1015 18th Street, NW 

 Suite 200

 Washington, DC 20036 

 Tel: 202-857-1777 

 Fax: 202- 857-1778

 www.gkacpa.com

 

 Certified Public Accountants 

& Consultants 

 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund

ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 

Fiscal Year 2011

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 Member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Message from the Director

I am pleased to present the fiscal year (FY) 2011 Accountability Report for the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (the 

Fund). While highlighting the Fund’s financial and operational performance over the past year, this report also 

focuses on some of the significant investigative achievements of our participating law enforcement agencies 

this year. FY 2011 was another highly successful revenue year for the law enforcement bureaus participating 

in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, with earned revenue and recoveries of $868.1 million from all sources, as 

compared to $1.1 billion in FY 2010. 

The continued high-impact performance of the Fund reflects the ongoing hard work of our law enforcement 

bureaus as well as Fund management’s emphasis on major case initiatives, asset forfeiture program training 

and a focused approach regarding our performance measure which gauges revenue from high-impact cases. 

The mission of the Fund is to affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic use of asset forfeiture by our 

law enforcement bureaus to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprise. It is our view that the greatest damage 

to criminal enterprise can be achieved through large forfeitures; hence we have set a target level of 80 percent 

of our forfeitures to be high-impact, i.e., cash forfeitures equal to or greater than $100,000. This target level is 

up from 75 percent set for FY 2010 and prior years. For FY 2011, our member bureaus exceeded the target 

with a performance level of 91.44 percent high-impact cash forfeitures. Contributing significantly to this 

year’s outstanding performance by our member bureaus was the large forfeiture from the Deutsche Bank 

major case investigated by IRS-CI that resulted in a forfeiture deposit of $404 million during FY 2011. Also 

contributing to the banner year deposits were large equitable sharing deposits from the Department of Justice 

forfeiture fund, reflecting the role of Treasury bureaus in those forfeitures. The Fund’s performance excluding 

the large Deutsche Bank case deposit also exceeded the target at 81.74%. 

During FY 2011, the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) continued its seminar series, 

“Investigative and Forfeiture Issues Involving the Southwest Border” that was launched last year. The second 

seminar of this series was held in December 2010 in El Paso, Texas. Topics for the well-attended conference 

included bulk currency and post-interdiction financial investigations; human smuggling and trafficking; task 

forces operating on the Southwest Border; law enforcement activities in Central and South America, and 

international coordination; and Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) and trade based money laundering. 

There were a number of case studies illustrating law enforcement efforts and best practices. 

Also in FY 2011, TEOAF launched two new seminar series: “Investigative and Forfeiture Issues Involving 

Money Service Businesses (MSBs)” and “Best Practices for Conducting Ponzi Scheme Investigations.” The 

first seminar of the series “Investigative and Forfeiture Issues involving MSBs” was held in April in 

Minneapolis. The subject of MSBs is very important and timely given concerns about money laundering 

vulnerabilities associated with the MSB industry. The seminar agenda covered legal, regulatory and law 

enforcement aspects of MSB enforcement, discussed various new programs and task forces of the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that target MSBs and particularly 

unlicensed MSBs, and featured case studies and best practices of law enforcement agencies investigating 

MSB-related cases. The first in the Ponzi Scheme series of seminars was held in July in New York and 

featured best practices investigative techniques for this type of fraud and highlighted the intricacies of real-life 

cases. Emphasis was placed on victims, victim restitution and identifying promoters of the scheme. 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund continues in its capacity as a successful multi-Departmental Fund representing 

the interests of law enforcement components of the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security. 

Member bureaus include the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), the U.S. Secret 

Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The U.S. 

Coast Guard continues its close working relationship with the legacy Customs bureaus. We look forward to 

another successful year in FY 2012. 

 Eric E. Hampl, Director 

 Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture 

 U.S. Department of the Treasury 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 

 

Table of Contents 

Section I: Overview 

Profile of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund...............................................................................1 

Strategic Mission and Vision...............................................................................................1 

Case Highlights....................................................................................................................2 

Program and Fund Highlights............................................................................................18 

Program Performance ........................................................................................................19 

Financial Statement Highlights..........................................................................................21 

Section II: Independent Auditor’s Reports 

Independent Auditor’s Report on Financial Statements ....................................................25 

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting...................27 

Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations......................29 

Section III: Financial Statements and Notes 

Financial Statements: 

Balance Sheets .............................................................................................................31 

Statements of Net Cost.................................................................................................32 

Statements of Changes in Net Position........................................................................33 

Statements of Budgetary Resources.............................................................................34 

Notes to Financial Statements......................................................................................35 

Section IV: 

Required Supplemental Information........................................................................................52 

Section V: 

Other Accompanying Information...........................................................................................54

SECTION I - OVERVIEW 1

Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

FY 2011 Management Overview 

Profile of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund (the Fund) is the receipt account for the deposit of non-tax forfeitures 

made pursuant to laws enforced or administered by law enforcement bureaus that participate in the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund. The Fund was established in October of 1992 as the successor to the 

Forfeiture Fund of the United States Customs Service. The Fund is a “special receipt account.” This 

means the Fund can provide money to other federal entities toward the accomplishment of a specific 

objective for which the recipient bureaus are authorized to spend money and toward other authorized 

expenses. The use of Fund resources is governed by law, policy and precedent as interpreted and 

implemented by the Department of the Treasury which manages the Fund. A key objective for 

management is the long-term viability of the Fund to ensure that there are ongoing resources to 

support member-bureau seizure and forfeiture activities well into the future. The emphasis of Fund 

management is on high impact cases that can do the most damage to criminal infrastructure. 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund continues in its capacity as a multi-Departmental Fund, representing 

the interests of law enforcement components of the Departments of Treasury and Homeland 

Security. Our member bureaus include the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation (IRSCI), the U.S. Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP). The U.S. Coast Guard continues its close working relationship with the legacy 

Customs bureaus and functions in a member-bureau capacity. 

The Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (EOAF), which provides management oversight of the 

Fund, falls under the auspices of the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. 

EOAF’s organizational structure includes the Fund Director, Legal Counsel, Assistant Director for 

Financial Management and Assistant Director for Policy. Functional responsibilities are delegated to 

various team leaders. EOAF is located in Washington, D.C., and currently has 24 full time 

equivalent positions. 

Strategic Mission 

The mission of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund is to affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic 

use of asset forfeiture by law enforcement bureaus that participate in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to 

disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises. 

Strategic Vision 

Fund management works to focus the asset forfeiture program on strategic cases and investigations 

that result in high-impact forfeitures. Management believes this approach incurs the greatest damage 

to criminal organizations while accomplishing the ultimate objective – to disrupt and dismantle 

criminal enterprises. 
2 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Case Highlights 

The following case highlights are intended to give the reader an idea of the types of investigative 

cases worked by the Fund’s law enforcement bureaus during FY 2011 that resulted in the seizure and 

forfeiture of assets. Such cases as those profiled below are consistent with the Strategic Mission and 

Vision of the Treasury Forfeiture Program, which is to use high-impact asset forfeiture in 

investigative cases to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises. 

Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) 

Department of the Treasury 

Deutsche Bank Forfeits $404 Million; Deferred Prosecution Agreement re Fraudulent Tax 

Shelters Probe

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

Wall Street Journal article dated December 22, 2010, entitled: Deutsche Bank to Pay More than $550 Million in TaxShelter Settlement. The author of the article is Chad Bray. 

In December 2010, Deutsche Bank AG agreed to pay $553.6 million and admitted criminal 

wrongdoing to settle a long-running probe over fraudulent tax shelters that allowed clients to avoid 

paying billions of dollars in U.S. taxes. Under a Non-Prosecution Agreement (Agreement) with the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and the Internal Revenue Service, Deutsche Bank will not be 

prosecuted for its participation in about 15 tax shelters involving more than 2,100 customers between 

1996 and 2002, including shelters marketed by accounting firm KPMG LLP and defunct law firm 

Jenkens & Gilchrist PC. 

Customers used the fraudulent shelters to generate more than $29 billion in bogus tax benefits, 

mainly losses, according to the Agreement. The $553.6 million payment represents the total amount 

of fees that the bank collected during the period, the taxes and interest the IRS was unable to collect 

during the period, and a civil penalty of more than $149 million. The Agreement resolves an 

investigation that stemmed from aggressive, prepackaged tax shelters that the government believed 

were fraudulent. 

More than a dozen people were charged criminally in the matter. KPMG itself signed a Deferred 

Prosecution Agreement in which it admitted to the fraudulent sale and marketing of bogus tax 

shelters and agreed to pay a $456 million penalty. The law firm, Jenkens & Gilchrist issued opinion 

letters touting the legitimacy of the transactions underlying some of the shelters and marketed some 

of the shelters. The firm closed its doors in 2007 after entering into an agreement avoiding 

prosecution and paying a $76 million penalty. 

Under the Agreement, Deutsche Bank admitted it knew or should have known that the transactions 

underlying the shelters were intended to create the appearance of investment activity, but taxpayers 

were entering into these transactions for the primary purpose of avoiding taxes, as opposed to making 

profits on the transactions. As part of the Agreement, Deutsche Bank agreed not to be involved with 

any type of prepackaged tax products and to adopt an ethics and compliance program. Deutsche 

Bank also agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 3

Schiavone Construction to Forfeit $20 Million for Public Works Hiring Fraud

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Eastern District of New York, Press Release dated November 29, 2010, entitled: Schiavone 

Construction to Pay $20 Million and Costs of Investigation to Resolve Public Works Hiring Fraud; an extract from IRSCI Major Case Reporting documentation dated April 1, 2011; and a New York Times article, entitled: Construction Giant 

Admits Fraud Over Minority Firms, written by William K. Rashbaum, dated November 29, 2010. 

In November 2010, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York announced that Schiavone 

Construction Co. LLC (Schiavone), a construction services corporation, would pay the United States 

$20 million to resolve a multi-agency joint criminal investigation into fraud the company committed 

in carrying out various public works contracts. As part of the resolution, Schiavone admitted that 

between 2002 and 2007, certain employees falsely and fraudulently reported that disadvantaged 

business enterprises (DBE) and minority and women-owned business enterprises (MWBE) 

performed subcontracted work on federally funded public works contracts, including the 

rehabilitation of New York City subway stations and the construction of the Croton Water Filtration 

Plant in the Bronx, when, in fact, non-DBE and non-MWBE subcontractors performed the work. 

Under the terms of its Non-Prosecution Agreement with the government, Schiavone represented that 

it has undertaken various remedial measures to ensure compliance with the DBE and MWBE 

programs for its current and future federally funded capital constructions projects. These measures 

include: (i) establishing a position for an Ethics and Compliance Officer at Schiavone; (ii) creating 

contractor minority compliance manual, a code of ethics and business conduct, and mandatory 

compliance courses for its employees; (iii) removing the Schiavone employees directly involved with 

the scheme; and (iv) continuing to assist law enforcement in its ongoing investigation of the fraud 

regarding the four projects specified in the settlement. 

The $20 million forfeiture has been deposited in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Significant Equitable Sharing Revenue Case1

Barclays Bank - Treasury Forfeiture Fund Receives $74 Million as an Equitable Share

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office, Press Release: “Barclays Bank PLC Agrees to Forfeit $298 

Million in Connection with Violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the 

Enemy Act,” dated August 18, 2010. 

Barclays Bank PLC, a United Kingdom Corporation headquartered in London, agreed to forfeit $298 

million to the United States and to the New York County District Attorney’s Office in connection 

with violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading with 

the Enemy Act (TWEA). Barclays publicly admitted its illegal acts and announced implementation 

of stringent compliance measures. The violations relate to transactions Barclays illegally conducted 

on behalf of customers from Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and other countries sanctioned in programs 

administered by Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Under IEEPA, it is a crime to 

willfully violate, or attempt to violate sanctions administered by OFAC. TWEA makes it a crime to 

willfully engage in financial transactions by, at the direction of, or for the benefit of Cuba or Cuban 

nationals. 

 

1

 Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9703(d)(2)(C), the Treasury Forfeiture Fund is authorized to deposit into the Fund all amounts 

representing the equitable share of a Department of the Treasury law enforcement organization or the United States Coast 

Guard from the forfeiture of property under any Federal, State, local or foreign law. 
4 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Not just once, but numerous times over more than a decade, Barclays stripped vital information out 

of payment messages that would have alerted U.S. financial institutions about the true origins of the 

funds. Barclays followed instructions, principally from banks in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and 

Burma, not to mention their names in U.S. dollar payment messages sent to Barclay’s branch in New 

York and to other financial institutions located in the United States. Barclays routed U.S. dollar 

payments through an internal Barclays account to hide the payments’ connection to OFACsanctioned entities and amended and reformatted the U.S. dollar payment messages to remove 

information identifying the sanctioned entities. 

A Criminal Information was filed August 16, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia charging Barclays with one count of violating the IEEPA and one count of violating the 

TWEA. Barclays waived indictment, agreed to the filing of the information, and accepted and 

acknowledged responsibility for its criminal conduct. Barclays agreed to forfeit the funds as part of 

the deferred prosecution agreements reached with the Federal Government and the New York County 

District Attorney’s Office. 

Of the $149 million forfeited to the U.S. Government, the Treasury Forfeiture Fund received $74 

million as an equitable share from the Assets Forfeiture Fund of the U. S. Department of Justice. The 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a member bureau of the Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, was 

the lead agency in the case and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund received an equitable share of the 

forfeiture proceeds representing IRS Criminal Investigation’s (IRS-CI’s) contributions to the 

forfeiture. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Department of Homeland Security 

Virginia Business Owners Forfeit $1.2 Million for Harboring Illegal Aliens 

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) News Release dated November 23, 2010, “Virginia business owners 

sentenced to 18 months for harboring illegal aliens, forfeit $1.2 million.” 

In November 2010, two business owners were sentenced to serve 18 months in prison followed by 

two years probation and ordered to forfeit $1.2 million for their roles in a scheme to hire and harbor 

illegal aliens. Bao Ping Wang, 44, pled guilty to harboring illegal aliens and Trang “Tammy” Lu, 45, 

pled to misprision of a felony. Hi-Tech Trucking, Inc., a commercial trucking entity established by 

Wang and Lu for the delivery operations of SeaLands Food, another business operated by Wang and 

Lu for the distribution of seafood to Asian restaurants and markets throughout the mid-Atlantic 

region, was sentenced to three years probation for conspiring to harbor illegal aliens. 

Hi-Tech Trucking, Inc. agreed to forfeit $1,225,428 in illegal proceeds gained as a result of the 

offense and to pay a $100,000 fine. In addition, Wang was also ordered to pay $4,000 and agreed to 

deportation from the United States after service of his sentence. Lu was ordered to pay $5,000 and 

agreed that she will comply with programs created by the Department of Homeland Security and 

Social Security Administration to screen al employees for determining workforce eligibility. 

Wang and Lu both managed Hi-Tech Trucking Inc., and SeaLands Food. From 2006 through 2009, 

Wang employed a workforce at these companies consisting of both legal and illegal aliens, with Lu’s 

knowledge or reckless disregard of the fact that a number of their employees were illegally present in 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 5

the country and illegally working without proper authorization. Federal investigators determined that 

Wang, with Lu’s knowledge, harbored and employed between 6 to 24 illegal aliens at these 

companies at any point in time from 2006 through 2009. 

Wang and Lu provided housing and meals of the illegal alien employees at three residences that they 

owned in Richmond, Virginia. Bank records for Hi-Tech Trucking, Inc accounts were used for 

payments for rental properties for employees and utilities for the three residential properties at which 

employees were housed, as well as payments to employees, including illegal aliens. 

Jesse William Fadick, 64, Hiring Illegal Aliens at Wholesale Bakery, forfeits $800,000

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) News Release, “Former owner, employees at San Diego bakery plead 

guilty to charges stemming from ICE worksite investigation, dated November 30, 2010. 

The former owner of a San Diego wholesale bakery and four other bakery employees pleaded guilty 

in U.S. District Court to knowingly hiring illegal aliens, the result of an investigation led by ICE with 

assistance from the Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General. Jesse William 

Fadick (Fadick), 64, the former owner of S&S Bakery, Inc., pleaded guilty to knowingly hiring 10 or 

more illegal aliens within a 12-month period. Fadick agreed to forfeit $800,000 in proceeds as a 

result of the offense and paid the forfeiture in full. 

14 People Charged with Conspiracy to Smuggle Cash into Mexico, Forfeit $3.1 Million

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) News Release, “14 Charged with Conspiracy to Smuggle $3.1 Million in 

Cash into Mexico,” dated September 29, 2010. 

Fourteen passengers aboard a tour bus bound for Mexico were arrested and charged for knowingly 

conspiring to evade currency transactions reporting requirements by concealing $3.1 million of U.S. 

Currency in luggage. The 14 passengers, seven U.S. citizens and 7 Mexican nationals, were arrested 

at the Hidalgo, Texas, Port of Entry after an intensive inspection of the tour bus resulted in discovery 

of 17 pieces of luggage, each containing hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. Currency. The cash 

was discovered wrapped in deflated air mattresses in all the luggage pieces. 

It is not a crime to carry more than $10,000, but it is a federal offense not to declare currency or 

monetary instruments totaling more than $10,000 or more to a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) 

officer upon entry into or exit from the United States. It is also a crime to conceal money with the 

intent to evade reporting requirements. Failure to declare the currency may result in seizure of the 

currency and/or arrest. An individual may petition for the return of the currency seized by CBP 

officers, but the petitioner must prove that the source and intended use of the currency was legitimate. 

Maryland Woman Pleads Guilty to Smuggling Cash to Jamaica, Forfeits $562,190

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) News Release, “Maryland woman pleads guilty to smuggling cash to 

Jamaica,” dated October 13, 2010. 

In October 2010, Jean Brown (Brown), 41, of Catonsville, Maryland, pled guilty to bulk cash 

smuggling following an investigation led by ICE. According to Brown’s plea agreement, shortly 

before December 25, 2008, Brown gave three other individuals a total of $562,190 in cash to conceal 

in their luggage before boarding a flight to Montego Bay, Jamaica. Brown provided the plane tickets, 
6 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

and instructed the individuals not to declare the cash in customs and to deliver the money to Brown’s 

family who would meet them in the airport in Jamaica. 

On December 25, 2008, Brown drove the individuals to the Baltimore-Washington International 

Airport where they boarded their flight to Jamaica. Before leaving the United States from Maryland, 

none of the individuals declared that they were carrying more than $10,000, as required by federal 

law. When the flight arrived in Jamaica, the individuals presented their Jamaican Customs 

declaration form in which they failed to declare the money to Jamaican Customs. The form states 

that if a traveler is carrying more than $10,000 in U.S. Currency, the traveler must declare the money 

prior to gaining entry into the country. Jamaican customs officers discovered the money in the 

individuals’ luggage. As part of her plea agreement, Brown agreed to a forfeiture judgment of 

$562,190. 

Good Government 

Law Enforcement Seizures by Member Bureaus that May Not Result in 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund Deposits but are Important to Law Enforcement 

and the American Public 

Marc Knapp, 35, Pleads Guilty to Criminal Conduct Involving Illegal Exports to Hungary and 

Attempted Exports to the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) News Release, “California man pleads guilty to attempting to 

export military items to Iran,” dated January 13, 2011. 

In January 2011, Marc Knapp (Knapp), 35, of Simi Valley, California, pled guilty to engaging in a 

seven-month course of criminal conduct involving illegal exports to Hungary and attempted exports 

to the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia. This guilty plea resulted from an investigation conducted 

by ICE and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS). 

The information charged Knapp with violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 

(IEEPA) and the Arms Export Control Act. As set forth in the Information, as well as affidavits 

accompanying a Criminal Complaint and various search warrants, Knapp's conduct involved the 

illegal export and attempted export of the following United States defense articles: 

1) A Tiger fighter jet; 

2) Five anti-gravity flight suits, which are worn by pilots to counteract the forces of gravity and 

acceleration; 

3) one emergency procedures manual, which is designed for use by pilots during in-flight 

emergencies in various fighter jets; 

4) three (3) electronic versions of the emergency procedures manual; 

5) four survival radios, which are hand-held search and rescue radios used primarily by U.S. Navy 

pilots as an emergency locator beacon; and 

6) two military aircraft ejection seats. 

According to documents that have been unsealed and information placed in the court record, a 

cooperating defendant introduced Knapp to an undercover ICE special agent (undercover agent). 

Between December 2009 and July 2010, the undercover agent met with Knapp on several occasions, 

at locations in California, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Budapest, Hungary. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 

Knapp first broached the idea of obtaining an F-5 fighter jet from a source in California to sell to the 

undercover agent in January 2010. Knapp told the undercover agent that the "Iranians" might be 

interested in various items, including the F-5 fighter jet, and stated that he was not concerned whether 

the jet or the other items ended up in Iran. 

During a January 2010 meeting in California, Knapp took the undercover agent to an airport to 

inspect the aircraft. Over the course of the next several months, the undercover agent and Knapp had 

multiple conversations regarding transporting the aircraft from California to a freight forwarder in 

Delaware; determining appropriate transshipment points to Iran; and devising a payment scheme. 

They also arranged to meet in Budapest, Hungary, to discuss the purchase. 

 

Figure 1 F-5 Tiger Fighter Jet Involved in Sting Operation 

When a certain F-5 Tiger fighter jet outlived its military use years ago, it was sold for surplus, and the plane was purchased 

by a California resident. The owner leased it as a big prop for Hollywood movies. This year, the fighter jet became the star 

of a real-life sting - against an American accused of trying to sell it to Iran. The F-5 was the centerpiece of an undercover 

Homeland Security investigation that stretched from Philadelphia to Los Angeles to Budapest, Hungary. 

An arms broker from California has been charged with trying to sell the jet for over $3 million to Philadelphia-based agents 

who were pretending to work on behalf of the Iranian military. He was sentenced in September 2011 to almost 5 years in 

prison

In April 2010, the undercover agent and another undercover law enforcement officer posing as an 

Iranian intermediary, met with Knapp in Budapest. During the meetings, Knapp explained that he 

would have a contact fly the F-5 from California to the East Coast, where it would subsequently be 

crated and shipped to Hungary for transshipment to Iran. Knapp also discussed making payment for 

the F-5 look like a "gift" or a "loan.” 

In July 2010, Knapp sent a contract for the F-5 fighter jet to the undercover agent via the United 

States mail. The contract set forth the timing for flying the F-5 to Delaware after the undercover 

agent transferred $3.25 million into a bank account specified by Knapp. The undercover agent asked 

7
8 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

whether he could tell the Iranians that Marc Knapp personally guaranteed the aircraft, to which 

Knapp replied that he could. The parties then signed the contract. He stated that he would use a false 

name and said that he would describe the item to be shipped as a "Museum Display Shell." 

Following the meeting, federal agents placed defendant under arrest. 

"This case demonstrates the threat to our national security posed by those, like Knapp, who 

are willing to trade with Iran and attempt to provide that nation with American goods and 

technology, particularly military components. I applaud our law enforcement partners for their 

exceptional dedication in pursuing this major investigation.” 

U.S. Attorney Oberly 

Good Government 

Law Enforcement Seizures by Member Bureaus that May Not Result in 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund Deposits but are Valuable to the International Community 

 

ICE and CBP Officials Return Artifacts to the People’s Republic of China

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

ICE News Release dated March 11, 2011, “ICE and CBP Officials Return Artifacts to the People’s Republic of China” 

ICE and CBP officials repatriated a number of ancient Chinese artifacts seized as a result of ICE and 

CBP investigations. Most of the objects repatriated were part of Operation Great Wall, an initiative 

targeting illicit importations originating from the People’s Republic of China. Following the signing 

of a bilateral agreement between the United States and the People’s Republic of China in 2009, both 

countries have been working together closely to prevent the illicit trafficking of archaeological 

objects. 

The artifacts being returned include: 

 

2 Northern Wei Dynasty terracotta horses – A.D. 386-535 

 Northern Qi Dynasty limestone Buddha - A.D. 550-577 

7 Sui Dynasty Pottery Horses with Riders – A.D. 581-618 

 Tang Dynasty Horse Sculpture – A.D. 618-907 

 Song Dynasty Bodhisattva head – A.D. 960-1279 

 Ming Dynasty Stone Frieze – A.D. 1368-1644 

 Qing Dynasty Ceramic Vase – A.D. 1616-1840 

The pottery sculptures of horses and riders from the Sui and Tang Dynasties were likely buried in 

tombs. Having a horse was a sign of wealth, and only those of a certain rank were allowed to use 

them. The tombs these likely came from were, therefore, those of aristocrats. 

 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 

 

Figure 2 7 Sui Dynasty Pottery Horses with Riders - A.D. 581-618 

While the Northern Qi Dynasty is usually considered a period of political unrest, it is known to art 

historians as a time when the arts flourished through interaction between Chinese and non-Chinese 

artisans. 

“The items we are returning to the People’s Republic of China today are delicate, but tangible, 

ancient works of art that are an important part of China’s heritage. While seizing, forfeiting 

and repatriating these treasures is indeed reason for celebration, our long-term goal is to 

reduce the incentive for further destruction of ancient tombs and temples, where so many of 

these objects are dug up or chiseled off and pilfered.” 

 Kumar Kibble, Deputy Director 

 Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

ICE plays a leading role in investigating crimes involving the illicit importation and distribution of 

cultural property. ICE uses its investigative authority to seize cultural property items if they were 

illegally imported into the United States. It also investigates the illegal trafficking of artwork, 

especially works that have been reported lost or stolen. 

ICE Returns to French Government Stolen Degas Painting Missing for 37 Years

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

ICE News Release dated January 21, 2011, “ICE returns to French government stolen Degas painting missing for 37 

years ” 

In January 2011, ICE Director John Morton presented a painting by Edgar Degas, “Blanchisseuses 

Souffrant Des Dents” to the acting French Ambassador to the United States, François Rivasseau. The 

painting, completed between 1870 and 1872, depicts two views of a laundress with a toothache. 

In 1961, the painting was loaned to the Musée Malraux in Le Havre in Normandy, France, but was 

stolen from the museum in December 1973. In October 2010, the Degas painting appeared in the 

Sotheby’s New York catalogue for a pending auction of Impressionist and modern art. INTERPOL 

notified ICE, which initiated the investigation. ICE agents tracked the provenance of the piece and 

9
authenticated many markings on the back of the painting, including inventory marks by the Louvre, 

which confirmed the painting offered for sale was the stolen work. 

 

 Figure 3 Edgar Degas Painting, Missing 37 Years Returned to France 

“On behalf of ICE, it is a great privilege to return this painting that rightfully belongs to the 

people of France, and reflects a part of your nation’s history and rich heritage. ICE’s Cultural 

Property, Art and Antiquities Unit was established to identify, investigate and return cultural 

treasures such as this stolen work of art, to their rightful owners and countries of original.” 

 John Morton, Director 

 Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

ICE Seizes Phony Candy Easter Eggs - 

Filled with Cocaine 

ICE Arrests Man Attempting to Smuggle in Cocaine Concealed in Phony Easter Eggs Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated December 27, 2010, “Feds find cache of cocaine inside phony candy Easter eggs” 

In December 2010, Esteben Galtes, 23, of Miami, was taken into custody at Los Angeles 

International Airport by ICE Agents after attempting to smuggle in a cache of cocaine concealed 

inside dozens of phony candy Easter eggs. His arrest came after CBP officers searched Galtes’ 

luggage and discovered more than 14 pounds of cocaine, much of it camouflaged as pastel-colored, 

egg-shaped candies. 

10 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 

Figure 4 Cocaine Camouflaged as Easter Candy for Smuggling Attempt 

Galtes told CBP officers the eggs were for his two children. The remainder of the cocaine was 

secreted under the cardboard bottom of a paper shopping bag. The seized cocaine had an estimated 

street value of more than $100,000. 

"Drug traffickers are always trying novel ways to conceal their contraband, but cocaine camouflaged 

Easter candy is one of the more unusual tactics we’ve come across.” 

Claude Arnold, Special Agent in Charge – Los Angeles 

 Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

Department of Homeland Security 

CBP has had a productive year for seizures of cash and drugs at the border and border regions; 

the following represents a sample of their law enforcement seizures. 

Note about CBP Narratives: The major case narratives selected for CBP are seizures, which may or may not be 

forfeited and on deposit by the end of the fiscal year. Investigative narratives for other member bureaus include cases 

for which forfeiture deposits occurred during FY 2011. 

 

CBP Officers Seize $799,000 While Screening Traffic Going into Mexico

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated October 21, 2010, “CBP seizes more than $799K in Undeclared Currency and Several Weapons at 

Nogales Port” 

On October 20, 2010, CBP officers screening vehicles heading out of the country to Mexico stopped 

the driver of a 2010 Chevy pickup. While inspecting the vehicle for goods being exported illegally, 

officers noticed a discrepancy in the roof of the pickup’s hood and decided to take a closer look. 

Officers used an x-ray system to assist with the inspection and noticed anomalies when looking at 

the images. Further inspection revealed a compartment that when opened, contained bundles of 

currency and several weapons. 

11
Figure 5 $799,000 in Undeclared Currency Seized from Hidden Compartment in Pickup Truck 

As a result of the inspection, officers seized more than $799,000 in cash and 4 handguns. The 

driver, a 25-year-old man and citizen of Mexico, was arrested and turned over to ICE for further 

investigation and prosecution. 

CBP Officers Seize more than $480,000 at Douglas Port of Entry

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated December 16, 2010, “CBP Officers Seize More Than $480,000 at Douglas Port of Entry” 

In mid-December 2010, CBP officers were screening traffic going into Mexico as part of a 

southbound operation. The officers selected a pickup truck for further inspection. The vehicle was 

being driven by a 20-year-old man identified as a Mexican national. With the assistance of a CBP 

K-9 team, the CPB officers discovered that the man was attempting to smuggle more than $480,000 

in undeclared currency out of the United States by concealing the money in an elaborately made 

hydraulic compartment constructed in the side wall of the bed of the pickup. CBP officers seized the 

vehicle and the undeclared currency. The man was turned over to the custody of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) for further investigation. 

CBP Officers Seize $565,950 in Undeclared Currency

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated November 19, 2010, “CBP Seized $565,950 in Undeclared Currency, 43 Dead, Skinned Iguanas and 

Heroin at Laredo Port” 

In mid-November 2010, at Lincoln-Juarez Bridge, CBP officers observed a vehicle that had been 

turned northbound from the automated toll southbound lane and referred it for a secondary 

examination. CBP officers conducted an intensive examination and discovered 14 bundles 

containing a total of $565,950 in undeclared currency. CBP officers seized the currency and turned 

the 45 year old driver over to ICE for further investigation. 

12 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 

CBP Officers Seize $462,566 in Undeclared Currency

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated February 14, 2011, “CBP U.S. Border Patrol Seizes More Than $462,000 in Cash” 

In February 2011, U.S. Border Patrol agents on patrol in Carlsbad, California, spotted a pickup truck 

being driven in an erratic and suspicious manner. Agents conducted an immigration stop on the 

vehicle and the driver’s nervous demeanor and inconsistent responses led agents to request the 

assistance of a Border Patrol K-9 team. The K-9 team performed a cursory inspection of the vehicle 

which resulted in a positive alert to the passenger-side front fender. 

 

Figure 6 42 Cellophane-wrapped Bundles Containing $462,566 Seized during an Immigration Stop 

Agents performed an interior inspection of the truck and discovered an aftermarket compartment on 

the passenger side near the engine firewall. Agents gained access to the compartment, where they 

discovered 42 cellophane-wrapped bundles containing $462,566 in U.S. Currency. The Border Patrol 

processed the currency and Silverado for forfeiture proceedings pending the outcome of the ICE 

investigation of the suspected smuggler. 

CBP Officers Seize $420,440 in Undeclared Currency

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated January 18, 2011, “CBP Seizes in Excess of $400,000 in Undeclared Currency” 

In mid January 2011, CBP officers conducting southbound operations in cooperation with the Border 

Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST) at the El Paso port of entry Monday morning stopped a 46 

year old man from leaving the country with $420,440. CBP officers selected a vehicle for an 

intensive exam. The driver said he had nothing to declare during routine questioning by the CBP 

officer. 

CBP officers initiated an intensive exam during which CBP currency and firearms detector sniffing 

dog alerted to the vehicle. CBP officers noted discrepancies in the vehicle seats and found 16 

bundles of U.S. Currency hidden within the seats. The currency hidden in the seats totaled $420,440. 

The driver, a Mexican citizen, was turned over to ICE agents and the vehicle was seized. 

13
 

 Figure 7 CBP Officers Seize $420,440 in Undeclared Currency Hidden in Vehicle Seats 

CBP Officers Seize $381,060 in Currency Bound for Mexico

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated February 23, 2011, “CBP Seizes $381K in Currency Bound for Mexico in Brownsville” 

CBP officers and Border Patrol agents conducting outbound enforcement operations at the 

Brownsville port of entry seized $381,060 in bulk U.S. Currency. In February 2011, CBP officers 

and Border Patrol agents working outbound enforcement operations at the Brownsville and 

Matamoros International Bridge came in contact with a vehicle as it attempted to exit the U.S. and 

enter Mexico. The driver, a 19 year old U.S. citizen, traveling with two minors was referred to a 

secondary inspection. During the secondary inspection of the vehicle, 15 packages of bulk U.S. 

Currency were discovered hidden in the vehicle. CBP seized the currency and the vehicle. 

CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents Seize $277,405 in Bulk U.S. Currency at the 

Brownsville Port of Entry

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated October 12, 2010, “CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents at Brownsville Port of Entry Seize 

$277,405 During Outbound Enforcement Operation” 

In mid October 2010, CBP Officers and Border Patrol agents working outbound enforcement 

operations at the Gateway International Bridge came in contact with a vehicle as it attempted to exit 

the United States and enter Mexico. The vehicle driven by a 35 year old Mexican citizen was 

referred for further inspection. A search of the Ford resulted in the discovery of 10 packages of bulk 

U.S. Currency totaling $277,405. CBP officers seized the currency and the vehicle. The case was 

referred to ICE for further investigation. 

14 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 

Figure 8 $277,405 in Bulk Currency Seized at Brownsville Port of Entry 

CBP Officers Seize $257,280 in Undeclared Currency Bound for Mexico

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

News Release dated February 23, 2011, “CBP Officers in Calif. Intercept $257,280 in U.S. Currency Bound for Mexico” 

In February 2011, CPB officers seized $258,280 in undeclared U.S. Currency during an outbound 

enforcement operation at the Andrade port of entry. The incident occurred when officers conducting 

outbound inspections stopped a 22 year old female U.S. citizen and resident of Mira Loma, 

California, driving a tan 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer. An intensive examination of the Trailblazer that 

included a canine unit screening the vehicle led to the discovery of 16 wrapped packages containing 

U. S. currency concealed inside a non-factory compartment in the rear passenger floor area. 

CBP officers arrested the driver and turned her over to the custody of ICE agents for further 

investigation. CBP seized the money and the vehicle. 

 

Figure 9 $257,280 in Undeclared U. S. Currency Seized from Mexico-bound Vehicle 

15
16 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

U. S. Secret Service 

Department of Homeland Security 

Case Update - AdSurf Daily 

 

This case was first reported on behalf of the U.S. Secret Service in the 

FY 2010 Accountability Report for the Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

In Rem Forfeiture of $65 Million in Funds Seized from Bank Accounts Associated with the “Ad 

Surf Daily (ASD)” Ponzi Scheme 

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Default Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture dated January 

4, 2010 re: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. 8 Gilcrease Lane, Quincy Florida 32351 et al., Defendants; copy of 

Email: dated September 14, 2011, captioned “RE: FY 2011 Accountability Report-Final Draft for Clearance –Initial 

draft due to GKA by October 5, 2011; and United States Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia, Press Release: 

undated, “Final Order of Forfeiture Issued in ASD Civil Forfeiture Action.” 

In January 2010, approximately $65 million in funds seized from bank accounts associated with the 

“Ad Surf Daily (ASD)” Ponzi-style fraud case were forfeited to the U.S. Government. The 

government anticipated a number of victims’ claims against these forfeitures. 

Victim Restitution 

In September 2011, the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture forwarded the necessary 

paperwork to return $54,762,447 to 8,482 victims of the AdSurf Ponzi Scheme. 

Case Background: On August 5, 2008, the United States Government commenced a civil action in 

rem against 17 defendant properties seeking their forfeiture on the grounds that they constituted the 

proceeds of fraud and money laundering. The complaint alleged the existence of unlawful internet 

operations in the nature of “Ponzi-style” or “pyramid” frauds, which swindled many millions of 

dollars out of victims who sent money to the scheme’s operators. 

The In Rem Civil Complaint asserted that ASD was operating a paid auto-surfing program and that 

program was merely a Ponzi scheme. Although ASD was careful to avoid callings its members 

“investors,” in an apparent effort to avoid regulatory scrutiny, ASD promoted paid membership by 

offering its members a 125% return on their membership fees. In addition, ASD encouraged 

members to recruit new members by paying commissions for referrals. ASD paid the source of a 

referral a percentage of each newly referred member’s fees. 

According to the In Rem Civil Complaint, the investigation revealed that ASD did not appear to sell 

any independent products or services sufficient to generate an income stream needed to support the 

rebates and commissions that it promised its members. Further, the “advertisers” were not paying 

ASD for advertising services at all; instead, they were paying ASD with the expectation that ASD 

would provide a full rebate and additional revenue. Thus, absent continuous membership growth (an 

impossibility) ASD had no means to generate the returns it represented. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 17

Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), Department of the Treasury 

Equitable Sharing Revenue Case 

Tarbell Inc. Agrees to Forfeit $1.75 Million of which $875,000 is Shared with the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund re Licensing Violations

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: 

Lori Shull article in Watertown Daily Times, April 14, 2010, “Tarbell agrees to get licenses” 

Tarbell Inc., a cigarette manufacturer on the Akwesasne reservation voluntarily agreed to comply 

with federal tax laws and obtain licenses from the government, and agreed to forfeit $1.75 million to 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the Department of Justice as payment 

for selling unlicensed cigarettes. The company also agreed not to sell cigarettes over the Internet, 

which violates federal law. The financial settlement does not mean that the company admits any 

wrongdoing, but future violations would be criminal offenses. Of the amount forfeited, $875,000 

was equitably shared with the Treasury Forfeiture Fund representing the role of TTB in the forfeiture. 

U. S. Coast Guard 

Department of Homeland Security 

 

The U.S. Coast Guard continues its close working relationship with the legacy Customs 

bureaus and functions in a member-bureau capacity. The Coast Guard also maintains a 

close working relationship with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of the 

Department of Justice, assisting with drug boat interceptions on the high seas which are 

then turned over to the Department of Justice for prosecution. 

Coast Guard Cutter Thetis Intercepts Go Fast Drug Boat off the Coast of Panama

Information included in the following forfeiture article is attributed to: Immigration and Customs Enforcement New 

Release: December 30, 2010, “3 men charged in maritime drug smuggling operation.” 

On December 17, 2010, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Thetis was conducting a routine maritime patrol 

in international waters off the Panamanian coastline. During this patrol, the Cutter Thetis launched 

its HITRON helicopter to assist in the patrol. While approximately 75 nautical miles north of Colon, 

Panama, the U.S. Coast Guard helicopter observed and approached an un-flagged go-fast style vessel 

heading north. After observing numerous bales on the deck of the vessel and several fuel drums, U.S. 

Coast Guard crew members on board the helicopter believed the vessel to be engaged in narcotics 

trafficking. 

After receiving authorization, the U.S. Coast Guard crew member fired warning shots across the bow 

of the go-fast vessel and the vessel stopped its engines. Shortly thereafter, a Coast Guard team 

boarded the vessel and observed approximately 62 bales on the deck of the vessel. These bales later 

field-tested positive the presence of cocaine. The 62 bales of suspected cocaine were moved to a 

secure facility, where it was determined that the cocaine weighed approximately 3,300 pounds. 
18 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Program and Fund Highlights 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund is a “special receipt account.” Such accounts represent federal fund 

collections earmarked by law for a specific purpose. The enabling legislation for the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund (31 U.S.C. § 9703) defines those purposes for which Treasury forfeiture revenue may 

be used. Once property or cash is seized, there is a forfeiture process. Upon forfeiture, seized 

currency, initially deposited into a suspense account, or holding account, is transferred to the Fund as 

forfeited revenue. Once forfeited, physical properties are sold and the proceeds are deposited into the 

Fund as forfeited revenue. It is this forfeiture revenue that comprises the budget authority for 

meeting expenses of running Treasury’s forfeiture program. 

Expenses of the Fund are set in a relative priority so that unavoidable or “mandatory” costs are met 

first as a matter of policy. Expenses may not exceed revenue in the Fund. The Fund has several 

different spending authorities. Each of them is described below. 

Mandatory Authority 

The mandatory authority items are generally used to meet “business expenses” of the Fund, including 

expenses of storing and maintaining seized and forfeited assets, valid liens and mortgages, 

investigative expenses incurred in pursuing a seizure, information and inventory systems, and certain 

costs of local police agencies incurred in joint law enforcement operations. Following forfeiture, 

equitable shares are paid to state and local law enforcement agencies that contributed to the seizure 

activity at a level proportionate to their involvement. 

It is a strategic goal of the Fund to emphasize and monitor high impact forfeitures. To make 

significant forfeitures requires longer, more in-depth investigations. To this end, Fund management 

emphasizes the use of mandatory funding authorities that fuel large case initiatives. These authorities 

include the Purchase of Evidence and Information, expenses associated with Joint Operations, 

Investigative Expenses Leading to Seizure, and Asset Identification and Removal Groups. In recent 

years, funding provided to computer forensic investigative tools has yielded high impact results. 

Secretary’s Enforcement Fund 

The Secretary’s Enforcement Fund (SEF) is derived from equitable shares received from the Justice 

Department’s forfeiture fund for work done by law enforcement bureaus participating in the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund leading to Justice forfeitures. SEF revenue is available for federal law enforcement 

purposes of any Treasury law enforcement organization or law enforcement bureau that participates 

in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. In FY 2011, the Fund expensed just under $1 million in SEF 

authority as compared to $2.9 million in FY 2010, a decrease of $1.9 million or 66 percent. The 

allocation of SEF resources to bureaus was restricted in FY 2010 and FY 2011 by the need to meet 

enacted budget rescissions. 

Super Surplus 

Super Surplus represents the remaining unobligated balance after an amount is reserved for Fund 

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

purpose. In FY 2011, the Fund expensed $102.5 million in Super Surplus authority as compared to 

$78.9 million in FY 2010, an increase of 30 percent. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 19

Program Performance 

Strategic View 

Fund management continues to focus on strategic cases and investigations that result in high-impact 

forfeitures. We believe this approach affects the greatest damage to criminal organizations while 

accomplishing the ultimate objective – to disrupt and dismantle criminal activity. To make 

significant forfeitures requires longer, more in-depth investigations. To this end, Fund management 

emphasizes the use of mandatory funding authorities that fuel large case initiatives including 

Purchase of Evidence and Information, expenses associated with Joint Operations, Investigative 

Expenses Leading to Seizure, Asset Identification and Removal teams and state-of-the-art Computer 

Forensics capability. FY 2011 was another banner year for major case forfeiture deposits. 

In addition, the Fund continues to support record levels of sharing of federal forfeitures with the state 

and local and foreign governments that contributed to the successful seizure and forfeiture activity of 

the Fund. Reflecting the higher revenue level for FY 2011, the Fund expensed $68.5 million for 

equitable sharing expenses in FY 2011 as compared to $454.6 million expensed in FY 2010. 

Included in these sums are $0.2 million and $131.7 million for equitable sharing expenses with 

foreign countries that assisted in cases during FY 2011 and FY 2010, respectively. These are 

important resources afforded by policy of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to protect and preserve the 

valuable working relationships between our federal law enforcement bureaus and the critically 

important state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies that work with them in an investigative 

capacity day-in and day-out. 

Strategic Mission and Goal 

The mission of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund is to affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic 

use of asset forfeiture by law enforcement bureaus to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises. The 

goal of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund is to support the Department of the Treasury’s national asset 

forfeiture program in a manner that results in federal law enforcement’s continued and effective use 

of asset forfeiture as a high-impact law enforcement sanction to disrupt and dismantle criminal 

activity. To achieve our mission and goal, the program must be administered in a fiscally responsible 

manner that seeks to minimize the administrative costs incurred, thereby maximizing the benefits for 

law enforcement and the society it protects. 

Multi-Departmental Fund 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund continued in its capacity as a multi-Departmental Fund in FY 2011, 

representing the interests of law enforcement components of the Departments of Treasury and 

Homeland Security. FY 2011 posed continued management challenges including oversight of 

significant general property contract expenses associated with high revenue levels. In addition, 

commensurate with the successful revenue year, there were significant expenses incurred by the 

bureaus to run their programs. In the midst of this period of growth and change, the Fund’s family 

of law enforcement bureaus continued their hard work of federal law enforcement and the application 

of asset forfeiture as a sanction to bring criminals to justice. 
20 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

FY 2011 continued a pattern of robust revenue years with regular revenue of $868.1 million from all 

sources, impressive even if somewhat less than the FY 2010 banner year of $1.1 billion. As we enter 

fiscal year 2012, the Fund remains focused on support for strategic investigative initiatives that will 

have the greatest impact on national and international criminal enterprise including valuable training 

and investigative expense funding which emphasizes high impact cases. 

Performance Measure 

In FY 2011, the Fund measured performance through the use of the following performance measure: 

Percent of forfeited cash proceeds resulting from high-impact cases. This measures the percentage of 

forfeited cash proceeds resulting from high-impact cases (those with currency seizures in excess of 

$100,000). Focusing on strategic cases and investigations which result in high-impact seizures will 

affect the greatest damage to criminal organizations while accomplishing the ultimate objective – to 

disrupt and dismantle criminal activity. 

Results 

The Fund performance measure and result for FY 2011 is as follows: 

Performance Measure 

FY 2010 

Actual 

FY 2011 

Target 

FY 2011 

Actual 

Percent of forfeited cash proceeds resulting from 

high-impact cases 

93.11% 80% 91.44% 

A target of 75 percent high-impact cases was set for FY 2010 and prior years since inception of the 

performance measure in FY 2002. However, for FY 2011, the target was increased to 80 percent, 

reflecting member bureaus’ prior success in meeting the previous target. This is a fixed target for the 

Fund designed to afford our law enforcement bureaus the opportunity to undertake smaller seizure 

activity that is important to the overall federal law enforcement mission. The final percentage for FY 

2011 was 91.44 percent, well above target. This compares with our FY 2009 and FY 2010 

performance of 87.65 percent and 93.11 percent, respectively. The performance of our member 

bureaus is excellent and reflects Fund management’s longstanding emphasis on high-impact 

forfeiture strategies as well as the use of Fund authorities to assist member bureaus with larger cases 

that may take longer or require additional resources not otherwise available. This measure was put 

into effect beginning with FY 2002. 

This measure is calculated by dividing the total amount of forfeited cash proceeds from cases greater 

than $100,000 by the total amount of forfeited cash proceeds for all cases. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 21

Financial Statement Highlights 

The following provides a brief explanation for each major section of the audited financial statements 

accompanying this report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011. 

These statements have been prepared to disclose the financial position of the Fund, its net costs, 

changes in net position, and budgetary resources, pursuant to the requirements of the Chief Financial 

Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (GMRA). While the 

financial statements have been prepared from the books and records of the Fund in accordance with 

the formats prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget, the statements are different from 

the financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources that are prepared from the same 

books and records and are subsequently presented in federal budget documents. Further, the notes to 

the financial statements and the independent auditor’s opinion and reports on internal control over 

financial reporting, and compliance with laws and regulations are also integral components to 

understanding fully the financial highlights of Fund operations described in this chapter. 

Statements: Changes in Net Position

Follows are brief highlights from the Statements of Changes in Net Position for FY 2011 and 2010. 

Net Position – End of Year. For FY 2011, the Net Position for the Fund at the end of the year, an 

indicator of the future capability to support ongoing operations of the Fund, totaled $1.453 billion 

versus $986.1 million at the end of FY 2010. Both years closed with a strong and viable net position 

with which to commence the next fiscal year’s operations. 

Total Gross Non-Exchange Revenues. This line item on the Statements of Changes in Net Position

is the best indicator of regular “business-type” income of the account on an annual basis. For a 

number of years, Fund management forecast $250.0 million for the Fund from regular seizure and 

forfeiture activities of our participating bureaus. For FY 2011, the Fund closed with $868.1 million 

in Gross Non-Exchange Revenues and a total of $1.1 billion for FY 2010, reflecting two very 

successful, high-impact revenue years for the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Proceeds from Participating with other Federal Agencies. This line item on the Statements of 

Changes in Net Position indicates revenue earned from the participation of Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

law enforcement bureaus in the seizures leading to forfeiture of bureaus that participate in the 

Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund or with the forfeiture fund of the U.S. Postal Service 

(Postal Service). It is noted that this category of revenue is recognized when received on deposit by 

the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Therefore, there is no accrual recorded on the Fund’s financial 

statements for this category of revenue. 

As of the close of FY 2011, Treasury Forfeiture Fund bureaus earned a total of $95.4 million in 

revenue from participation in the seizures leading to forfeiture of the Justice and Postal Service 

forfeiture funds as compared to a total of $160.7 million during FY 2010. Fund management 

continues to work with the Department of Justice to identify delays and/or explain downward 

adjustments to percentages associated with Reverse Asset Sharing payments owed to the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund. This revenue affords Treasury management significant funding flexibilities for our 

participating agencies as the authority is broad and not confined to funding program costs; it can be 

used for any law enforcement purpose of our participating bureaus. The allocation of this type of 

revenue for FY 2010 and FY 2011 was restricted by the need to meet enacted budget rescissions. 
22 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Cost of Operations. For FY 2011, the Cost of Operations totaled $177.1 million, up from $168.0 

million in FY 2010. 

Investment Interest Income. The Fund is authorized to invest cash balances in Treasury securities. 

As of September 30, 2011, investments totaled $2.3 billion, up from $2.1 billion invested as of 

September 30, 2010. Given the similar investment balance and continuing negligible interest rates on 

Treasury securities during FY 2011, investment income totaled just under $1.4 million in FY 2011, as 

compared to just over $1.4 million in FY 2010. 

Equitable Sharing with Federal, State and Local Governments, and Foreign Countries. Each 

year, the Fund pays tens of millions of dollars to state and local law enforcement agencies, and 

foreign governments, for their participation in seizures that lead to forfeitures of the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund. State and local law enforcement agencies can use these resources to augment their 

law enforcement budgets to fight crime in their jurisdictions. Without these funds, budgets of the 

local municipalities would be taxed to provide these important resources or the need would go unmet. 

During FY 2011, the Fund shared a total of $96.3 million with other federal, state and local law 

enforcement agencies, and another $0.2 million with foreign countries. This compares with $325.2 

million shared with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies during FY 2010, and 

another $131.7 million with foreign countries in FY 2010. 

Victim Restitution. During FY 2011, the Fund paid $24.3 million in restitution to victims as 

compared to $4.0 million in FY 2010. 

Summary of Statements of Changes in Net Position. The Fund closed with a strong net position in 

FY 2011. Management will continue to emphasize high-impact cases by participating law 

enforcement bureaus. The FY 2011 performance with forfeiture revenue earnings of $868.1 million 

from all sources and a high rate of high-impact cases is truly a credit to the dedicated law 

enforcement personnel of our participating law enforcement bureaus. 

Statements: Net Cost

Costs of the Forfeiture Program – Intra-governmental. After revenue is applied toward policy 

mandates such as equitable sharing, shown in the Statements of Changes in Net Position as negative 

revenue or applied non-exchange revenue, the remaining financing supports the law enforcement 

activities of the Fund and pays for the storage of seized and forfeited property and sales associated 

with the disposition of forfeited property. 

On the Statements of Net Cost, the Net Cost of Operations totaled $177.1 million in FY 2011, up 

from $168.0 million in FY 2010. 

 

Intra-governmental. This cost category totaled $115.1 million in FY 2011, up from $105.3 million 

in FY 2010. The amounts represent costs incurred by participating bureaus in running their respective 

forfeiture programs. 

National Seized Property Contracts. One of the largest program costs of the Fund is the storage, 

maintenance and disposal of real and personal property. During FY 2011, general property was 

maintained by VSE Corporation and real property was maintained by the URS Corporation, formerly 

known as EG&G Technical Services, both contracts of the Department of the Treasury. In FY 2011, 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 23

expenses of these two contracts totaled $50.4 million, down from $51.2 million expensed for the two 

contracts in FY 2010. 

Balance Sheet

Assets, Liabilities and Net Position

Total assets of the Fund increased in FY 2011 to $2.5 billion, up from $2.3 billion in FY 2010, an 

increase in asset value of over 8.6 percent. If seized currency and other monetary assets, which are 

assets in the custody of the government but not yet owned by the government, are backed out of both 

figures, the adjusted total assets of the Fund increased to $1.7 billion in FY 2011, up from $1.5 

billion in FY 2010. During FY 2011, total liabilities of the Fund decreased to $1.1 billion, down 

from $1.3 billion in FY 2010. If seized currency and other monetary assets, which are also shown as 

a liability because they are not yet owned by the government, are backed out of both figures, the 

adjusted total liabilities of the Fund decreases to $229.2 million in FY 2011, down from $508.0 

million in FY 2010. 

 

With increasing asset amounts and more moderately increasing costs, the Cumulative Results of 

Operations, i.e., retained earnings, increased at the end of FY 2011 to a total of $1.453 billion, up 

from $986.1 million at the end of FY 2010. 

Financial and Program Performance - What is needed and planned. OMB Circular A-136, 

Financial Reporting Requirements, requires that agencies include an explanation of what needs to be 

done and what is being planned to improve financial or program performance. 

Auditor’s Findings

FY 2011 Audit. The Fund’s independent auditors have given the FY 2011 financial statements an 

Unqualified Opinion with no material weaknesses or other significant deficiencies in internal control 

over financial reporting identified. There are two management letter findings for FY 2011. 

Summary of Financial Statement Highlights 

Net Position. To summarize, Fund management concluded a highly productive FY 2011 “in the 

black,” with the necessary resources to commence the business of the asset forfeiture program for FY 

2012. Fund management declared a Super Surplus from FY 2011 operations and will work to 

recognize the hard work of our participating bureaus in the allocation of these resources. 
24 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

A Look Forward 

Fund management will continue to work with our large and diverse array of federal law enforcement 

bureaus as they undertake increasingly sophisticated methods and global effort to secure the financial 

and commercial markets of the nation and the world given the interdependence of financial systems. 

In addition, our bureaus support immigration enforcement that is designed to identify illegal 

smuggling to deter its impact on the nation’s financial infrastructure and terrorism initiatives and to 

ensure that human smugglers do not harm unsuspecting victims keen on seeking a new if illegal start 

in the United States. Emphasis will continue to be placed on ever-evolving state-of-the-art 

investigative techniques, high-impact major case initiatives and training to support these areas of 

emphasis. This has and will continue to be the key to the growing success and law enforcement reach 

of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Limitations of the Financial Statements. As required by OMB Circular A-136, Fund management 

makes the following statements regarding the limitations of the financial statements: 

 The financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results of 

operations of the entity, pursuant to the requirements of 31 USC § 3515(b). 

 While the statements have been prepared from the books and records of the entity in accordance 

with the formats prescribed by OMB, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used 

to monitor and control budgetary resources which are prepared from the same books and records. 

 The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the U.S. 

government, a sovereign entity. One implication of this is that liabilities cannot be liquidated 

without legislation that provides resources to do so. 
SECTION II 

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORTS
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Certified Public Accountants 

 & Consultants 

www.gkacpa.com

 

1015 18th Street, NW 

Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202-857-1777 

Fax: 202-857-1778

Independent Auditor's Report on Financial Statements

Inspector General 

United States Department of the Treasury 

Washington, D.C. 

We have audited the Principal Statements (balance sheets and the related 

statements of net cost, changes in net position, and budgetary resources, 

hereinafter referred to as “financial statements”) of the Department of the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund (the Fund) as of and for the years ended September 

30, 2011 and 2010. These financial statements are the responsibility of Fund 

Management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial 

statements based on our audits. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally 

accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial 

audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller 

General of the United States; and applicable provisions of Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for 

Federal Financial Statements, as amended. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the 

financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes 

examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in 

the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting 

principles used and significant estimates made by Fund Management, as well 

as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our 

audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all 

material respects, the financial position of the Fund as of September 30, 2011 

and 2010, and its net costs, changes in net position, and budgetary resources, 

for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally 

accepted in the United States of America. 

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a 

report dated October 31, 2011, on our consideration of the Fund's internal 

control over financial reporting and a report dated October 31, 2011, on our 

tests of its compliance with laws, regulations, and contracts. These reports are 

an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing 

 Member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 
Standards, and these reports should be read in conjunction with this report in considering the results 

of our audits. 

Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements referred 

to in the first paragraph of this report as a whole. The information presented in Section I: Overview, 

Section IV: Required Supplemental Information and Section V: Other Accompanying Information is 

not a required part of the financial statements but is supplementary information required by 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, OMB Circular A-136, 

Financial Reporting Requirements, or the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992. We applied certain 

limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of 

measurement and presentation of the supplementary information. However, such information has not 

been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audits of the financial statements and, 

accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

October 31, 2011 

26 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 
Certified Public Accountants 

 & Consultants 

www.gkacpa.com

 

1015 18th Street, NW 

Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202-857-1777 

Fax: 202-857-1778

Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial 

Reporting

Inspector General 

United States Department of the Treasury 

Washington, D.C. 

We have audited the Principal Statements (balance sheet and the related 

statements of net cost, changes in net position, and budgetary resources, 

hereinafter referred to as “financial statements”) of the Department of the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund (the Fund) as of and for the year ended September 

30, 2011, and have issued our report thereon dated October 31, 2011. We 

conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted 

in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits 

contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller 

General of the United States; and, applicable provisions of Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for 

Federal Financial Statements, as amended.

In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Fund’s internal 

control over financial reporting by obtaining an understanding of the design 

effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control, determining whether these internal 

controls had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing 

tests of controls as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the 

purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements. We limited our 

internal control testing to those controls necessary to achieve the objectives 

described in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 and Government Auditing Standards. 

We did not test all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly 

defined by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982, such as 

those controls relevant to ensuring efficient operations. The objective of our 

audit was not to express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal 

control over financial reporting. Consequently, we do not express an opinion 

on internal control over financial reporting. 

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the 

limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to 

identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might 

be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. Under 

standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a 

deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control 

does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing 

 Member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 
their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A 

significant deficiency is a deficiency or combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less 

severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with 

governance. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control 

such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial 

statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. 

We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be 

material weaknesses, as defined above. 

We noted certain matters involving internal control over financial reporting that we reported to 

Management of the Fund in a separate letter dated October 31, 2011. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Management of the Fund, the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, OMB, the U.S. Congress, the Department of the Treasury Office of 

Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office and is not intended to be, and should 

not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this report is a matter of public 

record and its distribution is not limited. 

October 31, 2011 

28 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 
Certified Public Accountants 

 & Consultants 

www.gkacpa.com

 

1015 18th Street, NW 

Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202-857-1777 

Fax: 202-857-1778

Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations

Inspector General 

United States Department of the Treasury 

Washington, D.C. 

We have audited the Principal Statements (balance sheet and the related 

statements of net cost, changes in net position, and budgetary resources, 

hereinafter referred to as “financial statements”) of the Department of the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund (the Fund) as of and for the year ended September 

30, 2011, and have issued our report thereon dated October 31, 2011. We 

conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted 

in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits 

contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller 

General of the United States; and, applicable provisions of Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for 

Federal Financial Statements, as amended. 

The management of the Fund is responsible for complying with laws, 

regulations, and contracts applicable to the Fund. As part of obtaining 

reasonable assurance about whether the Fund’s financial statements are free of 

material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain 

provisions of laws, regulations, and contracts, noncompliance with which 

could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial 

statement amounts, and certain other laws and regulations specified in OMB 

Bulletin No. 07-04, including the requirements referred to in Section 803(a) of 

the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996. We 

limited our tests of compliance to these provisions and we did not test 

compliance with all laws, regulations, and contracts applicable to the Fund. 

Providing an opinion on compliance with certain provisions of laws, 

regulations, and contracts was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, 

we do not express such an opinion. 

The results of our tests of compliance disclosed no instances of noncompliance 

with laws, regulations, and contracts discussed in the preceding paragraph, 

exclusive of FFMIA, that are required to be reported under Government 

Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. 

 Member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 
Under FFMIA, we are required to report whether the Fund’s financial management systems 

substantially comply with the Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable 

Federal accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the 

transaction level. To meet this requirement, we performed tests of compliance with FFMIA section 

803(a) requirements. 

The results of our tests of FFMIA disclosed no instances in which the Fund’s financial management 

systems did not substantially comply with the three requirements discussed in the preceding 

paragraph. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Management of the Fund, the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, OMB, the U.S. Congress, the Department of the Treasury Office of 

Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office and is not intended to be, and should 

not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this report is a matter of public 

record and its distribution is not limited. 

October 31, 2011 

30 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 
SECTION III 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES

 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 31

Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

BALANCE SHEETS 

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010 

(Dollars in thousands) 

2011 2010

Assets: 

Intragovernmental:

 Fund balance with Treasury $       23,094 $      33,490

 Investments and related interest receivable (Note 3)     2,309,275   2,095,911

 Advances                79              266

 Total Intragovernmental     2,332,448   2,129,667

 Cash and other monetary assets (Note 5) 

 

        119,766 90,212

 Accounts Receivable                 430             561

         120,196       90,773

 Forfeited property (Note 6) 

 Held for sale, net of mortgages, liens and claims          52,227        61,449

 To be shared with federal, state or local, or foreign governments            1,517          1,585

 Total forfeited property, net of mortgages, liens and claims          53,744        63,034

Total Assets $2,506,388 $2,283,474

Liabilities: 

 Intragovernmental:

 Accounts payable $        56,253   $    58,577

 Total Intragovernmental         56,253       58,577

 Seized currency and other monetary instruments (Note 8)       824,219       789,437

 Distributions payable (Note 9) 

 State and local agencies and foreign governments       111,311       375,813

 Accounts payable         7,939         10,542

 Deferred revenue from forfeited assets         53,744         63,034

Total Liabilities      1,053,466    1,297,403

Net Position: 

 Cumulative results of operations (Note 10)      1,452,922       986,071

Total Liabilities and Net Position $2,506,388 $2,283,474

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 
32 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

STATEMENTS OF NET COST 

For the years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 

(Dollars in thousands) 

2011 2010

Program: 

ENFORCEMENT

 Intragovernmental: 

 Seizure investigative costs and asset management $      73,300 $     65,761

 Other asset related contract services             8,565          9,178

 Data systems, training and others            33,253         30,334

 Total Intragovernmental         115,118      105,273

 With the Public:

 National contract services seized property and other           50,359         51,207

 Joint operations           11,593         11,549

 Total with the Public           61,952        62,756

Net Cost of Operations $      177,070 $   168,029

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 33

Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION 

For the years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 

(Dollars in thousands) 

2011 2010

Net Position – Beginning of year $ 986,071 $ 594,513

Financing Sources (Non-Exchange Revenues): 

 Intragovernmental

 Investment interest income 

 Public

 1,379 1,431

 Forfeited currency and monetary instruments 763,378 914,227

 Sales of forfeited property net of mortgages and claims 53,776 45,540

 Proceeds from participating with other federal agencies 95,377 160,717 

 Value of property transferred in equitable sharing 4,675 4,019 

 Payments in lieu of forfeiture, net of refund (Note 18) (57,026) (29,949)

 Reimbursed costs 3,559 3,115

 Other ____2,958 3,245

 Total Gross Non-Exchange Revenues 868,076 1,102,345

Less: Equitable Sharing

 Intragovernmental

 Federal (27,927) (2,327)

 Public 

 State and local agencies (68,373) (322,887)

 Foreign countries (176) (131,730)

 Victim restitution (24,261) (4,019)

 (92,810) (458,636)

 Total Equitable Sharing (120,737) (460,963)

Total Non-Exchange Revenues, Net 747,339 641,382

Transfers –Out 

 Intragovernmental

 Super surplus (Note 12) (102,464) (78,895) 

 Secretary’s enforcement fund (Note 13) (954) (2,900)

Total Transfers Out (103,418) (81,795)

Total Financing Sources - Net 643,921 559,587

Net Cost of Operations (177,070) (168,029)

Net Results of Operations 466,851 391,558

Net Position – End of Year $ 1,452,922 $ 986,071

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 
34 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

STATEMENTS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES 

For the years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 

(Dollars in thousands) 

2011 2010

Budgetary Resources: 

 

 Unobligated balances- beginning of year $      580,785 $    299,970

 Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations           57,464           49,620

 Budget authority         598,570    1,083,273

 

Total Budgetary Resources

 

$   1,236,819    $ 1,432,863

Status of Budgetary Resources: 

 Obligations incurred $      590,414 $   852,078

 Unobligated balances - available        646,405          580,785

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $  1,236,819 $ 1,432,863

Change in Obligated Balance: 

 Obligated balance, net-beginning of year $     745,715 $   406,020

 Obligations incurred 590,414 852,078

 Less: Gross outlays   (739,602) (462,763)

 Less: Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations, actual       (57,464)      (49,620)

Obligated balance, net – end of year $    539,063 $   745,715

Net Outlays $    739,602 $   462,763

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 35

Note 1: Reporting Entity

The Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (Treasury Forfeiture Fund or the Fund) was 

established by the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992, Public Law 102-393 (the TFF Act), and is 

codified at 31 USC 9703. The Fund was created to consolidate all Treasury law enforcement bureaus 

under a single forfeiture fund program administered by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). 

Treasury law enforcement bureaus fully participating in the Fund upon enactment of this legislation 

were the U.S. Customs Service (Customs); the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the United States 

Secret Service (Secret Service); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF); the Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN); and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC). FinCEN and FLETC contribute no revenue to the Fund, however in recent years, 

significant amounts of Super Surplus funds have been allocated to FinCEN towards Bank Secrecy 

Act (BSA) Information Technology (IT) modernization, a tool used in the fight against money 

laundering and other criminal activity. The U.S. Coast Guard, formerly part of the Department of 

Transportation, now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), also participates in the 

Fund. However, all Coast Guard seizures are treated as Customs seizures because the Coast Guard 

lacks seizure authority. 

With enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Homeland Security Act), law enforcement 

bureaus currently participating in the Fund are: the Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigation 

(IRS - CI) of Treasury, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) of DHS. The U.S. Coast Guard of DHS joins 

these bureaus. The Fund continues in its capacity as a multi-Departmental Fund, representing the 

interests of law enforcement components of the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security. 

The Fund is a special fund that is accounted for under Treasury symbol number 20X5697. From this 

no-year account, expenses may be incurred consistent with 31 USC 9703, as amended. A portion of 

these expenses, referred to as discretionary expenses, are subject to annual appropriation limitations. 

Others, referred to as non-discretionary (mandatory) expenses, are limited only by the availability of 

resources in the Fund. Both expense categories are limited in total by the amount of revenue in the 

Fund. The Fund is managed by the Treasury's Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (EOAF). 

The mission of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund is to affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic 

use of asset forfeiture by law enforcement bureaus to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises. The 

goal of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund is to support the Treasury’s national asset forfeiture program in 

a manner that results in federal law enforcement’s continued and effective use of asset forfeiture as a 

high-impact law enforcement sanction to disrupt and dismantle criminal activity. Under a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Treasury, CBP acts as the executive agent for certain 

operations of the Fund. Pursuant to that executive agency role, CBP’s National Finance Center (NFC) 

is responsible for accounting and financial reporting for the Fund, including timely and accurate 

reporting and compliance with Treasury, the Comptroller General and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) regulations and reporting requirements. 
36 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Accounting and Presentation

The Fund began preparing audited financial statements in Fiscal Year 1993 as required by the Fund’s 

enabling legislation 31 USC§9703(f)(2)(H), and the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. Beginning 

with the Fiscal Year 1996 report, the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (GMRA) 

requires executive agencies, including the Treasury, to produce audited consolidated accountability 

reports and related footnotes for all activities and funds. 

The financial statements have been prepared from the accounting records of the Fund in conformity 

with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and specified 

by OMB in OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements (OMB Circular A-136). GAAP 

for federal entities is prescribed by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), 

which is designated the official accounting standards setting body of the Federal Government by the 

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 

Allowable Fund Expenses 

The majority of the revenue recorded by the Fund is utilized for operating expenses or distributed to 

state and local law enforcement agencies, other federal agencies, and foreign governments, in 

accordance with the various laws and policies governing the operations and activities of the Fund. 

Under the TFF Act, the Fund is authorized to pay certain expenses using discretionary or mandatory 

funding authorities of the Fund. 

Discretionary authorities include but may not be limited to: the payment of expenses for the purchase 

of awards for information or assistance leading to a civil or criminal forfeiture involving any law 

enforcement bureau participating in the Fund; purchase of evidence or information that meet the 

criteria set out in 31 USC 9703(a)(2)(B); payment for equipment for vessels, vehicles, or aircraft 

available for official use as described by 31 USC 9703(a)(2)(D) and (F); reimbursement of private 

persons for expenses incurred while cooperating with a Treasury law enforcement organization in 

investigations; publication of the availability of certain awards; and payment for training foreign law 

enforcement personnel with respect to seizure or forfeiture activities of the Fund. Discretionary 

expenses are subject to an annual, definite Congressional appropriation from revenue in the Fund. 

Expenses from the mandatory authorities of the Fund include but are not limited to: all proper 

expenses of the seizure, including investigative costs and purchases of evidence and information 

leading to seizure, holding cost, security costs, etc., awards of compensation to informers under

section 619 of the Tariff Act (19 USC 1619); satisfaction of liens against the forfeited property, and 

claims of parties with interest in forfeited property; expenses incurred by state and local law 

enforcement agencies in joint law enforcement operations with law enforcement agencies 

participating in the Fund; and equitable sharing payments made to state and local law enforcement 

agencies in recognition of their efforts in a Fund seizure leading to forfeiture. These mandatory 

expenses are paid pursuant to the permanent indefinite authorities of the Fund; are only limited by 

revenue in the Fund each year and do not require additional Congressional action for expenditure. 
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 37

The Fund's expenses are either paid on a reimbursement basis or paid directly on behalf of a 

participating bureau. Reimbursable expenses are incurred by the respective bureaus participating in 

the Fund against their appropriation and then submitted to the Fund for reimbursement. The bureaus 

are reimbursed through Inter-Agency Transfers (SF-1081) or Intra-governmental Payments and 

Collection (IPAC) System. Certain expenses such as equitable sharing, liens, claims and state and 

local joint operations costs are paid directly from the Fund. 

Further, the Fund is a component unit of the Treasury with participating bureaus in the DHS. As 

such, employees of both Departments may perform certain operational and administrative tasks 

related to the Fund. Payroll costs of employees directly involved in the security and maintenance of 

forfeited property are also recorded as expenses in the financial statements of the Fund (included in 

the line item “seizure investigative costs and asset management” in the statement of net cost.) 

Revenue and Expense Recognition

Revenue from the forfeiture of property is deferred until the property is sold or transferred to a state, 

local or federal agency. Revenue is not recorded if the forfeited property is ultimately destroyed or 

cannot be legally sold. 

Revenue from currency is recognized upon forfeiture. Payments in lieu of forfeiture (mitigated 

seizures) are recognized as revenue when the payment is received. Revenue received from 

participating with certain other federal agencies is recognized when the payment is received. 

Operating costs are recorded as expenses and related liabilities when goods are received or services 

are performed. Certain probable equitable sharing liabilities existing at year end are accrued based 

on estimates. 

As provided for in the TFF Act, the Fund invests seized and forfeited currency that is not needed for 

current operations. Treasury’s Bureau of Public Debt invests the funds in obligations of, or 

guaranteed by, the United States Government. Interest is reported to the Fund and recorded monthly 

as revenue in the general ledger. 

Earmarked Funds 

Earmarked funds are financed by specifically identified revenues, often supplemented by other 

financing sources, which remain available over time. These specifically identified revenues and other 

financing sources are required by statute to be used for designated activities, benefits, or purposes, 

and must be accounted for separately from the Government’s general revenues. In accordance with 

SFFAS 27, Earmarked Funds, all of the TFF’s revenue meets these criteria and constitutes an 

earmarked fund. 

The Federal Government does not set aside assets to pay future benefits or other expenditures 

associated with earmarked funds. The cash collected from earmarked funds are deposited in the U.S. 

Treasury, which uses the cash for general government purposes. Treasury securities are issued to the 

TFF as evidence of its receipts. Treasury securities are an asset to the TFF and a liability to the U.S. 

Treasury. Because the TFF and U.S. Treasury are both parts of the government, these assets and 

liabilities offset each other from the standpoint of the government as a whole. For this reason, they 

do not represent an asset or a liability in the U.S. Government-wide financial statements. 
38 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Treasury securities provide the TFF with authority to draw upon the U.S. Treasury to make future 

benefit payments or other expenditures. When the TFF requires redemption of these securities to 

make expenditures, the government finances those expenditures out of accumulated cash balances, by 

raising taxes or other receipts, by borrowing from the public or repaying less debt or by curtailing 

other expenditures. This is the same way that the government finances all other expenditures. 

Equitable Sharing (Assets Distributed)

Forfeited property, currency, or proceeds from the sales of forfeited property may be shared with 

federal, state and local law enforcement agencies or foreign governments, which provided direct or 

indirect assistance in the related seizure. In addition, the Fund may transfer forfeited property to 

other federal agencies, which would benefit from the use of the item. A class of asset distribution 

was established for victim restitution in 1995. These distributions include property and cash returned 

to victims of fraud and other illegal activity. Upon approval by Fund management to share or 

transfer the assets, both revenue from distributed forfeited assets and distributions are recognized for 

the net realizable value of the asset to be shared or transferred, thereby resulting in no gain or loss 

recognized. Revenue and /or expenses are recognized for property and currency, which are 

distributed to or shared with non-federal agencies, per SFFAS No. 7, Accounting for Revenue and 

Other Financing Sources. 

Entity Assets

Entity assets are used to conduct the operations and activities of the Fund. Entity assets comprise 

intragovernmental and non-intragovernmental assets. Intragovernmental balances arise from 

transactions among federal agencies. These assets are claims of a federal entity against another 

federal entity. Entity assets consist of cash or other assets, which could be converted into cash to 

meet the Fund's current or future operational needs. Such other assets include investments of forfeited 

balances, accrued interest on seized balances, receivables, and forfeited property, which are held for 

sale or to be distributed. 

 Fund Balance with Treasury – This represents amounts on deposit with Treasury. 

 Investments and Related Interest Receivable – This includes forfeited cash held by the Fund 

and seized currency held in the Customs Suspense Account that had been invested in short term 

U.S. Government Securities. 

 Receivables – The values reported for other receivables are primarily funds due from the national 

seized property contractor for properties sold; the proceeds of which have not yet been deposited 

into the Fund. No allowance has been made for uncollectible amounts as the accounts recorded as 

a receivable at year end were considered to be fully collectible as of September 30, 2011 and 

2010. 

 Advances – This primarily represents cash transfers to Treasury or law enforcement bureaus 

participating in the Fund for orders to be delivered. 

 Cash and Other Monetary Assets – This includes forfeited currency on hand not yet deposited 

and forfeited currency held as evidence. 
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 39

 Forfeited Property and Currency – Forfeited property and currency is recorded in the 

respective seized property and forfeited asset tracking systems at the estimated fair value at the 

time of seizure. However, based on historical sales experiences for the year, properties are 

adjusted to reflect the market value at the end of the fiscal year for financial statement reporting 

purposes. Direct and indirect holding costs are not capitalized for individual forfeited assets. 

Forfeited currency not deposited into the Fund is included as part of Entity Assets - Cash and 

Other Monetary Assets. 

Further, mortgages and claims on forfeited assets are recognized as a valuation allowance and a 

reduction of deferred revenue from forfeited assets when the asset is forfeited. The allowance 

includes mortgages and claims on forfeited property held for sale and a minimal amount of claims on 

forfeited property previously sold. Mortgages and claims expenses are recognized when the related 

asset is sold and is reflected as a reduction of sales of forfeited property. 

Additionally, SFFAS No. 3, Accounting for Inventory and Related Property, requires certain 

additional disclosures in the notes to the financial statements, including an analysis of changes in 

seized and forfeited property and currency, for both carrying value and quantities, from that on hand 

at the beginning of the year to that on hand at the end of the year. These analyses are disclosed in 

Notes 7 and 8. 

Non-entity Assets

Non-entity assets held by the Fund are not available for use by the Fund. Non-entity assets comprise 

intragovernmental and other assets. Intragovernmental balances arise from transactions among 

federal agencies. These assets are claims of a federal entity against another federal entity. Nonentity assets are not considered as financing sources (revenue) available to offset operating expenses, 

therefore, a corresponding liability is recorded and presented as governmental liabilities in the 

balance sheet to reflect the custodial/fiduciary nature of these activities. 

 Seized Currency and Property – Seized Currency is defined as cash or monetary instruments 

that are readily convertible to cash on a dollar for dollar basis. SFFAS No. 3 requires that seized 

monetary instruments (cash and cash equivalents) be recognized as an asset in the financial 

statements and a liability be established in an amount equal to the seized asset value due to: (i) the 

fungible nature of monetary instruments, (ii) the high level of control that is necessary over these 

assets; and (iii) the possibility that these monies may be returned to their owner in lieu of 

forfeiture. 

Seized property is recorded at its appraised value at the time of seizure. The value is determined 

by the seizing entity and is usually based on a market analysis such as a third party appraisal, 

standard property value publications or bank statements. Seized property is not recognized as an 

asset in the financial statements, as transfer of ownership to the government has not occurred as 

of September 30. Accordingly, seized property other than monetary instruments is disclosed in 

the footnotes in accordance with SFFAS No. 3. 

 Investments and Related Interest Receivable – This balance includes seized cash on deposit in 

the Fund’s suspense account held by Treasury, which has been invested in short term U.S. 

Government Securities. 
40 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

 Cash and Other Monetary Assets – This balance represents the aggregate amount of the Fund’s 

seized currency on deposit in the Fund’s suspense account held by Treasury, seized cash on 

deposit held with other financial institutions and, cash on hand in vaults held at field office 

locations. 

Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources

Liabilities covered by budgetary resources represent liabilities incurred, which are covered by 

available budgetary resources. The components of such liabilities for the Fund are as follows: 

 Distributions Payable – Distributions payable to federal and non-federal agencies is primarily 

related to equitable sharing payments and payments to be made by the Fund to the victims of 

fraud. 

 Accounts Payable – Amounts reported in this category include accrued expenses authorized by 

the TFF Act (See "Allowable Fund Expenses") for which payment was pending at year end. 

 Seized Currency – Amounts reported in this category represent the value of seized currency that 

is held by the Fund which equals the amount of seized currency reported as an asset. 

 Deferred Revenue from Forfeited Assets – At year end, the Fund held forfeited assets, which 

had not yet been converted into cash through a sale. The amount reported here represents the 

value of these assets, net of mortgages and claims. 

Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources

The Fund does not currently have liabilities not covered by available budgetary resources. 

Net Position 

The components of net position are classified as follows: 

 Retained Capital – There is no cap on amounts that the Fund can carry forward into Fiscal Year 

2011. The cap was removed by the Fiscal Year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act (PL 104-208). 

 Unliquidated Obligations – This category represents the amount of undelivered purchase orders, 

contracts and equitable sharing requests which have been obligated with current budget resources 

or delivered purchase orders and contracts that have not been invoiced. An expense and liability 

are recognized and the corresponding obligations are reduced as goods are received or services 

are performed. A portion of the equitable sharing requests that were in final stages of approval 

are recognized as liabilities at year end. Prior experience with the nature of this account indicated 

that a substantial portion of these requests were certain liabilities at year end. (See also 

Distributions Payable at Note 9). 

 Net Results of Operations – This category represents the net difference, for the activity during 

the year, between: (i) financing sources including transfers, and revenues; and (ii) expenses. 
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 41

Note 3: Investments and Related Interest Receivable

All investments are intragovernmental short-term (35 days or less) non-marketable par value federal 

debt securities issued by, and purchased through Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt. Investments 

are always purchased at a discount and are reported at acquisition cost, net of discount. The discount 

is amortized into interest income over the term of the investment. The investments are always held to 

maturity. They are made from cash in the Fund and from seized currency held in the Customs 

Suspense Account. The Customs Suspense Account became the depository for seized cash for the 

Fund following enactment of the TFF Act. 

The following schedule presents the investments on hand as of September 30, 2011 and 2010, 

respectively (dollars in thousands):

Entity Assets 

Description. Cost Unamortized 

Discount

Investment, 

Net

September 30, 2011

Treasury Forfeiture Fund - 

28 days 0.0000% U.S. Treasury Bills $1,584,974 ($0) $1,584,974

Interest Receivable 0

Total Investment, Net, and Interest Receivable $1,584,974

Fair Market Value $1,584,959

September 30, 2010 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund - 

28 days 0.1150% U.S. Treasury Bills $1,383,134 ($124) $1,383,010

Interest Receivable 47

Total Investment, Net, and Interest Receivable $1,383,057

Fair Market Value $1,383,026
42 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Non-entity Assets 

Description. Cost Unamortized 

Discount

Investment, 

Net

September 30, 2011

Treasury Forfeiture Fund – 

Seized Currency Suspense Account

28 days 0.0000% U.S. Treasury Bills $724,301 $0 $724,301

Fair Market Value $724,294

September 30, 2010 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund – 

Seized Currency Suspense Account

28 days 0.1150% U.S. Treasury Bills $712,918 ($64) $712,854

Fair Market Value $712,862

Note 4: Analysis of Non-Entity Assets

The following schedule presents the non-entity assets as of September 30, 2011 and 2010, 

respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2011 2010

Seized currency: 

 Intragovernmental Investments (Note 3) $ 724,301 $ 712,854

 Cash and other monetary assets (Note 5) 99,918 76,583

Total Non-Entity Assets 824,219 789,437

Total Entity Assets 1,682,169 1,494,037

Total Assets $ 2,506,388 $ 2,283,474
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 43

Note 5: Cash and Other Monetary Assets

Entity Assets 

Cash and Other Monetary Assets held on hand included forfeited currency not yet deposited, as well 

as forfeited currency held as evidence, amounting to $19.8 million and $13.6 million as of September 

30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. 

Non-Entity Assets 

Cash and Other Monetary Assets included seized currency not yet deposited, as well as deposited 

seized currency which is not invested in order to pay remissions, amounted to $99.9 million and 

$76.6 million as of September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. 

Note 6: Forfeited Property

The following summarizes the components of forfeited property (net), as of September 30, 2011 and 

2010, respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2011 2010 

Held for Sale $ 59,497 $ 64,951 

To be shared with federal, state or local, or foreign government 1,517 1,585 

 Total forfeited property (Note 7) 61,014 66,536 

Less: Allowance for mortgages and claims (7,270) (3,502)

Total forfeited property, net $ 53,744 $ 63,034 
44 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Note 7: FY 2011 Analysis of Changes in Forfeited Property and CurrencyThe following schedule presents the changes in the forfeited property and currency balances from October 1, 2010 to Se

(Dollar value is in thousands.) 

10/1/10 Financial 

Statement Balance Adjustments 

10/1/10 

Carrying Value Forfeitures Deposits/Sales Dispos

Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Va

Currency $12,559 - $- - $12,559 - $731,485 - $(749,316) - $(2Other Monetary Instruments 1,070 - - - 1,070 - 95 - (164) - Subtotal 13,629 - - - 13,629 - 731,580 - (749,480) - (2Real Property 48,953 223 24,090 - 73,043 223 37,517 133 (35,442) (120) (5,9General Property 10,661 9,336 9,234 - 19,895 9,336 57,195 26,273 (30,969) (3,128) (3,9Vessels 558 53 520 - 1,078 53 3,125 179 (2,048) (75) (1,0Aircraft 149 3 164 - 313 3 877 11 (727) (8) Vehicles 6,215 2,199 5,005 - 11,220 2,199 42,399 10,247 (33,308) (8,804) (9,6Subtotal 66,536 11,814 39,013 - 105,549 11,814 141,113 36,843 (102,494) (12,135) (20,4Grand Total $80,165 11,814 $39,013 - $119,178 11,814 $872,693 36,843 $(851,974) (12,135) $(20,7

Victim Restitution Destroyed 

Other 

Adjustments Value Change 2011 Carrying Value

Fair M

Ad

Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Va

Currency $- - $- - $25,118 - $26 - $19,629 - Other Monetary Instruments - 

- 

- 

(12) - (770) - 219 - 

Subtotal - - - - 25,106 - (744) - 19,848 - Real Property - - - - 8,252 29 285 - 77,709 251 (36,7General Property - - (195) (18,747) 5,038 628 (2,936) - 44,128 12,358 (32,0Vessels - - - (103) (36) 11 (123) - 982 46 (4Aircraft - - - (1) 100 1 - - 563 6 (2Vehicles - - - (70) 1,591 308 (231) - 12,057 2,636 (4,9Subtotal - - (195) (18,921) 14,945 977 (3,005) - 135,439 15,297 (74,4Grand Total $- - $(195) (18,921) $40,051 977 $(3,749) - $155,287 15,297 $(74,4
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 

Note 7 (Cont’d): FY 2010 Analysis of Changes in Forfeited Property and CurrencyThe following schedule presents the changes in the forfeited property and currency balances from October 1, 2009 to Se(Dollar value is in thousands.)

10/1/09 Financial 

Statement Balance Adjustments 

10/1/09 

Carrying Value Forfeitures Deposits/Sales Dispos

Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Va

Currency $18,188 - $- - $18,188 - $899,821 - $(919,499) - Other Monetary Instruments 309 - - - 309 - 852 - - - (Subtotal 18,497 - - - 18,497 - 900,673 - (919,499) - (Real Property 47,534 196 22,016 - 69,550 196 36,686 122 (43,647) (114) (7,4General Property 4,958 9,391 18,100 - 23,058 9,391 15,919 20,193 (7,382) (2,827) (1,2Vessels 745 62 505 - 1,250 62 2,416 132 (1,775) (79) (7Aircraft 113 6 389 - 502 6 246 10 (295) (7) Vehicles 6,128 3,284 9,223 - 15,351 3,284 42,005 12,098 (38,641) (12,034) (9,0Subtotal 59,478 12,939 50,233 - 109,711 12,939 97,272 32,555 (91,740) (15,061) (18,5Grand Total $77,975 12,939 $50,233 - $128,208 12,939 $997,945 32,555 $(1,011,239) (15,061) $(18,5

Victim Restitution Destroyed 

Other 

Adjustments Value Change 2010 Carrying Value

Fair M

Ad

Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Va

Currency $- - $- - $14,052 - $(3) - $12,559 - Other Monetary Instruments - 

- 

- 

(41) - - - 1,070 - 

Subtotal - - - - 14,011 - (3) - 13,629 - Real Property - - - - 17,962 43 (79) - 73,043 223 (24,0General Property - - (168) (16,486) (2,120) 313 (8,139) - 19,895 9,336 (9,2Vessels - - - (55) 77 2 (175) - 1,078 53 (5Aircraft - - - (3) (129) (3) (11) - 313 3 (1Vehicles - - - (185) 1,810 209 (206) - 11,220 2,199 (5,0Subtotal - - (168) (16,729) 17,600 564 (8,610) - 105,549 11,814 (39,0Grand Total $- - $(168) (16,729) $31,611 564 $(8,613) - $119,178 11,814 $(39,0
46 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Note 8: FY 2011 Analysis of Changes in Seized Property and CurrencySeized property and currency result primarily from enforcement activities. Seized property is not legally owned by the F

administratively forfeited. Because of the fungible nature of currency and the high level of control necessary over these 

these monies may be returned to their owners in lieu of forfeiture, seized currency is reported as a custodial asset upon sthan currency is reported as a custodial asset upon forfeiture. (Dollar value is in thousands.) 

9/30/10 Financial 

Statement Balance Seizures Remissions Forfeitures Adjustments V

Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. 

Currency $776,100 - $881,144 - $(108,526) - $(731,485) - $(13,380) - Other Monetary Instruments 13,337 - 8,699 

- 

(3) - (95) - (2,145) - 

Subtotal 789,437 - 889,843 - (108,529) - (731,580) - (15,525) - Real Property 210,589 505 63,124 224 (10,897) (58) (37,517) (133) (4,538) 8 (General Property 276,883 22,377 87,196 37,101 (58,075) (4,129) (57,195) (26,273) (8,300) (4,668) (Vessels 6,772 167 3,271 206 (1,665) (37) (3,125) (179) (261) (19) Aircraft 16,754 29 3,695 23 (13,262) (10) (877) (11) (103) (2) Vehicles 46,525 5,758 92,004 14,973 (42,263) (4,338) (42,399) (10,247) (2,040) (367) Subtotal 557,523 28,836 249,290 52,527 (126,162) (8,572) (141,113) (36,843) (15,242) (5,048) (Grand Total $1,346,960 28,836 $1,139,133 52,527 $(234,691) (8,572) $(872,693) (36,843) $(30,767) (5,048) $(
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 

Note 8 (Cont’d): FY 2010 Analysis of Changes in Seized Property and Currency

Seized property and currency result primarily from enforcement activities. Seized property is not legally owned by the F

administratively forfeited. Because of the fungible nature of currency and the high level of control necessary over these these monies may be returned to their owners in lieu of forfeiture, seized currency is reported as a custodial asset upon sthan currency is reported as a custodial asset upon forfeiture. (Dollar value is in thousands.) 

9/30/09 Financial 

Statement Balance Seizures Remissions Forfeitures Adjustments V

Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. 

Currency $585,258 - $935,136 - $(61,691) - $(899,821) - $219,892 - $ Other Monetary Instruments 

13,829 - 2,829 

- 

(2,000) - (852) - 751 - 

Subtotal 599,087 - 937,965 - (63,691) - (900,673) - 220,643 - Real Property 255,834 580 47,552 151 (11,355) (70) (36,686) (122) (19,967) (34) (General Property 313,578 20,535 187,360 32,129 (74,515) (4,649) (15,919) (20,193) (25,270) (5,445) (1Vessels 5,799 107 7,089 242 (3,003) (39) (2,416) (132) 211 (11) Aircraft 8,247 23 40,894 30 (31,617) (12) (246) (10) - (2) Vehicles 53,756 7,543 83,876 16,220 (44,309) (5,221) (42,005) (12,098) (4,372) (686) Subtotal 637,214 28,788 366,771 48,772 (164,799) (9,991) (97,272) (32,555) (49,398) (6,178) (1Grand Total $1,236,301 28,788 $1,304,736 48,772 $(228,490) (9,991) $(997,945) (32,555) $171,245 (6,178) $(1
48 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Note 9: Distributions Payable (state and local agencies and foreign governments)

Distributions Payable (state and local agencies and foreign governments) amounted to $111.3 million 

and $375.8 million as of September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Fund management recognizes 

as a liability a portion (based on the average of historical pay-out percentage) of the equitable sharing 

requests, that were approved or in final stages of approval on September 30, 2011 and 2010, 

respectively. Prior experience with the nature of this account indicated that a substantial portion of 

these requests were certain to be paid out by the Fund during the following fiscal year. 

Note 10: Net Position

Cumulative Results

The following summarizes components of cumulative results as of and for the years ended September 

30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2011 2010 

Retained Capital $ 622,905 $ 293,273 

Unliquidated Obligations 363,166 301,240 

Net Results of Operations 466,851 391,558 

$ 1,452,922 $ 986,071 

Unliquidated Obligations 

The following summarizes the components of unliquidated obligations as of September 30, 2011 and 

2010 respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2011 2010 

Equitable Sharing $ 150,392 $ 52,606 

Mandatory 212,774 248,634 

$ 363,166 $ 301,240 

Note 11: Related Party Transactions

The Fund reimbursed agencies for the purchase of certain capital assets. These assets are reported by 

the participating agencies in their financial statements. 

Note 12: Super Surplus

31 USC 9703 (g)(4)(B) allows for the expenditure, without fiscal year limitation, after the reservation 

of amounts needed to continue operations of the Fund. This “Super Surplus” balance may be used 

for law enforcement activities of any federal agency. 

Amounts distributed to other federal agencies for law enforcement activities under “Super Surplus” 

requirements amounts to $102.5 million and $78.9 million in fiscal years 2011 and 2010, 

respectively. 
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 49

Note 13: Secretary’s Enforcement Fund

31 USC 9703 (b)(5) is another category of permanent indefinite authority. These funds are available 

to the Secretary, without further action by Congress and without fiscal year limitation, for federal law 

enforcement purposes of Treasury law enforcement organizations. The source of Section 9703(b)(5) 

funds is equitable sharing payments received from the Department of Justice and the U.S. Postal 

Service (USPS) representing Treasury's share of forfeiture proceeds from Justice and USPS cases. 

Amounts distributed for federal law enforcement purposes of Treasury law enforcement 

organizations amounted to $1 million and $2.9 million in fiscal years 2011 and 2010, respectively. 

Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS 

A portion of the equitable sharing requests that were in final stages of approval are recognized as 

liabilities as of September 30 (See also Note 9, Distributions Payable). 

In addition to the amounts estimated above, there are other amounts, which may ultimately be shared, 

that are not identified at this time. 

CONTINGENCIES 

In the opinion of the Fund’s management and legal counsel, there are no pending or threatened 

litigation claims for which the amount of potential loss, individually, or in aggregate, will have a 

material adverse effect on the Fund’s financial statements. 

Note 15: Disclosures Related to the Statements of Net Cost

Gross costs and earned revenue related to Law Enforcement Programs administered by the Fund are 

presented in Treasury’s budget functional classification (in thousands) as set out below: 

2011 2010 

Gross Costs $ 177,070 $ 168,029 

Earned Revenues - - 

Net Costs $ 177,070 $ 168,029 

The Fund falls under the Treasury’s budget functional classification related to Administration of 

Justice. 

Note 16: Disclosures Related to the Statements of Budgetary Resources

The Fund’s net amount of budgetary resources obligated at the end of fiscal years 2011 and 2010 

were $539.1 million and $745.7 million, respectively. This amount is fully covered by cash on hand 

in the Fund and Entity Investments. The Fund does not have borrowing or contract authority and, 

therefore, has no repayment requirements, financing sources for repayment, or other terms of 
50 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

borrowing authority. There are no legal arrangements, outside of normal government wide 

restrictions, specifically affecting the Fund’s use of unobligated balances of budget authority. 

Adjustments to budgetary resources available at the beginning of fiscal years 2011 and 2010 consist 

of the following (in thousands): 

2011 2010 

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations $ 57,464 $ 49,620

Recoveries of prior year obligations are the difference between amounts that Fund management 

obligated (including equitable sharing) and amounts subsequently approved for payment against 

those obligations. 

Note 17: Dedicated Collections 

The Fund is classified as a special fund. All its activities are reported as dedicated collections held 

for later use. 

Note 18: Payments in Lieu of Forfeiture, Net of Refund

The following summarizes Payments in Lieu of Forfeiture, Net of Refunds as of September 30, 2011 

and 2010, respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2011 2010 

Payments in Lieu of Forfeiture $ 12,653 $ 6,656 

Refunds (69,679) (36,605) 

Total ($ 57,026) ($ 29,949) 
 SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES 51

Note 19: Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (Proprietary) to Budget

The reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget demonstrates the relationship between the 

Fund’s proprietary (net cost of operations) and budgetary accounting (net obligations) information. 

2011 2010 

Resources Used to Finance Activities: 

 Budgetary resources obligated 

 Obligations incurred $ 590,414 $ 852,078

 Less: Spending authority from offsetting 

 Collections and recoveries (57,464) (49,620)

 Net Obligations 532,950 802,458

 Other resources 

 Transfers – out (103,418) (81,795)

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 429,532 720,663

Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net 

 Cost of Operations 

 Change in budgetary resources obligated for goods, 

 services and benefits ordered but not yet provided (57,251) (50,768)

 Other resources or adjustments to net obligated 

 resources that do not affect net cost of operations 

 Mortgages and claims (4,795) (4,298)

 Refunds (69,679) (36,605)

 Equitable Sharing (federal, state/local and foreign) (96,476) (456,944)

 Victim restitution (24,261) (4,019)

Total Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net 

 Cost of Operations (252,462) (552,634)

Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations 177,070 168,029

Net Cost of Operations $ 177,070 $ 168,029
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

SECTION IV 

REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 

(UNAUDITED) 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
52 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

 

Intragovernmental Amounts – Assets (Dollars in thousands) 2011 2010 

Partner Agency 

Fund 

Balance 

with 

Treasury 

Accounts 

Receivable/ 

Advances Investments

Fund 

Balance 

with 

Treasury

Accounts 

Receivable/ 

Advances Investments

Treasury $ 23,094 - $ - $ - $ 33,490 $ - $ - 

Departmental Offices - 79 - $ - $ 266 $ - 

Bureau of Public Debt - - 2,309,275 - - 2,095,911 

Totals _ $ 23.094 $ 79 $ 2,309,275 $ 33,490 $ 266 $ 2,095,911

Intragovernmental Amounts – Liabilities (Dollars in thousands) 

Partner Agency 

2011 

Accounts 

Payable 

2010 

Accounts 

Payable 

Department of Justice $ - $ 4,205 

Departmental Offices 6,574 1,171 

Fincen 

 

6,340 

 

4,295 

Tax and Trade 83 470 

Internal Revenue Service 43,256 48,436 

Totals $ 56,253 $ 58,577 

Intragovernmental Amounts – Revenues and Costs (Dollars in thousands) 

2011 2010 

Budget Functions 

Cost to Generate 

Exchange 

Intragovernmental 

Revenue 

Costs to Generate 

Non-Exchange 

Intragovernmental 

Revenue 

Cost to Generate 

Exchange 

Intragovernmental 

Revenue 

Costs to Generate 

Non-Exchange 

Intragovernmental 

Revenue 

 Administration of 

Justice $ - $ 115,118 $ - $ 105,273
SECTION IV – REQUIRED SUPPLMENTAL INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 53

Intragovernmental Amounts – Non-exchange Revenue (Dollars in thousands): 

2011 2010 

Partner Agency In Out In Out 

Department of Justice $ - $ 610 $ - $ 3,792 

Department of Homeland Security - 58,529 - 36,599 

Department of Treasury - 284 - 141 

Internal Revenue Service - 30,131 - 35,404 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network - 13,633 - 3,944 

Tax and Trade - 231 1,122 

Department of Labor - - - 300 

Department of Commerce - - - 493 

Totals $ - $ 103,418 $ - $ 81,795 
SECTION V 

OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 

(UNAUDITED) 

54 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Equitable Sharing Summarized by State and U.S. Territories 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 

 (Dollars in Thousands) 

(Unaudited) 

State/U.S. Territories Currency Value Property Value

Alabama $ 950 $ - 

Alaska - 4 

Arizona 667 - 

Arkansas 484 - 

California 10,473 88 

Colorado 260 1 

Connecticut 29 - 

D.C. Washington 63 - 

Delaware 315 - 

Florida 4,980 134 

Georgia 2,645 38 

Guam 666 - 

Hawaii 237 - 

Idaho 198 365 

Illinois 2,394 12 

Indiana 334 - 

Iowa 232 - 

Kansas 64 24 

Kentucky 396 43 

Louisiana 317 14 

Maine 26 - 

Maryland 2,642 16 

Massachusetts 981 - 

Michigan 1,045 524 

Minnesota 155 37 

Mississippi 195 - 

Missouri 1,677 - 

Montana 28 - 

Nebraska 56 - 

Nevada 124 - 

New Jersey 5,924 - 

New Hampshire 159 - 

New Mexico 103 117 

New York 12,400 463 

North Carolina 2,747 14 

North Dakota - - 

Ohio 2,909 159 

Oklahoma 736 3 

Oregon 619 37 

Pennsylvania 681 18 

Puerto Rico 213 - 

Rhode Island - - 

South Carolina 204 193 

South Dakota - - 

Tennessee 176 38 

Texas 13,471 1,047 

Utah 582 352

Subtotal carried forward $ 73,557 $3,741 
SECTION V –OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 55

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Equitable Sharing Summarized by State and U.S. Territories 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

(Unaudited) 

State/U.S. Territories Currency Value Property Value

Subtotal brought forward $73,557 $3,741 

Vermont 18 - 

Virgin Islands 26 - 

Virginia 989 5 

Washington 990 7 

West Virginia 43 - 

Wisconsin 89 - 

Wyoming 68 -

 Totals $75,780 $3,753 

Summarized above are the currency and property values of assets forfeited and shared with state and local 

agencies and U.S. Territories participating in the seizure. This supplemental schedule is not a required part of 

the financial statement of the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Information presented on this 

schedule represents assets physically transferred during the year and, therefore, does not agree with total assets 

shared with state and local agencies in the financial statements. In addition, the above numbers do not include 

the adjustment to present property distributed at net realizable value. 
56 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Uncontested Seizures of Currency and Monetary Instruments Valued Over 

$100 Thousand Taking More Than 120 Days from Seizure to Deposit in Fund 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

31 U.S.C. 9703(f)(2)(E) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report annually to Congress 

uncontested seizures of currency or proceeds of monetary instruments over $100 thousand which were 

not deposited in the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund within 120 days of the seizure date. 

There were 52 administrative seizures over $100 thousand over 120 days old totaling $17,156 that had not 

been transferred from the Seized Currency Suspense Account to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund as of the 

end of FY 2011. 
SECTION V –OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 57

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Analysis of Revenue and Expenses 

and Distributions 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Revenue, Expenses and Distributions by Asset Category: 

Revenue

Expenses and 

Distributions

Vehicles $13,994 $124,208

Vessels 3,887 158,254

Aircraft 3,887 50,983

General Property 12,439 502,306

Real Property 43,535 19,675

Currency and monetary instruments 864,808 87,124

942,550 942,550

Less: 

 Mortgages and claims (4,795) (4,795)

 Refunds (69,679) (69,679)

Add: 

 Excess of net revenues and financing sources over total program 

 expenses 

 -- --

Total $ 868,076 $ 868,076

Revenue, Transfers, Expenses and Distributions by Type of 

Disposition: 

Sales of property and forfeited currency and monetary instruments 818,254 174,409

Reimbursed storage costs 3,559 94,255

Assets shared with state and local agencies 68,373 68,373

Assets shared with other federal agencies 27,927 27,927

Assets shared with foreign countries 176 176

Victim Restitution 24,261 24,261

Destructions -- 113,106

Pending disposition -- 440,043

942,550 942,550

Less: 

 Mortgages and claims (4,795) (4,795)

 Refunds (69,679) (69,679)

Add: 

 Excess of net revenues and financing sources over total program 

 expenses 

 -- --

Total $ 868,076 $ 868,076

The revenue amount of $868,076 is from the Statement of Changes in Net Position. This supplemental 

schedule “Analysis of Revenues, Expenses and Distributions” is required under the Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

Act of 1992. 
58 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Information Required by 31 U.S.C. 9703(f) 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992, 31 U.S.C. 9703(f), requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 

transmit to Congress, no later than February 1, of each year, certain information. The following 

summarizes the required information. 

(1) A report on: 

(A) The estimated total value of property forfeited with respect to which funds were not deposited in the 

Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund during the preceding fiscal year under any law 

enforced or administered by the Department of the Treasury law enforcement organizations of the 

United States Coast Guard, in the case of fiscal years beginning after 1993. 

As reported in the audited financial statements, at September 30, 2011, the Fund had forfeited 

property held for sale of $59,497. The realized proceeds will be deposited in the Fund when 

the property is sold. 

Upon seizure, currency and other monetary instruments not needed for evidence in judicial 

proceedings are deposited in a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) suspense account. 

Upon forfeiture, it is transferred to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. At September 30, 2011, 

there was $19,848 of forfeited currency and other monetary instruments that had not yet been 

transferred to the Fund. This is reported as a part of “Cash and Other Monetary Assets” in 

the audited financial statements. 

(B) The estimated total value of all such property transferred to any state or local law enforcement 

agency. 

The estimated total value of all such property transferred to any state or local law 

enforcement bureau is summarized by state and U.S. territories. Total currency transferred 

was $75,780 and total property transferred was $3,753 at appraised value. 

(2) A report on: 

(A) The balance of the Fund at the beginning of the preceding fiscal year. 

The total net position of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund on September 30, 2010 which became 

the beginning balance for the Fund on October 1, 2011, as reported in the audited financial 

statements is $986,071. 
SECTION V –OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 59

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Information Required by 31 U.S.C. 9703(f) 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2011 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

(B) Liens and mortgages paid and the amount of money shared with federal, state, local and foreign law 

enforcement bureaus during the preceding fiscal year. 

Mortgages and claims expense, as reported in the audited financial statements, was $4,795. 

The amount actually paid on a cash basis was not materially different.

The amount of forfeited currency and property shared with federal, and distributed to state, 

local and foreign law enforcement bureaus as reported in the audited financial statements was 

as follows: 

Amount

State and local $68,373 

Foreign countries 176 

Other federal agencies 27,927 

Victim restitution 24,261 

(C) The net amount realized from the operations of the Fund during the preceding fiscal year, the 

amount of seized cash being held as evidence, and the amount of money that has been carried over 

into the current fiscal year. 

The net cost of operations of the Fund as shown in the audited financial statements is 

$177,070. 

The amount of seized currency not on deposit in the Fund’s suspense account at September 

30, 2011, was $99,918. This amount includes some funds in the process of being deposited at 

year-end; cash seized in August or September 2011 that is pending determination of its 

evidentiary value from the U.S. Attorney; and the currency seized for forfeiture being held as 

evidence. 

On a budgetary basis, unobligated balances as originally reported on the Office of 

Management and Budget Reports, SF-133, “Report on Budget Execution” was approximately 

$646,405 for fiscal year 2011. This excludes $422,600 in FY 2011 rescinded authority that is 

classified as “temporary.” If this figure is added to the unobligated balances at the end of FY 

2011, the figure becomes $1,069,005. 
60 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2011 

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Information Required by 31 U.S.C. 9703(f) 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

(D) Any defendant’s property not forfeited at the end of the preceding fiscal year, if the equity in such 

property is valued at $1 million or more.

The total approximate value of such property for the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, at estimated 

values determined by bureau and contractor’s officials, and the number of seizures is as 

follows: 

Bureau Amount Number

CBP $114,267 31 seizures

IRS 376,791 109 seizures

U.S. Secret Service 59,356 20 seizures

(E) The total dollar value of uncontested seizures of monetary instruments having a value of over $100 

thousand which, or the proceeds of which, have not been deposited into the Fund within 120 days 

after the seizure, as of the end of the preceding fiscal year. 

The total dollar value of such seizures is $17,156. This is also documented on page 56. 

 

(F) The balance of the Fund at the end of the current fiscal year. 

The total net position of the Fund at September 30, 2011, as reported in the audited financial 

statements is $1,452,922. 

(G) The net amount, if any, of the excess unobligated amounts remaining in the Fund at the end of the 

preceding fiscal year and available to the Secretary for Federal law enforcement related purposes. 

There is no cap on amounts that can be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2011 per the fiscal 

year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act (PL 104-208). 

(H) A complete set of audited financial statements prepared in a manner consistent with the 

requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. 

The audited financial statements, including the Independent Auditor’s Report, are found in 

Sections II and III. 

(I) An analysis of income and expense showing revenue received or lost: (i) by property category 

(such as general property, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, cash, and real property); and (ii) by type of 

disposition (such as sale, remission, cancellation, placement into official use, sharing with state and 

local agencies, and destruction). 

A separate schedule is presented on page 57. 

 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK