Office of the Special Inspector 

General for TARP

(SIGTARP)

Congressional Justification 

for Appropriations and 

Annual Performance 

Report and Plan

FY 2018 
SIGTARP - 2

Table of Contents

Section I – Budget Request........................................................................................................... 3

A – Mission Statement................................................................................................................ 3

B – Summary of the Request ...................................................................................................... 3

1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table.........................................................................................................4

Note: FY 2016 Appropriated Resources are Actual .............................................................................4

1.2 – Budget Adjustments Table...........................................................................................................4

C – Budget Increases and Decreases Description....................................................................... 4

1.3 – Operating Levels Table................................................................................................................7

D – Appropriations Language and Explanation of Changes ...................................................... 8

E – Legislative Proposals.......................................................................................................... 8

Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report................................................................... 9

A – Strategic Alignment ............................................................................................................. 9

B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity ...................................................................... 9

2.1.1 – Investigations Resources and Measures....................................................................................9

Investigations Budget and Performance ................................................................................... 10

2.1.2 – Audit Resources and Measures...............................................................................................10

Audit Budget and Performance................................................................................................. 10

Section III – Additional Information ........................................................................................ 11

A – Summary of Capital Investments....................................................................................... 11

Comments of the Honorable Christy Goldsmith Romero....................................................... 11
SIGTARP - 3

Section I – Budget Request

A – Mission Statement: 

The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) 

is a federal law enforcement agency and is an independent watchdog protecting taxpayer dollars

that fund TARP. 

B – Summary of the Request 

The FY 2018 Budget proposes $20,297,000, which is 50 percent below the FY 2017 Annualized 

CR level.

1

 Treasury has committed $38 billion for TARP housing programs, of which more than 

$8 billion remains outstanding for payments scheduled to occur through FY 2023.2 Currently, 

TARP spending is approximately $1 billion per quarter. Of the amount proposed, 81 percent is 

for investigations and 19 percent is for audits.

SIGTARP’s criminal investigations of TARP recipients counter threats to public safety and 

Government interests, including public corruption, antitrust (unfair competition), contract fraud, 

financial institution fraud, and mortgage fraud. SIGTARP’s audits identify costly waste, abuse, 

risk of fraud, and inefficiency. SIGTARP has ongoing criminal investigations into TARP 

recipients, and ongoing audits requested by members of Congress. Under TARP’s Hardest Hit 

Fund, which was scheduled to end in FY 2018, but was extended and expanded by $2 billion in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), recipients of TARP dollars include 

19 state housing finance agencies, 38 cities/counties, 147 individuals, eight for-profit companies, 

158 non-profits, 39 land banks, hundreds of demolition contractors, homebuyers, and 

homeowners. Separately, recipients of TARP dollars through the Making Home Affordable 

Program include Ocwen Loan Servicing, Wells Fargo Bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of 

America, Nationstar Mortgage, Select Portfolio Servicing, CitiMortgage, and more than 130 

other mortgage servicers.

SIGTARP’s investigations have recovered $10 billion, which translates to a 40-times return on 

investment from its annual appropriations through FY 2016.

3

 This is in addition to $2 billion in 

cost-saving audit recommendations, including $161 million in savings that will be realized from 

implemented recommendations this year. For the last three fiscal years, recoveries to the 

Government exceeded SIGTARP’s budget proposal and offset taxpayer losses. SIGTARP has 

developed a deep expertise in identifying crime in TARP, with 394 defendants criminally 

charged, nearly 100 of which were charged in FY 2016-2017. SIGTARP investigations have 

also resulted in significant Department of Justice enforcement actions against TARP recipients 

Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Bank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Ally Financial, 

SunTrust Bank, Fifth Third Bank, and General Motors. SIGTARP audits in FY 2016-2017 

identified costly waste, abuse, and risk of criminal behavior in ongoing TARP programs.

 1 Including $200,000 for training and $40,000 to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 2 Of this amount, $7.01 billion is obligated to be paid and $3.93 billion committed in the Making Home Affordable 

Program and $3.2 billion is obligated to be paid in the Hardest Hit Fund program.

3 Includes fines, restitution, forfeiture, and full homeowner relief by a large financial institution.
SIGTARP - 4

1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table

Dollars in Thousands

Note: FY 2016 Appropriated Resources are Actual

1.2 – Budget Adjustments Table

Dollars in Thousands

Special Inspector General for TARP FTE Amount

FY 2017 Annualized CR 184 $40,594 

Changes to Base:

Maintaining Current Levels (MCLs): $809 

Pay raise 465 

Pay annualization 170 

Non-pay 174 

Program Reductions (92) ($21,106)

Technical FTE Adjustment (92) (14,600)

Reduce Support Services (6,506)

Subtotal Changes to Base (92) ($20,297)

Total FY 2018 Base 92 $20,297 

Total FY 2018 Request 92 $20,297 

C – Budget Increases and Decreases Description

Maintaining Current Levels (MCLs) .........................................................+$809,000 / +0 FTE

Pay Raise +$465,000 / +0 FTE 

Funds are requested for the proposed January 2018 pay-raise.

Pay Annualization +$170,000 / +0 FTE 

Funds are requested for annualization of the January 2017 pay-raise.

Non-Pay +$174,000 / +0 FTE 

Funds are requested for non-labor expenses such as travel, contracts, rent, contracts, supplies, 

and equipment.

Program Decreases ..................................................................................-$21,106,000 / -92 FTE

Special Inspector General for TARP

Appropriated Resources

FTE AMOUNT FTE AMOUNT FTE AMOUNT FTE AMOUNT FTE AMOUNT

New Appropriated Resources

Investigations 101 31,801 136 32,069 73 16,441 (63) (15,628) -46.32% -48.73%

Audit 34 8,870 48 8,525 19 3,856 (29) (4,669) -60.42% -54.77%

Subtotal New Appropriated Resources 135 $40,671 184 $40,594 92 $20,297 (92) $(20,297) -50.00% -50.00%

Other Resources

Unobligated Balances from Prior Years 0 0 0 4,000 0 11,090 0 7,090 N/A 177.25%

Resources from Other Accounts 2 475 8 1,548 8 1,613 0 65 N/A 4.20%

Subtotal Other Resources 2 $475 8 $5,548 8 $12,703 0 $ 7,155 N/A 128.97%

Total Budgetary Resources 137 $41,146 192 $46,142 100 $33,000 (92) $(13,142) -47.92% -28.48%

FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2017 to FY 2018

Enacted Annualized CR Request Change % Change
SIGTARP - 5

Technical FTE Adjustment -$14,600,000 / -92 FTE

The technical FTE adjustment reduces the appropriated FTE level.

Reduce Support Services -$6,506,000 / -0 FTE

SIGTARP will also seek to reduce non-personnel costs.

Quantifiable Results: SIGTARP’s Return on Investment & Government Cost Savings

With $10 billion in recoveries from SIGTARP investigations (nearly $9 billion of which was 

recovered last year), SIGTARP has a 40 times return on investment compared to its annual 

appropriations through FY 2016.

4 In FY 2017, SIGTARP’s investigation in one case alone 

already resulted in the Government recovering $52 million, which is more than the $41 million 

FY 2017 Annualized CR level. Recoveries from SIGTARP’s investigations can be used for 

other Government spending or to reduce the federal budget deficit. Government recoveries 

resulting from SIGTARP investigations help offset losses that taxpayers suffered on certain 

TARP investments. SIGTARP auditors save the Government money, and have identified $2 

billion in cost savings. SIGTARP is currently auditing how 19 state housing finance agencies 

spent nearly $700 million. In September 2016, SIGTARP caught and exposed $8.2 million in 

waste by a Nevada state agency contractor who spent federal dollars earmarked for homeowners 

on parties, a cocktail bar, employee gifts, a Mercedes Benz for the CEO, and more. SIGTARP 

also achieves additional Government cost savings by deterring fraud and waste. SIGTARP’s 

exposure of waste in Nevada, and our publicly-announced audit, serve to deter waste and fraud 

for the approximately $30 million per quarter that Treasury pays to state housing finance 

agencies for their expenses in administering TARP.

Countering Threats to Public Safety & Government Interests

SIGTARP brings accountability through law enforcement, as Congress authorized SIGTARP 

with the power to arrest. With concurrent responsibility with the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) over TARP-related crime, SIGTARP saves FBI resources. SIGTARP counters threats to 

public safety and Government interests by investigating criminal actors, and neutralizing the 

threat they pose. With more than 200 people sentenced to prison, at an average of a nearly fiveyear prison sentence, the threat these crimes pose is significant.

not of an agency but a program: 

Public corruption: State and local officials award contracts under various HFA blight elimination

programs using TARP dollars. The corruption of local officials threatens public safety. 

Antitrust violations: Unfair competitive practices for demolition contracts, like bid rigging and 

contract steering, threatens the quality of work, harming public safety, and threatens competition, 

harming the Government’s interests.

Contract fraud: Fraud in charges for demolition, expenses by state housing finance agencies, or

by HAMP servicers harms Government interests. 

Financial institution fraud: SIGTARP investigates fraud in current TARP banks and banks 

where taxpayers suffered a loss in TARP. Our record reflects 96 bankers charged with a crime, 

including 75 who have already been convicted while others await trial. A recent SIGTARP 

 4 Includes fines, restitution, forfeiture, and full homeowner relief by a large financial institution.
SIGTARP - 6

investigation into a bank still in TARP resulted in the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicting the 

former bank CEO for allegedly orchestrating a money laundering scheme for international 

narcotics trafficking involving a drug cartel. Charges are not evidence of guilt and trial is 

scheduled for FY 2018. In FY 2017, a jury found the CEO of a failed TARP bank guilty of bank 

fraud and the vice president pled guilty. When the bank failed, taxpayers lost $7.5 million in 

TARP. Also in FY 2017, DOJ criminally charged a senior officer of another failed TARP bank 

with deceiving regulators about bank losses. Taxpayers lost $30 million in TARP when that

bank failed.5

 

Mortgage fraud: Mortgage fraud cases typically involve false representations to homeowners 

and/or Treasury. We are prioritizing investigations of mortgage servicers.

Proactive Investigative Efforts to Speed Up the Identification of Crime

With TARP currently spending $1 billion each quarter, SIGTARP is mining data to find crime 

quickly, including in the HFA blight elimination programs. SIGTARP looks for anomalies that, 

when paired with red flags identified in its ongoing investigations, speed up investigative efforts 

to identify persons of interest and potential corruption, antitrust violations, and fraud.

 5 Criminal charges contain an allegation that a defendant committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent 

until and unless proven guilty.
SIGTARP - 7

1.3 – Operating Levels Table

Dollars in Thousands

Note: This table includes total annually appropriated funding (actuals for FY 2016, FY 2017 Annualized CR and FY 2018).

Special Inspector General for TARP FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Object Classification Actual Annualize

d CR Request

11.1 - Full-time permanent 15,408 21,788 11,761

11.3 - Other than full-time permanent 1,526 1,799 942

11.5 - Other personnel compensation 1,646 2,120 1,207

11.9 - Total personnel compensation 18,580 25,707 13,910

12.0 - Personnel benefits 6,013 8,184 4,790

Total Personnel and Compensation Benefits $24,593 $33,891 $18,700

21.0 - Travel and transportation of persons 838 1,000 1,000

23.2 - Rental payments to others 262 272 330

23.3 - Communication, utilities, and misc charges 93 103 87

24.0 - Printing and reproduction 201 162 0

25.1 - Advisory and assistance services 2,726 2,676 1,391

25.2 - Other services from non-Federal sources 130 68 121

25.3 - Other goods and services from Federal sources 10,796 7,044 10,534

25.6 - Medical care 100 100 100

25.7 - Operation and maintenance of equipment 50 48 43

26.0 - Supplies and materials 472 448 347

31.0 - Equipment 276 260 277

42.0 - Insurance claims and indemnities 34 60 60

91.0 - Unvouchered 0 10 10

Total Non-Personnel $15,978 $12,251 $14,300

Total Budgetary Resources $40,571 $46,142 $33,000

FTE 135 184 92
SIGTARP - 8

D – Appropriations Language and Explanation of Changes

Appropriations Language Explanation of Changes

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE TROUBLED

ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM

Federal funds

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Special Inspector 

General in carrying out the provisions of the Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–343),

$20,297,000.

Note.—A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not 

enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, the budget 

assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). The amounts included 

for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing 

resolution.

E – Legislative Proposals

PPIP Funds

The Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) Improvement and Oversight Act of 2009 (12 

U.S.C. § 5231a) provided $15 million in no-year appropriations to SIGTARP for the purpose of 

providing oversight to PPIP and the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. As both 

programs have closed, SIGTARP is currently using these funds to support limited investigative 

activities where taxpayers suffered a loss in PPIP. SIGTARP is requesting that these PPIP funds 

be made available to also support SIGTARP’s oversight of ongoing TARP programs. 

PROPOSED LANGUAGE

Sec. 128 Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of section 402(c) of the Helping Families Save their 

Homes Act of 2009, in utilizing funds made available by paragraph (1) of section 402(c) of such 

Act, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program shall prioritize the 

performance of audits or investigations of any program that is funded in whole or in part by 

funds appropriated under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, to the extent that 

such priority is consistent with other aspects of the mission of the Special Inspector General.
SIGTARP - 9

Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report

A – Strategic Alignment

The Investigations budget activity supports SIGTARP’s priority of law enforcement of crimes 

related to TARP. The Audit budget activity supports SIGTARP’s priority of being an 

independent watchdog over TARP dollars. Both activities support and complement Treasury’s 

efforts to safeguard and protect the integrity of the financial system. SIGTARP coordinates with 

other law enforcement agencies, leveraging its unique position and expertise by forming law 

enforcement partnerships. 

The FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan is currently under development. The Annual Performance Plan 

will be updated in the FY 2019 Budget to reflect the new priorities.

B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity

2.1.1 – Investigations Resources and Measures

Dollars in Thousands

Note: FY 2016 Appropriated Resources are Actual

Measure FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2012 -

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Target Target Target FY 2016

Trend

Percentage of Cases 

Accepted for Consideration 

by Civil or Criminal 

Authorities Resulting in a 

Positive Final Outcome

N/A N/A N/A N/A 77.0 60.0 70.0 70.0 N/A

Percentage of Cases 

Presented to Civil or 

Criminal Authorities within 

Eight Months of the Case 

Being Opened

N/A N/A N/A N/A 80.0 70.0 70.0 50.0 N/A

Percentage of Cases That 

are Joint Agency/Task 

Force Investigations

65.0 79.0 75.5 69.65 71.0 70.0 70.0 50.0

Percentage of Preliminary 

Investigations Converted to 

Full Investigations within 

180 Days

77.0 82.0 95.75 100.0 99.0 80.0 80.0 60.0

Key: DISC - Discontinued; B - Baseline

 Resource Level FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Annualized 

CR Request

Appropriated Resources $25,618 $29,230 $27,382 $27,295 $32,478 $32,069 $16,441

Other Resources 920 1,516 5,656 6,354 376 4,701 10,289

Budget Activity Total $26,538 $30,746 $33,038 $33,649 $32,854 $36,770 $26,730

FTE 102 110 119 115 103 144 81
SIGTARP - 10

Investigations Budget and Performance

($16,441,000 from direct appropriations)

SIGTARP exceeded all metrics in FY 2016. The “Percentage of Cases Accepted for 

Consideration by Civil or Criminal Authorities Resulting in a Positive Final Outcome” in 

FY 2016 was 77 percent, exceeding the target of 60 percent. During FY 2016, the “Percentage 

of Cases Presented to Civil or Criminal Authorities within Eight Months of the Case Being 

Opened,” was 80 percent, exceeding the target of 70 percent. In FY 2016, the “Percentage of 

Cases That are Joint Agency/Task Force Investigations” with other law enforcement agencies 

was 71 percent. In FY 2016, “Percentage of Preliminary Investigations Converted to Full 

Investigations within 180 days” was 99 percent, exceeding the target of 80 percent. 

2.1.2 – Audit Resources and Measures

Dollars in Thousands

Note: FY 2016 Appropriated Resources are Actual

Measure FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2012 -

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Target Target Target FY 2016

Trend

Number of Completed 

Audit Products including 

Referral to Investigations 

Division (Units)

N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 7 7 3 N/A

Percentage of 

Congressional Inquiries 

Responded to within 45 

Days of Receipt

N/A N/A N/A 85.0 100.0 85.0 85.0 85.0

Key: DISC - Discontinued; B - Baseline

Audit Budget and Performance

($3,856,000 from direct appropriations)

SIGTARP exceeded its performance measure “Number of Completed Audit Products including 

Referrals to Investigations Division” of seven in FY 2016, with 11 products. SIGTARP 

exceeded its 85 percent goal of “Percentage of Congressional Inquiries Responded to within 45 

Days of Receipt,” at 100 percent.

 Resource Level FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Annualized 

CR Request

Appropriated Resources $13,789 $10,376 $7,219 $6,824 $7,618 $8,525 $3,856

Other Resources 1,947 1,069 99 847 2,414

Budget Activity Total $13,789 $10,376 $9,166 $7,893 $7,717 $9,372 $6,270

FTE 60 57 45 35 34 48 19
SIGTARP - 11

Section III – Additional Information

A – Summary of Capital Investments

SIGTARP has limited non-major IT investments that allow for routine updates, modifications, 

maintenance, and equipment refreshment of its existing systems. 

A summary of capital investment resources can be found at:

http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/Pages/summary-of-capital-investments.aspx

This website also contains a digital copy of this document.

Comments of the Honorable Christy Goldsmith Romero 

Special Inspector General Troubled Asset Relief Program

on the FY 2018 Proposed Funding Level

Under the provisions of section 6(f)(3)(E) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, as 

applied through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Special Inspector 

General has provided the following comments regarding FY 2018 proposed funding:

The FY 2018 budget request substantially inhibits the Office of the Special Inspector General 

(OIG) for TARP from performing the duties of the office, including audits and criminal 

investigations. The proposed funding represents a 50% reduction ($20 million) from the FY 

2017Annualized CR level enacted by the Congress, despite the Federal Government’s 

continued ownership or control of troubled assets in TARP housing programs that are $38 

billion in size – the same size as last year. This year alone (FY 2018), Treasury will spend $4 

billion in TARP. This spending is in two programs: (1) the recently expanded and extended 

Housing Finance Agency Innovation Fund for the Hardest Hit Housing Markets (Hardest Hit 

Fund or HHF); and (2) TARP’s Making Home Affordable Program (MHA), which has spent 

just over half (60%) of obligated/committed TARP dollars. 

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, the Congress authorized an extension and 

an additional $2 billion in the Hardest Hit Fund. With that authorization, Treasury extended 

the spending of Federal dollars in HHF from FY 2018 to FY 2022. There are $3.2 billion in 

unspent Federal dollars in HHF. Recipients of these Federal TARP dollars are 19 state 

agencies, 38 cities/counties, 147 individuals, 8 for-profit companies, 158 non-profits, 39 land 

banks, hundreds of demolition contractors and subcontractors (including asbestos,

inspection and removal, waste disposal, fill dirt, grading, greening, site inspection, 

maintenance), homebuyers, and homeowners. 

The OIG’s investigations and audits have revealed risks of criminal behavior, fraud, waste, 

and abuse in the Hardest Hit Fund program. The OIG’s FY 2016 audit revealed that the 

HHF blight demolition program is significantly vulnerable to the substantial risk of unfair 

competitive practices, including favoritism, undue influence, contract steering, bid-rigging, 

and other closed-door contracting processes, as well as fraudulent overcharging. Only two 

of 20 recommendations in that audit have been implemented. Other FY 2016 audits revealed 
SIGTARP - 12

abuse related to evicting people out of their homes to qualify for TARP-funded demolition, 

and $8.2 million in waste of TARP dollars by a state agency contractor. 

Additionally, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, the Congress terminated MHA, 

but exempted homeowners who applied before December 31, 2016. Just over half (60%) of 

these federal dollars have been paid to Ocwen, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of 

America, Nationstar, SPS, CitiMortgage, and more than 130 mortgage servicers, investors 

and homeowners. Treasury is obligated or committed to pay a remaining $10.94 billion 

through FY 2023. Program participation has remained steady at about one million 

homeowners in FY 2015, FY 2016 and FY 2017. The OIG’s investigations with the Justice 

Department, and audits, have revealed a track record of violations of TARP rules and the 

law by some servicers in MHA and warned of risk of fraud, waste, and abuse to the Federal 

Government and homeowners. 

The OIG has a significant number of ongoing criminal investigations of recipients of Federal 

dollars in TARP, in addition to audits of TARP recipients. The proposed budget effectively 

removes the resources necessary for the OIG to: (1) identify costly waste and abuse, as well 

as cost savings through ongoing and future audits, and (2) conduct ongoing and future 

criminal investigations that (a) counter threats, including public corruption, antitrust (unfair 

competition), contract fraud, financial institution fraud, and mortgage fraud, and (b) lead to 

indictments, convictions, prison sentences, and recoveries. This places critical Federal 

Government interests at risk, and substantially inhibits the OIG in carrying out its duties and 

responsibilities.