DHS ASSET 

FORFEITURE

Additional Actions 

Could Help 

Strengthen Controls 

over Equitable 

Sharing

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives

March 2014

GAO-14-318

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-318, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives

March 2014

DHS ASSET FORFEITURE

Additional Actions Could Help Strengthen Controls 

over Equitable Sharing

Why GAO Did This Study

Every year, DHS components seize 

millions of dollars in assets during 

investigations and other activities and 

contribute forfeited proceeds to the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Treasury 

manages the fund, which held about 

$1.7 billion in assets in fiscal year 

2013. DHS components use proceeds 

primarily to cover forfeiture activity 

costs, which include sharing proceeds 

with state and local agencies that 

participate in DHS investigations 

through Treasury’s equitable sharing 

program. GAO was asked to review 

the management of the fund. 

This report addresses (1) DHS 

revenues contributed to and 

obligations from the fund and (2) the 

extent to which DHS components have 

designed controls to help ensure 

compliance with Treasury’s guidance 

when implementing the equitable 

sharing program. GAO analyzed 

financial data from fiscal years 2003 

through 2013 on the forfeiture fund; 

Treasury’s equitable sharing guidance; 

and a sample of 40 DHS equitable 

sharing packages, selected based on 

payment amounts and other factors; 

Sample results are not generalizable 

but provided information on DHS’s 

compliance with guidance. GAO also 

interviewed DHS and Treasury 

officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Treasury 

ensure that the basis for DHS 

equitable sharing determinations is 

fully documented and develop 

additional guidance on qualitative 

factors used to make determinations.

Treasury concurred with both

recommendations and outlined steps it 

plans to take to address them.

What GAO Found

From fiscal years 2003 through 2013, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

components that participate in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund—U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret Service (USSS), U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)—contributed 

approximately $3.6 billion in revenues to the fund and obligated about $2.6 billion 

from the fund for forfeiture-related activities. These obligations included, among 

other things, approximately $1.2 billion that DHS components shared with state, 

local, federal, and foreign law enforcement agencies that participated in forfeiture 

efforts. Also, during this period, DHS components used about $348 million from 

the fund to support various law enforcement activities and projects, such as the 

construction of Border Patrol facilities along the southwest border. 

DHS components have designed controls to help ensure compliance with the 

Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) equitable sharing guidance, but controls 

could be enhanced though additional documentation and guidance. 

Documentation: Treasury’s guidance directs components to base equitable 

sharing determinations on the work hours that all participating agencies 

contributed to an investigation and then consider qualitative factors regarding 

agency contributions, such as originating the information that led to the seizure, 

to adjust percentages. However, 31 of the 40 DHS component equitable sharing 

packages—which contain sharing determinations and other documents—that 

GAO reviewed did not include key information, such as component work hours 

expended on a case and documentation of how qualitative factors were applied 

to make determinations, to support the basis for final sharing percentages, 

consistent with federal internal control standards. For example, in 1 package 

GAO reviewed, two police departments contributed the same number of work 

hours, but one received a 10 percent larger share than the other, resulting in a 

difference of about $48,000 in forfeiture proceeds. However, the package did not 

clearly document how qualitative factors were applied to adjust the percentages.

Fully documenting the basis for DHS equitable sharing determinations could help 

enhance the transparency of decision making and better position DHS 

components and Treasury to ensure that equitable sharing decisions are made in 

compliance with Treasury’s guidance. 

Guidance: Treasury’s guidance on qualitative factors includes three examples, 

but does not include three other factors listed on the equitable sharing application 

or provide specific information on how to apply factors to adjust sharing 

percentages. For example, incurring extraordinary expenses is listed as a factor 

on the application, but is not included as an example in the guidance. Providing 

guidance on qualitative factors that are listed on the application, including what 

they entail and how to apply them, could help participating agencies have a 

better and more consistent understanding of these factors. In addition, 

headquarters officials from the three DHS components that conduct equitable 

sharing stated that additional guidance could help ensure a more consistent 

understanding of these factors among headquarters and field offices. Developing 

additional guidance on qualitative factors could help better ensure consistency 

with which these factors are applied across cases. 

View GAO-14-318. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov
Page i GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Letter 1

Background 6

Since 2003, DHS Components Have Contributed about $3.6 

Billion in Revenues to the TFF and Obligated about $2.6 Billion 

from the Fund 9

Additional Controls Could Help Improve the Transparency and 

Consistency of Equitable Sharing Determinations 24

DHS Components and TEOAF Coordinate on Many Equitable 

Sharing Oversight Activities 39

Conclusions 41

Recommendations for Executive Action 41

Agency Comments 42

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 44

Appendix II Comments from the Department of the Treasury 50

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Table

Table 1: DHS Components Participating in the Treasury Forfeiture 

Fund (TFF) 6

Figures

Figure 1: DHS Component and Non-DHS Revenue Contributions 

to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, Fiscal Years 2003 

through 2013 10

Figure 2: DHS Component and Non-DHS Obligations from the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund, Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2013 13

Figure 3: Total Equitable Sharing Payments Made by DHS 

Components to State and Local Law Enforcement 

Agencies by State in Fiscal Year 2013 15

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Figure 4: Funds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Carried Over to 

Maintain Operations and Cover Additional Obligations, 

Fiscal Years 2003 through 2013 19

Figure 5: Funds Received from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund by 

DHS and Other Agencies for Law Enforcement Activities, 

Fiscal Years 2003 through 2013 20

Figure 6: Process for Making Equitable Sharing Determinations 27

Abbreviations

AFF Asset Forfeiture Fund

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

DHS Department of Homeland Security

HSI Homeland Security Investigations

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IRS-CI Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation

OMB Office of Management and Budget

TEOAF Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture

TFF Treasury Forfeiture Fund

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USPS U.S. Postal Service

USSS U.S. Secret Service

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

United States. The published product 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.
Page 1 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 28, 2014

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Thompson:

Protecting the public from criminal organizations and enterprises through 

the use of asset forfeiture is an essential part of the law enforcement 

process for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. At the 

federal level, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) seize millions of dollars in assets every year 

that are forfeited, liquidated, and then deposited into the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund (TFF), which over the course of fiscal year 2013 held 

approximately $1.7 billion in assets.1 Forfeited assets can include, but are 

not limited to, businesses, cash, bank accounts, automobiles, boats, 

airplanes, jewelry, art objects, and real estate.2 Any revenues generated 

from forfeitures are used to fund program-related expenses, including 

payments to victims of crimes, the costs of storing and maintaining 

forfeited assets, and certain law enforcement activities related to forfeiture 

investigations (e.g., funds to compensate informants). After funds have

been obligated for program expenses, any unobligated funds that remain 

in the TFF at the end of the fiscal year are then carried forward to the next 

fiscal year.3

 1

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992 established the TFF within Treasury to receive 

the proceeds of forfeitures. The TFF was established as a successor to what was then the 

Customs Forfeiture Fund. Pub. L. No. 102-393, § 638 (codified as amended at 31 U.S.C. 

§ 9703).

Specifically, at the end of each fiscal year, Treasury carries 

over funds to ensure it has resources to cover expenses at the start of the 

2

Once a seized asset is officially forfeited, it becomes the property of the U.S. 

government. Treasury and DHS agencies also seize illegal drugs and counterfeit items 

that have no resale value to the federal government. These items are typically held by the 

agencies until they are approved for destruction. 

3

In general, an obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the 

government for the payment of goods and services. Payment may be made immediately 

or in the future. Obligated balance refers to the amount of obligations already incurred for 

which payment has not been made. An unobligated balance is the portion of obligational 

authority that has not yet been obligated.
Page 2 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

next fiscal year. Funds determined to be in excess of those requirements 

(excess unobligated balances) may be declared as Super Surplus and, 

after Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval and 

congressional notification, can be used at Treasury’s discretion for a 

variety of law enforcement purposes.4

Within the TFF, participating Treasury and DHS agencies include 

Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) and 

DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret 

Service (USSS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).5 Investigations by these federal law 

enforcement agencies may include participation by state and local law 

enforcement agencies. As a result, through Treasury’s equitable sharing 

program, state and local law enforcement agencies can receive a portion 

of the proceeds—in the form of cash or, less frequently, personal 

property—that may result from forfeited assets in these investigations. In 

fiscal year 2013, Treasury reported that DHS components that conduct 

equitable sharing—ICE, USSS, and CBP—made over 3,000 payments to 

state and local agencies.6 These components coordinate with Treasury in 

overseeing the equitable sharing program. In September 2012, we 

reported on the extent to which TFF participating agencies were 

coordinating the administration of forfeited assets with the Department of 

Justice (Justice), which maintains its own asset forfeiture fund.7

 4

DHS appropriations acts have provided that these funds may only be obligated by DHS 

agencies after approval by the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives. For example, see Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. 

L. No. 113-76, § 530 and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74, 

§ 534.

We 

recommended that Justice and Treasury study the feasibility, costs, and 

benefits of consolidating their asset management activities. The agencies 

have taken steps to conduct a study, such as approving a project plan 

5

IRS-CI is the only Treasury agency that produces revenue and that can initiate equitable 

sharing on behalf of the TFF. Additional Treasury agencies that participate in the TFF 

include the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center, and the Tax and Trade Bureau.

6

USCG is a member of the TFF but, according to USCG officials, does not conduct 

equitable sharing because it has no forfeiture authority and therefore is not a revenue 

producer.

7

GAO, Asset Forfeiture Programs: Justice and Treasury Should Determine Costs and 

Benefits of Potential Consolidation, GAO-12-972 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012). 
Page 3 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

and assembling a working group that meets once every 2 weeks to 

discuss coordinated efforts, but this action has not been fully 

implemented. Agency officials anticipate completing the study by late 

March 2014. You asked us to assess the contribution of DHS 

components participating in the TFF, including their role in the equitable 

sharing program. This report addresses the following questions:

1. What have been DHS components’ revenues contributed to and 

obligations from the TFF from fiscal years 2003 through 2013?

2. To what extent have DHS components designed controls to help 

ensure compliance with Treasury’s guidance when implementing the 

equitable sharing program?

3. To what extent do DHS components coordinate with Treasury in 

overseeing the equitable sharing program?

To determine TFF revenues from and obligations by DHS components 

from fiscal year 2003—the year in which DHS began operations—through 

fiscal year 2013, we analyzed Treasury’s reported data on revenues and 

obligations by fiscal year, using information contained in CBP’s National 

Finance Center’s financial accounting systems.8

Regarding DHS controls over the equitable sharing program, we analyzed 

federal statutes and Treasury guidance on making equitable sharing 

determinations and documentation of DHS component controls designed 

to help ensure compliance with guidance.

We interviewed officials 

from the four DHS components that participate in the TFF, DHS’s Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Treasury Executive Office for Asset 

Forfeiture (TEOAF) to discuss trends and variations in the revenues and 

obligations over this 11-year period.

9

 8

Under a memorandum of understanding with Treasury, CBP acts as the executive agent 

for certain operations of the TFF. Pursuant to that executive agent role, CBP’s National 

Finance Center is responsible for accounting and financial reporting for the fund.

We analyzed nongeneralizable 

samples of 40 equitable sharing determination packages for forfeited 

assets of less than $1 million and 5 packages for forfeited assets of $1 

million or more to determine the extent to which the packages complied 

9

Federal statutes include 31 U.S.C. § 9703, 18 U.S.C. § 981(e) and 19 U.S.C. § 1616a(c). 

Treasury’s primary guidance on equitable sharing is its Guide to Equitable Sharing for 

Foreign Countries and Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (April 2004).
Page 4 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

with Treasury’s guidance.10 We selected these packages from payments 

made and packages approved from October 2012 through June 2013 

based on payment amounts and amounts forfeited, among other 

factors.11 We also interviewed officials from TEOAF; ICE, USSS, and 

CBP in headquarters; and selected field offices of these components in 

California, New York, and Texas to identify and assess controls designed 

to help ensure compliance with guidance. These three states received the 

highest amounts of equitable sharing payments on average from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2012.12 We selected field offices to include those that 

processed high amounts and large numbers of equitable sharing 

payments. We compared controls designed to help ensure compliance 

with Treasury’s guidance with the overall framework for establishing and 

maintaining internal control outlined in Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government.

13 In addition, we interviewed officials from three 

state or local law enforcement agencies in each of these three states, 

which we selected based on such factors as the amount and number of 

payments they received in fiscal year 2012.14

 10An equitable sharing package is to contain the documents (e.g., application and 

decision form) used to make equitable sharing determinations—the sharing percentages 

for forfeiture proceeds allocated to participating agencies. DHS components have 

decision-making authority when the appraised value of the forfeited assets is less than $1 

million, and Treasury has authority when the value is $1 million or more.

The results of our analysis 

of packages and interviews are not generalizable to the universe of 

packages and agencies, but they provided valuable information on the 

11For the 40 packages, we selected our sample of packages from payment data because 

TEOAF does not track the number of equitable sharing determination packages that are 

processed. We selected 26 ICE, 10 USSS, and 4 CBP packages from a range of each 

component’s field offices across the nation. Within our sample time period, ICE accounted 

for 1,902 payments to state and local agencies, USSS accounted for 347, and CBP 

accounted for 4. Because multiple payments can result from one equitable sharing 

package, we could not determine the number of packages processed during this time 

period. For the 5 packages for forfeited assets of $1 million or more, we selected our 

sample from a list of packages approved by TEOAF. We selected packages from those 

paid and approved from October 2012 through June 2013 to obtain the most recent data 

available given our review time frames.

12Fiscal year 2012 was the most recent full year for which payment data were available 

when we selected the states to include in our review. We used an average across 3 years 

to take into account potential variations in annual payments. 

13GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

14Fiscal year 2012 was the most recent full year for which payment data were available 

when we selected the agencies to interview. 
Page 5 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

equitable sharing determination process, designed controls, and extent to 

which the selected packages adhered to guidance.

Regarding coordination, we analyzed guidance and other documents on 

equitable sharing, including those in our samples of equitable sharing 

packages, to determine the extent of coordination between DHS 

components and TEOAF in overseeing equitable sharing. In addition, we 

interviewed officials from ICE, USSS, and CBP in headquarters; selected 

field offices of these components as discussed above; and TEOAF to 

obtain information about, among other things, the extent to which DHS 

and TEOAF coordinate on overseeing the equitable sharing program, 

including making sharing determinations and developing guidance. We 

compared DHS and TEOAF coordination mechanisms with leading 

practices on interagency collaboration.15

To assess the reliability of data for revenues and obligations, excess 

unobligated balances, and equitable sharing payments used to select our 

samples, we reviewed documentation, such as annual financial plans and 

standard operating procedures related to reporting TFF data in the fund’s 

financial accounting system, which is maintained by CBP. We also 

conducted interviews with CBP and Treasury officials to determine how 

they ensure the consistency, accuracy, and completeness of the data. We 

determined that these data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

report. See appendix I for more information on our scope and 

methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to March 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 15For example, GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 

2012). To identify mechanisms that the federal government uses to lead and implement 

interagency collaboration and issues to consider when implementing these mechanisms, 

we conducted a literature review of academic work, interviewed experts in governmental 

collaboration, and analyzed a sample of our prior work. We reported that these 

mechanisms can be used to address such purposes as oversight, program 

implementation, and information sharing and communication.
Page 6 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

The TFF is a multidepartmental fund and has four primary goals: to (1) 

deprive criminals of assets used in or acquired through illegal activities; 

(2) encourage joint operations among federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies, as well as foreign countries; (3) protect the rights 

of individuals; and (4) strengthen law enforcement. TEOAF is responsible 

for providing management oversight of the TFF, which is the receipt

account for the deposit of nontax forfeitures made by Treasury and DHS 

participating agencies. DHS components that participate in the TFF 

contribute revenues through forfeitures made as a result of their 

investigations and operations. They also receive payments and 

reimbursements from the fund for expenses incurred during the seizure 

and forfeiture process, such as investigative or transportation costs. Table 

1 shows DHS component activities that contribute to the TFF.

Table 1: DHS Components Participating in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF)

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

component participating in the TFF Description

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) directorate is a seizing agency that 

investigates immigration crimes; human-rights violations and human smuggling; 

smuggling of narcotics, weapons and other types of contraband; financial crimes; 

cybercrime; and commercial trade fraud enforcement issues. 

U.S. Secret Service (USSS) USSS is a seizing agency that has primary investigative authority for counterfeiting, 

access device fraud, and cybercrimes.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

a 

CBP is a seizing agency that enforces immigration and customs laws along the 

nation’s borders, while facilitating the flow of legitimate travel and commerce. CBP 

seizes assets primarily as a result of conducting border patrols and processing 

passengers and cargo. Within CBP, the U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol) and Office 

of Field Operations are revenue producers. 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) USCG is the lead federal agency for maritime drug interdiction and shares lead 

responsibility for air interdiction with CBP.b

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents.

a

An access device is any card, plate, code, account number, or other means of account access that 

can be used to obtain money, goods, or services.

b

USCG is a member of the TFF, but does not conduct equitable sharing because, according to USCG 

officials, the component has no forfeiture authority, and is therefore not a revenue producer. If USCG 

participates in a seizure, it passes all items seized to a DHS component with forfeiture authority.

The asset forfeiture process involves a number of steps, including 

planning the seizure; seizing and taking custody of the asset; notifying 

interested parties; and addressing any claims and petitions, to include 

Background

Treasury Forfeiture Fund

Asset Forfeiture Process
Page 7 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

those from third parties.16 Within the asset forfeiture process, there are 

two types of forfeiture: administrative and judicial. In administrative 

forfeitures, a federal agency is permitted to commence forfeiture 

proceedings on seized assets without judicial involvement.17 In judicial 

forfeitures, both civil and criminal, assets may be forfeited to the United 

States by filing a forfeiture action in a federal court.18 In civil forfeitures, 

the action is against the assets and thus does not require that the owner 

of the assets be charged with a federal offense. The federal government 

must only prove a connection between the assets and the crime. In 

contrast, criminal forfeiture requires a conviction of the defendant before 

assets can be forfeited. According to TEOAF officials, it can take from 

many months to several years to complete the forfeiture process, 

depending on a variety of factors, including, among other things, the 

types of assets seized; number of parties involved; and, if applicable, the 

litigation process, with judicial forfeitures generally taking more time.

DHS components that have forfeiture authority and are therefore revenue 

producers—ICE, USSS, and CBP—can conduct equitable sharing on 

behalf of the TFF with federal, state and local, and other law enforcement 

entities.19

 16When assets are seized for forfeiture, there may be several individuals or entities that 

have claims to the assets, including the individual from whom they were seized and thirdparty claimants such as lien holders. The term “claimant” is defined as a person who has 

filed a claim in an administrative forfeiture action requesting judicial determination of the 

forfeiture.

State and local law enforcement agencies typically qualify for 

equitable sharing by participating directly with DHS components in joint 

17Federal law authorizes the seizing or adopting federal agency to administratively forfeit 

monetary instruments (e.g., cash, checks, or other bearer instruments) with unlimited 

value, hauling conveyances (e.g., vehicles, vessels and aircraft used to transport illegal 

drugs) also with unlimited value, and other assets (e.g., bank accounts, jewelry, etc.) with 

a value of $500,000 or less. A state or local law enforcement agency or foreign country

that has seized property may request that one of the Treasury investigative agencies 

adopt the seizure, therefore becoming the adopting federal agency, and proceed with 

federal forfeiture.

18Judicial forfeiture is required for any assets other than monetary instruments and hauling 

conveyances if the value of the other assets exceeds $500,000; a claim and, if required, a 

cost bond has been filed; or the property is real estate. 

19A shared services agreement between ICE and CBP provides for CBP facilitating the 

seizure and forfeiture process for ICE because ICE does not have the infrastructure in 

place to unilaterally effect seizures.

Equitable Sharing
Page 8 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

investigations leading to the seizure and forfeiture of assets. Although 

such qualification is less common, state and local agencies can also 

qualify for equitable sharing by requesting that DHS components adopt a 

case initiated at the state or local level, provided that the assets in 

question are forfeitable under federal law.20

As the management component of the TFF, TEOAF provides guidance 

on the equitable sharing program, including setting forth policies, 

procedures, and oversight of the program. Treasury’s most recent 

guidance, which it issued in 2004, governs how state and local law 

enforcement agencies should apply for equitable sharing and how DHS 

components should make equitable sharing determinations. Treasury 

also established guidance on decision-making authority for equitable 

sharing. Specifically, the lead federal agency—in this case, the DHS 

component—is responsible for making equitable sharing determinations 

when forfeited assets are less than $1 million, which are designated as 

low-value determinations.

According to TEOAF officials, 

the equitable sharing of forfeiture proceeds from seizures has proved 

invaluable in fostering enhanced cooperation among federal, state and 

local, and other law enforcement entities.

21 The Director of TEOAF is responsible for 

making determinations when forfeited assets are $1 million or more, 

which are designated as high-value determinations. DHS components are 

responsible for managing equitable sharing in joint investigations with 

state and local law enforcement agencies and for following the equitable 

sharing guidance, such as ensuring that sharing in joint investigations 

reflects the degree of direct participation of the agency in the law 

enforcement effort resulting in the forfeiture.

 20Adoptive seizures are those seizures where 100 percent of the preseizure activity and 

related investigation is performed by the state or local seizing agency before a request is 

made for a Treasury adoption. There must be a state violation and a federal basis for 

forfeiture in order for the seizure to be adopted. Joint operations or task force cases are 

not adoptive seizures.

21There are exceptions for cases involving foreign sharing or the transferring of real 

property, which require approval from the Director of TEOAF.
Page 9 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

From fiscal years 2003 through 2013, Treasury reported that DHS 

components contributed about $3.6 billion to the TFF and obligated about 

$2.6 billion for costs associated with forfeiture activities. At the end of 

each fiscal year, a balance of funds remains in the TFF to maintain 

operations at the start of the next fiscal year, and, as available, to fund 

additional expenditures including funding law enforcement activities by 

TFF members.22 For example, Treasury reported that from fiscal years

2003 through 2013, about $348 million of the fund’s remaining balances 

have been used to fund law enforcement activities and projects by DHS 

components.

Treasury reported that from fiscal years 2003 through 2013, DHS 

components contributed approximately $3.6 billion to the TFF’s 

approximately $7 billion in total revenues, or 52 percent of total 

revenues.23 Over this period, the DHS components’ contribution to the 

TFF fluctuated annually, but generally remained above 50 percent or 

more of total TFF revenues per year. Among DHS components—ICE, 

USSS, and CBP—contributing to the TFF, ICE contributed the majority of 

revenue.24 In fiscal year 2013, DHS components contributed 

approximately $1.1 billion in revenues, of which ICE contributed 

approximately $1 billion (91 percent) and USSS contributed $52 million 

and CBP contributed $51 million (approximately 4.5 percent each), as 

shown in figure 1.

 22The operational expenses include, among other things, expenses and contracts 

associated with storing and maintaining seized and forfeited assets.

23Within the TFF, the only non-DHS member agency with seizure and forfeiture authority 

is Treasury’s IRS-CI.

24USCG is a participating agency of the TFF, but according to USCG officials, does not 

have forfeiture authority in order to contribute revenue to the fund. 

Since 2003, DHS 

Components Have 

Contributed about 

$3.6 Billion in 

Revenues to the TFF 

and Obligated about 

$2.6 Billion from the 

Fund

DHS Components 

Contributed about $3.6 

Billion in Revenues to the 

TFF since 2003, 

Accounting for More than 

Half of All Revenues to the 

Fund
Page 10 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Figure 1: DHS Component and Non-DHS Revenue Contributions to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2013

Note: This figure reports Treasury’s and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) data rounded 

to the millions of dollars and not adjusted for inflation. Prior to fiscal year 2007, Treasury Executive 

Office for Asset Forfeiture and DHS officials did not maintain revenue data separated between ICE 

and CBP. After DHS began operations in 2003, the revenue data were broken out into ICE and CBP, 

but revenue streams were not differentiated until 2007. Therefore, revenue data are described as 

Customs prior to 2007 and comprise the combined revenue contributions of both ICE and CBP.

According to TEOAF and DHS officials, a number of factors affect the 

total revenues that components contribute to the TFF. The officials noted 

that a higher revenue total in 1 year compared with another does not 

necessarily mean that more investigations took place or that more assets 

were seized in that year. For example, a USSS investigation in fiscal year 

2011 may result in millions of dollars in seized assets; however, if the 

forfeiture process associated with these seized assets was not completed 

until fiscal year 2013, then USSS’s contribution of revenues into the TFF 

are not apparent until fiscal year 2013, even though all assets were 

seized in fiscal year 2011.
Page 11 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

For fiscal years 2003 through 2012, Treasury reported that DHS 

component revenue contributed to the TFF ranged from $156 million to 

$340 million. However, as noted earlier, in fiscal year 2013, DHS 

components’ contributions surpassed a billion dollars to $1.1 billion, their 

highest during this 11-year period. According to TEOAF officials, this 

growth in revenue was due in part to an increase in the prosecution of 

multimillion-dollar bank fraud and financial crime cases, which led to 

substantial onetime forfeiture revenue from these cases. In fiscal year 

2013, TEOAF reported a total of nine multimillion-dollar revenue 

contributions that involved forfeitures greater than $6 million each. DHS 

components—ICE and USSS—led investigations related to two of these 

nine contributions, which accounted for approximately $892 million (68 

percent) of these multimillion-dollar contributions in fiscal year 2013. For 

example, ICE’s HSI led an anti-money-laundering case that resulted in 

forfeiture of $881 million in fiscal year 2013—the largest deposit into the 

TFF in its history.25 The case involved the failure of HSBC Bank USA 

N.A., a federally chartered banking corporation, to implement anti-moneylaundering controls. This resulted in narcotics traffickers and others 

laundering hundreds of millions of dollars through HSBC subsidiaries, and 

facilitating hundreds of millions more in transactions with sanctioned 

countries including Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Burma.26

According to TEOAF officials, the share of forfeiture revenue DHS 

components contribute to the TFF varies depending on the types of 

investigations that each agency may pursue in accordance with its 

mission.27

 25This investigation was led by HSI’s El Dorado Task Force, a joint task force composed 

of 55 law enforcement agencies in New York and New Jersey.

Since fiscal year 2007, forfeiture revenue from ICE has 

26Sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective, using the blocking of assets and 

trade restrictions to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals. Treasury 

administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and 

national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, 

international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy, or 

economy of the United States. 

27ICE investigates a range of crimes from drug trafficking to money laundering, whereas 

Border Patrol has a border security mission and most of the items its agents seize are 

prohibited (e.g., narcotics and weapons) and are destroyed, a fact that results in lower 

forfeiture revenue contributions. Moreover, USSS conducts a number of types of fraudrelated investigations, which result in more payments to victims.
Page 12 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

consistently been approximately 50 percent or more of total forfeiture 

revenues by DHS components to the TFF.28

Across all fiscal years, and across all DHS components, currency from 

forfeitures constituted 65 to 96 percent of the DHS revenue sources in the 

TFF. Currency encompasses financial instruments such as cash, money 

orders, or amounts from bank accounts. According to TEOAF officials, as 

a result of an increase in the prosecution of fraud and financial crimes, 

the primary source of revenues contributed into the TFF is likely to 

continue to be currency. For example, since fiscal year 2008, currency 

has constituted 81 percent or more of DHS component revenues.29 In 

fiscal year 2013, revenues from currency (96 percent) and the sale of 

forfeited property—including automobiles, boats, airplanes, jewelry, and 

real estate, among others (3 percent)—together accounted for 99 percent 

of DHS component revenues.30

 28Prior to fiscal year 2007, TEOAF and DHS officials did not maintain revenue data 

separated between CBP and ICE. 

29In fiscal years 2003 and 2008 through 2012, other revenue—which includes revenue 

from sources other than currency, sales proceeds, and real property—was the secondhighest source of revenues. For example, border mitigation may result in “other” revenue. 

If a car crosses the border and assets are seized, then these assets can be turned over to 

the Border Patrol agent in lieu of a fine or penalty. In fiscal years 2004 through 2006, the 

proceeds of sales emerged as the second-highest source of revenue. Subsequently, in 

fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the sale of forfeited property was the second-highest 

source of revenue. In fiscal year 2012, the proceeds of sales was the second-highest 

source of revenue, while in fiscal year 2013, it was the sale of forfeited property.

30Another source of DHS component revenue contributed into the TFF includes transfers 

from Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) or the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) forfeitures. 

These transfers, or equitable shares, include DHS components’ share of forfeited assets 

resulting from investigations initiated by a Justice law enforcement agency or USPS, and 

are collected under the Secretary’s Enforcement Fund. This fund’s revenue is available for 

federal law enforcement purposes of any law enforcement organization participating in the 

TFF. Over this 11-year period, this source of revenue from DHS components to the TFF 

has not exceeded more than 5 percent of total revenues. Similarly, total transfers from the 

AFF or USPS to all members of the TFF have been between 4 to 14 percent of total 

revenues. One exception is in fiscal year 2012, when transfers to the TFF totaled 21 

percent of total revenues because of IRS-CI’s share of forfeited assets resulting from two 

multimillion-dollar investigations initiated by a Justice component.
Page 13 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Treasury reported that from fiscal years 2003 through 2013, DHS 

component obligations from the TFF totaled approximately $2.6 billion, or 

54 percent, of the TFF’s total obligations of approximately $4.8 billion. As 

revenues have fluctuated annually there generally has been a concurrent 

increase or decrease in obligations in support of asset forfeiture activities. 

In fiscal year 2013, DHS component obligations were the highest during 

this 11-year period, at $476 million, coinciding with an increase in 

revenues that year. Prior to 2013, obligations by DHS components 

generally ranged from $123 million to $287 million. As with revenues, ICE 

is responsible for the majority of obligations among DHS components 

contributing to the TFF. Figure 2 shows the obligations by each DHS 

component, as well as by non-DHS members of the fund, from fiscal 

years 2003 through 2013.

Figure 2: DHS Component and Non-DHS Obligations from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2013

Note: This figure reports Treasury’s and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) data rounded 

to the millions of dollars and not adjusted for inflation. In fiscal year 2013, approximately $348 million,

DHS Components Have 

Obligated about $2.6 

Billion from the TFF since 

2003; Equitable Sharing 

Payments Were the 

Largest Obligation
Page 14 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

or 88 percent, of ICE’s total $398 million in obligations was for equitable sharing payments. In 

addition, USCG had obligations in fiscal years 2008 and 2011, but they were under $500,000 and did 

not round up to $1 million.

According to TEOAF officials, the TFF in its capacity as a 

multidepartmental fund collects and uses revenues from forfeitures to 

focus resources to enhance support of more law enforcement efforts, 

including the quality of investigations. Accordingly, revenues resulting 

from forfeitures are used to obligate funds for the forfeiture program’s 

expenses in four major categories—equitable sharing payments, 

remission and mitigation payments, seizure investigative costs and asset 

management expenses, and other expenses.

Equitable sharing payments: Treasury reported that from fiscal years 

2003 through 2013, equitable sharing payments constituted the largest 

TFF obligation by DHS components. During this period, DHS components 

shared approximately $1.2 billion, or 45 percent of total DHS obligations, 

with a range of state and local law enforcement agencies across the 

country—as well as other federal agencies and foreign entities—that 

participated in law enforcement efforts resulting in forfeitures. Specifically, 

from fiscal years 2003 through 2012, DHS components’ obligations for 

equitable sharing payments ranged from $48 million to $136 million per 

year. However, in fiscal year 2013, DHS components shared 

approximately $355 million, the highest amount of obligations for 

equitable sharing payments by DHS components during this 11-year 

period. Among the three DHS components making equitable sharing 

payments, ICE made up over 90 percent of total DHS obligations for 

equitable sharing payments.31

 31For example, in fiscal year 2013, ICE’s $348 million equitable sharing obligations as a 

percentage of DHS’s total equitable sharing was 98 percent compared with 2 percent by 

USSS (and less than 0.01 percent by CBP).

State and local agencies accounted for the 

majority of sharing recipients, and accounted for an average of 96 percent 

of total obligations for equitable sharing payments from fiscal years 2010 

through 2012. According to officials at all nine state and local law 

enforcement agencies we met with, the equitable sharing program has 

improved the relationship between federal agencies and their offices. 

Moreover, officials stated that under the current fiscal constraints, these 

funds are needed by their agencies and have allowed them to purchase 

equipment such as bulletproof vests, weapons, mobile computers, and 

police station security cameras. See figure 3 for equitable sharing 
Page 15 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

payments made by DHS components to state and local law enforcement 

agencies within each state in fiscal year 2013.

Figure 3: Total Equitable Sharing Payments Made by DHS Components to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies by 

State in Fiscal Year 2013

Note: Aside from Guam and Puerto Rico, no other U.S. territory received equitable sharing payments 

in fiscal year 2013. While Treasury reported that it obligated $355 million in fiscal year 2013 for the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components to make equitable sharing payments to state 

and local law enforcement agencies, the Treasury Forfeiture Fund’s actual payments for this category

in fiscal year 2013 totaled over $53 million. This difference represents funds that had been obligated 

but not yet spent. According to Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture officials, there may be a 

lag between the funds obligated in a fiscal year and the actual payments, and, therefore, it is not 

uncommon for the total obligations to be higher than the payments in a given fiscal year.
Page 16 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Payments for remission and mitigation: According to TEOAF officials, 

a priority of all TFF members is to return assets to victims of crime, and 

accordingly, remission and mitigation payments are another major cost 

category across all DHS components.32

Seizure investigative costs and asset management expenses: In 

addition to carrying out equitable sharing and making payments to 

victims, DHS components use funds to pay for the costs associated with 

the seizure of assets. Treasury reported that over this 11-year period, 

total obligations for seizure investigative costs and asset management 

expenses were $450 million, or approximately 18 percent of total DHS 

obligations. These costs included investigative and asset management 

expenses (e.g., salaries for positions supporting the asset forfeiture 

program, travel for oversight activities, overtime worked by specialists 

involved in securing seized merchandise, and equipment and supplies). 

No funds are shared with state 

and local law enforcement partners until remission and mitigation 

payments have been made to address compensating victims or other 

third parties for their financial losses. Treasury reported that from fiscal 

years 2003 through 2013, total obligations for DHS remissions and 

mitigation payments were approximately $477 million, or about 19 percent 

of total DHS obligations, and varied from 2 to 45 percent of DHS 

obligations each year. For example, in fiscal year 2008, DHS components 

made $128 million in obligations for remission and mitigation payments, 

or 45 percent of total obligations. In contrast, in fiscal year 2013, DHS 

components made $30 million in obligations for remission and mitigation 

payments, accounting for 6 percent of total obligations. Moreover, among 

DHS components, USSS made up between 60 and 90 percent of total 

DHS obligations for remission and mitigation payments from fiscal years 

2010 through 2013. TEOAF officials attribute the variation in total 

obligations for remission and mitigation payments each year to the 

different types of investigations that lead to forfeiture from 1 year to the 

next. According to these officials, higher remission and mitigation 

payments in a fiscal year may be in part due to high-impact forfeitures 

resulting from fraud investigations with significant numbers of victims.

 32Remission occurs when forfeited assets are returned to the victims of a crime underlying 

a forfeiture. According to TEOAF officials, operationally at TEOAF, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 

9703, payments for remission and mitigation are a type of payment “refund.” Other 

refunds include those made pursuant to a court order, a petition for remission or 

mitigation, or a restoration request—with particular emphasis on the return of funds to 

victims of crimes.
Page 17 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

For example, one of CBP’s primary responsibilities is to secure the border 

at and between points of entry. Accordingly, CBP is generally responding 

to reports and seizures of illegal narcotics and other contraband 

smuggling, including firearms and ammunition. These seizures result in 

additional costs, including the storage of assets and disposal or 

destruction expenses.33

Other expenses: All DHS components have a variety of other program 

operations expenses, including compensation to informants and 

reimbursement for the cost of training. Treasury reported that from fiscal 

years 2003 through 2013, DHS components had a total of $483 million in 

other expenses, or approximately 19 percent of total DHS component 

obligations, in other program operations expenses. These other expenses 

include a total of seven expense categories, such as asset-related 

contract services, funds to compensate the services of experts and 

consultants, reimbursement to state and local law enforcement agencies 

for overtime costs incurred during joint special operations, and training.

At the end of each fiscal year, the TFF maintains a balance from revenue 

contributions into the fund that exceeds obligations incurred throughout 

the year. TFF balances at the end of each fiscal year have progressively 

increased since fiscal year 2003. Treasury reported that TFF balances 

totaled $75 million in fiscal year 2003 and $888 million in fiscal year 2013. 

TEOAF carries over funds at the end of each fiscal year to maintain 

operations including the anticipated costs associated with continuing 

forfeiture activities at the start of the next fiscal year, before revenue from 

forfeitures starts coming in.34

 33Because of the type of assets seized by CBP’s Border Patrol, the component’s equitable 

sharing and payments for remission and mitigation are often much lower than those of

USSS and ICE.

TEOAF reported that from fiscal years 2003 

through 2008, it had carried over between $50 million to $70 million at the 

end of each fiscal year to maintain operations at the start of the next year. 

Since the end of fiscal year 2009, Treasury reported that a set amount of 

34The operational expenses include expenses and contracts associated with storing and 

maintaining seized and forfeited assets.

The TFF Contained 

Balances of $888 Million in 

2013; Excess Balances 

Have Supported DHS Law 

Enforcement Activities and 

Covered Rescissions, 

among Other Things
Page 18 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

$100 million has been carried over to fund operations at the start of the 

next fiscal year.35

TEOAF uses balances in excess of this amount—excess unobligated 

balances—to cover additional obligations.36 These additional obligations 

include funding for law enforcement activities by TFF members, 

rescissions, and other uses.37

 35According to TEOAF officials, during any given fiscal year, TFF monies are generally 

reserved obligations related to the forfeiture process such as equitable sharing or 

payments for remission and mitigation. TEOAF officials stated that as a practice, they do 

not reserve balances to cover expected or future obligations. For example, TFF balances 

are not set aside to cover anticipated equitable sharing or remission and mitigation 

payments that are not yet in the final stages of the forfeiture process.

According to TEOAF officials, the balances 

available to cover these obligations vary each year, as they are 

determined by a variety of factors including the enacted budgets, 

negotiations with Congress, and ultimately the enacted rescissions. 

Figure 4 shows the carryover funds retained in the TFF at the end of each 

fiscal year to maintain operations, as well as the amounts set aside for 

additional obligations.

36TEOAF officials referred to these balances as Super Surplus, which represents the 

remaining unobligated balance at the close of the fiscal year after an amount is reserved 

to fund operations in the next fiscal year. Super Surplus can be used for any federal law

enforcement purpose. For the purposes of this review, we refer to Super Surplus funds as 

excess unobligated balances. 31 U.S.C. § 9703(g)(4)(B).

37Rescissions are legislative actions to reduce an agency’s discretionary budget. Other 

uses include items such as victim payments and other mandatory costs. 
Page 19 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Figure 4: Funds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Carried Over to Maintain Operations and Cover Additional Obligations, 

Fiscal Years 2003 through 2013

Note: This figure reports Treasury’s and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) data rounded 

to the millions of dollars and not adjusted for inflation. One exception to the increase in carryover of 

funds over this 11-year period is fiscal year 2012, when balances at the end of the fiscal year were 

smaller than in previous years. According to Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture officials, 

the rescission enacted for this fiscal year was greater than anticipated and ultimately reduced the 

total balances available at the end of the fiscal year.

Treasury reported that from fiscal years 2003 through 2013, about $348 

million of the excess unobligated balances has been obligated to fund 

DHS component law enforcement activities and projects. Figure 5 shows 

the funds received from fiscal years 2003 through 2013 by DHS 

components—ICE, USSS, CBP, and USCG—as well as the total funds 

received by other agencies—such as Treasury’s Financial Crimes and 

Enforcement Network—for law enforcement activities.

Balances to Support Law 

Enforcement Activities
Page 20 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Figure 5: Funds Received from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund by DHS and Other Agencies for Law Enforcement Activities, 

Fiscal Years 2003 through 2013

Note: This figure reports Treasury’s and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) data rounded 

to the millions of dollars and not adjusted for inflation.

DHS, per Treasury’s reported data, has submitted and received approval 

from Treasury to fund a variety of projects across all four DHS 

components that participate in the TFF.38

 38Traditionally, ICE, USSS, CBP, USCG, and in certain years, the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center have submitted annual funding proposals for the use of 

excess unobligated balances. However, other federal agencies may submit requests for 

the use of funds for law enforcement purposes. For example, in past years, DHS has 

received approval to fund training programs for southwest border operations at the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and to allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives to participate in the El Paso Intelligence Center, which is a joint 

effort among federal, state, and local agencies including DHS’s CBP and ICE. The El 

Paso Intelligence Center is a regional intelligence center created to collect and 

disseminate information relating to, among other things, drug, alien, and weapon 

smuggling. 

For example,
Page 21 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

• CBP received $29.6 million in fiscal year 2010, of which $15 million 

was obligated to support the construction of Border Patrol facilities in 

southwest border locations and the purchase of equipment for these 

facilities; $6.8 million was used for the purchase and installation of 

Non-Intrusive Inspection equipment; and, the remainder was spread 

out for smaller purchases such as field and intelligence equipment.39

• ICE received $21.3 million in fiscal year 2011 for a range of activities, 

including $6 million to defray the costs of Title III court-ordered 

intercepts, which support investigations related to the southwest 

border, among other things; $2 million to cover costs of investigative 

activities with ICE’s HSI, such as translation, transcription, and 

duplication services; $2 million to support Border Enforcement 

Security Taskforces; and $2.5 million to purchase a system to conduct 

multiple undercover operations online, simultaneously. The remainder 

was spread among other projects and needs such as replacement of 

an undercover operations database.40

• USSS received about $27 million in fiscal year 2012, and obligated 

$11 million for the purchase of equipment and tools to enhance 

USSS’s protection capabilities, including metal detector equipment 

and X-ray equipment replacement, and $6 million to acquire desktop 

and laptop computers to replace the aging inventory of computers for 

USSS task forces. The remainder was spread among other projects 

and needs such as investigative software.

• USCG received $1.5 million in fiscal year 2013 to fund the upgrade 

and purchase of fingerprint biometric kits for patrol boats, cutters, and 

the Deployable Operations Group, allowing USCG to run fingerprints 

against other federal law enforcement databases. 41

 39CBP’s Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems Program supports the detection and prevention 

of contraband—including weapons of mass effect, illicit radioactive materials, illicit drugs 

and currency, and other illegal contraband—from entering or furthering their entry into the 

United States. The goal of the program is to match the technology and equipment with the 

conditions and requirements at each domestic port of entry and U.S. facilities that process 

international mail, based upon an analysis of the conditions at each location. 

40The federal electronic surveillance statutes (commonly referred to collectively as “Title 

III”) are codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq. According to ICE, since its inception in 2003, 

ICE has used Title III non-consensual telecommunication intercepts (wiretaps) as an 

investigative tool in criminal investigations. 

41USCG’s Deployable Operations Group was established in July 2007 to align all of the 

service’s deployable specialized forces under a single unified command.
Page 22 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Overall, the total funds received by DHS components for law enforcement 

activities varied from year to year.42

Since 2009, TEOAF has retained excess unobligated balances to cover 

yearly proposed rescissions. In fiscal year 2009—the first year a TFF 

rescission was proposed and enacted—$30 million was rescinded from 

the TFF, which since increased to a $950 million rescission in 2013. The 

effect of these rescissions has been a reduction in TEOAF’s budgetary 

resources, thereby decreasing the amount of money TEOAF has 

available to obligate for allowable purposes. A rescission could potentially 

decrease the size of the federal deficit, provided the decreased spending 

from the rescission is not offset by increased spending elsewhere. For 

annual appropriations, rescinded funds are generally taken from an 

agency and returned to the Treasury before they are obligated.

According to TEOAF officials, 

because of the current fiscally constrained environment, the TFF excess 

unobligated balances available each year are important, as they help to 

fund innovative initiatives such as the purchase of equipment, training, 

and other programs that the fund’s members may otherwise not be able 

to fund. Additionally, the Deputy Assistant Director of DHS’s Budget 

Division, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, stated that DHS encourages 

components to request these funds, particularly to support innovative 

activities that develop new capabilities or provide proof of concept for new 

technologies or processes.

43

However, per OMB guidance, from fiscal years 2009 through 2013, 

rescinded funds from the TFF were not returned to the Treasury.44

 42In fiscal year 2003, the CBP and ICE data on excess unobligated balances were 

maintained by U.S. Customs. ICE received between $6 million and $17 million, or 

approximately 50 percent or more, of the funds from 2004 through 2009. However, since 

fiscal year 2010, CBP has received the most funds, between $13 million and $32 million, 

or 41 to 48 percent of funds, except in fiscal year 2012, when USSS received $27 million 

(approximately 46 percent) and CBP received $24 million, or 42 percent of the total DHS 

funds available for law enforcement activities. On average, USCG received 6 percent of 

the total DHS funds across this 11-year period. Moreover, since 2010, ICE has received 

10 to 42 percent of total funds received by DHS components.

As a 

43Rescinded funds are generally permanent and deposited into the General Fund of the 

Treasury, which is not the same fund as the TFF. 

44OMB guidance provides that rescissions and cancellations of amounts appropriated 

from special and trust fund receipts, as well as spending authority from offsetting 

collections, are usually temporary reductions. An exception is when the legislation makes 

clear that the amounts are permanently canceled or rescinded, in which case the amounts 

are returned to the General Fund of the Treasury. OMB Circular No. A-11, Section 20 & 

App. F (2011).

Balances to Cover Rescissions
Page 23 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

result, TEOAF treated the funds as unavailable for obligation for the 

remainder of the fiscal year for which the rescission was enacted. With 

the enactment of a new rescission for the subsequent fiscal year, TEOAF 

continued to treat the rescinded funds as unavailable for obligation and 

applied the amounts to the rescission in the next fiscal year. For example, 

the $30 million that was rescinded from the TFF in fiscal year 2009 was 

treated as unavailable for obligation in fiscal year 2009, and was then 

obligated again to cover part of the enacted $90 million rescission in fiscal 

year 2010. To make up the difference needed to meet the $90 million 

rescission in fiscal year 2010, TEOAF used excess unobligated balances 

in the amount of $60 million. According to TEOAF officials, one effect of 

these rescissions is that a larger portion of the balances available for 

additional obligations is being reserved to cover rescissions and is 

unavailable to fund other obligations such as law enforcement activities.

In fiscal year 2014, Congress passed two rescissions of TFF funds 

totaling approximately $1.7 billion. First, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 

2013 permanently canceled $867 million of the TFF’s unobligated 

balances and TEOAF returned the total to the General Fund of the 

Treasury.45 Accordingly, unlike in previous years, these funds will not be 

available for any purpose, including applying to any subsequent 

rescission. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 

rescinded $836 million of the TFF’s unobligated balances.46 As in 

previous fiscal years, TEOAF did not return these rescinded funds from 

the TFF to the Treasury, and they are unavailable for obligation in fiscal 

year 2014. According to TEOAF officials, the TFF received revenues from 

several large forfeiture cases in the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 that 

helped enable the fund to operate with these rescissions under its current 

financial plan.

 45Pub. L. No. 113-67, § 704.

46Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. E, tit. I, div. F, tit. V, § 574.
Page 24 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

DHS components have designed controls to help ensure compliance with 

Treasury’s equitable sharing guidance, such as designing multiple levels 

of review for equitable sharing determinations. However, added 

controls—specifically, full documentation of the basis for determinations 

and additional guidance on the factors to consider when making 

determinations—could further enhance transparency and consistency 

across determinations, among other things. DHS components have taken 

steps to help ensure the equitable sharing process complies with required 

time frames.

DHS components that conduct equitable sharing—ICE, USSS, and 

CBP—have designed controls to help ensure compliance with Treasury’s 

guidance.47 The guidance requires that sharing in joint investigations 

reflect the degree of direct participation of the agency in the law 

enforcement effort resulting in the forfeiture, in accordance with federal 

law.48 Specifically, it directs responsible officials to base equitable sharing 

determinations on the work hours that all participating agencies expended 

on the investigation and then, if applicable, consider qualitative factors 

regarding additional contributions that agencies may have made, such as 

providing unique and indispensable assistance, to adjust percentages.

 47Within ICE and CBP, the HSI directorate and Border Patrol, respectively, conduct 

equitable sharing. USSS officials stated that USSS conducts equitable sharing in cases 

under its investigations mission. USCG does not conduct equitable sharing because, 

according to USCG officials, it does not have forfeiture authority. DHS officials stated that 

DHS is not involved in conducting or overseeing equitable sharing at the department level.

48Section 9703 of title 31 of the U.S. Code requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 

assure that any equitable sharing payment made to a state or local law enforcement 

agency and any property transferred to a state or local law enforcement agency has a 

value that bears a reasonable relationship to the degree of participation of the state or 

local agency in the law enforcement effort resulting in the forfeiture, taking into account 

the total value of all property forfeited and the total law enforcement effort with respect to 

the violation of law on which the forfeiture is based. See also 18 U.S.C. § 981(e) and 19 

U.S.C. § 1616a(c).

Additional Controls 

Could Help Improve 

the Transparency and 

Consistency of 

Equitable Sharing 

Determinations

DHS Components Have 

Designed Controls to Help 

Ensure Compliance with 

Treasury’s Equitable 

Sharing Guidance
Page 25 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Equitable Sharing Determination Example

HSI initiated a task force investigation of a suspected money-laundering organization, 

which was identified as being involved in the laundering and transportation of narcotics 

proceeds from the United States into Colombia. As a result, the organization was found 

guilty of conspiracy to defraud the government and directed to forfeit $1,000,000. Three 

police departments and two county sheriffs’ offices participated in the task force and 

provided assistance in executing the search warrant, conducting interviews, and 

cataloguing evidence, among other support. Agencies received a share of the forfeiture 

proceeds based on the percentage of work hours that they contributed to the 

investigation. TEOAF increased one agency’s share because it provided a Special 

Assistant United States Attorney to handle the forfeiture, which was considered unique 

and indispensable assistance. The attorney had expertise in asset forfeiture cases, 

negotiated the terms of the forfeiture payments to help ensure recovery of the entire 

forfeited amount, and provided a range of other legal support.

Source: GAO analysis of HSI equitable sharing package.

DHS components have designed controls to help ensure that equitable 

sharing packages contain required information and are reviewed and 

approved by appropriate component authorities to help ensure 

compliance with Treasury’s guidance. According to the guidance, state 

and local law enforcement agencies are to submit an application for 

equitable sharing in which they outline the asset that was seized, the 

number of work hours they expended on the investigation, and other 

contributions.49

Moreover, all three DHS components have designed multiple levels of 

review for equitable sharing packages. First, component field office 

officials—including the agents leading the investigation, asset forfeiture 

specialists, and supervisory agents or sector chiefs, among others—are 

to review equitable sharing applications and provide recommended 

sharing percentages on the equitable sharing decision form. HSI officials 

One control to help ensure DHS components comply with 

guidance is the requirement to prepare and submit an equitable sharing 

decision form when making determinations. The decision form is to 

include estimated work hours, recommended and approved sharing 

percentages, and a narrative section for providing an overview of the 

case and describing specific agency contributions. Another control 

involves required signatures on the form documenting submission by field 

office officials and approval by component headquarters officials.

 49The equitable sharing application form includes check boxes for a list of agency 

contributions to the investigation, including originating the information leading to the 

seizure, incurring extraordinary expenses, and supplying unique or indispensable 

assistance. Treasury’s guidance lists unique and indispensible assistance as a qualitative 

factor, which differs slightly from the application.
Page 26 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

stated that HSI has an asset forfeiture specialist in each special agent in 

charge field office, and Border Patrol officials stated that Border Patrol 

has an asset forfeiture officer in each sector.50 According to USSS’s 

Asset Forfeiture Liaison, USSS does not have asset forfeiture specialists 

in its field offices, with the exception of New York, and instead has 

designated staff that review and process equitable sharing requests as 

collateral duties.51

After field office review, the equitable sharing package—which is to 

include the decision form, state and local equitable sharing applications, 

and other relevant documents, such as the forfeiture order—is submitted 

to component headquarters for approval. Each component has a full-time 

asset forfeiture liaison who is responsible for reviewing packages and 

overseeing all interactions with TEOAF on forfeitures and equitable 

sharing.

Officials from all nine of the DHS component field 

offices with whom we spoke said that they review applications to ensure 

that they are complete and accurate. These officials noted that they work 

closely with state and local agencies requesting equitable sharing and as 

a result are knowledgeable about their work hours and other 

contributions. Officials from all nine of the state and local agencies we 

interviewed said that component field offices can contact them if they 

need clarification or additional information regarding their participation.

52 The review process at the headquarters level varies across 

components. HSI headquarters officials stated that within the Asset 

Forfeiture Unit, an asset forfeiture specialist, program manager, section 

chief, and unit chief review all equitable sharing packages.53

 50HSI officials stated that the asset forfeiture specialists in HSI’s special agent in charge 

field offices are funded through the TFF. 

According to 

Border Patrol officials, the Assistant Chief of the Asset Forfeiture 

Program, who is the asset forfeiture liaison to TEOAF, reviews all 

packages. USSS officials said that the asset forfeiture liaison and an 

administrative staff person review packages. Component headquarters 

51According to USSS’s asset forfeiture liaison, USSS has an asset forfeiture specialist in 

the New York field office because of the large number of equitable sharing requests that 

this office processes. 

52According to TEOAF, the TFF provides the funding for DHS component asset forfeiture 

liaisons. 

53HSI officials stated that for packages where forfeited amounts are $1 million or greater, 

HSI’s Deputy Associate Director and Assistant Director, among others, also review the 

packages before final review and approval by ICE’s Executive Associate Director.
Page 27 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

officials told us that they review packages to ensure that they are 

complete, include the necessary forms and information, and reflect the 

degree of agency participation in the seizure. Components then are to 

submit the packages to TEOAF for payment authorization. DHS asset 

forfeiture liaisons are to be available to address any questions that 

TEOAF may have regarding their packages or obtain additional 

information about sharing determinations from the field offices if needed. 

Figure 6 shows the steps involved in making equitable sharing 

determinations.

Figure 6: Process for Making Equitable Sharing Determinations

a

TEOAF’s equitable sharing program analysts are to perform an administrative review to ensure that 

the package includes the necessary forms and information before approving payment of state and 

local shares of forfeiture proceeds. TEOAF’s program analysts stated that they review the packages 

to ensure they include the equitable sharing decision and application forms and comply with 

requirements to have an up-to-date equitable sharing agreement form, annual certification report, and 

Automated Clearing Housing deposit information on file.

b

HSI and Border Patrol have also issued additional guidance to their field 

offices to help ensure compliance with Treasury’s guidance for making 

equitable sharing determinations. Specifically, HSI issued a memorandum 

in January 2013 to remind all offices on the proper procedures to follow 

when dealing with equitable sharing requests. HSI officials stated that the 

These packages are to be reviewed by an equitable sharing program analyst, the Assistant Director 

for Financial Management and Operations, and the Director of TEOAF, among others, when making 

sharing determinations.
Page 28 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

memorandum was intended to underscore and clarify Treasury’s 

guidance as it pertained to HSI cases. For example, it outlines time 

frames for submitting equitable sharing packages to the Asset Forfeiture 

Unit in HSI headquarters. It also reiterates Treasury’s guidance on how 

equitable sharing determinations should be made based on investigative 

work hours and qualitative factors, if applicable. In addition, the 

memorandum provides additional guidance on what should be considered 

unique and indispensable assistance. Specifically, it lists an additional 

example of such assistance—an undercover officer with a special skill or 

language ability not readily available elsewhere. Border Patrol issued 

additional guidance in 2006 that outlines the equitable sharing process in 

detail. The guidance lists the steps that the requesting agency, sector 

asset forfeiture office, headquarters asset forfeiture office, and TEOAF 

perform in the process. It also reiterates Treasury’s guidance on factors to 

consider when making equitable sharing determinations, among other 

things. USSS has not issued additional guidance because, according to 

the component’s asset forfeiture liaison, field office staff use Treasury’s 

guidance and can contact headquarters if they need assistance in making 

sharing determinations.

HSI and USSS have also provided training to headquarters and field 

office staff responsible for equitable sharing. HSI headquarters officials 

said that they began providing training to field office staff in August 2012 

and asset forfeiture officials from all 26 field offices have received 

training. Training sessions addressed the process for equitable sharing, 

factors to consider when making equitable sharing determinations, and 

what to include in packages submitted to HSI headquarters, among other 

things. USSS officials stated that since fiscal year 2011, USSS has 

provided 37 field office trainings for operational personnel—including a 

nationwide asset forfeiture training in February 2013—and has conducted 

19 training sessions and seminars for field office senior management 

personnel. According to DHS component and TEOAF officials, both HSI 

and USSS training were funded by and provided in coordination with 

TEOAF. Officials from all six HSI and USSS field offices we contacted 

stated that the training provided useful information on equitable sharing 

requirements and processes. According to Border Patrol headquarters 

officials, Border Patrol has not provided training to its sectors because of 

the limited number of equitable sharing requests they process.
Page 29 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

According to TEOAF officials, equitable sharing determinations should be 

clearly supported by the information in the package. TEOAF requires 

high-value packages (forfeitures of $1 million or more) to include DHS 

component work hours and justifications for material deviations from work 

hour calculated percentages due to qualitative factors. This is not, 

however, required of low-value packages (forfeitures under $1 million).54

Accordingly, 31 of the 40 low-value equitable sharing packages that we 

reviewed were missing key information to support the basis for final 

sharing percentages. Specifically, these 31 packages did not include one 

or more of the following: DHS component work hours, support for how 

qualitative factors were applied to make determinations, and the rationale 

for changes made to sharing percentages recommended by the field 

offices.55

Component work hours: Treasury’s guidance states that equitable 

sharing determinations are normally determined by comparing the 

number of investigative hours expended by state, local, and other 

requesting agencies and the lead component through the completion of 

the forfeiture. According to TEOAF officials, work hours should be the 

primary indicator of agency participation in a case.

In contrast, the equitable sharing determinations in the 5 highvalue packages that we reviewed were fully supported by the information 

in the package.

 54TEOAF also requires high-value packages to include a transmitting memorandum, a 

letter from the Assistant United States Attorney providing input on the proposed shares, 

and other information. According to TEOAF officials, additional information is required for 

high-value packages because of the large dollar amounts involved and to help ensure that 

TEOAF has the necessary information to make equitable sharing decisions. These 

officials stated that low-value packages do not have the same requirements because of 

their lower sharing amounts and the administrative workload it would entail given the 

higher volume of these packages.

55The 9 equitable sharing packages in which we found determinations to be supported 

had sharing percentages that were the same as or close to the proportion of work hours 

that agencies contributed to the case or were cases in which the agency received the 

maximum share and either the work hours or the narrative supported this determination.

Additional Controls Could 

Help Improve the 

Transparency and 

Consistency of Equitable 

Sharing Determinations

Documenting the Basis for 

Equitable Sharing 

Determinations
Page 30 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Example of How Work Hours Are Used to Determine Equitable Sharing

In an HSI-led drug smuggling case, a state police department assisted an HSI field office 

in executing search warrants and conducting background checks and surveillance on 

drug-trafficking suspects, among other things, resulting in a seizure and forfeiture of 

$95,138 in currency. According to documents in the equitable sharing determination 

package, the state police expended an estimated 671 work hours on the case and HSI

expended 670, resulting in a 50 percent share of forfeiture proceeds for the state police. 

Source: GAO analysis of HSI equitable sharing package.

State and local agency work hours were included in all 40 low-value 

equitable sharing packages that we reviewed. HSI included its own work 

hours in all 26 low-value HSI packages that we reviewed, but USSS and 

Border Patrol did not include this information in any of their packages. 

Specifically, all 10 USSS and 4 Border Patrol packages that we reviewed 

did not include lead component work hours or the total work hours 

contributed by all agencies involved in the case.56 USSS’s asset forfeiture 

liaison stated that this information was not included because the lead 

USSS component does not receive equitable sharing funds and the 

information is not explicitly required on the equitable sharing decision 

form. This official said, however, that he has directed field offices to 

include component work hours in equitable sharing decision forms 

starting in fiscal year 2014.57 We reviewed an additional USSS equitable 

sharing package that was approved by headquarters in fiscal year 2014 

and found that the USSS field office included its work hours. Border 

Patrol’s Asset Forfeiture Liaison said that because most of the 

component’s seizures occur at checkpoints or while agents are on 

patrols—unlike HSI and USSS seizures, which result primarily from 

investigations—work hours can be difficult to measure and are not always 

used to make equitable sharing determinations.58

 56Within our sample time frame—October 2012 through June 2013—HSI accounted for 

1,902 payments to state and local agencies, USSS accounted for 347, and Border Patrol 

accounted for 4. Because multiple payments can result from 1 equitable sharing package, 

we could not determine the number of packages processed during this time period.

However, state and 

57USSS officials in one field office noted that it may take some time before this 

requirement is fully implemented because most determinations that are processed in fiscal 

year 2014 are from seizures made over a year earlier and component work hours from 

those cases may not be available.

58For example, Border Patrol’s Asset Forfeiture Liaison said that if a seizure was made at 

a checkpoint where agents worked an 8-hour shift, it is unclear if Border Patrol would input 

the full 8 hours or the 20 minutes it took to seize the assets. TEOAF officials noted that 

because the volume of Border Patrol’s equitable sharing is low, either approach would be 

acceptable, as long as the hours are recorded in a uniform way and Border Patrol’s share 

of the contribution is captured.
Page 31 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

local agency work hours were included in all 4 Border Patrol equitable 

sharing packages that we reviewed. Border Patrol’s Asset Forfeiture 

Liaison stated that it would be useful to include Border Patrol work hours 

when possible if they are measured consistently across all participating 

agencies. In the absence of documented component work hours, we 

could not determine what proportion of total work hours components 

contributed to the case and how deciding authorities verified whether 

equitable sharing determinations were calculated in accordance with 

Treasury’s guidance.

Application of qualitative factors: All 31 low-value packages we 

reviewed that did not include full support for sharing determinations did 

not contain clear documentation of how qualitative factors were used to 

adjust sharing determinations. Treasury’s guidance directs deciding 

officials to consider additional factors when the work hours do not 

adequately reflect the degree of agency participation in the investigation. 

These factors could include, for example, originating the information 

leading to the seizure or providing unique and indispensable assistance. 

The decision forms in the packages that we reviewed generally contained 

narratives that summarized what each agency contributed to the case, 

which included interviewing suspects, executing search warrants, 

conducting surveillance, providing a drug-sniffing canine, and a range of 

other investigative support. However, the forms did not identify which 

specific agency contributions were used to adjust percentages and what 

adjustments were made.59

 59HSI officials noted that additional information on agency contributions may be included 

in e-mails and other documents that HSI retains, but are not part of the packages 

submitted to TEOAF. They said that they can provide these documents if TEOAF requests 

them. However, the two additional packages we reviewed from HSI’s files that included 

such information did not specify which contributions were used to adjust sharing 

percentages.

For example, in 1 HSI equitable sharing 

package we reviewed, two police departments contributed the same 

number of work hours, but one received a 10 percent larger share than 

the other, resulting in a difference of about $48,000 in forfeiture proceeds. 

Both departments indicated on their application forms that they provided 

unique or indispensable assistance and originated the information leading 

to the seizure. HSI’s equitable sharing decision form for this package 

includes a summary of how each police department participated in the 

investigation, such as assisting in undercover operations, interviews, and 

search and surveillance, but does not explicitly state which specific 
Page 32 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

contribution or contributions were used to adjust percentages or why one 

agency’s contribution was valued more than the other’s.

HSI’s January 2013 guidance memorandum states that when work hours 

do not adequately reflect the degree of agency participation, it is critical 

that the narratives contained in the documents submitted to the Asset 

Forfeiture Unit in headquarters specifically detail the participation of all 

agencies involved.60

 60HSI headquarters officials noted that it may take some time before this is fully 

implemented because some determinations that were submitted after the guidance was 

issued are from seizures made over a year earlier and detailed descriptions of agency 

participation may not be available. 

This helps to ensure that agency contributions 

outside of work hours are documented in the equitable sharing packages, 

but does not require field offices to identify which qualitative factors or 

contributions were used to adjust percentages and how these factors 

were applied. Moreover, in USSS and Border Patrol equitable sharing 

packages where component work hours were not documented, it was not 

possible to determine if adjustments were made to sharing percentages 

based on qualitative factors. Border Patrol’s Asset Forfeiture Liaison 

stated that Border Patrol could document this information if required. 

USSS’s Asset Forfeiture Liaison said that it would be administratively 

burdensome to specify which, if any, qualitative factors were used to 

adjust percentages and how they were applied because USSS primarily 

relies on field office staff to process equitable sharing requests as 

collateral duties, in addition to their other responsibilities. However, 

agency contributions are generally already included in the decision form 

narratives and specifying which contribution was used to adjust 

percentages could be done by including a short sentence or annotation. 

For example, in a USSS high-value package that we reviewed, TEOAF 

documented that a state agency’s percentages were adjusted upward 

because the agency conducted all key interviews in the investigation. 

Components could document the same kind of information for low-value 

packages with minimal additional narrative. Documenting the rationale for 

making adjustments to sharing percentages based on qualitative factors 

could improve transparency for approving authorities and officials 

overseeing equitable sharing regarding how and why adjustments are 

made when work hours alone do not fully reflect the degree of agency 

participation in the investigation. Such documentation could also help 

these officials better assess the extent to which qualitative factors were 

applied appropriately and consistently in determinations.
Page 33 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Component headquarters changes to sharing percentages: USSS 

and HSI headquarters made changes to sharing percentages in 8 of the 

31 low-value packages we reviewed that did not include full support for 

determinations, and in all 8 of these instances, the reasons for the 

changes were not documented. USSS and HSI officials noted that they 

contact field office staff to discuss any changes, but that the reasons for 

the changes are generally not included in the packages submitted to 

TEOAF. USSS headquarters made changes to sharing percentages 

recommended by field offices in 6 of the 10 USSS packages that we 

reviewed. For example, in 1 package, USSS headquarters decreased a 

state agency’s share from 60 to 40 percent—resulting in a difference of 

about $28,400—but the decision form did not note why the change was 

made. USSS’s Asset Forfeiture Liaison stated that these changes are 

primarily due to headquarters taking into account additional work that 

USSS agents perform to identify victims of financial crimes after the field 

offices submit the decision forms to headquarters. The liaison said that 

these additional work hours and resources are not reflected in the field 

office’s recommended sharing percentages or on the decision forms. 

According to the USSS liaison, headquarters has only one other official 

who reviews and approves equitable sharing determinations, and 

documenting the rationale for changes to sharing percentages would 

require additional work. However, he noted that including a short 

annotation would be feasible.61 HSI officials stated that the reasons for 

headquarters’ changes to field office sharing percentages are generally 

documented in HSI review forms and e-mail correspondence with the field 

and provided examples of such documentation. However, this support is 

not included in the packages that HSI submits to TEOAF for review and 

payment authorization. HSI officials said that they could include this 

information if requested by TEOAF.62

 61In commenting on a draft of this report, USSS officials stated that the reasons for 

changes to sharing percentages are to be detailed in packages submitted after March 1, 

2014.

Documenting the rationale for 

changes to sharing percentages recommended by the field—by, for 

example, including a short sentence or annotation—could help enhance 

transparency regarding why changes were made and how final sharing 

percentages were determined.

62HSI officials said that the equitable sharing decision form does not include an area for 

component headquarters to document why percentages were changed. They noted that 

including such an area would allow components to explain the rationale for changes 

without having to submit additional documents. 
 

Page 34 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that 

controls are to provide reasonable assurance for compliance with laws 

and regulations and help ensure that management’s directives are carried 

out, among other things.63

Treasury has established general guidance on the qualitative factors to 

consider if work hours do not adequately reflect the degree of agency 

participation in the investigation. The guidance includes three examples 

of these factors—whether the agency originated all of the information 

leading to the seizure, provided unique and indispensable assistance, or 

could have achieved forfeiture under state law—and a short narrative 

To achieve these objectives, it states that 

transactions should be promptly recorded to maintain their relevance and 

value to management in controlling operations and making decisions. 

This applies to the entire process or life cycle of a transaction or event 

from the initiation and authorization through its final classification in 

summary records. In addition, internal control standards state that all 

transactions and other significant events need to be clearly documented, 

and the documentation should be readily available for examination. In the 

absence of consistently documenting component work hours, how 

qualitative factors are applied to adjust sharing percentages, and the 

reasons for headquarters’ changes to percentages, it is unclear how 

equitable sharing deciding authorities evaluated the nature and value of 

the contributions of each of the agencies involved in the investigation. 

TEOAF officials said that clearly documenting the basis for equitable 

sharing determinations in low-value packages would be helpful for 

approving officials. This is important because, according to TEOAF 

officials, equitable sharing determinations have grown more complex in 

recent years as a result of the increase in large investigations that involve 

multiple agencies. These officials said that it would be feasible for 

TEOAF—as the manager of the TFF and the equitable sharing program—

to issue a memorandum to DHS components to include additional 

information in equitable sharing packages and work with components as 

needed to implement it. Establishing a mechanism to ensure that the 

basis for low-value equitable sharing determinations is fully documented 

by all DHS components responsible for making determinations could 

enhance the transparency of decision making and help DHS components 

and TEOAF better ensure that equitable sharing decisions are made in 

compliance with Treasury’s guidance.

 

63GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

Guidance on Qualitative 

Factors
Page 35 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

describing each of them. For example, the guidance states that unique 

and indispensable assistance entails an agency providing support only it 

can provide, such as seizing assets in a jurisdiction hundreds of miles 

from where the investigation is being conducted or providing an informant 

who has access to documents that are essential to securing a conviction. 

The guidance does not provide specific information on how to apply these 

examples to adjust sharing percentages. Treasury is in the process of 

revising its guidance, and as of January 2014, the draft guidance 

contained a more abbreviated discussion of qualitative factors, with two 

examples and less detail regarding the contributions to consider. For 

example, the draft guidance does not provide examples of contributions 

that could be considered unique or indispensable assistance.64 TEOAF 

officials stated that the revised guidance is being finalized and indicated 

that they do not plan to include more information on qualitative factors in 

the guidance. The office expects to issue the guidance in 2014, but did 

not have a more specific time frame, in part because the guidance was 

undergoing an interagency review. HSI’s January 2013 memorandum 

includes additional guidance on qualitative factors, such as clarifying what 

types of activities are considered unique and indispensable assistance. 

USSS and Border Patrol have not issued similar guidance.65

TEOAF and DHS component officials stated that guidance on qualitative 

factors is general because equitable sharing determinations are made on 

a case-by-case basis and the facts and circumstances of each case must 

be considered in totality when making adjustments to sharing 

percentages. Accordingly, DHS component field office and headquarters 

officials said that they use their judgment and experience when 

determining if and how qualitative factors should be applied in making 

equitable sharing decisions. However, officials from six of the nine field 

offices we interviewed across all DHS components that conduct equitable 

sharing stated that additional guidance on qualitative factors would be 

useful. Specifically, these officials said that additional examples of factors, 

such as what constitutes extraordinary expenses; clarification of what is 

considered unique and indispensible assistance; guidance on how to 

 64The draft guidance changed the example of a qualitative factor to unique or

indispensable assistance (from unique and indispensable assistance) to be consistent 

with the equitable sharing application form.

65Border Patrol’s guidance on qualitative factors contains the same examples as 

Treasury’s guidance and does not include additional information on these examples.
Page 36 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

apply factors, including more information on how to adjust percentages 

based on the type and significance of agency contributions; or illustrations 

of how factors were applied in real-world cases would be helpful for 

making equitable sharing determinations. Officials from the remaining 

three field offices said that additional guidance was not needed because 

sharing recommendations are made in consultation with requesting 

agencies or they can contact component headquarters to discuss any 

questions about qualitative factors. Nonetheless, headquarters officials 

from all three DHS components that conduct equitable sharing stated that 

additional guidance could help ensure a more consistent understanding of 

these factors among headquarters and field offices. For example, HSI 

officials said that adjustments related to qualitative factors are one of the 

reasons for headquarters changes to sharing percentages recommended 

by field offices. These officials noted that any additional guidance should 

continue to allow for determinations to be based on the facts and 

circumstances of each case.

Officials from all nine state and local law enforcement agencies with

whom we spoke were generally satisfied with the equitable shares that 

they received. These officials noted that they typically do not have 

visibility over the equitable sharing process after they have submitted 

their applications.66

 66Officials from five of the nine state and local agencies with whom we spoke said that it 

can be difficult to match equitable payments received with their associated seizures. 

These officials noted that it can take over a year to receive funds as a result of the lengthy 

forfeiture and equitable sharing processes. They said that receiving additional information 

regarding the case, such as the case number, assets forfeited, and final sharing 

percentages, when payments are received would be helpful for matching purposes. They 

stated, however, that they can obtain this information from DHS components if requested. 

TEOAF officials said that they are aware of this issue and are working to address it 

through various communication mechanisms to inform state and local officials of where 

they can obtain this information. 

In addition, the equitable sharing determinations we 

reviewed indicate that state and local agencies may not have a clear 

understanding of how some qualitative factors are defined and 

considered. For example, in 12 of the 15 low-value packages we 

reviewed where an agency indicated on its application form that it 

incurred extraordinary expenses during the investigation, the expenses 

were not clearly described in the narrative. In 1 equitable sharing package 

we reviewed for a currency-smuggling case, a police department checked 

that it had incurred extraordinary expenses and stated that its officer had 

conducted surveillance, assisted in a search of a suspect’s house, and 
 

Page 37 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

participated in the interview of two individuals who were detained as part 

of the investigation. However, we could not determine how these activities 

constituted extraordinary expenses. Treasury’s guidance does not include 

incurring extraordinary expenses as an example of a qualitative factor, 

despite this factor being included in the equitable sharing application. In 

addition, the application includes two other factors to consider when 

assessing agency contributions that are not included in Treasury’s 

guidance. Providing guidance on qualitative factors that are listed on the 

application form, including what they entail and how to apply them, could 

help officials from state and local agencies, as well as DHS components, 

have a better and more consistent understanding of these factors.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for 

significant events to be clearly documented in directives, policies, or 

manuals to help ensure operations are carried out as intended.67

TEOAF performs an administrative review of low-value packages to 

ensure that the required applications and decision forms are included, 

among other things. TEOAF officials said that because DHS components 

have decision-making authority for low-value determinations, they 

primarily rely on the components to ensure that these packages comply 

with equitable sharing requirements.

While 

we recognize the subjective nature of evaluating agency contributions 

based on the facts and circumstances of each case, additional guidance 

on qualitative factors could help better ensure consistency with which 

these factors are applied across cases. Such guidance could also help 

DHS components better assess agency contributions when making 

equitable sharing determinations.

The low-value packages that we reviewed did not always comply with 

certain requirements in Treasury’s guidance. However, HSI and USSS 

officials have taken steps to address the deficiencies we found in our 

analysis of these packages. Specifically, the guidance requires that state 

and local law enforcement agencies submit equitable sharing applications 

within 60 days after the seizure, and if this deadline is not met, agencies 

need to submit a written request stating the reasons for the late 

submission in order for components to waive the requirement. TEOAF 

officials said that this requirement is in place to ensure that components 

 

67GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

Component Actions to Address 

Equitable Sharing 

Requirements
Page 38 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

receive all sharing requests in a timely manner and are aware of all 

agency contributions before determining equitable shares. HSI and USSS 

headquarters officials stated that if a state or local agency submitted a 

request for a waiver, they would include it in the package provided to 

TEOAF. However, requests for waivers were not included in 8 of the 9 

HSI and USSS packages we reviewed where an agency did not meet the 

60-day deadline.68 HSI headquarters officials stated that they began 

enforcing the waiver requirement in January 2013.69 The officials said that 

this requirement may take some time to fully implement. Specifically, 

because of the potential lengthy forfeiture process, equitable sharing 

determinations processed after January 2013 may be from applications 

that were submitted to field offices over a year earlier. USSS’s Asset 

Forfeiture Liaison stated that in fiscal year 2013, USSS’s asset forfeiture 

system was programmed to automatically notify field offices when 

equitable sharing applications are due to meet the 60-day requirement 

and provided an example of such a notice.70

In addition, Treasury’s guidance specifies that final determination of 

sharing percentages cannot be made until after assets have been 

forfeited. TEOAF officials said that this requirement is in place so that 

state and local agencies do not expect equitable shares before forfeitures 

are finalized, because in some cases, funds may not be available for 

sharing. However, USSS headquarters officials approved sharing 

determinations in 5 of the 10 low-value USSS equitable sharing packages 

we reviewed before assets were forfeited. These 5 packages were all 

approved by headquarters in 2011. USSS’s Asset Forfeiture Liaison said 

that with the assignment of a new asset forfeiture specialist in 2012, 

USSS changed its review process and no longer approves determinations 

 68The 2 Border Patrol packages in which an agency did not meet the 60-day deadline 

both included requests for waivers.

69HSI officials said that by January 2013, the Asset Forfeiture Unit had nearly a full staff of 

asset forfeiture specialists, which provided the resources to begin enforcing this 

requirement. They noted that reviewing equitable sharing requests had previously been 

done by contractors and waiver requirements may not have been enforced. According to 

HSI officials, asset forfeiture specialists in the field were directed to enforce this 

requirement in a briefing. They said that headquarters officials review packages to help 

ensure compliance.

70Field offices receive a notice of key document due dates, which include the 60-day 

equitable sharing application deadline, after a seizure has been entered into its asset 

forfeiture system. According to USSS’s Asset Forfeiture Liaison, field offices also receive 

an alert the week before the application is due as a reminder.
Page 39 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

before forfeiture. The 5 packages we reviewed that USSS headquarters 

approved after 2011 complied with this requirement. We also reviewed 3

additional packages that USSS approved in September 2013 and these 

complied as well.

DHS components and TEOAF coordinate in a variety of ways to oversee 

the equitable sharing program. For example, DHS and TEOAF have 

established roles and responsibilities for the processing, review, and 

approval of equitable sharing determinations, consistent with leading 

practices on interagency coordination.71 In addition, each DHS 

component has an asset forfeiture liaison who is responsible for 

overseeing interactions with TEOAF on forfeitures and equitable sharing. 

These liaisons are the primary points of contact between TEOAF and 

DHS field offices and help facilitate the processing of equitable sharing 

determinations. Further, according to TEOAF and DHS component 

officials, TEOAF holds meetings with component asset forfeiture liaisons 

once every 2 weeks to discuss TFF issues, including equitable sharing 

and any major forfeiture cases that are expected, among other things. 

HSI also coordinated with TEOAF to provide equitable sharing training to 

field office staff. For example, TEOAF officials stated that TEOAF staff 

worked with HSI to develop an agenda of the areas that needed to be 

covered during the training sessions. Officials from both HSI and TEOAF 

provided presentations during the training.72

In addition, TEOAF has collaborated with DHS components to develop 

equitable sharing guidance. Specifically, as part of the ongoing 

development of updated Treasury guidance, TEOAF provided a draft of 

the guidance to DHS components for their review and, according to 

TEOAF and DHS officials, held meetings with components to discuss 

revisions. Border Patrol also collaborated with TEOAF to develop 

additional equitable sharing guidance for its sectors, according to Border 

Patrol and TEOAF officials. Such actions are consistent with leading 

USSS and TEOAF officials 

stated that they coordinated to provide training to USSS field office staff 

as well.

 71We reported that interagency collaborative mechanisms benefit from clarifying roles and 

responsibilities, which could include defining steps for decision making. GAO-12-1022.

72TEOAF officials stated that the office’s internal controls contractor worked in conjunction 

with HSI and TEOAF staff to coordinate the training effort and to provide presentations.

DHS Components 

and TEOAF 

Coordinate on Many 

Equitable Sharing 

Oversight Activities
Page 40 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

practices on interagency coordination that call for agencies to address the 

compatibility of standards, policies, and procedures that will be used in 

the collaborative effort through effective communication, among other 

things.73

TEOAF officials said that it would have been beneficial for HSI to have 

consulted with TEOAF when developing the memorandum to verify that it 

was consistent with Treasury’s guidance and consider potential impacts 

of new requirements. For example, HSI’s guidance requires that the 

component retain a 30 percent minimum share in all joint investigations. 

The guidance states that this requirement was added to cover 

investigative and forfeiture expenses incurred by DHS agencies.

However, HSI did not inform TEOAF that it was planning on 

issuing additional equitable sharing guidance in January 2013 or provide 

a draft of the guidance for TEOAF to review before issuance. According 

to HSI officials, HSI did not take these steps because HSI’s additional 

guidance was based on Treasury’s guidance and prior discussions in 

which TEOAF directed HSI to address concerns about HSI allocating 

large shares of forfeiture proceeds to state and local agencies that were 

disproportionate to their contributions in investigations and did not retain 

sufficient revenues to support TFF expenses.

74

TEOAF officials said that at the time the guidance was issued, TEOAF did 

not know how HSI established the 30 percent minimum or how it related 

to Treasury’s guidance that sharing allocations to agencies should reflect 

work hours and other contributions. However, these officials stated that 

the 30 percent requirement is consistent with Treasury’s guidance—which 

requires that TFF members retain at least a 20 percent minimum 

share75

 73GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 

—and that the guidance as a whole is a positive step in helping to 

ensure that HSI field offices base sharing determinations on agency 

GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

To identify key interagency collaboration practices, we reviewed relevant literature, 

including academic literature and our prior reports, and interviewed experts in the area of 

collaboration. We reported that agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative 

efforts by engaging in these practices. 

74HSI officials stated that this includes overhead-related expenses that HSI incurs, such 

as administrative and storage costs. The officials said that the 30 percent minimum was 

based on an analysis of HSI investigative expenses and is intended to help ensure that 

HSI’s expenses do not exceed its forfeiture revenues. 

75Treasury’s guidance notes that the minimum federal share in joint cases or when a 

federal agency adopts a case from a state or local agency should not be less than 20 

percent.
Page 41 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

contributions and include required information in the packages they 

submit.

The authorization to share federal forfeiture proceeds with participating 

state and local law enforcement agencies is an important component of 

federal asset forfeiture activities and critical in fostering enhanced 

cooperation with these agencies. In fiscal year 2013, DHS components 

obligated about $355 million in equitable sharing payments to state and 

local agencies—the highest annual amount over the past decade. In 

addition, equitable sharing determinations have grown more complex in 

recent years because of the increase in large investigations that involve 

multiple agencies, according to TEOAF officials. Such developments 

underscore the need for controls to help ensure compliance with 

established equitable sharing guidance and federal statutes.

DHS components have designed controls to help ensure compliance with 

Treasury’s guidance when making equitable sharing determinations. 

However, there are gaps in the documentation of key information that 

serves as the basis for making sharing decisions. Without a mechanism 

to ensure documentation of the number of work hours expended by lead 

components, how qualitative factors were used to adjust sharing 

percentages, and the reasons for headquarters’ changes to equitable 

sharing percentages in low-value packages, it is unclear how equitable 

sharing deciding authorities could fully evaluate the nature and value of 

the contributions of each of the agencies involved in an investigation. 

Further, additional guidance on the qualitative factors to consider when 

making equitable sharing determinations could help better ensure that 

they are consistently applied over time and across cases.

As the manager of the TFF and equitable sharing program, TEOAF is 

best positioned to help ensure that DHS components consistently comply 

with Treasury’s equitable sharing guidance. To help improve 

management controls over the equitable sharing program, we 

recommend that the Director of TEOAF take the following two actions:

• Establish a mechanism to ensure that the basis for DHS’s low-value 

equitable sharing determinations—including component work hours, 

how qualitative factors are applied to adjust percentages, and the 

rationale for component headquarters’ changes to percentages—is

documented in equitable sharing packages.

• Develop additional guidance on qualitative factors to be used when 

making adjustments to equitable sharing percentages. 

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 42 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

We provided a draft of this report to Treasury and DHS for their review 

and comment. Treasury provided written comments, which are reprinted 

in appendix II. Treasury and DHS also provided technical comments, 

which we incorporated in this report as appropriate.

Treasury concurred with both recommendations in this report in an e-mail 

provided on March 20, 2014. In its written comments, the department 

outlined steps that it plans to take to implement them. Specifically, 

Treasury stated that it plans to

• implement changes in its equitable sharing forms, policy guidance, 

and processes to address our recommendation that the basis for 

DHS’s low-value equitable sharing determinations is documented in 

equitable sharing packages. For example, Treasury noted that it is to 

require all equitable sharing packages to include component work 

hours and emphasize that upward adjustments to a local law 

enforcement agency’s sharing percentage must include a coherent 

and compelling explanation of the unique or indispensable assistance 

provided. Treasury also plans to redesign the equitable sharing 

decision form to accommodate these and other changes. 

• discuss changes made to the equitable sharing program, including 

those related to qualitative factors, with components over the next 6 

months to address our recommendation that Treasury develop 

additional guidance on qualitative factors to be used when making 

adjustments to equitable sharing percentages.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, selected congressional committees, and 

other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge 

on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 
 

Page 43 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512- 9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

David C. Maurer

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

This report addresses the following objectives:

1. What have been Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

components’ revenues contributed to and obligations from the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) from fiscal years 2003 through 2013?

2. To what extent have DHS components designed controls to help 

ensure compliance with the Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) 

guidance when implementing the equitable sharing program?

3. To what extent do DHS components coordinate with Treasury in 

overseeing the equitable sharing program?

To determine TFF revenues from and obligations by DHS components 

from fiscal year 2003—the year in which DHS began operations—through 

fiscal year 2013, we analyzed Treasury’s reported data on revenues and 

obligations by fiscal year, by the four participating DHS members of the 

TFF—U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret 

Service (USSS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)—and for the fund as a whole.1 We used 

information on revenues and obligations contained in CBP’s National 

Finance Center’s financial accounting systems.2

 1

An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for 

the payment of goods and services ordered or received, or a legal duty on the part of the 

United States that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of the 

other party beyond the control of the United States. Payment may be made immediately or 

in the future.

We interviewed officials 

from the four DHS participating components, DHS’s Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer, and the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture 

(TEOAF) to discuss trends and variations in the revenues and obligations 

over this 11-year period. We also reviewed information on unobligated 

and excess unobligated balances contained in the TFF’s financial 

accounting systems. We interviewed TEOAF officials who are responsible 

for oversight of the TFF regarding processes for carrying over funds at 

the end of the fiscal year. Further, we analyzed Treasury’s reported data 

on the TFF’s excess unobligated balances from fiscal years 2003 through 

2

Under a memorandum of understanding with Treasury, CBP acts as the executive agent 

for certain operations of the TFF. Pursuant to that executive agent role, CBP’s National 

Finance Center is responsible for accounting and financial reporting for the fund, including 

timely and accurate reporting and compliance with Treasury, the Comptroller General and 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations and reporting requirements.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Assessing Revenues 

and Obligations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

2013, and interviewed DHS officials from the four participating 

components, DHS’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and TEOAF 

officials about how excess unobligated balances have been used since 

2003.

To determine the extent to which DHS components that conduct equitable 

sharing—ICE, USSS, and CBP—have designed controls to help ensure 

compliance with Treasury’s guidance when implementing the equitable 

sharing program, we analyzed federal statutes and Treasury guidance on 

making equitable sharing determinations and DHS controls designed to 

help ensure compliance with guidance.3 We compared these controls with 

the overall framework for establishing and maintaining internal control 

outlined in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

4

We reviewed nongeneralizable samples of (1) 40 equitable sharing 

determination packages for forfeitures below $1 million (low-value) and 

approved by DHS components, and (2) 5 equitable sharing packages for 

forfeitures of $1 million or more (high-value) and approved by TEOAF to 

determine the extent to which the packages complied with Treasury 

guidance and contained documentation to support sharing decisions.5

 3

Federal statutes include 31 U.S.C. § 9703, 18 U.S.C. § 981(e) and 19 U.S.C. § 1616a(c). 

Treasury’s primary guidance on equitable sharing is its Guide to Equitable Sharing for 

Foreign Countries and Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (April 2004). 

We did not assess controls related to state and local agency compliance with accounting 

requirements and permissible uses of equitable sharing funds because DHS components 

do not have any roles and responsibilities in these areas. According to TEOAF and DHS 

officials, TEOAF has sole responsibility for compliance requirements after equitable 

sharing payments are made. In addition, Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General is 

conducting an audit of controls related to permissible uses of equitable sharing funds. As 

of February 2014, the office did not have an expected issuance date for its report.

We 

selected these packages from two sets of data provided by TEOAF. 

Specifically,

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

5

An equitable sharing package is to contain the documents (e.g., application and decision 

form) used to make equitable sharing determinations—the sharing percentages for 

forfeiture proceeds allocated to participating agencies. DHS components have decisionmaking authority when the appraised value of the forfeited assets is less than $1 million 

and Treasury has authority when the value is $1 million or more. 

Assessing DHS 

Controls
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

• We selected the 40 packages from equitable sharing payments made 

to state and local agencies from October 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013, to 

obtain the most recent payments given our timeframes.6 We selected 

this sample based on payment amounts and to reflect a range of DHS 

components and field offices that conduct equitable sharing. We 

reviewed 26 ICE, 10 USSS, and 4 CBP low-value packages from a 

range of each component’s field offices across the nation.7 Within our 

sample time frame, ICE accounted for 1,902 payments to state and 

local agencies, USSS accounted for 347, and CBP accounted for 4. 

Because multiple payments can result from 1 equitable sharing 

package, we could not determine the number of packages processed 

during a given time period.8

• We selected the 5 packages from a list of those approved by TEOAF 

from October 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013, based on such factors as 

amounts forfeited and the number of seizures involved.9

The results of our analysis of equitable sharing packages are not 

generalizable to the universe of packages paid or approved within the 

same time frames. However, they provided information on the extent to 

Out of the 10 

packages approved during this time period, we reviewed 3 from ICE 

and 2 from USSS investigations.

 6

We selected our sample from payment data because TEOAF does not track the number 

of equitable sharing determination packages that are processed. DHS also conducts 

equitable sharing with other federal agencies and foreign entities. We focused our review 

on sharing with state and local agencies because they accounted for an average of 96 

percent of total equitable sharing payments from fiscal years 2010 to 2012. Equitable 

sharing with federal agencies and foreign entities each accounted for about 2 percent 

across the same time period. 

7

Within ICE and CBP, the Homeland Security Investigations directorate and U.S. Border 

Patrol (Border Patrol), respectively, conduct equitable sharing. USSS officials stated that 

USSS conducts equitable sharing in cases under its investigations mission. USCG does 

not conduct equitable sharing because, according to USCG officials, it does not have 

forfeiture authority. DHS officials stated that DHS is not involved in conducting or 

overseeing equitable sharing at the department level

8

For example, 1 package might produce 1 payment or 15 payments, depending on how 

many state and local agencies were involved.

9

We selected the high-value packages from a list of approved packages manually 

compiled by TEOAF because these packages could not be identified from the payment 

data used to select the low-value packages. We selected packages from those approved 

from October 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013, to obtain the most recently approved packages 

given our time frames.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

which the selected packages adhered to guidance and included 

documentation of controls, among other things.

We also interviewed officials from TEOAF; ICE, USSS, and CBP in 

headquarters; and selected field offices of these components in 

California, New York, and Texas to assess controls established to help 

ensure compliance with guidance. These three states received the 

highest amounts of equitable sharing payments on average from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2012 and composed about 50 percent of total 

payments nationwide.10 We selected ICE, USSS, and CBP field offices to 

interview in each state to include those that processed high amounts and 

large numbers of equitable sharing payments.11 In addition, we 

interviewed officials from three state or local law enforcement agencies in 

each of these states to obtain their perspectives on the equitable sharing 

process. We selected these agencies based on the amount and number 

of payments they received in fiscal year 2012 and to cover a range of 

government agencies (e.g., state, county, or city).12 While the results of 

these interviews are not generalizable to all DHS component field offices

and agencies, they provided valuable information and perspectives on the 

equitable sharing determination process and controls.

To determine the extent to which DHS components coordinate with 

Treasury in overseeing the equitable sharing program, we analyzed 

guidance and other documents. For example, as part of our review of 

selected equitable sharing determination packages, we assessed 

documentation of how DHS components and TEOAF coordinate and 

communicate when making equitable sharing decisions. In addition, we 

interviewed officials from ICE, USSS, and CBP in headquarters; selected 

field offices of these components as discussed above; and TEOAF to 

obtain information about, among other things, the extent to which DHS 

 10Fiscal year 2012 was the most recent full year for which payment data were available 

when we selected the states to include in our review. We used an average across 3 years 

to take into account potential variations in annual payments. 

11CBP’s Border Patrol does not have a field office in New York. Instead, we interviewed 

officials from Border Patrol’s office in Swanton, Vermont, which is responsible for 

processing equitable sharing requests from New York.

12Fiscal year 2012 was the most recent full year for which equitable sharing data were 

available when we selected the agencies to interview.

Assessing DHS 

Coordination with 

Treasury
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

and TEOAF coordinate on overseeing the equitable sharing program, 

including making sharing determinations and developing guidance. We 

compared DHS and TEOAF coordination mechanisms with leading 

practices on interagency collaboration.13

To assess the reliability of data for revenues and obligations and excess 

unobligated balances for the first objective and equitable sharing 

payments used to select our samples of packages to review for the 

second and third objectives, we reviewed relevant documentation, such 

as annual financial plans and standard operating procedures related to 

reporting TFF data in the fund’s financial accounting system, which is 

maintained by CBP. We also conducted interviews with CBP officials 

responsible for managing data, as well as Treasury officials who review 

and work with the data to understand how CBP and Treasury collect, 

categorize, and tabulate the information and the actions they take to 

ensure its consistency, accuracy, and completeness. We determined 

information on the financial accounting system provided by CBP to be 

sufficiently reliable for presenting Treasury’s reported data on total 

revenues, obligations such as equitable sharing payment data, and 

excess unobligated balances by DHS components and as a proportion of 

the TFF for fiscal years 2003 through 2013.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 through March 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

 13GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). To identify 

mechanisms that the federal government uses to lead and implement interagency 

collaboration and issues to consider when implementing these mechanisms, we 

conducted a literature review of academic work, interviewed experts in governmental 

collaboration, and analyzed a sample of our prior work. We reported that these 

mechanisms can be used to address such purposes as oversight, program 

implementation, and information sharing and communication. GAO, Results-Oriented 

Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal

Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). To identify key interagency 

collaboration practices, we reviewed relevant literature, including academic literature and 

our prior reports, and interviewed experts in the area of collaboration. We reported that 

agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by engaging in these 

practices.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 50 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 51 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 52 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 53 GAO-14-318 DHS Asset Forfeiture

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Eric Erdman, Assistant Director; 

Sylvia Bascope; Kelly Krinn; and Johanna Wong made key contributions 

to this report. Also contributing to this report were Phyllis Anderson, 

Christine Broderick, Susan Hsu, Eric Hauswirth, Cynthia Saunders, and 

Janet Temko.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441152)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.