as a whole. 

b

Coast Guard administers its own transit program and has different processes for management and 

oversight than Homeland Security as a whole. 

c

Cases 7 and 8 are a married couple selling their Metrocheks from the same eBay account. 

d

Patent and Trademark administers its own transit program and has different processes for

management and oversight than Commerce as a whole. 

Page 25 GAO-07-724T 
Appendix II: Federal Employees Fraudulently 

Selling Metrocheks on eBay 

Page 26 GAO-07-724T 

Appendix III: Federal Employees Providing 

Inaccurate Commuting Costs on Transit 

Benefit Applications 

Through data mining of information submitted on transit benefit 

applications, we found many employees who appeared to provide 

inaccurate and inflated commuting cost information on their transit 

benefit applications. The following table provides a complete listing of the 

23 individuals we interviewed. 

Table 4: Federal Employees Providing Inaccurate and Inflated Commuting Cost Information 

Case 

Applicant’s 

employing agency Salary level 

Excess benefits 

claimed per year Case details 

1 Commerce GS-5 $480 Refused to tell investigators what excess benefits were used for 

2 IRS GS-13 612 Used benefits for personal travel 

3 Treasury GS-8 660 Purchased transit tokens for son; sold benefits to contractors and 

friends

4 Treasury GS-14 540 Gave benefits to visiting friends

5 Transportation GS-13 444 Stored excess benefits at home 

6 Transportation GS-11 612 Used benefits for personal travel 

7 Defense Not available 660 Used benefits for personal travel and received parking benefits

8 Defense Not available 660 Used benefits to pay for transportation of her children to daycare 

9 Coast Guard GS-9 228 Gave benefits to family and friends; used benefits for personal 

travel; accumulated excess benefits during extended absences

from work 

10 Homeland Security Not available 228 Refused to tell investigators what excess benefits were used for 

11 Commerce GS-9 228 Claimed to use a more expensive route to avoid traffic; 

investigators could not confirm this explanation 

12 Commerce GS-9 660 Claimed to use a more expensive route to avoid traffic; 

investigators could not confirm this explanation 

13 Commerce GS-9 228 Refused to tell investigators what excess benefits were used for 

14 IRS GS-14 540 Used benefits to pay for parking; 

15 IRS GS-12 240 Gave benefits to wife, daughter and girlfriend

16 IRS GS-14 492 Refused to tell investigators what excess benefits were used for 

17 Treasury GS-11 492 Purchased transit tokens for daughter 

18 Treasury GS-8 540 Gave benefits to friends and relatives

19 Treasury GS-14 612 Gave benefits to husband, siblings and daughter 

20 Transportation GS-8 228 Used benefits for personal travel 

21 Transportation GS-6 324 Used benefits for personal travel 

22 Coast Guard GS-11 660 Used benefits to pay for parking 

23 Coast Guard GS-6 60 Used benefits for personal travel 

Source: GAO. 

(192219) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER