ASSET FORFEITURE 

PROGRAMS

Justice and Treasury 

Should Determine 

Costs and Benefits of 

Potential 

Consolidation

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 

Senate

September 2012

GAO-12-972

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-972, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate

September 2012

ASSET FORFEITURE PROGRAMS

Justice and Treasury Should Determine Costs and 

Benefits of Potential Consolidation

Why GAO Did This Study

Both Justice and Treasury operate 

separate asset forfeiture programs that 

are designed to prevent and reduce 

crime through the seizure and 

forfeiture of assets that represent the 

proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, 

federal crimes. Annually, participating 

agencies within Justice and Treasury 

seize millions of dollars in assets as a 

result of their law enforcement 

activities. In fiscal year 2011, the 

combined value of assets in these two 

programs was about $9.4 billion. 

Beginning in 1988 and through 2003, 

Congress and GAO have called on 

Justice and Treasury to consolidate 

management activities between their 

programs. GAO was asked to assess 

the extent to which Justice and 

Treasury have assessed and acted on 

opportunities to coordinate or 

consolidate forfeiture property 

management activities since 2003 to 

reduce any duplication and achieve 

cost savings. GAO interviewed officials 

to determine actions under way or 

completed to consolidate their 

management activities. GAO also 

analyzed IT asset tracking systems 

functions and the geographic proximity 

of contracted facilities that store 

vehicles, vessels, and aircraft. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Justice and 

Treasury conduct a study to evaluate 

the feasibility, costs, and benefits of 

consolidating their asset management 

activities. Justice and Treasury 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendation.

What GAO Found

Since 2003, the Departments of Justice (Justice) and the Treasury (Treasury) 

have taken some steps to explore coordinating forfeiture program efforts, 

including sharing a website for posting notifications and pursuing a contract for 

seizure efforts abroad. However, limited progress has been made to consolidate 

the management of their assets. According to department officials, when 

Congress established the Treasury Forfeiture Fund in 1992, it recognized the 

differences in the programs’ missions, which warranted creating separate 

programs, and this encouraged independent operational decisions that 

eventually created differences between the programs. There are some 

differences between the programs, but both departments seize similar assets 

such as vehicles. Nevertheless, the departments have not assessed the 

feasibility of consolidation, including whether such efforts would be cost-effective, 

and continue to duplicate efforts by separately managing and disposing of their 

seized and forfeited property. Specifically, Justice and Treasury maintain four 

separate information technology (IT) asset tracking systems, which perform 

similar functions to support their respective asset forfeiture program activities. In 

addition, both departments procure separate national contracts for the 

management of real property and they separately store assets seized under each 

program that are in some cases located within the same geographic area. For 

example, as shown in the figure below, both the United States Marshals Service 

(Marshals)—the primary custodian of Justice’s seized assets—and Treasury 

maintain vehicle storage facilities, 40 percent of which are within 20 miles of each 

other. GAO recognizes the separate legal authorities of the asset forfeiture funds, 

but those authorities do not preclude consolidating certain management activities 

within the programs. Conducting a study to evaluate the feasibility of 

consolidation that considers associated costs and benefits, among other things, 

could help Justice and Treasury effectively identify the extent to which 

consolidation would help increase efficiency, effectiveness, and cost savings.

Locations of Marshals and Treasury Vehicle Storage Facilities 

View GAO-12-972. For more information, 

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

maurerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Letter 1 

Background 5

Justice and Treasury Have Shown Limited Progress since 2003 in 

Consolidating Asset Forfeiture Property Management Activities 10

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments 25

Appendix I GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 27

Tables

Table 1: Justice Asset Forfeiture Program Components 8

Table 2: Treasury Asset Forfeiture Program Components 10

Table 3: Asset Tracking Systems 16

Table 4: Key Questions to Consider When Evaluating Consolidation 

Proposals 18

Figures

Figure 1: Asset Forfeiture Process 7

Figure 2: Locations of Marshals and Treasury Contract Asset 

Storage Facilities for Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft 20

Figure 3: Proximity of Treasury Vehicle Storage Facilities to 

Marshals Facilities 21

Figure 4: Proximity of Treasury Vessel Storage Facilities to 

Marshals Facilities 22

Figure 5: Proximity of Treasury Aircraft Storage Facilities to 

Marshals Facilities 23

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Abbreviations

AFF Assets Forfeiture Fund

AFMLS Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section

AFMS Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

AFTRAK Asset Forfeiture Tracking and Retrieval 

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

CATS Consolidated Asset Tracking System

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FASTRAK Forfeiture and Seizure Tracking 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IRS-CI Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division

IT information technology

SEACATS Seized Assets and Case Tracking System

TFF Treasury Forfeiture Fund

USAO United States Attorney’s Offices 

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-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 12, 2012

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Dear Senator Grassley:

The use of asset forfeiture has become an integral part of the United 

States’ law enforcement process at both the federal and local levels. At 

the federal level, both the Department of Justice (Justice) and 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury) operate asset forfeiture programs 

that are designed to prevent and reduce crime through the seizure and 

forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to

facilitate, federal crimes.1 Annually, participating agencies within Justice 

and Treasury seize millions of dollars in assets as a result of their law 

enforcement activities. Seized assets include cash and financial 

instruments, as well as noncash items such as real estate, vehicles,

businesses, jewelry, art, antiques, collectibles, vessels, and aircraft. In 

fiscal year 2011, the combined value of assets in these two programs was 

about $9.4 billion, of which about $6.9 billion and $2.5 billion were assets 

under Justice’s and Treasury’s management, respectively. Participating 

agencies of both programs also seize and hold illegal drugs, firearms, and 

counterfeit items that have no resale value to the government and are 

typically held by the agencies until they are approved for destruction. In 

addition to separate asset forfeiture programs, each department 

maintains a separate fund that is the receipt account for the deposit of 

forfeitures. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 established 

the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF).2

 

1

Within the context of the Justice and Treasury asset forfeiture programs, asset forfeiture 

is the transfer of title in property to the federal government by execution of a legal process 

that can be administrative, civil judicial, or criminal forfeiture. In a broader context, 

forfeiture means the involuntary relinquishment of money or property without 

compensation as a consequence of a breach or nonperformance of some legal obligation 

or the commission of a crime. 

Monies 

deposited in the AFF pay for the costs of operating the Justice Forfeiture 

Program. Likewise, the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992 established 

2

Pub. L. No. 98-473, tit. II, §§ 310, 2302 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 524(c)). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) as a successor to what was then the 

Customs Forfeiture Fund.3

The asset forfeiture process is made up of sequential activities that 

include (1) preseizure activities such as investigations whereby assets 

are identified for potential seizure; (2) postseizure activities such as 

notification, wherein a law enforcement agency provides legal and official 

notice to the property owner and the public that the government intends to 

forfeit the seized property, and asset forfeiture property management 

activities such as appraising the value of a seized asset, storing and 

maintaining the asset, and disposing of the asset once it has been 

officially forfeited; and (3) management of the fund that receives forfeited 

cash and proceeds from the sale of forfeited assets. In addition to the two 

statutes establishing the Justice and Treasury Funds, a series of laws 

have been enacted over the years expanding forfeiture from drug 

offenses to money laundering, financial crimes, and terrorism-related 

offenses. These statutes authorize seizure and fund management 

activities, but they do not prohibit coordination or consolidation of asset 

forfeiture property management activities.

Monies deposited in the TFF pay for the costs 

of operating the Treasury Forfeiture Program.

In January 1990 we identified both the Justice and Treasury forfeiture 

programs as high-risk areas—in part because of the potential for cost 

reduction through administrative improvements and consolidation of the 

programs’ management and disposition of all noncash seized property, 

including property seized for drug-related offenses.4

 

3

Pub. L. No. 102-393, § 638 (codified as amended at 31 U.S.C. § 9703).

In 1991, we reported 

that the two agencies had made no significant progress toward 

developing a joint plan for consolidating the postseizure administration of 

properties seized for drug-related violations, as directed by the Anti-Drug 

4

In determining whether a government program is high risk, we consider whether it 

involves national significance or a management function that is key to performance and 

accountability. We consider whether the risk is an inherent or systemic problem and 

qualitative factors such as public health or safety or resulting in significantly impaired 

service. In addition, we also consider the exposure to loss in monetary or other 

quantitative terms. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Abuse Act of 1988.5 In February 1995 and March 1996, we 

recommended that Justice and Treasury aggressively pursue 

consolidation of their asset management and disposition functions.6

The current fiscal crisis offers a window of opportunity for the federal 

government to examine how consolidating its operations can contribute to 

cost savings or effectiveness gains. With our nation facing serious, longterm fiscal challenges, a reevaluation of federal agencies’ operations has 

never been more important than it is today, and over the past 2 years, we 

have reported on many areas that may be or are duplicative, overlapping, 

and fragmented. You asked us to report on what Justice and Treasury 

have done to coordinate asset forfeiture property management activities 

between their respective asset forfeiture programs since 2003, the time 

when both programs were taken off GAO’s high-risk list, and to determine 

the potential for duplication in asset management activities related to the 

programs.

In 

2003 we removed both programs from the high-risk list because Justice 

and Treasury had (1) made improvements in the management of and 

accountability for seized and forfeited property, and (2) demonstrated the 

commitment to communicate and coordinate where joint efforts could help 

reduce costs and eliminate potentially duplicative activities. For example, 

Justice and Treasury were moving toward better coordination of asset 

forfeiture property management activities such as sharing website 

locations for Internet sales, sharing selected vehicle storage and 

warehouse facilities, and exploring opportunities to jointly contract for 

specific services in high-volume areas.

7

 

5

GAO, Asset Forfeiture: Noncash Property Should Be Consolidated Under the Marshals 

Service, 

Specifically, this report addresses the following question: To 

what extent have Justice and Treasury assessed and acted on 

GAO/GGD-91-97 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 1991) (citing 21 U.S.C. § 887). 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund had not yet been established at the time of this review, and 

our findings focused on the U.S. Marshals Service within Justice and the U.S. Customs 

Service within Treasury.

6

GAO, Asset Forfeiture: Historical Perspective on Asset Forfeiture Issues, 

GAO/T-GGD-96-40 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 1996), and High-Risk Series: Asset 

Forfeiture Programs, GAO/HR-95-7 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 1995). A description of 

Justice and Treasury’s actions in response to this recommendation is included later in this 

report. 

7

Using the framework established in our prior work addressing overlap, duplication, and 

fragmentation, we define “duplication” as occurring when two or more agencies or 

programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same 

beneficiaries. 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

opportunities to coordinate or consolidate asset forfeiture property 

management activities to reduce any duplication and achieve cost 

savings since 2003?

To conduct this work, we reviewed our prior reports for a historical 

perspective on findings and recommendations related to potentially 

duplicative activities for managing and disposing of seized and forfeited 

assets, relevant law and congressional action related to the programs,

and a study contracted by Justice and Treasury in 2000 to identify 

opportunities for increased cooperation and sharing of agency and 

contractor resources. We also interviewed agency officials in both 

departments to determine actions under way and completed to 

consolidate any duplicative property management activities between their 

respective programs since 2003.

To determine the extent to which there may be areas of duplication 

between the programs, we reviewed the asset forfeiture process to 

determine the different activities undertaken within the programs. We 

focused on the postseizure activities of managing assets—in particular, 

the use of asset tracking systems, and the management of personal and 

real property—since this is where past legislation, congressional 

committee report language, and our prior work recommended 

consolidation.8

With regard to the management of personal property, we analyzed data, 

as of June 2012, on contract vendors utilized by both Justice and 

Treasury to manage three categories of seized and forfeited personal 

property assets—vehicles, vessels, and aircraft. To assess the reliability 

of these data, we (1) performed electronic data testing and looked for 

obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, and (2) interviewed agency 

officials knowledgeable about asset management to determine the 

With regard to information technology (IT) asset tracking 

systems, we reviewed and analyzed technical information such as user 

requirements documentation, operations manuals, and information 

technology business cases. We also observed a demonstration of each 

system and interviewed agency officials responsible for operating each 

system. 

 

8

Personal property includes all noncash valued assets such as vehicles, aircraft, and 

jewelry, and nonvalued assets such as narcotics and weapons, but excludes real property. 

Real property is land and any improvements upon the land such as structures. This 

includes single-family homes, apartment complexes, vacant land, businesses, and farms. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

processes in place to ensure the integrity of the data. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. There is 

some variation in the types and volumes of assets seized under each 

program; however, we selected vehicles, vessels, and aircraft asset 

categories because they encompass the types of assets that both 

agencies seize and generally manage similarly. Specifically, we analyzed 

the addresses of the Justice and Treasury vendors to determine the 

geographic proximity of the two agencies’ facilities for storing similar 

assets encompassed within each category. The objective of this analysis 

was to determine whether the two agencies were storing similar assets in 

close geographic proximity while maintaining separate contracts for this 

purpose and if so, the frequency of these occurrences. For purposes of 

this analysis, we regarded 20 miles or less as close geographic proximity. 

Finally, we visited 4 out of about 140 vehicle storage facilities to observe 

how assets are managed under the Justice and Treasury programs. We 

selected these facilities based on geographic location for states that have 

a high volume of forfeitures or that have large numbers of facilities, and 

on their proximity to GAO staff conducting the review. While the results of 

these observations cannot be generalized to all storage facilities, they 

provided us with an understanding of how assets can be managed.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 through 

September 2012 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.

For both the Justice and the Treasury program, the asset forfeiture 

process involves a number of key steps, including necessary planning of 

the seizure, seizing and taking custody of the asset, notifying interested 

parties, and addressing any claims and petitions. Noncash personal 

property, such as vehicles, airplanes, jewelry, and collectibles, that has 

been seized must be stored and maintained until it is either returned to 

the owner or has been forfeited to the government and then disposed of. 

Seized and forfeited real property, while not stored, must also be 

maintained. Once property is forfeited to the government, it is 

subsequently sold, put into official use, destroyed, or transferred to 

Background 

Asset Forfeiture Process
 

Page 6 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

another agency. In fiscal year 2011, Justice was responsible for 

overseeing 452 pieces of real property at a value of about $97 million, 

and over 3,000 pieces of personal property at a value of about $74 

million. Treasury was responsible for 251 pieces of real property at a 

value of about $41 million, and over 15,000 pieces of personal property at 

a value of about $20 million. Cash and monetary instruments that have 

been forfeited and property that has been forfeited and sold are 

subsequently deposited in the forfeiture fund, in the case of Justice—the 

AFF—and for Treasury—the TFF.9 Money collected in the funds is used 

to pay for expenses related to the asset forfeiture program and for other 

law enforcement initiatives.10 Figure 1 demonstrates the key steps 

involved in the asset forfeiture process.

 

9

At the end of fiscal year 2011, Justice had a total of about $114 million in currency and 

other monetary instruments; Treasury had a total of about $20 million in currency and 

monetary instruments. 

10For more information on Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund, see: GAO, Justice Assets 

Forfeiture Fund: Transparency of Balances and Controls Over Equitable Sharing Should 

Be Improved, GAO-12-736 (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2012). 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Figure 1: Asset Forfeiture Process

a

Any state or local law enforcement agency, or foreign country, that directly participates in an 

investigation or prosecution that results in a federal forfeiture by a Justice or Treasury participating 

agency may request an equitable share of the net proceeds of the forfeiture.

The primary mission of the Justice Asset Forfeiture Program is to prevent 

and reduce crime by disrupting, damaging, and dismantling criminal 

organizations through the use of the forfeiture sanction. The program has 

three primary goals: (1) to punish and deter criminal activity by depriving 

criminals of property used or acquired through illegal activities; (2) to 

enhance cooperation among foreign, federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies through the equitable sharing of assets recovered 

Justice and Treasury Asset 

Forfeiture Programs
 

Page 8 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

through the program;11 and as a by-product, (3) to produce revenues in 

support of future law enforcement investigations and related forfeiture 

activities. The Justice Asset Forfeiture Program includes activity by the 

Department of Justice components as shown in table 1, as well as 

several components outside of the department.12

Table 1: Justice Asset Forfeiture Program Components

Department of Justice Description 

The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering 

Section (AFMLS) of the Criminal Division

AFMLS is responsible for the coordination, direction, and general oversight of the 

program.

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff (AFMS) AFMS is responsible for the management of the AFF, program wide contracts, 

oversight of program internal controls, and its Consolidated Asset Tracking System—

the computer system that is to track all assets.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives (ATF)

ATF is a seizing agency for the program and is responsible for enforcing federal laws 

and regulations relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, and arson by 

working directly and in cooperation with other federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies. ATF has the authority to seize and forfeit firearms, ammunition, explosives, 

alcohol, tobacco, currency, conveyances, and certain real property involved in 

violations of law.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) DEA is a seizing agency for the program and implements major investigative 

strategies against drug networks and cartels. DEA maintains custody over narcotics 

and other seized contraband.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) FBI is a seizing agency for the program and investigates a broad range of criminal 

violations, integrating the use of asset forfeiture into its overall strategy to eliminate 

targeted criminal enterprise.

The United States Marshals Service 

(Marshals)

Marshals serves as the primary custodian of seized property for the program and 

manages and disposes of the majority of property seized for forfeiture. Marshals also 

contracts with qualified vendors to assist in the management and disposition of 

property. In addition to serving as the custodian of property, Marshals provides 

information and assists prosecutors in making informed decisions about property that 

is targeted for forfeiture.

 

11State and local law enforcement agencies typically qualify for equitable sharing by 

participating directly with Justice in joint investigations leading to the seizure and forfeiture 

of property. Agencies may either receive a portion of the proceeds resulting from the sale 

of the forfeited asset or may request that a forfeited asset such as a vehicle be put into 

official use. Any property other than contraband or firearms may be transferred to a state 

or local agency for official use, provided that it is used for law enforcement purposes. 

Treasury also runs an Equitable Sharing Program that is very similar to the Justice 

program. 

12The components outside of Justice are the United States Postal Inspection Service; 

Food and Drug Administration; United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the 

Inspector General; Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security; and Defense 

Criminal Investigative Service. 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Department of Justice Description 

The United States Attorney’s Offices (USAO) USAOs are responsible for the prosecution of both criminal and civil actions against 

property used or acquired during illegal activity.

Source: Justice.

Likewise, the mission of the Treasury Forfeiture Program is to 

affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic use of asset forfeiture 

by Treasury law enforcement bureaus to disrupt and dismantle criminal 

enterprises. The program has four primary goals: (1) to deprive criminals 

of property used in or acquired through illegal activities; (2) to encourage 

joint operations among federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies, as well as foreign countries; (3) to strengthen law enforcement; 

and (4) to protect the rights of the individual.

The Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture administers the TFF, 

which is the receipt account for the deposit of non-tax forfeitures made by 

member agencies. The member agencies include one Department of the 

Treasury agency and four Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

agencies, as shown in table 2.13

 

13In addition to the Treasury participating agencies, funds from the TFF can be allocated 

to other law enforcement entities that do not have forfeiture authority, such as Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the Tax 

and Trade Bureau. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Table 2: Treasury Asset Forfeiture Program Components

Agencies participating

in the Treasury program Description 

Treasury: Internal Revenue Service Criminal 

Investigation Division (IRS-CI)

IRS-CI is a seizing agency for the program and investigates financial crimes such as 

money laundering, corporate fraud, and terrorism financing.

DHS: U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE)

ICE is a seizing agency for the program and is responsible for the investigation of 

immigration crimes, human-rights violations, and human smuggling. 

DHS: U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) 

CBP is a seizing agency for the program and seizes property primarily from criminal 

investigations and passenger/cargo processing. Prohibited forfeited items, such as 

counterfeit goods, narcotics, or firearms, are held by CBP until disposed of or 

destroyed.

DHS: U.S. Secret Service (USSS) USSS is a seizing agency for the program and has primary investigative authority for 

counterfeiting, access-device fraud, and cybercrimes.a

DHS: U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) The Coast Guard participates in the Treasury program, is the lead federal agency for 

maritime drug interdiction, and shares lead responsibility for air interdiction with the 

U.S. Customs Service.

Source: Treasury and DHS.

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.

Since 2003, Justice and Treasury have taken some steps to explore 

coordinating forfeiture program efforts, including sharing a website for 

posting notifications, pursuing a contract for seizure efforts abroad, and 

potentially sharing recycling facilities. However, the departments have 

made limited progress in sharing storage facilities or contracts, and 

Justice and Treasury have not fully explored the possibility of coordinating 

the management of their assets that could be consolidated to achieve 

efficiencies, effectiveness, and cost savings. As a result, each department 

maintains separate IT asset tracking systems, separate contracts, and 

separate storage facilities.

In 2003, we reported that Justice’s and Treasury’s progress in improving 

the management of and accountability for seized and forfeited property, 

and their demonstrated commitment to communicate and coordinate 

where joint efforts could help reduce costs and eliminate duplicative 

activities, were sufficient to remove the high-risk designation from the 

asset forfeiture programs. We noted that Justice and Treasury were 

moving toward sharing website locations for Internet sales, sharing 

selected vehicle storage and warehouse facilities, and exploring 

opportunities to jointly contract for specific services in high-volume areas.

However, the departments have not assessed the feasibility of 

Justice and Treasury 

Have Shown Limited 

Progress since 2003 in 

Consolidating Asset 

Forfeiture Property 

Management 

Activities

Some Efforts Have Been 

Made or Are Under Way to 

Coordinate Forfeiture 

Activities but the 

Departments Continue to 

Maintain Separate 

Programs
 

Page 11 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

consolidating asset management activities and continue to separately 

manage assets.

Since 2003, Justice and Treasury have coordinated in other areas such 

as developing and sharing a single electronic certification form and 

database to collect, process, and analyze the submission of online forms 

from state and local law enforcement agencies participating in the 

Equitable Sharing Program and sharing a website to post forfeiture 

notices to the public.14 According to Treasury officials, since 2008 

Treasury has saved approximately $1.8 million in advertising costs 

because of the migration of advertising notices to the shared website.15

• Justice procured a contract for claims administration in large-scale 

victim remission cases that participating agencies of each program 

will be able to use.

In 

addition, Justice and Treasury officials noted other cooperative efforts 

they have planned or under way, which include the following:

16 According to Justice officials, as of August 2012 

implementation was under way.

• Justice and Treasury are pursuing an international property contract 

for use by both departments for seizure efforts related to real and 

personal property located abroad, and the departments expect to 

award a contract by October 2013.

• Justice uses Treasury’s Bureau of Public Debt brokerage account in 

order to dispose of forfeited paper stocks and bonds rather than 

opening its own account for the disposal of such securities.

• Treasury is exploring the possibilities of using Justice’s UNICOR as a 

recycler of seized and forfeited goods and, as of June 2012, had 

 

14Through the Equitable Sharing Program, Justice distributes an equitable share of 

forfeited property and proceeds to participating state and local law enforcement agencies 

that directly participate in an investigation or prosecution that results in federal forfeiture. 

For more information on the Equitable Sharing Program, see GAO-12-736. 

15Treasury officials further noted that in the coming months, CBP will be posting forfeiture 

notices on the same website, which is expected to increase the program’s annual savings 

on advertisement costs. 

16In cases where people have been defrauded, Justice and Treasury go through a 

process called remission. Remission occurs when forfeited assets are returned to the 

victims of a crime underlying forfeiture. One example of a large-scale case is the Bernard 

Madoff Ponzi scheme that is considered to be the largest financial fraud in history. 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

conducted several site visits to selected UNICOR recycling facilities to 

review the program and ensure adequate security measures were in 

place during the recycling process.17

• Treasury provided its personal and real property contract structures to 

Justice for informational purposes in an effort to share information and 

to assist in their procurement process.

Senior officials from both departments also stated that they routinely 

consult and coordinate with each other to ensure that they develop 

consistent policies and practices relating to many areas of the programs, 

especially for major policies such as equitable sharing and third-party 

victims.

Additionally, Justice and Treasury had contracted for a study in 2000 to 

identify opportunities for increased cooperation and sharing of agency 

and contractor resources. The study contained recommendations for 

improving the effectiveness and efficiency of property management 

functions. For example, the study recommended sharing fixed-cost 

vehicle storage facilities and jointly disposing of vehicles, vessels, and 

aircraft. The study also recommended that Treasury consolidate its IT 

asset tracking systems into one. However, Justice rejected the findings of 

the study because it asserted that the contractor did not satisfy the terms 

of the contract.18

 

17UNICOR is the trade name for Federal Prison Industries, whose mission is to employ 

and provide job skills training to the greatest practicable number of inmates confined 

within the Federal Bureau of Prisons and to produce market-priced high quality goods and 

services, among other things. 

For example, the contractor was supposed to develop 

performance metrics for property management and disposition but, 

according to Justice, did not do so. As a result, the departments continue 

to separately manage and dispose of their seized and forfeited property. 

According to Justice and Treasury officials, when Congress passed a law 

establishing the TFF in 1992, it recognized the differences in the 

programs’ missions, which warranted creating separate programs, and 

this encouraged independent operational decisions that eventually 

created differences between the two programs. Treasury officials further 

noted that with the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and 

the creation of DHS in 2003, Congress did not choose to mandate any 

18According to Justice officials, the study was never officially released since the vendor 

did not fulfill the requirements of the contract. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

consolidation of the programs, and therefore Congress’ intent was that 

the programs remain separate.19 We recognize the separate legal 

authorities of the asset forfeiture funds, but those legal authorities do not 

preclude coordinating more or consolidating certain asset management 

activities within the programs that we have found to be duplicative over 

the years across the federal government. Further, after the statutory 

creation of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund in 1992, a 1995 House 

Appropriations Committee report directed Justice to review the feasibility 

of consolidating Justice and Treasury contracts with vendors that provide 

asset management and disposal services for both agencies, in order to 

address duplication and provide cost savings.20 Additionally, over the past 

2 years, pursuant to a statutory mandate,21 we have reported on many 

areas that appear to be duplicative, overlapping, or fragmented.22 These 

past reports have suggested that federal agencies could increase their 

efficiency and effectiveness by consolidating their physical infrastructure 

or management functions.

While the departments were moving toward more coordination in 2003, 

limited progress has been made since then in sharing the management of 

its assets. Specifically, the departments continue to maintain separate IT 

asset tracking systems, storage facilities, and contracts.

Justice and Treasury maintain four separate IT asset tracking systems—

one for Justice and three for Treasury—to support their respective asset 

forfeiture program activities, and these four tracking systems have similar 

 

19Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. 

20Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 1996, H.R. Rep. No. 104-196, at 20, 104th Cong. (1995).

21Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 8, 29-30 (2010).

22GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 

Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C. 

Mar. 1, 2011). 

Justice and Treasury Have 

Made Limited Progress to 

Decrease Duplication in 

the Management of Assets 

in the Justice and Treasury 

Forfeiture Programs

Duplication in Justice and 

Treasury Asset Tracking 

Systems
 

Page 14 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

functionality.23 In February 1995, we reported that Justice and Treasury 

were pursuing consolidation of IT asset tracking systems and that both 

departments had agreed to develop, implement, manage, operate, 

enhance, and support a consolidated IT asset tracking system.24

According to Justice officials, Treasury had intended to use Justice’s 

system and participated for 2 years in its design, development, and 

implementation, but subsequently withdrew to use its own tracking 

system. Treasury officials stated that they developed their own IT asset 

tracking system that would link to the program’s financial system of record 

in order to satisfy the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the federal 

financial requirements mandated by the Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board.25 Our prior work shows that information technology 

solutions can be identified in areas in which agencies have made 

individual investments for systems that are common and duplicative.26 For 

example, the federal payroll consolidation initiative consolidated 26 

payroll systems to four shared-service centers, standardized payroll 

policies and procedures, and resulted in achieving cost effectiveness 

through economies of scale and the elimination of duplicative systems. 

Further, in 1996, we reported that Treasury recognized that the Justice IT 

asset tracking system could be modified to meet the Treasury financial 

reporting requirements but believed that developing a new system to 

meet the requirements was preferable.27

 

23Two of the three IT asset tracking systems used in the Treasury Forfeiture Program are 

owned and operated by the Department of Homeland Security. 

In 2012, Justice and Treasury 

officials stated that they had not compared the different systems to 

determine similarities or differences between them or whether 

consolidation was feasible or desirable. Treasury officials stated that they 

24GAO/HR-95-7. 

25The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act), as amended, requires agency 

financial management systems to provide complete, reliable, consistent, and timely 

information that responds to agency managers’ financial information needs, including 

establishing integrated accounting and financial management systems. See Pub. L. No. 

101-576, 104 Stat. 2838. The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board establishes 

accounting standards governing federal agency financial systems and financial reporting 

pursuant to the CFO Act. For example, the standards address accounting for inventory 

and related property, including seized and forfeited property. 

26GAO, Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When Evaluating Proposals to 

Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and Management Functions, GAO-12-542

(Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2012). 

27GAO/T-GGD-96-40. 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

did not believe that consolidation would be cost-effective, and Justice and 

Treasury continue to use separate systems to perform similar functions 

that reside on different hardware and software platforms.

We analyzed the major functions of Justice and Treasury’s four systems 

and found that all systems perform similar functions that are duplicative 

across government agencies overseeing asset forfeiture programs, as 

shown in table 3. All four systems have the ability to record seizures, 

details on the asset, movement of the asset through various stages, and 

disposition of the asset. Further, all systems could generate detailed and 

various reports related to the management of assets.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Table 3: Asset Tracking Systems

Asset tracking 

system Description

Functionality

Ability to 

record 

seizures

Records asset 

information such 

as parties, liens, 

evidence, petition, 

and asset 

movement

Ability to 

generate 

reports

Ability to 

track 

equitable 

sharing 

payments

Justice: 

Consolidated Asset 

Tracking System 

(CATS) 

CATS is the system of record for the 

Justice program. It tracks information 

through the entire process from seizure to 

disposition including asset forfeiture 

program business functions such as 

seizures, custody, forfeiture, and disposal.

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Treasury: Seized 

Asset and Case 

Tracking System 

(SEACATS) 

SEACATS is the system of record for the 

Treasury program. It is operated by CBP 

and tracks information on assets through 

the entire life cycle from seizure to 

disposition for assets seized under the

Treasury program. In addition to tracking 

seized and forfeited assets, SEACATS 

supports CBP in issuing penalties 

assessed against a person or business 

violating laws enforced by CBP, and in 

issuing claims for liquidated damages. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Treasury: Asset 

Forfeiture Tracking 

and Retrieval 

(AFTRAK) 

AFTRAK is used by IRS-CI, and according 

to officials, was originally developed in the 

early 1990s but was redesigned in April 

2010 to be interconnected to IRS’s 

investigation case management system. 

Officials stated that it cannot be linked to 

other systems as it contains information 

that is subject to Internal Revenue Code 

rules that deal with federal statutory tax 

laws. Assets seized by IRS-CI are recorded 

and tracked in AFTRAK; however, the 

officials stated that personal and real 

property information is also manually 

entered into SEACATS since it is the 

system of record for Treasury.

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Treasury: Forfeiture 

and Seizure 

Tracking (FASTRAK)

FASTRAK is used by USSS. USSS officials 

stated that they used CATS many years 

ago but developed FASTRAK in early 2010 

so they could have more control over 

information, since they deal primarily with 

intelligence information. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: GAO analysis of Justice and Treasury documents.

Officials at CBP, the agency responsible for managing SEACATS—the 

Treasury system of record—stated that a committee had been 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

established in 2011 to begin an IT evaluation of an analysis of 

alternatives that would explore combining the three IT asset tracking 

systems under the Treasury program. However, just as the effort began, 

funding for the evaluation was eliminated because of overall federal 

government program budget cuts. While CBP attempted an evaluation, 

officials responsible for the overall Treasury program stated that given the 

unique requirements of Treasury participating agencies, it would not be 

beneficial to develop a consolidated asset tracking system. Likewise, 

according to Justice officials, Justice has done little outreach to the 

Treasury participating agencies about coordinating or consolidating IT 

asset tracking systems. However, Justice officials believed that there was 

room to consolidate asset tracking systems, and said a “best of breed” 

approach could be used, wherein the best features from each system 

would be combined. Further, in our analysis of the systems, we found that 

the technology in the Treasury system of record, SEACATS, was based 

on 1990s mainframe technology with no existing formal documentation; 

officials from the Office of Information Technology would like to move the 

application from the mainframe to a more modern technology 

environment. According to Justice and Treasury data, the cost of 

developing, maintaining, and overseeing their four asset tracking systems 

in fiscal year 2011 totaled $16.2 million for CATS and $10.4 million 

combined for the three Treasury asset tracking systems.

As we reported in May 2012, consolidating management functions, such 

as information technology services, can increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of programs or contribute to cost savings, but information is 

needed to help effectively evaluate consolidation proposals and 

activities.28

 

28

As shown in table 4, fundamental questions should be 

answered while considering consolidation because, while consolidation is 

beneficial in some situations, it is not in others. Consolidation initiatives 

can be immensely complex, politically charged, and costly and are not 

quick, easy, or automatic ways of producing desired change. As a result, 

a case-by-case analysis is necessary—evaluating the goals of the 

consolidation against the realistic possibility of the extent to which those 

goals would be achieved—to ensure effective stewardship of government 

resources in a constrained budget environment. By conducting a study 

that takes into account the expected costs, benefits, and other key 

questions to consider when evaluating consolidation proposals, Justice 

GAO-12-542. 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

and Treasury would have the information needed to determine if 

consolidation would result in improvements such as increases in 

efficiency, effectiveness, or cost savings.

Table 4: Key Questions to Consider When Evaluating Consolidation Proposals

What are the goals of the consolidation? What opportunities will be addressed through the consolidation and what problems, if any, 

will be created?

What will be the likely costs and benefits of the consolidation? Are sufficiently reliable data available to support a business-case 

analysis or cost-benefit analysis?

How can the up-front costs associated with the consolidation be funded?

Who are the consolidation stakeholders, and how will they be affected? How have the stakeholders been involved in the decision, and 

how have their views been considered? On balance, do stakeholders understand the rationale for consolidation?

To what extent do plans show that change management practices will be used to implement the consolidation?

Source: GAO-12-542. 

Justice and Treasury have made limited progress in sharing storage 

facilities or contracts and continue to separately store assets seized 

under each program. In some cases, storage facilities are located in the 

same geographic area. Under the Justice program, the Marshals 

Service—the primary custodian of Justice’s seized assets—generally 

takes a decentralized approach to facility and contract management. In 

fiscal year 2011, the Marshals Service had multiple contracts for the 

management, storage, and disposal of assets at a cost of about $19 

million. Treasury, using a centralized approach, has two nationwide 

contracts that provide custodial services either directly or through 

subcontracts with other vendors at a cost of about $49 million for fiscal 

year 2011. Treasury reported overseeing 5 government warehouse 

facilities, 61 vehicle locations, and 82 outside specialty vendor locations 

such as cold storage or storage of hazardous materials. Justice and 

Treasury stated that the volume and types of properties seized by the 

participating agencies of each department vary. For example, according 

to Treasury officials, CBP seizes and holds a much higher volume of 

items that have no resale value to the government, such as narcotics and 

contraband, than Justice. While there are some variations in the types of 

properties seized, both departments also seize similar assets such as 

vehicles and real property.

Our analysis of contracted asset storage facilities showed that about 23 to 

40 percent of Marshals and Treasury’s contracted facilities in each 

category are in close proximity to one another—or within 20 miles or less 

of one another. Because there is some variation in the types and volumes 

of assets seized under each program, we analyzed storage locations for 

Potential Duplication in 

Justice’s and Treasury’s 

Storage Facilities and 

Contracts
 

Page 19 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

assets that both departments seize and that generally are managed 

similarly. In our analysis, we examined a total of 212 contract-owned 

asset storage facilities utilized by Marshals and Treasury as of June 2012 

for the storage of three categories of assets—vehicles (143), vessels 

(54), and aircraft (15). As shown in figure 2, each agency maintains, for 

example, vehicle storage facilities in numerous states and territories 

across the country. However, several states—including the border states 

of Texas and California in addition to Florida—contain higher 

concentrations of vehicle storage facilities.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Figure 2: Locations of Marshals and Treasury Contract Asset Storage Facilities for Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft

With respect to contracted vehicle storage facilities, our analysis shows 

that Treasury uses 61 of the 143 vehicle storage facilities, of which 40 

percent are located 20 miles or less from a Marshals contracted vehicle 

storage facility. This includes 4 facilities, managed by the same vendor, 

which Treasury shares with Marshals under separate contracts, as shown 

in figure 3.
 

Page 21 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Figure 3: Proximity of Treasury Vehicle Storage Facilities to Marshals Facilities

Vendors at one of the vehicle facilities we visited stated that because of 

the small size of the facility, they were at full capacity and could not 

accommodate more vehicles; however officials managing the other, larger 

facility nearby that we visited stated that there would be room for 

additional vehicles. We recognize that excess capacity might not exist for 

all vehicle storage facilities that are near one another, and that other 

factors might influence whether vehicle storage facilities could be shared, 

such as different agency contracting rules and specialized requirements.

However, this example indicates that the potential for sharing resources 

exists and could be further explored.

For the storage of vessels, Treasury and Marshals use a total of 54 

contracted facilities—23 facilities for Treasury and 31 for Marshals. Our 

analysis shows that 39 percent (9 of 23) of the Treasury contracted 

vessel storage facilities were located 20 miles or less from a Marshals 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

contracted vessel storage facility—including 1 facility that both Treasury 

and Marshals use but under separate contracts, as shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: Proximity of Treasury Vessel Storage Facilities to Marshals Facilities

Treasury and Marshals also maintain 15 contracted facilities for the 

storage of aircraft—7 facilities for Treasury and 8 for Marshals. Our 

analysis shows that 28 percent (2 of 7) of the Treasury contracted aircraft 

facilities were located 20 miles or less from a Marshals contracted vessel 

storage facility, as shown in figure 5.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Figure 5: Proximity of Treasury Aircraft Storage Facilities to Marshals Facilities

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

In addition to contracted facilities, in fiscal year 2011, Marshals reported 

having 87 government-run storage locations and Treasury reported 

overseeing 5 government warehouse facilities.29

 

29According to Marshal Service officials, government-run storage locations are secure 

places that do not require a procurement action or incur a storage cost, and in some 

cases, can be a vault in a district office. 

Additionally, CBP, as a 

participant in the Treasury program, reported using about 80 warehouses 

where assets that cannot be handled by contractors—such as drugs, 

weapons, and money—are stored. Treasury officials stated that sharing 

warehouses would not be practical under Treasury’s current contract 

structure. However, the practicality of sharing warehouses cannot be 

known without more information. A study to evaluate the feasibility of 

consolidation that included government-run storage facilities would 

provide Treasury and Justice with information to determine whether 

improved effectiveness, efficiencies, or cost savings were possible.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

Marshals and Treasury also have separate contracts for the management 

and disposal of real property, which includes single-family homes, 

multifamily homes, warehouses, and land. In fiscal year 2011, Marshals 

reported using one national contract for the management of real property 

in every U.S. Marshals District except three.30

In fiscal year 2011, Marshals had contracts for the management, storage, 

and disposal of all assets at a cost of about $19 million.

Treasury uses a similar 

model for managing real property and also uses one national contract for 

the management of real property, which includes maintaining and 

eventually disposing of the property. Marshals and Treasury use different 

national contractors, and have not evaluated the feasibility of 

consolidating the contracting for real property management. They 

therefore do not know if there could be improved effectiveness, efficiency 

gains, or cost savings realized because of economies of scale.

31

Given the proximity of many Marshals and Treasury asset storage 

facilities as detailed above, we asked officials from the two agencies if 

they had studied the feasibility of consolidating their separate contracting 

activities for the storage of similar assets. Both Marshals and Treasury 

responded that, while they have attempted to consolidate storage 

facilities where practical, they had not considered such an analysis 

because of factors such as (1) the unique security requirements for their 

stored assets; (2) variations in the types of assets maintained by each 

Treasury’s two 

nationwide contracts—one for the management of personal property and 

one for the management of real property—cost about $49 million for fiscal 

year 2011. Given the resources needed to maintain separate asset 

tracking systems, asset storage facilities, and contracts for the 

management of property; consolidating these systems, storage facilities, 

and contracts could result in increased efficiency, effectiveness, and cost 

savings. However, gathering additional information would be important to 

help effectively evaluate consolidation proposals and activities, as well as 

any expected benefits.

 

30There are 94 U.S. Marshals districts. According to Marshals officials, the 3 remaining 

districts used multiple vendors for the management of real property. 

31According to Marshals, $19 million is the approximate amount paid to vendors for all 

asset management services between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011, that 

stored one or more assets over the same period of time. The cost of $19 million excludes 

vendors who performed one or more asset management services (i.e., towing, 

maintenance, disposal/auction) other than storage. 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

agency that may create unique storage needs; (3) different contracting 

rules and requirements for each agency; (4) the inability to accurately 

predict the combined storage needs of both agencies, which affects their 

ability to contract for these services; and (5) overall lack of assurance that 

combining storage contracts will result in cost savings. However, 

according to these same officials, the departments have not analyzed the 

similarities or differences in each department’s security requirements, 

storage needs, or contracting rules. Thus, the extent to which variations in 

these factors hinder consolidation efforts is not known. Conducting a 

study that assesses the feasibility of consolidation, including the costs, 

benefits, and key questions to consider when evaluating consolidation, 

would better position Justice and Treasury to determine if consolidation 

would result in increases in efficiency, effectiveness, or cost savings.

Justice and Treasury separately manage over $9 billion in seized assets. 

The departments use different information systems and separate 

contracts, and maintain separate storage facilities that are frequently 

within 20 miles of a similar facility. While the agencies have taken some 

steps to coordinate forfeiture program efforts, the current fiscal 

environment and the billions of dollars of assets involved underscore the 

need for agencies to examine how consolidating operations might 

contribute to cost savings or effectiveness gains. By conducting a study 

that takes into account the costs, benefits, and key questions to consider 

when evaluating consolidation proposals, the departments could have 

critical information to better identify whether increased efficiencies, 

effectiveness, and cost savings can be realized.

Given that information is needed to determine the feasibility of 

consolidating potentially duplicative Justice and Treasury asset forfeiture 

management activities, we recommend that the Attorney General and the 

Secretary of the Treasury conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 

consolidating asset management activities including, but not limited to, 

the use of asset tracking systems and the sharing of vendor and contract 

resources. This study should include the likely costs and benefits of 

consolidation as well as GAO’s key questions to consider when 

evaluating consolidation proposals.

We provided a draft of this report to Justice and Treasury for their review 

and comment. Justice and Treasury did not provide official written 

comments to include in this report. However, in e-mails received on 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
 

Page 26 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

August 28, 2012, from Justice and Treasury officials, both departments 

concurred with the recommendation. Justice further noted that once the 

final report is issued, the department will provide a formal plan of action to 

Congress within 60 days. Treasury also noted that DHS would need to be 

consulted as part of the study since DHS owns and operates two of the IT 

asset tracking systems used in the Treasury program. Both Justice and 

Treasury provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, the 

Secretary of the Treasury, selected congressional committees, and other 

interested parties. In addition, this report is be available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

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 I.

Sincerely yours,

David C. Maurer, Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 27 GAO-12-972 Asset Forfeiture Programs

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Sandra Burrell and Dawn Locke, 

Assistant Directors, and Valerie Kasindi, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this 

assignment. Samantha Carter and Mike Harmond made key contributions 

to the report. Also contributing to this report were Chuck Bausell, Frances 

Cook, Katherine Davis, Eric Hauswirth, Linda Miller, John Mingus, Gary 

Mountjoy, Cynthia Saunders, Karl Seifert, and Janet Temko.

Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441020)
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.