U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–847 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–357 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FINANCIAL FRAUD 

ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE 

OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 30, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–32 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PAIGE HERWIG, Democratic Chief Counsel/Staff Director 

DANIELLE CUTRONA, Republican Acting Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 3 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 4 

Kobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .................... 1 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 49 

WITNESSES 

Adkins, Robb, Executive Director, Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 8 

Jones, B. Todd, U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 7 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of B. Todd Jones and Robb Adkins to questions submitted by 

Senators Coburn and Sessions ............................................................................ 25 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Jones, B. Todd, U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, Chairman Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, and Robb Adkins, Executive Director, 

Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, joint statement ................................................................................. 33 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FINANCIAL FRAUD 

ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE

COURTS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Amy Klobuchar, 

Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Blumenthal and Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am pleased to call this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the 

Courts to order. 

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. 

Senator Sessions said to go ahead, and we may be having other 

Senators joining us later in the morning. 

Today, we are going to focus on the oversight of the Financial 

Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which is the largest coalition of 

Federal, state and local partners ever assembled in this country’s 

history to combat fraud. 

This issue is vital to our country as a whole and to individuals 

and families for a multitude of reasons. First of all, mortgage fraud 

caused many Americans to end up in homes they could not afford, 

which helped lead to the financial crisis and recession. Certainly, 

we saw that in my home State of Minnesota early on that that was 

the canary in the coal mine; people starting to get in trouble on 

their homes because they took mortgages out from people that did 

not have their best interests in mind. 

The proliferation of Internet scams has made many vulnerable 

citizens at risk of being swindled by false claims of easy money and 

cash prizes. 

Fraud on government programs can undermine confidence in 

government and diminish the benefit of cruical public investments 

at a time where you have senior citizens that could barely afford 

the health care. The thought that there are storefronts set up 

where people are receiving Medicare checks that they do not even 

deserve, that they do not even qualify for just can make anyone 

want to scream. 

2 

So the idea here is to cut back on that and do something about 

fraud, and that is what the task force is about. 

Fraud and Medicare and Medicaid has cost the Nation billions of 

dollars, something we can ill afford, given the dire fiscal situation 

we are in today. 

In the investment realm, we have seen what criminals like Bernie Madoff can do to the savings and the finances of families, 

schools, and charitable organizations. 

For all of these reasons, it is critical that our antifraud efforts 

be effective, efficient, and comprehensive. 

As a former prosecutor, I know that this is no easy task. We 

must ensure that we are providing adequate tools and resources to 

law enforcement and that we have the necessary laws and policies 

in place to deter this kind of fraud. 

We must have well trained prosecutors and other government officials, and we must promote the public awareness of the dangers 

of financial fraud. 

Finally, we need collaboration among law enforcement and regulatory agencies at all levels of government. It has always been my 

experience, when I was county attorney, that if there was a major 

fraud committed, the citizens really did not care who prosecuted, 

whether it was the local prosecutor’s office or the state attorney 

general’s office or the U.S. attorney’s office, they just wanted us to 

get the job done. 

And the other thing we have learned is that these crooks do not 

respect boundaries. They do not care if they are doing something 

in another country or another county or another state. And so that 

is why combining our resources so that we are better able to tackle 

crimes and to be as sophisticated as the crooks that are breaking 

the law is so critical in the area of white collar crime. 

President Obama formed the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task 

Force in late 2009. The task force includes more than 25 Federal 

agencies, the 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices, the National Association of 

Attorneys General, and the National District Attorneys Association. 

I think it is very important that local prosecutors be represented. 

So many crimes, especially since 9/11, when our U.S. attorney’s office, understandably, focused on many of these terrorism crimes, so 

many of the regular white collar crimes, including crimes involving 

millions and millions of dollars, were handled on the county level 

by the local prosecutors, by the DAs’ offices. So they have to have 

a part of this task force and be a part of the task force. 

The task force seeks to harness the capabilities of its member 

agencies and foster coordination in the fraud enforcement efforts. 

Its work covers a wide variety of fraudulent activities in the areas 

of mortgage lending, Recovery Act stimulus funds, securities, commodities, and government procurement and grants. 

The task force recently came out with its first year report, and 

we will examine that report today. We will discuss the operations 

of the task force, how it has enhanced antifraud efforts at the Department of Justice, and the steps that it has taken to increase coordination among government agencies. 

We have with us today two excellent representatives of the task 

force. First, we have B. Todd Jones, the U.S. Attorney from the 

great State of Minnesota, who sits on the steering Committee of 

3 

the task force. This is Todd Jones’ second round as U.S. attorney. 

So he brings a lot of experience to the job and to our state. 

And, second, we have Robb Adkins, who is the executive director 

of the task force. 

I will give a more complete introduction of our witnesses before 

they testify. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I would like to turn it over to Senator 

Blumenthal, if he would like to make some opening remarks. 

I also see we have been joined by Senator Grassley of Iowa, and 

I am sure he has a few things he would like to say, as well. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Madam 

Chairman. And first of all, thank you for having this hearing and, 

again, demonstrating your leadership in the area of combating financial fraud and related issues that undermine so importantly the 

integrity, as well as trust of the public in our financial system. 

These crimes are more than just superficial or passing in their 

impact. They are enduring because they go to the core of what people trust and need to have confidence in. 

I want to begin by saying that I have reviewed the task force 

first year report, which outlines increased prosecutions and convictions associated with mortgage fraud and related kinds of criminal 

activity. Those developments are very positive, and I really want 

to commend your efforts in this area. 

Twice as many defendants were charged in mortgage fraud cases 

in 2010 as in 2009, and twice as many convictions and, roughly, 

twice as many people were sentenced at every level of criminal severity, and that is very good news in sending a message, a deterrent message about the severity and seriousness of this Administration in dealing with this kind of crime. 

The 533 defendants that were found guilty of mortgage fraud last 

year are a dramatic increase from the 235 the year before, but I 

think everyone here, and I know both of you, being very experienced and expert prosecutors, agree that the scope of the problem 

and the magnitude of what remains to be done is certainly very 

daunting and important. 

And that is partly why we are here today, to make sure that the 

progress continues and, also, that the public understands the difficulty of doing these cases, and that is the second point I want to 

make here. 

Not only have you made progress, but I think you have amassed 

the infrastructure and the cooperation that is necessary to address 

these problems going forward. A lot of people simply do not understand these are very document-intensive, resource-demanding 

cases. 

They are not like the bank robberies that we used to do when 

I was United States attorney in Connecticut years ago, which were 

relatively simple cases. We moved to white collar crime fraud, 

which was more demanding, and the kinds of crimes that you are 

investigating and prosecuting are much more demanding and difficult to investigate and prosecute, because you need not only dediVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 May 21, 2012 Jkt 073847 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73847.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

cated and skilled professionals, which we have always had in the 

FBI and the U.S. attorneys’ offices, but, also, individuals who are 

really schooled and trained in the kinds of investigation that needs 

to be done. 

So I want to thank you for your efforts so far and say that I look 

forward to working with you, cooperating with you, aiding you in 

Minnesota, where I know you are doing great work as the United 

States attorney and in Washington, DC, Mr. Adkins, where you are 

bringing together the kinds of resources that we need to do not 

only on mortgage fraud, but, also, the gasoline price spikes that we 

have seen and crimes that may be related to them. 

And as you know, I have advocated even more aggressive action 

in that area, and look forward to working with you. Thank you for 

being here today. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator Grassley from the State of Iowa. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and I congratulate you on your leadership of this committee. 

It is a Committee that, when I chaired it in the 1980s, the subcommittee, I should say, when I chaired it in the 1980s, we established a record that was able to help us get the false claims bill 

passed, and that bill, as you know, has brought $28 billion back 

into the Federal Treasury. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Those are big shoes to walk in there, Senator Grassley. Thank you. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You bet. Today’s hearing provides us the opportunity to fulfill our constitutional duty and a continuing basis 

to conduct oversight. It is also an opportunity to further address 

fraud against American taxpayers, an issue that is not a partisan 

one. It is one that, obviously, a lot of us take very seriously. 

Most recently, this Committee held a hearing on fraud enforcement efforts of the Justice Department in January. Unfortunately, 

we just received responses to our written questions from that hearing last night after 5 p.m., nearly 5 months after the questions 

were submitted. 

While I am glad the Justice Department was able to finally get 

answers to these questions returned to the committee, it does a disservice to all members of the committee, Republican or Democrat, 

to get them after 5 p.m. the night before the next hearing on the 

same subject. 

Notwithstanding the 5-month delay in receiving those written 

answers to our questions, Senator Leahy and I, joined by Senator 

Klobuchar, introduced the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act 

in May. This important legislation provides a number of fixes to 

the criminal code to assist in fraud enforcement, as well as providing additional resources to the Justice Department to combat 

fraud. 

It provides these resources from fraud recoveries without utilizing taxpayers’ resources. The Committee reported the bill by a 

strong bipartisan vote, and it is now on the Senate calendar. 

5 

While our bill addresses important legislative changes to help 

combat fraud, important work remains. This hearing is a part of 

that continued work. By conducting continued oversight, we can 

ensure that the Justice Department is targeting fraud aggressively 

on behalf of our taxpayers. 

This is especially important given the significance of annual government expenditures in programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Defense Department procurement, not to mention the increased expenditures over the last few years, including the President’s $1 trillion stimulus spending, the AIG bailout, the auto industry bailout, 

the government conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 

and the TARP program. 

Understanding the significant expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars, 

President Obama signed an executive order in November 2009 creating the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The task force 

is ‘‘designed to strengthen the efforts of the Department of Justice 

to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes and other 

violations relating to the current financial crisis and economic recovery efforts.’’ That is the end of a quote about the establishment 

of the task force. 

General Holder stated that the task force will, ‘‘wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute 

financial crimes.’’ He added, ‘‘not just hold accountable those who 

helped bring about the last financial meltdown, but to prevent another meltdown from happening.’’ 

While I appreciate the Attorney General’s comment on the task 

force, I want to know more about how the task force is operating 

and whether it is achieving the stated goals of the President and 

AG. 

Also, all too often, here in Washington, task forces and commissions are created to make people think that they are doing more 

than they actually are. It is a way for public servants to tell the 

American people they are addressing a problem, when nothing 

really changes. I want to hear from witnesses about how the task 

force has furthered the fraud fight. 

For example, I am concerned that the task force may, in fact, be 

too broad in its missions. The task force is made up of a steering 

Committee chaired by the deputy attorney general, vice chaired by 

associate attorney general. There is also a training and information-sharing committee. Then there is a separate victim rights committee. There are also five separate working groups within the task 

force. Each of those separate working groups has no less than three 

participating Federal agencies. 

It appears that a lot of time and effort could be expended just 

meeting and coordinating all these task forces and working groups. 

This is time that could be spent actually investigating and bringing 

prosecutions, and I want to hear some specific examples of how this 

has added value and not simply facilitated a more bureaucratic 

process combating fraud. 

I am also concerned that the task force may be a press release 

collection agency utilized by the Justice Department to collect examples of investigations and prosecutions that would otherwise 

have been brought. 

6 

My staff has heard this specific accusation from agents and attorneys in the field. So I would like to learn a bit more about why 

the task force is necessary and about how taxpayer dollars are utilized to facilitate all meeting and coordinating it has added to the 

fighting of the fraud process. 

I thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. 

Can the witnesses please stand to be sworn? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. As I mentioned, we are pleased 

to be joined today by, first of all, B. Todd Jones, who is the U.S. 

Attorney for the State of Minnesota. He also serves on the steering 

Committee of the task force and chairs the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys. 

Mr. Jones also served as U.S. Attorney from Minnesota from 

1998 to 2001 and served on active duty with the United States Marine Corps from 1983 to 1989, and again in 1991 during Operation 

Desert Storm. 

He graduated from Macalester College in 1979 and the University of Minnesota Law School in 1983. 

When I was the county attorney, the DA in Minnesota, he and 

I worked extensively together. 

And, Mr. Adkins, you will be happy to know that Todd Jones and 

I actually went together once to the White House, my very first 

visit to the White House—I had not even been on a tour before— 

and we were invited in to talk about the introduction of a crime 

bill, the hate crimes bill. 

And during the speeches where President Clinton spoke and I 

spoke, I mentioned Todd Jones and mentioned our coordination and 

I said, ‘‘Mr. President, we work together so well, we talk on the 

phone nearly every day.’’ And so then the next day, I got home and 

it was a Saturday and I got a phone call and it was from Todd 

Jones. 

I go, ‘‘Why are you calling me on a Saturday? ’’ He said, ‘‘You told 

the President of the United States we talk on the phone nearly 

every day and I am taking it seriously.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So he is truly an honest man. 

Next, we have Robb Adkins, who has been the executive director 

of the task force since February 2010. Mr. Adkins became a Federal prosecutor in 2001 and was named chief of the U.S. Attorney’s 

office in Santa Ana, California in 2007. 

He is a recipient of the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional 

Service, the highest commendation in the Department of Justice, 

and was once named one of the top 20 lawyers in California under 

the age of 40. 

He graduated from Stanford University and the Georgetown University Law Center. 

Mr. Adkins, I understand you are leaving the task force in July, 

and I would like to thank you for your tireless work. I know you 

have done a tremendous job in combating fraud and I wanted to 

make sure that we all thank you for your service over the last year 

and a half, as well as your time as a prosecutor. 

7 

I look forward to hearing more about your work with the task 

force. 

Mr. Jones, if you would like to begin. 

STATEMENT OF B. TODD JONES, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 

Mr. JONES. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair, Senator 

Grassley, Senator Blumenthal. It’s a privilege to be here with you 

today. 

As you all know, the financial crisis has, in some way, impacted 

virtually every American across the country, and the underlying 

purpose of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force is to address that crisis with an equally comprehensive response. 

Senator Klobuchar, you have already talked about it. I know you 

understand the value of collaboration and, as you had mentioned, 

12 years ago, when we worked together on a number of issues of 

mutual concern, including fraud, when you were the county attorney and I had the privilege of first serving as the United States 

attorney, the importance collaboration was always at the forefront. 

As we learned then and we know now, different partners, law enforcement partners have different resources, they have different 

tools in their box, and the goal overall of effective law enforcement 

is to bring everything we have collectively to bear on the issues at 

hand. 

That is what this multiagency task force is about. It is not, in 

strict terms, an operational traditional task force. We have task 

forces like that all across the country, composed of agents and prosecutors working every day, making cases across the country. 

This task force operates at the 30,000-foot level, so to speak, providing coordination and training, sharing information and expertise 

among all the partners who are all on the same side working toward the same goal. 

The President created this task force, as has been said, in November of 2009. It is composed of more than 25 Federal agencies, 

as well as state and local partners, and it is one of the largest coalitions ever brought to bear in confronting fraud. 

It is chaired by the Attorney General of the United States and 

includes the criminal and civil divisions of the Department of Justice, as well as all 94 United States attorney offices. 

But this is not just a DOJ initiative. The task force includes, just 

to name a few, Department of Treasury, HUD, Commerce, Homeland Security, numerous Federal inspectors general, the FDIC, the 

FTC, the SEC, the IRS, special inspector general for TARP, and the 

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, as well as numerous states attorneys general. 

The executive order directs us to use the full criminal and civil 

enforcement resources of all these different agencies to do five 

things: first, investigate and prosecute; second, recover criminal 

proceeds; third, address discrimination in the lending and financial 

markets; fourth, enhance coordination among Federal, state and 

local authorities; and, last, to conduct training and outreach to the 

public. 

As Chairman of the Attorney Generals Advisory Committee, I am 

honored to serve on the steering committee, along with representaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 May 21, 2012 Jkt 073847 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73847.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8 

tives from the other agencies. However, the leadership of this 

group extends beyond the Beltway. 

For example, my colleague in the Southern District of New York, 

Preet Bharara, the United States attorney, along with Lanny 

Brewer, the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, 

representatives from the FTC and the CFTC, chair the Securities 

Fraud Working Group. 

On the West coast, the Mortgage Fraud Working Group is cochaired by another one of my colleagues, U.S. Attorney Ben Wagner in the Eastern District of California, and he knows firsthand 

the impact of the mortgage crisis because his district has one of the 

highest foreclosure rates in the country. 

To give you an idea as to the multiagency approach of the task 

force, he chairs that group with representatives from our civil division here in Washington, DC, the FBI, HUD OIG, and the National 

Association of Attorneys General. 

The task force also has developed a comprehensive network establishing financial fraud coordinators in every United States attorneys’ office. The task force has equipped this network with more 

tools and better trained personnel by compiling and distributing a 

resource guide of financial databases, and information is important, 

holding national training conferences, launching a Website with 

fraud reporting and distributing information about emerging fraud 

trends. 

I know firsthand the value of having this kind of individual in 

the offices, because all of the civil and criminal assistant U.S. attorneys that work with me can rely on our fraud coordinator to literally wire them in nationally in a way that hasn’t really occurred 

before with all of the best practices and provide the governmentwide network that has got the complete alphabet soup of financial 

regulators at their disposal. 

Many of those agencies my folks have never worked with before. 

I see my time is running out. I will pass it off to Robb Adkins, 

and look forward to addressing any of the questions that you have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared testimony of Mr. Jones appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Adkins. 

STATEMENT OF ROBB ADKINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL FRAUD ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. ADKINS. Good morning, Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is a privilege for me to appear before 

you today to talk about the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task 

Force and our continuing fight to address fraud. 

I’m honored to appear before you today with Todd Jones, the 

U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, who is a national leader of this effort 

on the task force and is also a national example for the fraud enforcement that he does in his home district in Minnesota. 

As U.S. Attorney Jones has described, the task force has a broad 

membership and mandate to focus on the full array of financial 

fraud. That includes mortgage fraud, investment fraud, securities 

and commodities fraud. 

9 

It also includes those efforts that are designed to help the economy recover and to address those who would seek to defraud those 

efforts around the country. 

As more fully detailed in the task force’s annual report, which 

the Chairman described, there are many ways in which the task 

force has been very successful within its first year. I want to highlight a few of them and discuss more of them with you. 

As Senator Grassley correctly noted, the task force is very broad. 

That breadth comes with challenges, but it also comes with 

strengths. 

One of the great strengths of the task force is training and information-sharing, which is critical to unlocking the strength from 

such a large coalition. In pursuit of that goal, the training and information-sharing Committee of the task force has been active in 

its first year. It has brought together financial fraud coordinators, 

including the one in Todd Jones’ district, to a national training in 

October 2010, bringing together a robust set of white collar professionals from around the country to discuss trends and how to move 

forward. 

The Mortgage Fraud Working Group is tasked with addressing 

mortgage fraud, which, as Senator Blumenthal correctly noted, is 

a broad array of fraud. From loan origination fraud to reverse 

mortgages to short sale schemes to builder bailouts, loan modification scams and foreclosure rescue scams, it is a wide array of fraud 

that is addressed by that group. 

And mortgage fraud trends show that the fraud evolves with the 

cycles of the housing market and varies by geographic region. The 

working group has held regional summits around the country with 

enforcement officials at the operational level. 

I have seen in concrete ways how collaboration at these summits 

has led to better enforcement. For example, at these summits, representatives FinCEN and from HUD’s office of inspectors general 

combine their datasets in order to produce essentially a target list 

of individuals who are engaging potentially in fraud. 

This serves a valuable purpose to those in the field. One of the 

great challenges they face in addressing mortgage fraud is its atomistic nature and the great prevalence of it. 

In crude terms, it allows them to get the best bang for their buck 

in terms of where to focus those resources to address that problem 

in a targeted and efficient way. 

Another area of focus for the task force is potential fraud, waste 

and abuse of Recovery Act funds. Because the task force was established at a time when these stimulus funds were still at the stage 

that they were being distributed, much of the work of that working 

group has focused on fraud prevention and detection. 

At the close of 2010, more than 100,000 professionals responsible 

for awarding and overseeing Recovery Act fund disbursements, as 

well as investigators, prosecutors and agents were trained as part 

of this effort, which we believe is one of the largest fraud prevention training efforts in history. 

The task force is, similarly, focused on efforts to combat fraud, 

waste and abuse with respect to the TARP program. They have engaged in successful efforts to partner the special inspector general 

10 

of the TARP program with U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country, and there have been good results in this area. 

SIGTARP, along with other task force members, have brought 

cases, including Park Avenue Bank, which was one of the—which 

was the first conviction of an individual who was attempting to defraud the TARP program of $11 million. 

Another working group of the task force focuses on securities, 

commodities and investment fraud, and brings together a broad 

array of impressive subject matter experts, as described by U.S. Attorney Jones. 

In its first year, the working group members conducted workshops on important issues such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, investigations and prosecution 

of investment fraud schemes, and parallel criminal and civil proceedings. 

During 2010, working group members investigated and prosecuted numerous securities and commodities fraud involving large, 

complex cases against executives at the highest levels. For example, different task force members, including the criminal division, 

the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, as well as 

SIGTARP, charged Lee Bentley Farkas, who was the Chairman of 

a company called Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, for a fraud of more 

than $2.9 billion. That contributed to the failures of one of the 25 

largest banks in the United States and one of the largest privately 

held mortgage lending companies. 

Farkas was convicted at trial on all counts in April 2011, and is, 

in fact, scheduled to be sentenced this morning in the Eastern District of Virginia. 

Last, and definitely not least—and I see that I am over my 

time—the task force believes that we cannot prosecute our way out 

of this crisis. Public outreach, consumer financial literacy, and assisting those to prevent themselves from being victimized is important. We have an online consumer-based Website, stopfraud.gov, 

that is designed to do that. 

Thank you, Chairman. I look forward to any questions that any 

of you have. 

[The prepared testimony of Mr. Adkins appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Adkins. I think people 

learned, especially 9/11, the importance of exchanging information 

and having people aware of things, whether it is a terrorist network or whether it is a white collar crime network right here in 

the United States. 

So I am a big fan of trying to exchange this information and trying to get after some very sophisticated crooks. But you know Senator Blumenthal is a former prosecutor and Senator Grassley is 

certainly someone who counts the money and makes sure the taxpayers get the bang for the buck. 

So I am very focused on what we have seen in terms of prosecutions coming out of the efforts. We understand the task force—the 

U.S. attorneys’ offices and the county attorneys’ offices are prosecuting those on the frontline, but the job of the task force, I figure, 

is to get out all that information so that they can do their jobs better and quicker. 

11 

According to the first year report of the task force, the number 

of mortgage fraud prosecutions went up significantly in the task 

force’s first year. I know it is hard to quantify the precise impact 

of a task force, but generally speaking, how has the existence of the 

task force helped increase the number of prosecutions? 

Mr. ADKINS. Thank you, Chairman. My background, as you 

noted, is also as a Federal prosecutor and I am well aware that 

prosecutions occur at the line level throughout the country, in the 

U.S. attorneys’ offices and in the field offices of the FBI and elsewhere. 

And you are correct that the task force, as U.S. Attorney Jones 

mentioned, is designed to help them, that is the model, to support 

them in the cases that they bring; not as an overarching agency 

that would duplicate their efforts, but rather to help enable them 

through cooperation, information-sharing, training, and coordination. 

The information-sharing efforts and the training efforts in the 

mortgage fraud arena are very important. I don’t think that you 

should look to the increase in mortgage fraud prosecutions and say 

that those were directly caused, each and every one, by the task 

force, because that is not the model. It is a metric, though, to see 

success and it is the important metric, which is enforcement. 

We want to get out there not just criminally, although that is 

certainly important because it serves the most valuable deterrent 

that you can have, but, also, with respect to other tools that we can 

use. 

As you saw in the annual report, one of the greatest success stories of the task force has been bringing together some of these 

other entities that previously had not been as coordinated or 

brought into the fight in mortgage fraud. 

I am talking about state attorneys general working very closely 

with U.S. bankruptcy trustees, with the FTC, with the FBI and the 

U.S. attorney’s offices, and even within the Department of Justice, 

not just criminal prosecution, but FIRREA and very important civil 

enforcement that can be brought, not to the exclusion of criminal 

cases, but to complement it, because we know that we can’t just 

criminally prosecute all these cases away and we need to bring 

every tool we have to the toolbox. 

And so specific things that the task force has done, in addition 

to that targeted data compilation that I described earlier, which is 

very valuable to the field, we have taken that show on the road, 

so to speak, to those areas that are hardest hit around the country 

in mortgage fraud in order to interface with the 94 different mortgage fraud working groups and task forces at the operational level 

so that we can get data from DC sometimes that doesn’t always get 

to the field directly in their hands to assist with prosecution. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could you also tell me about Operation 

Broken Trust, which targeted fraud against investors? 

Mr. ADKINS. Yes. Operation Broken Trust was an effort in December of 2010. One of the issues that we were hearing, for example, when the financial fraud coordinators came together in October 

of last year, was that there is an incorrect perception that investment schemes, such as Ponzis and the like, what we often refer to 

and I am sure you have referred to as affinity frauds that rely upon 

12 

a level of trust and relationship between the victim and the 

fraudster, that there is an incorrect perception that when the economic tide receded, it left all those flopping fish on the beach. 

And by that, I mean all those Ponzi schemes unwound, such as 

Madoff, and that there are no such schemes occurring today. 

That is incorrect and we wanted to draw a focus to that in the 

most powerful way we could to get into the hands of potential victims, but even current victims who could report fraud, that they 

are occurring and that it is an increasing problem, especially as 

people look potentially to publicly traded markets and look for 

other ways to invest their money, through PPMs and other means. 

And so we put together a snapshot, a window of 3.5 to 4 months 

to find how prevalent it was and to get that message out, and we 

found startling results, over 120,000 victims in cases that were 

brought during that period. 

It’s part of the outreach. It’s part of the effort to reach the public, 

because as I said in my opening remarks, we know we can’t just 

prosecute our way out of it. We need the public’s help. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I have also found, specifically in the 

white collar area—I remember when we prosecuted some pilots for 

tax fraud. Once you start doing that, I think of no other area that 

is quite like this, and people see examples, suddenly, in the case 

of Minnesota, millions and millions of dollars suddenly got paid 

into the treasury, because other people that might have been engaging in schemes that we did not have the information on suddenly decided to pay up. 

So I think it can have not only the prevention of the fraud, but 

actually can help fiscally better than any other area that I can 

think of when you show the examples that you are willing to go 

to bat and put people in jail. 

U.S. Attorney Jones, could you just talk about some examples 

from the frontline in Minnesota of some of the white collar cases 

that have been particularly successful and how many millions of 

dollars they involved? 

Mr. JONES. Senator, we have been very busy in the district of 

Minnesota, as a lot of my colleagues around the country have, on 

the fraud front, and it’s not always obvious. 

So I think that to address Senator Grassley’s concern about slapping a label on a press release and taking credit for work that really isn’t related to the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force is 

a misplaced notion. A lot of this work is in the pipeline. Anyone 

that has been out in offices know that these cases are complicated, 

they take time. 

And so we have a fully stoked pipeline of fraud cases, many of 

which are generated by the increased focus and the collaboration 

and coordination that is going on right now as a result of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force effort. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Can you give me some examples of ones 

that either have been finalized—— 

Mr. JONES. There are two examples. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. People are in jail. 

Mr. JONES. Well, you know that we have some people in jail—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

13 

Mr. JONES—from the district of Minnesota. First and foremost is 

Tom Petters, who is the CEO of a corporation that was involved 

in a massive Ponzi scheme, $3.5 billion ponzi scheme. And within 

a period of 18 months, we went from an FBI/IRS investigation to 

a full-blown trial, to a sentencing in April of last year, where Tom 

Petters received the largest fraud sentence ever of 50 years, and he 

is now in the custody of Bureau of Prisons in Fort Leavenworth. 

And that was all done in 18 months. 

More recently, to get to the point of this collaboration that is 

going on, Trevor Cook, another person who was involved in foreign 

exchange that we worked very closely with the SEC and the CFTC, 

in part, through the efforts of this, to not only criminally prosecute 

Trevor Cook, and he received a sentence of 25 years, but also to 

take civil recovery action for assets, appoint a receiver, and protect 

what we could recover for the victims of his fraud. 

Those are just two examples from Minnesota, but that has been 

replicated across the country. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. It was a good answer. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. 

This task force was created in November of 2009. Senator Leahy 

and I wrote the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act of 2009, signed 

into law May of 2009. 

The legislation increased the resources available to the Justice 

Department to combat criminal and civil fraud. It also provided additional resources to the FBI and the SEC. 

Combating fraud was on Congress’ radar before the creation of 

the task force. Given that, regardless of the existence of the task 

force, fraud-related crime was being investigated and prosecuted. 

Consequently, it is difficult to determine exactly what investigations and prosecutions are directly attributable to the task force. 

So, Mr. Adkins, I would like to have you answer these questions. 

And they are not accusatory, they are just trying to get some information. 

How does the task force determine what cases were investigated 

and prosecuted as a direct result of the task force? And then I will 

have a couple other questions. 

Mr. ADKINS. Well, thank you, Senator Grassley. And I should tell 

you that—and I do want to thank you, also, as well as Senator 

Leahy, for FERA. As you know, and I’ll talk about—hopefully, 

later, I will have an opportunity to talk about how directly the extension of financial institution definitions to non-bank lenders is a 

direct causal effect between that and one of the policy proposals 

that FinCEN, through the task force policy committee, has put out 

as a rule, which is to extend suspicious activity reporting not just 

to financial institutions, but then to extend it to those non-banking 

lenders. 

Your question is a good one. As I said before, my background and 

my personal view of the task force is that we need to support the 

AUSAs in the field, as well as the non-DOJ staff attorneys at the 

SEC and the FBI agents. 

The way that we determine which efforts and press releases and 

announcements that we highlight through the task force is dependVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 May 21, 2012 Jkt 073847 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73847.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
14 

ent upon the executive order, which we have filtered into different 

working groups. 

You mentioned earlier, correctly, that there can be some bureaucracy involved in such a broad effort. The working groups are designed to try to address that, to try to put in place the subject matter experts that are at the point of the spear in those focused areas. 

And so mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, Recovery Act fraud, which, as you know, relates to procurement and 

grant fraud in the Recovery Act area, TARP fraud, largely worked 

by SIGTARP, and certain nondiscrimination cases, those are the 

areas that the task force has prioritized through the executive 

order. Those are the areas we coordinate with the financial fraud 

coordinators, and those are the areas that we try to highlight and 

push out to get the maximum deterrent value. 

Senator GRASSLEY. If you can answer this question. How often do 

the different working groups of the task force meet? 

Mr. ADKINS. That is actually hard to answer. There are—it depends on the working group. For some of them, like the securities 

and commodities fraud working group, which is chaired by Preet 

Bharara in the Southern District of New York, Rob Khuzami, the 

director of enforcement with the SEC, David Meister, the director 

of enforcement at the CFTC, as well as Lanny Brewer, who you 

know well, each of them hosts meetings on a rotating basis, and 

the last one was actually hosted by the FTC up in New York a couple of weeks ago. 

That group, because of its size—and as you noted, we didn’t start 

prosecuting fraud back in November 2009. That’s a group that has 

been working together for some time. 

They meet regularly, typically, 2 to 3 months, but they also have 

individuals who are at a lower level within those organizations that 

I interface with on a weekly basis offline, outside of those more formalized groups. I find that to be very productive. 

Other groups meet much more regularly. In the mortgage fraud 

working group, they would have meetings, but they also would hold 

summits around the country. They have subgroups that would get 

together on particularized issues. 

And so some meet on a more regular basis, every few months, 

others meet much more frequently. 

Senator GRASSLEY. We have the press releases that I have referred to. We have an annual report that I characterize as a summarization of those press releases. 

What other official work product is derived from the activities of 

the task force and the various working groups? 

Mr. ADKINS. We put together, through the information—the 

training and information-sharing committee, compilation of the different fraud databases, fraud enforcement databases. This, surprisingly, had not been done previously. 

Amongst the alphabet soup of the Federal enforcement family, 

there exists many different types of datasets, and we put together 

a resource guide and got it out to the field through the financial 

fraud coordinators, allowing those, again, at the line level, getting 

around a bureaucratic response, getting it to the line level, where 

they can form, at the line level, those MOUs necessary to get access to that data to help with what they do. 

15 

There are other things, like a USA bulletin that goes out to all 

U.S. attorneys around the country. We have put forth actually two 

separate USA bulletins that go out. 

It is a resource and training guide for the field, describing ways 

in which to confront particular difficult problems, including mortgage fraud and some of the others that I know that we’ve discussed. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I have a series of questions. I do not know if 

we will get through all of them, but I would kind of like to get a 

handle on budget and financial control. 

According to your written testimony and the task force annual 

report, the mortgage fraud working group has held regional summits around the country, including Miami, Detroit, Phoenix, Columbus, Fresno, Los Angeles. Further testimony discusses training 

of attorneys and agents at the National Advocacy Center. Your testimony also described training material. 

Despite all of these deliverables and the travel required for these 

meetings, nowhere in the annual report of your testimony is there 

a discussion of a budget and accountabilty of tax dollars expended 

to fulfill the task force functions. 

I am concerned that by not having a formal budget, expenditures 

for travel could be unnecessarily high. 

Question. The executive order creating the task force states the 

department shall provide funding for the task force subject to the 

availability of appropriation. 

Is there a separate budget at the Justice Department for the activities of the task force; and, if there is not, why not? 

Mr. ADKINS. I don’t know that there is a separate budget for the 

task force, and I think the reason for it is the task force model. 

The task force, I think, would be ill served if it attempted to essentially put in place—and I know you are not suggesting this— 

an agency structure that would be duplicative of the efforts that 

are already ongoing. 

The task force model is one in which we enable those who already are the experts—they know how to prosecute these cases, 

they know how to regulate certain markets, but to put them in 

places and to, frankly, co-opt some of the efforts that are ongoing 

so we can take one part of the Federal family and put it in touch 

with another, grab folks at the state level and bring them in so 

they can work better. 

You mentioned the NAC training, the National Advocacy Center. 

That was originally planned—there have been several National Advocacy Center trainings that were going to occur anyway. 

What we did was we made them better, in my view. We brought 

in Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General of the TARP program, to speak to the AUSAs in their trainings so they can see a 

broader array of fraud resources that they can use in their everyday lives out in the field. 

That is the model. It is not so much to always create, but to use 

the resources and the dedicated individuals who have decided to be 

members of this effort so that we can better use the funding that 

does exist amongst the Federal and state families. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I will follow-up with some questions later on 

that. I will stop for now. 

16 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have some questions focused particularly on gasoline prices and 

the commodities markets that are related to fuel and, soon, heating 

oil, which, even though now it is pretty warm outside, will be a 

pressing topic pretty soon. And as you know, the national average is close to $4 a gallon. To be specific, I think it is about $3.54 a gallon. In Connecticut, 

it is $3.92 a gallon, which is way higher than it has been. 

In my view, the trends that we have seen lately in the markets 

cannot be explained solely by supply and demand, and the creep 

down in those prices after some developments and actions by the 

Administration and other law enforcers I think substantiate my 

view that speculation and possibly illegal manipulation of the markets is to blame, at least to some extent. 

And I welcomed and applauded the decision to create the oil and 

gas price fraud working group within your task force. I applauded 

and commended the Federal Trade Commission in initiating an investigation, a wide-ranging inquiry, into fraud and manipulation 

relating to gas prices at every level of the industry. 

So far, I note, with some regret, the Department of Justice has 

not announced any such investigation. 

So my question is, can you tell us whether the Department of 

Justice has initiated any actual civil or criminal fraud investigations into potentially illegal speculative activity in the futures markets or any other markets that are related to fuel? 

Mr. ADKINS. Thank you. The oil and gas price fraud working 

group, which was established some months ago, as noted in the 

title, it focuses on fraud. It’s not an energy policy group or anything 

like that and, as you noted, it has brought together different partners, like the FTC, the CFTC, states’ attorneys general, those very 

same types of relationships that we have tried to use to make ourselves better at fraud enforcement. 

I will admit that oil and gas price fraud is not something that 

is part of my personal background as a prosecutor, and so it has 

been a learning experience for me, as well, which is a good thing. 

The FTC, it is my understanding, and I have seen the announcement about their investigation into potential anticompetitive or 

manipulative conduct in the wholesale oil area. The department, as 

you know, does not announce investigations, if there are any, and 

we aren’t in a position now to announce if there are any investigations. We typically speak when we charge or act. 

Different agencies have different standards in how they address 

that. I can tell you that the department is fully engaged in that effort. Different components, including the antitrust division, is fully 

engaged, and I think that we’re playing a valuable role, especially 

in terms of the interface between the Federal family and the state 

attorneys general, who have very flexible authority in this area. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, let me just suggest that the rule, as 

I understand it, is that the Department of Justice does not announce investigations, but sometimes, particularly the antitrust division, makes known its interest and, in fact, sometimes makes 

known its investigations. And the very powerful effect of the anVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 May 21, 2012 Jkt 073847 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73847.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17 

nounced actions so far in bringing down prices and convincing the 

speculators that they are on the wrong side of history, on the 

wrong side of the markets, on the wrong side of the bets that they 

are making, is of benefit to the public. 

In fact, what we have seen, as Bart Chilton of the Commodities 

Futures Trading Commission has said, speculation is at an all-time 

high. Speculative positions are 64 percent higher since June of 

2008. 

All of the indicia are there to indicate that an investigation by 

the antitrust division or some part of the Department of Justice is 

certainly appropriate and necessary here. 

And I understand that, as U.S. Attorney Jones said, your task 

force is looking at this area from the 20,000 or 30,000-foot level, 

but you certainly have the authority and, in my view, the responsibility to drive those investigations at the 1-foot level in the Department of Justice, which is where they should be driven. 

Mr. ADKINS. And I appreciate that. I think that I could repeat 

what the Attorney General has said in this area, which is that we 

are very aware of it. We are looking into it. 

We’ve brought all those components and agencies and regulators 

together so that we can look at this issue to pursue any fraud, if 

it occurs. And that while we all understand that there can be legitimate market forces that change the prices of gas or any other commodity, it is an area of concern that we want to make sure that 

we are doing all we can. 

It is just good government to bring the folks together to make 

sure we are focused on exactly the issue that you raised. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What is the position of the task force on 

whether there should be position limit? I do not know whether you 

are familiar with that issue in the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission area, but, obviously, position limits would help diminish the power of speculators to corner the supply in certain areas, 

and I believe strongly that we should have those limits as soon as 

possible. 

Mr. ADKINS. I would have to defer to my much more sophisticated colleagues at the CFTC and elsewhere on position limits. 

As I said before, while I have prosecuted some commodity fraud 

cases, this has been a learning experience for me, as well, in the 

oil and gas price area. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I would like to suggest and request 

from the task force that it give us a position on whether there 

should be position limits and what other measures and steps the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission should take, because I 

believe it is part of your task force; is it not? 

Mr. ADKINS. Correct, and a part of this individual working group. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I would request that the task force 

provide the Committee with a position on that issue. 

Mr. ADKINS. Well, thank you. And I will definitely bring that 

back to them, and I appreciate your interest in this area. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you very much, and 

thank you both for your very good work. 

Mr. ADKINS. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Grassley. 

18 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. I thank you, Madam Chairman, for letting me go ahead of your second round. 

I would like to continue with you, Mr. Adkins, along this budget 

line. You have answered the first question as best you could because of the purpose of the task force. It does not have a budget 

then. So let us move on to the next question. 

From what specific accounts are appropriated funds drawn and 

utilized to fund the activities of the task force? 

Mr. ADKINS. I don’t know the answer to that question either in 

the DOJ or with respect to the 25 other—— 

Senator GRASSLEY. Then let us leave it and you answer that in 

writing. Would you? 

Mr. ADKINS. Very well. Thank you. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Let me go on then. Is official travel authorized for any of these meetings; and, if so, is there a separate budget 

for the travel? 

Mr. ADKINS. I don’t believe—I believe official travel is authorized. 

The reason I couldn’t say for sure is that you’ve got components 

within DOJ, for example, the antitrust division, the civil division, 

the civil rights division, the criminal division, the executive office 

of the U.S. attorneys, the 94 different U.S. attorney’s offices. 

I don’t know exactly how each of them, even within DOJ, handle 

it. My surmise is they do it through official travel, because it is. 

Oftentimes, what we’ll try to do is use, like I said before, existing 

facilities. We will try to use resources and dedicated personnel or 

people that are already in the region to represent us at those types 

of events. 

But there is, of course, official travel and cost associated with 

those efforts. Oftentimes, it’s in replacement for other efforts that 

were going to be had, but not on such a broad and collective level, 

where we’re really bringing together individuals who might be trying to strike out on their own to do some of these efforts and do 

it in a comprehensive way, with maybe a bigger target audience 

and a better way of pushing it out to the field. 

Senator GRASSLEY. What I think I will do is—you might not have 

the information for three or four other questions. I think I will turn 

those in to you and let you answer those in writing. 

If I could go to Mr. Jones. President Obama’s stimulus program 

had a lot of taxpayers’ money into it, into various projects and programs across the country. 

The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board was created as part of that law to oversee how the funds were spent to 

ensure that they were not subject to fraud, waste and abuse. 

The recovery board and various inspectors general have found 

examples of grantees and contractors abusing Recovery Act dollars. 

For example, there was a significant fraud in the Department of 

Energy’s home weatherization program in Illinois, where an audit 

found shoddy work and widespread fraud. 

My question to you. Why is the Recovery Act working group necessary given the existence of the Recovery Accountability and 

Transparency Board, which is made up of all the inspectors general 

of each agency awarded Recovery Act funds? 

Mr. JONES. Well, I think keeping with the consistency of the 

model, Senator, the Recovery Act working group has focused priVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 May 21, 2012 Jkt 073847 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73847.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
19 

marily, to date, on training for state, local, and Federal folks that 

are grant administrators. More than 50,000 officials and nearly 400 

agents and auditors have been spun up through our training program, through the information-sharing, to investigate this fraud. 

And as Robb said earlier, this grant and procurement fraud is 

something that we would do and be engaged in anyway. I think 

what the working group does, as does the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, is it allows us to leverage our resources in a more 

focused way. 

And it will shift over time. We fully expect that the Recovery Act 

training that investigators and auditors got will be of use, for example, in Alabama as they start to get resources to rebuild after 

the tragedies there with the tornadoes and anyplace else that there 

are FEMA funds or other Federal dollars gone into an area. 

This training lasts forever and it will live beyond the Financial 

Fraud Enforcement Task Force existence. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Jones, my last question would start with 

the first year report from the task force, this quote. ‘‘The establishment of the working group last year added the full weight of law 

enforcement community behind the recovery board’s efforts,’’ end of 

quote. 

As a U.S. Attorney out there in the field working very much on 

the frontlines to prosecute fraud, regardless of the existence of the 

Recovery Act working group, would not the full weight of law enforcement already be behind investigating and punishing those who 

commit Recovery Act-related fraud; and, if not, then why not? 

Mr. JONES. Well, where we’re at up in Minnesota, we have been 

keeping an eye on. I can tell you the one thing that, from a practical standpoint, that the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force 

has done is really enhance communication between our offices and 

the IGs and between the IGs and the FBI, and it has also enhanced 

our communications between the IGs and our civil divisions, and 

that is true in many U.S. attorney offices. 

You have done a lot of work on False Claims Act legislation 

throughout your career, Senator, and you, more than anyone, understand the importance of the civil aspects of the work that we do 

in our offices to recovery money from people who should not get 

that money or who have committed a fraud against the government. 

And I can tell you that many U.S. attorney offices have enhanced 

the resources that they have put on affirmative civil enforcement. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Adkins, let me finish with you on this 

budget item. Now, I do not necessarily agree that the task force 

should not have a budget, but I wonder if it would not be worth— 

well, I guess I would kind of like to ask you if you would commit 

to putting together a budget for all the activities and operations of 

the task force, including specific budget line items for travel, conferences and training materials. 

Would that not be useful? And if you would not want to do that, 

why would that not be a good thing to do? 

Mr. ADKINS. That is an interesting question and one which I 

think we would be happy to explore with you. I think that any way 

that we can improve what we do on the task force is something 

that we should embrace. 

20 

My surmise is that there could be some difficulty with it once 

you get outside of the Department of Justice. Most of my time is 

spent with relationships—I would probably say slightly more than 

50 percent of the time is spent with the alphabet soup of the Federal agencies and at the state level, and it does become difficult to 

track because it is different, I think, than some of the other task 

forces, like the Enron task force that I served on and some of the 

others. 

This is different. It is so much broader. That kind of tracking is 

problematic for the task force writ large. But I would be happy to 

explore that question, certainly, if it is something that could improve the work we do and be more efficient. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. 

Overall, Mr. Adkins, how would you describe the level of fraud 

that seems to have occurred—I think Senator Grassley was talking 

about it with respect to Recovery Act funds. And where do you see 

the level? Is it as much as people anticipated, given how much 

money is at stake? 

Mr. ADKINS. Well, it is always hard to know a negative, but certainly there have been hundreds of billions of dollars in Recovery 

Act funds that have gone out and, in my view, the level of fraud 

is very low in relation to that. 

That’s not to say that there won’t be any, but I think that great 

credit is deserving for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and its chairman, Earl Devaney, but also for the 

IGs around the country, as well as the historic training effort that 

has taken place. 

You never can tell whether a fraud would have occurred but for 

the training. It’s hard to measure. But I believe that it has a great 

effect and I believe that that working group has brought in—there 

was a 4-year effort that you are probably familiar with called the 

National Procurement Fraud Task Force that was somewhat recently brought into the recovery fraud working group. 

That was done because there was some duplication and it was 

just great leadership at the IG level that we want to bring to bear 

so that we are poised to address the fraud if and when it occurs, 

but probably more importantly to the American public, try to prevent it from happening in the first place. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Jones, as we look at potential legislation—Senator Grassley mentioned the bill that we have to try to 

get more resources through fines redirected into the white collar 

fraud area—can you think of any legislation that would be helpful 

not only just to the task force, but to you in your efforts to prosecute white collar crimes and fraud crimes? 

Mr. JONES. Well, Senator, as you know, the department, particularly the office of legislative affairs in the criminal division, has 

routine contact with your staff, with the Committee on Judiciary, 

and we have, on occasion at the AGAC, seen proposals for legislative fixes. 

Nothing particular comes to mind beyond some of the things that 

are a result of Supreme Court cases, but I know that there is a 

package of proposed legislation that the criminal division has 

worked on with your staff and with Senator Leahy. 

21 

Nothing in particular comes to mind and I’m not going to get myself in trouble by suggesting something. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I was sure we would have some ideas. 

Thinking back to when you were U.S. attorney your first round, 

what years was that, again? 

Mr. JONES. 1998 to 2001. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. 1998 to 2001. What do you see as the differences now, about 10 years later, in the types of white collar 

crimes that we are seeing around the country and the approach 

that our government is taking to those crimes? 

Mr. JONES. Well, three things Senator, and it’s kind of like 

Groundhog Day. The evolution of the FBI has been absolutely 

amazing in 10 years to be an intelligence-based law enforcement 

agency, and, at the same time, they’ve got enhancements on their 

abilities to detect fraud sort of as a collateral to things that they 

have done on the national security front. 

They have also lost capacity, because a substantial core of the 

bureau, which, in a lot of districts around the country, is sort of 

a main partner on fraud investigations, has somewhat diminished 

because of the resourcing issue. 

But that has also allowed us to do some things with the IRS and 

with the IGs and look at civil enforcement on the fraud front. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Part of it is, understandably, after 9/11, a 

lot of the focus—I remember Director Mueller showing me their 

numbers—was put on working on some of the terrorism issues. 

And so that has probably contributed to some of the changes. 

Mr. JONES. The two other things that I’ve seen really is the volume of information—the volume of information that is out there because of technology and the use of the Internet as a platform to 

commit frauds and communicate—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Over the last 10 years. 

Mr. JONES. Over the last 10 years. When I left in 2001, it 

wasn’t—the Internet was emerging as a criminal platform, but it 

is much more enhanced now and it creates a lot of challenges with 

detecting fraud, with identity theft, and with unanimity for criminals globally to try and track down individuals that are accountable for perpetrating fraud, and that is a challenge that we are trying our best to address. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. And in terms of the work with 

the Department of Justice through this task force and others for 

coordinating, has that been enhanced, would you say? 

Mr. JONES. In my personal opinion, it has, because I remember 

the Corporate Fraud Task Force from 10 years ago, post-Enron. 

That was kind of very much a DOJ-driven, lots of boxes, lots of topof-the-charts people sitting around a table and talking great 

thoughts and great plans. 

But this is very much one, because it is such a collection of 25 

Federal agencies and because it includes a lot of outside-of-the-Department of Justice agencies at an operational level, the IGs and 

the auditors and the folks that are actually going to generate cases, 

I think makes this—one, gives it some sustainability, because it is 

adaptable to emerging trends, like oil and gas, and it also allows 

us to have some continuity with operators. They are learning from 

each other. 

22 

That has been probably the biggest benefit that I’ve seen from 

a U.S. attorney office perspective is the information-sharing that 

goes on. Not only are we doing cases in our district, we are also 

now sharing the lessons, modes of operation, individuals nationally 

through the financial fraud coordinator network, and we are also 

sharing some of the best practices both in the investigation and 

prosecution and best practices of the crooks, so that we can catch 

and get ahead of emerging fraud trends and maybe, just maybe, 

cut some things off before they emerge into a crisis level criminal 

justice issue. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I appreciate that. I just never have taken 

you as someone, from your experience in the Marines and as a 

prospector, wanting to just sit around and be at meetings thinking 

great thoughts, although I am sure you do, Mr. Jones. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Blumenthal, do you have some additional questions? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Just a couple of quick questions. And 

thank you, Mr. Jones, by the way, for your service in the Marine 

Corps, as well as as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice. 

Focusing, again, on the mortgage foreclosure issue, I wonder if 

you could tell us, either Mr. Adkins or Mr. Jones, whether the 

robo-signing practices that were uncovered some months, maybe 

now a year ago or more, have given rise to any criminal investigations and prosecutions. 

Mr. ADKINS. You are correct. I think it came to light in late September and then increasingly into October of last year, what is 

commonly referred to as the robo-signing, although there is more 

to it than just that in the foreclosure documentation issues, as you 

know. 

The task force—I think this is a benefit. As U.S. Attorney Jones 

said, there are certain things that will hopefully outlive the task 

force. One that I’m most proud of and that I think is necessary to 

effective enforcement at the national level is great synergy between 

state and Federal enforcement authorities. 

In my experience, it’s not something that we have always done 

as well as we could have, and that has been a primary focus. Because of that relationship-building that had already taken place as 

part of the task force, it had a very good platform to address this 

crisis, because so much of what is involved in that area is a state 

issue, but there is also a Federal issue with HUD and the FTC and 

the department. 

And so a working group has been put together that is focused on 

it. We won’t discuss potential actions or investigations, but they 

are very focused on it. 

There has been discussion of the negotiations with certain financial institutions and loan services. 

And it is impossible to say right now what the result of all of 

that will be, but certainly it is a focus. Certainly, the department 

is committed to looking into it, and, in my estimation at least, I 

think critical to that success is a positive relationship between the 

Federal and state parties. 

23 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I am aware, as we all are, of the state attorney general negotiations, but I am not aware of any Department 

of Justice investigation concerning potential criminal charges. The 

state attorneys general are apparently investigating and perhaps 

negotiating a possible resolution of civil claims. 

But is there any consideration to potential criminal charges? 

Mr. ADKINS. Well, I think as has been stated publicly already, 

the department is committed to looking into this issue and being 

aggressive in pursuing it. 

We can’t confirm criminal investigations, if there are any. The 

states have very flexible authorities in this area and, as you well 

know, some have criminal authority, some don’t. 

Some have broad authority and there are different ways in which 

foreclosures take place in the different states. And so that is an important element of what we do. 

While I can’t confirm the existence of a criminal investigation, we 

are certainly focused on it and we certainly are interested in continuing to pursue this matter with all the resources that we do 

have. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you have anything to add? 

Mr. JONES. We have to tread lightly here because of the parameters that we’re operating on about confirming investigations. But 

I do think it would be fairer to say that a number of my colleagues 

are very alert to the possibilities that some of the activities might 

rise to the level of criminal investigations and potentially prosecutions, and that is dispersed throughout the 94 U.S. attorney offices. 

And there are certain geographic areas of the country where 

there is a higher likelihood that something could evolve into a prosecution and there are areas that they’re not. Is that cryptic enough, 

Senator? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, you are understandably and correctly, appropriately cautious. 

Mr. JONES. People are paying attention to the possibilities. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the only point I would make is that 

someone who signs a false affidavit that is going to be submitted 

to a court, with the proper evidence, would be in violation of Federal law and I would hope that it would be under investigation by 

the Department of Justice. 

Again, I want to thank you both for your very helpful and informative testimony today and for your work in this area. Thank 

you. 

Mr. ADKINS. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I want to thank both of you for testifying, and, also, both Senator Blumenthal and Senator Grassley for 

being here and sitting through the hearing and asking some good 

questions. 

I know that Senator Leahy would like to submit his statement 

for the record, which I will do. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I also want to thank Senator Leahy for 

his leadership and Senator Sessions in his leadership in this area 

of financial fraud. 

24 

We will leave the record for the hearing open for 2 weeks. And 

I just want to thank—1 week—1 week. We are getting very efficient in the Senate now. 

We will keep the record of the hearing open for 1 week. And with 

that, I want to thank both of the witnesses for your work and your 

excellent testimony today. 

Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submission for the record follows.] 

25 


73847.001
26 


73847.002
27 


73847.003
28 


73847.004
29 


73847.005
30 


73847.006
31 


73847.007
32 


73847.008
33 


73847.009
34 


73847.010
35 


73847.011
36 


73847.012
37 


73847.013
38 


73847.014
39 


73847.015
40 


73847.016
41 


73847.017
42 


73847.018
43 


73847.019
44 


73847.020
45 


73847.021
46 


73847.022
47 


73847.023
48 


73847.024
49 

Æ 


73847.025