Message from the Director 

 U.S. Department of the Treasury

I am pleased to present the fiscal year (FY) 2005 Accountability Report for the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund. While highlighting the Treasury Forfeiture Fund’s (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 bureaus this year. FY 2005 was another robust 

revenue year for the law enforcement bureaus participating in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, 

with earned revenue during the year of over $300 million from all sources. 

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 75 percent of our currency forfeitures to be high impact forfeitures. Fund Management 

works through budgetary and policy means to emphasize high-impact cases, i.e., those cash 

forfeiture cases equal to or greater than $100,000 in value. For FY 2005, we exceeded our 

target significantly with 81 percent of our cash forfeiture revenue stemming from high-impact 

cases. This is a credit to our law enforcement bureaus and their dedication to the fight against 

crime. 

During FY 2005, the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture continued expanding its training 

programs, with conferences addressing the cutting edge of investigative and forfeiture 

innovative practices of our member agencies. We launched a new seminar series called 

International Issues in Investigation and Forfeiture with each seminar focusing on a specific 

geographic region of the world. Topics include trade-based money laundering, black market 

peso exchange, money services businesses, and tracing money off-shore. We conducted two 

final seminars in the series Technology Issues in Investigation and Forfeiture, which included 

a full day of hands-on specialized training. Our training strategy is aimed at fostering the 

cooperation between our participating agencies, as well as identifying and promoting their 

best investigative and forfeiture practices. 

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

2005, 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 (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. 

As we enter FY 2006, the Fund remains focused on support for strategic investigative 

initiatives that will have the greatest impact on national and international criminal enterprise 

including continued emphasis on training and investigative or operational initiatives that 

emphasize high impact cases. 

 

 Eric E. Hampl, Director 

 Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture 

 U.S. Department of the Treasury 
 

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...................................................................................22 

Program Performance ...............................................................................................30 

Financial Highlights..................................................................................................33 

Section II: Financial Statements 

Independent Auditor’s Report on Financial Statements ...........................................37 

Financial Statements: 

Balance Sheets ....................................................................................................39 

Statements of Net Cost........................................................................................40 

Statements of Changes in Net Position...............................................................41 

Statements of Budgetary Resources....................................................................42 

Statements of Financing......................................................................................43 

Notes to Financial Statements.............................................................................44 

 

Section III: Other Reports 

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting..........61 

Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations.............64 

Exhibit I 

 Material Weakness..............................................................................................66 

Exhibit II 

 Reportable Condition..........................................................................................68 

Section IV: 

Required Supplemental Information...............................................................................70 

Section V: 

Other Accompanying Information..................................................................................72 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 1

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 Crimes. EOAF’s 

organizational structure includes the Fund Director, Legal Counsel, Assistant Director for Policy and 

Assistant Director for Operations. Functional responsibilities are delegated to various team leaders. 

EOAF is located in Washington, D.C., and currently has 20 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 seizures. Management believes this approach incurs the greatest damage to 

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

enterprises. 
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 2005 that led to 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, and that is to use asset forfeiture in high-impact cases to 

disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprise. 

Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury 

AM South Bank – Deferred Prosecution Agreement - forfeits $40 million

AMSouth Bank forfeited 

$40 million as part of a Deferred 

Prosecution Agreement on 

charges of failure to report 

suspicious financial activity. 

AmSouth Bancorporation and AMSouth Bank forfeited $40 million to the United States as part of a

Deferred Prosecution Agreement on charges of failure to report suspicious financial activity. This is 

one of the largest forfeitures ever by a publicly traded bank. AmSouth has over 600 branches in the 

southeastern United States with over $45 billion dollars in assets. The investigation, conducted by 

IRS-CI, arose out of a grand jury investigation of Louis Hamric, Victor Nance and other individuals 

who were operating a Ponzi scheme in Mississippi. In this type of scheme, early investors are paid a 

“return” on their investment using monies obtained from later investors, thereby creating the 

appearance of a successful investment and in so doing, encouraging others to “invest” their money. 

In this scheme, the “investment” was a Promissory Note, issued by Hamric and held in an AmSouth 

custodial trust account which either Hamric or Nance established for each victim of the scheme. 

AmSouth handled the administrative duties of the scheme by accepting “interest” payments from

Hamric and depositing them into the various custodial accounts based on a spreadsheet provided by 

Nance. AmSouth also provided copies of the custodial trust account holders’ bank statements to

Hamric and Nance on a quarterly basis without the knowledge or consent of the account holders. 

Without the participation of AmSouth, the Hamric and Nance fraudulent scheme would not have 

succeeded in defrauding 60 investors of their savings. 

2 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005
Nance and Hamric have both pled guilty to money laundering charges. AmSouth had a duty to

recognize the Hamric and Nance scheme as suspicious activity and had a duty to report this activity. 

Some of the Hamric promissory notes in these accounts promised to pay the investors as much as 

25% per month. Although such a note is suspicious on its face, AmSouth did not question the terms 

or nature of any of these notes. The Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) that was ultimately filed 

reporting the Hamric matter mischaracterized the suspicious activity as check fraud and understated 

the amount involved in the fraud. Also, the SAR was filed nearly 2 years after the date that AMSouth 

initially detected or should have detected the suspicious activity. AmSouth also acknowledged its 

responsibility for initially failing to produce all documents relative to numerous grand jury subpoenas

it received from the Grand Jury investigating the Hamric and Nance scheme. 

Siracusa – Prime Bank Scheme – forfeits $990,540

Mr. Siracusa is an attorney, located in Williamsville, New York, and licensed to practice in New 

York. He became involved in Lotus Investigation and Heritage International, Inc., a Prime Bank 

Scheme operating out of Denver, Colorado. The investigation, conducted by IRS-CI, revealed that 

Siracusa falsely represented to investors that he and his associates had special connections to 

overseas banking transactions enabling the investors to participate in “prime bank” investments. 

Investors were told that in order to secure a bank commitment for each of the $100 million units for 

which they were soliciting fees, the investors would need to pay Lotus Investigation and Heritage 

International, Inc., a “commitment fee” of $100,000. 

In order to assure the investors, they were falsely told that the fees would be wire transferred to 

escrow accounts set up and maintained by Siracusa at Midland Marine Bank in Buffalo, New York. 

Prospective investors were given the impression that the $100,000 “commitment fee” would not be 

released from the Midland Marine Escrow account until such time as Lotus Investigation and 

Heritage International, Inc. was able to deliver a bank purchase order for the $100 million units of 

prime bank notes which those fees were paid to secure. In addition, Siracusa represented to 

prospective investors that in the event of non-performance, a refund of the $100,000 commitment

fees would be assured by a financial guarantee that a wealthy businessman had executed in favor of 

Lotus Investigation and Heritage International, Incorporated. In actuality, Siracusa knew that such 

guarantees were fraudulent. 

Siracusa was also represented to prospective investors as an independent escrow agent with no ties to 

Lotus Investigation and Heritage International, Inc., when in truth he was the partner of the principal 

of Lotus Investigation and Heritage International, Inc. Siracusa and his partners in the scheme took 

the money from investors, and spent it for their own personal benefit. During this period, Siracusa 

caused wire transfers to be made to transfer over a million dollars to a Swiss bank account. Those 

moneys were eventually seized and forfeited from the Swiss Bank Account by the IRS-CI. 

Michael and Gina Zapara – Tax Evasion and Bank Fraud – forfeit $3.5 million

SECTION I - OVERVIEW 

 

3
4 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

In December 1998, Michael and Gina Zapara were arrested on charges of tax evasion and bank fraud 

and pled guilty in 1999. Charges against the couple stemmed from the laundering of counterfeit and 

stolen check proceeds through bank accounts controlled by the Zaparas. The case was conducted by 

IRS-CI. Beginning in 1997, Michael Zapara began incorporating shell corporations naming himself, 

his wife or others as officers of the corporation. Gina Zapara acted as the stock transfer agent. The 

initial shareholders were the Zaparas, their co-conspirators and other individuals used by the Zaparas. 

Many times the Zaparas registered stock in the names of other individuals or entities, many of whom 

were unaware that their names were being used, but in actuality the Zaparas controlled the stock and 

benefited from its sale. Michael Zapara or individuals working with him then approached legitimate 

start-up companies requiring capital. Zapara would propose a merger of the publicly-traded shell 

corporation and the private corporation seeking capital. The merger allowed the private corporation 

to become public without the time and expense associated with an initial public offering. Following 

the merger, the Zaparas sold the stock they controlled, earning a profit. However, much of the stock 

was in the names of individuals other than the Zaparas. The Zaparas knowingly created and sold 

shares of stock represented by counterfeit stock certificates, thereby selling and trading in stock that 

did not in fact exist or which the Zaparas did not own. As part of their fraudulent stock scheme, the 

Zaparas issued stock certificates in the names of two of their own employees. When the employees 

confronted the Zaparas, the Zaparas lied to one employee and said they were setting up a nest egg for 

her; the other employee requested her stock certificates so the Zaparas fired her. 

The Zaparas also submitted false statements to the SEC in furtherance of the scheme. The Zaparas 

opened and maintained numerous securities and financial accounts with financial institutions in the 

names of others. These accounts were used by the Zaparas to buy and sell securities and were 

instrumental in concealing and disguising the nature, source, location, control and ownership of the 

proceeds of the illegal stock scheme. IRS-CI agents analyzed numerous financial accounts and 

determined that the Zaparas had earned millions of dollars in fraud proceeds from the trading of the 

bogus securities. In February, the Zaparas purchased a $3.3 million house in Hawaii using the name 

of Aloha Associates, a sham entity created and controlled by the Zaparas. The $50,000 down 

payment came from the Zaparas attorney’s attorney-client trust fund. The attorney admitted that the 

Zaparas had given him over $20 million to put in the trust fund and was instructed to disburse from it 

at their request. This money had no connection to any legitimate legal fees or services. The 

remainder of the purchase price was paid in the same method or was transferred from another sham 

entity, American Dream Company, which was also controlled by the Zaparas. The Zaparas made it 

appear that the money had been loaned to them by American Dream Company when in actuality, the 

“company” and the proceeds were the proceeds of the Zaparas’ illegal scheme. IRS-CI seized and 

forfeited various luxury vehicles and the Zaparas forfeited $3.5 million to the government in lieu of 

the forfeiture of the real property in Hawaii. 

Samuel G. Kooritzky – Conspiracy, Immigration Fraud – forfeits $2.3 Million and 

Co-Conspirator Forfeits $4 Million

On September 20, 2004, a Final Order of Forfeiture was filed in which the Court ordered Defendants 

Ronald W. Bogardus to forfeit $4 million in illegal proceeds to the United States, Samuel G. 

Kooritzky to forfeit $2.3 million in illegal proceeds to the United States and Inderjeet Kaur to forfeit 

$80,000 in illegal proceeds to the United States. As part of the forfeiture order, the Court appointed a 

Receiver to identify and compensate the victims to whom restitution was due. 

The investigation centered on Samuel G. Kooritzky, the head of a renowned immigration law firm, 

who was convicted on 57 counts of immigration fraud, visa fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and 
extortion, and sentenced to 127 months in prison, for conspiring in a massive fraud scheme in which 

illegal immigrants paid thousands of dollars to seek permission to work in the United States unaware 

that their applications were filled with false information and phony signatures. Mr. Kooritzky’s coconspirators, Ronald W. Bogardus, a Department of State employee, pled guilty to nine felony 

charges that resulted in a 97 month prison sentence. Mr. Bogardus was also charged with 

immigration fraud, conspiracy, extortion and money laundering. 

U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty 

stands beside checks representing 

proceeds forfeited to the U.S. 

Government from the Kooritzky 

matter, an IRS-CI investigation. 

Asset sharing checks totaling 

$505,873 and $72,267, from the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund, were 

presented to Fairfax and Arlington 

Counties of Virginia, respectively, 

for their roles in the investigation. 

The charges against Kooritzky stemmed from his efforts to file fraudulent applications for alien 

employment certification with the United States Department of Labor on behalf of Northern Virginia 

businesses and local immigrants. 

Federal officials seized more than 

$6 million in connection with the prosecution, 

including $1 million in cash found at the home 

of Kooritzky’s associate, Ronald. W. Bogardus, 

an employee of the Federal Department of State 

when the crimes were committed. 

These applications sought to convince the Department of Labor that the businesses needed to hire the 

immigrants due to a lack of U.S. workers. If approved, the applications would have allowed the 

immigrants involved to apply for a green card to live and work in the United States. In practice, 

however, none of the businesses listed in the applications had authorized the applications. Rather, the

applications contained a false job offer and the forged signature of a manger of the business in 

question. Kooritzky presented the applications as legitimate to the immigrants who then signed the 

applications. Kooritzky charged each immigrant between $7,000 and $20,000 per application. In 

total, Kooritzky and his associates filed over 2,700 fraudulent applications with the Department of 

Labor and (what was then) the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Fairfax County Police 

Department. 

SECTION I - OVERVIEW 5
Munoz (a.k.a. Reyes) – Narcotics - $525,000

Alex P. Munoz (also known as (a.k.a.) M.P. Reyes) was a major narcotics distributor in the

Knoxville, Tennessee area. Working as a supplier to another major narcotics dealer in Knoxville, 

Munoz operated a drug ring over a five year period that netted him $11 million. Munoz trafficked 

both cocaine and crack cocaine from South Florida to Knoxville. Munoz would travel to Mexico to 

plan the cocaine shipments, then used 10 to 15 associates to transport the cocaine by car to Knoxville 

from Florida. Munoz laundered the proceeds and used the illegal monies to purchase a number of 

properties in Florida as well as expensive vehicles and boats. 

 

 The pictures show just a few of the items forfeited as a result of the work of the IRS-CI in this case. 

MacArthur – Bank Secrecy Act Violations – forfeits $1.4 million

Operation “Money Box” was conducted by the IRS Criminal Investigation Tampa Field Office and 

several local police departments in the area. The Suspicious Activity Report Review Team (SARRT) noted a pattern of suspicious Western Union transactions at Fast Check of Florida, Inc., (Fast 

Check). An analysis of the Western Union wire transfers that originated from Fast Check revealed 

6 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005
that Western Union filed hundreds of SARs on transaction conducted at Fast Check. However, Fast 

Check was not filing a SARS on the same transactions. In August 2001, an investigation was

initiated on: Fast Check; the owners, Allen G. MacArthur and Allen J. MacArthur; a Fast Check

employee, Gromyko Brown; and narcotics traffickers Davatte King, Ishamel Cooper, and Wayne

Richardson. The Western Union analysis coupled with the information gathered from intelligence 

sources and current and previous investigations revealed that King, Cooper and Richardson operated 

marijuana smuggling rings in the Orlando area. The California source of the marijuana sent the 

marijuana to locations in the Orlando area via United Parcel Service, United States Postal Service,

Federal Express, Airborne, and couriers. The organization members received and sold the marijuana 

in Orlando and then wired the proceeds back to the California source via Western Union through one

of Fast Check’s twenty five central Florida locations. 

Allen G. MacArthur owned and operated Fast Check of Florida, which offered check cashing and 

money transfer services throughout Orange County, Florida. MacArthur used the business to wire 

proceeds he knew or should have known were from illegal funds to California. MacArthur instructed 

his employees at Fast Check to be sure and get “a good tip” for helping individuals divide large

amounts of currency into smaller amounts for wire transfers. Based on information received from a

confidential source of information, an IRS undercover agent went into Fast Check and met with 

MacArthur about wiring $28,000 bundled into 4 stacks and stuffed in a gym bag. During that 

meeting, MacArthur commented that it looked like drug money and joked about the big “tip” they 

would receive for wiring the money. After the transaction was completed, neither MacArthur, nor 

any other Fast Check employee remitted a Currency Transaction Report (CTR) as required by law.

During a second meeting with the undercover agent, MacArthur took another $28,000 in cash and 

agreed to “exchange small for large.” In the money transmitting trade, that phrase means the person 

is requesting to exchange small denomination bills, usually five, ten and twenty dollar bills, for larger 

denomination bills, usually one hundred dollar bills. MacArthur also advised the undercover agent 

that he could buy $1,000 Money Orders, but warned “just don’t buy too many, ‘cause it shows up.” 

 

The 31 foot Cabo Yacht named “Fast 

Check,” purchased with proceeds 

from the unlawful business, was 

seized for forfeiture to the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund. 

After the transaction, neither MacArthur, nor any other Fast Check employee, filed a CTR as required 

by law. In June 2003, IRS-CI agents served a search warrant at Main Fast Check and the Fast Check 

Corporate offices. During the search, evidence was discovered that proved MacArthur knew the

requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act and the requirement to file CTRs after transactions such as

those he had conducted with the undercover agent. MacArthur notified Western Union and the State 

of Florida that Fast Check was being sold on July 21, 2003, to CSC Financial Services. CSC 

SECTION I - OVERVIEW 7
8 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Financial Services paid $3,400,000 for Fast Check, approximately $2 million of which was used to 

satisfy Fast Check’s existing debt. CSC Financial Services was to pay MacArthur $1.4 million in 

cash on January 1, 2004. However, on December 23, 2003, IRS-CI agents seized the cash pursuant 

to a federal seizure warrant. These funds were forfeited to the U.S. Government. 

Sturman – Conspiracy, Bribery and Money Laundering – forfeits $675,000

 

Joseph Sturman was the owner of Victory White Metal Company in Cleveland, Ohio. Victory White 

has a division that is engaged in the business of buying and reselling materials and equipment used by 

municipal water and sewer transmission systems. Beginning in 1995, Sturman devised a scheme to 

pay bribes to a public official who was an employee of the City of Cleveland’s Water Department in 

exchange for being permitted to overcharge the City of Cleveland’s Water Department for goods and 

services provided or purportedly provided to it. The public official had purchasing authority for 

property to be bought with large amounts of City money. In exchange for the bribes, the public 

official permitted Victory White Metal to charge the City of Cleveland’s Water Department grossly 

inflated prices on equipment, materials and supplies, whether they were received or not. The public 

official would then remit checks to Victory White Metal for the excessive prices being charged and 

Victory White Metal would deposit the criminally derived proceeds to its bank account. Victory 

White Metals would then kick back a portion of the excessive price to the City official, often by 

making cash payments to him, although they also gave him other things, including a $30,000 car. 

Based upon the analysis completed by IRS-CI special agents, the amount of excess fees charged to 

the City by Sturman’s company was approximately $1,156,853. On May 17, 2004, Sturman pled 

guilty to conspiracy, bribery and money laundering. In addition, Sturman agreed to forfeit $675,000 

to the United States, separate from restitution paid to the City of Cleveland. 

Jamieson –Investment Fraud – forfeits home and possessions in tony Ottawa Hills

As reported by Gary Pakulski in the publication The Blade on October 26, 2004, an Ottawa Hills 

house, $25,000 grand piano, and University of Michigan athletic memorabilia were among items 

auctioned by the Federal Government in late 2004 to repay victims of a jailed Toledo investment 

executive. J. Richard Jamieson is serving 20 years for his role in an investment scheme that grew out 

of the AIDS epidemic. Nearly 3,000 people nationwide lost more than $92 million in the collapse 

four years ago of Jamieson’s Liberte Capital Group LLC, which specialized in an unusual investment 

called viatical settlements. As the result, the Treasury Forfeiture Fund sold his house and an 

adjoining lot in a tony suburb that is home to some of metro Toledo’s wealthiest citizens. The sale 

began at noon November 13, 2004 and the house at 4333 Forest View Drive, a 5,200 square foot 

residence, went on the market. Also on the block were personal possessions, furniture, household 

items and two vehicles. The house had five bedrooms, 6 1⁄2 baths, three fireplaces, hardwood floors, a 

swimming pool and double garages for four cars. 

Judge David Katz, U.S. District Court in Toledo, sentenced Jamieson last year, ordering him to 

forfeit his house and make restitution to his victims. Jamieson was convicted on 157 counts of mail 

fraud conspiracy and money laundering. Prosecutors said he defrauded investors and insurance 

companies through a scheme involving the sale of rights to collect death benefits from life insurance 

policies. Liberte Capital knowingly bought and then re-sold to investors rights for policies that were 

purchased by people who hid serious health problems when they originally obtained the coverage. 

Investors were not told of the fraud and their investments became worthless when insurers discovered 

the fraud and canceled the policies. 
Update on the Sale of the Jamieson Residence

On November 13, 2004, the upscale Toledo (former) residence of J. Richard Jamieson was sold at 

auction by the Treasury Forfeiture Fund for just over $683,000. 

Update on the Historic Redstone Castle, Denver, Colorado

On March 19, 2005, the historic Redstone Castle properties were sold for $4.4 million. As a result of 

the properties being forfeited to the United States, a federal judge authorized the sale of the Redstone

Castle, Carriage House, and Barn, along with an accompanying home at 410 Redstone Boulevard, in 

Redstone, Colorado. Built in 1897, the property formally known as Cleveholm Manor was home to 

John Cleveland Osgood, a coal baron and one of the nation’s richest men at the turn of the 20th 

century. Located in the Colorado Rockies along the Crystal River, in the quaint town of Redstone, 

Colorado, the historic property has since had a number of different owners prior to it being seized by 

IRS-CI in March 2003. 

Proceeds of the auction will be used to compensate victim losses resulting from a multi-million dollar 

investment fraud scheme indicted in Colorado in March of 2004. The fifty-seven count indictment 

charged seven people with committing federal crimes in connection with a fraudulent “high yield 

investment scheme.” During the course of the investigation, authorities seized the Redstone Castle in 

Pitkin County, and a number of NASCAR race vehicles, as well as over $17,000,000 in cash from 

numerous bank accounts. The assets seized from the defendants were purchased from moneys 

obtained from the illegal scheme or represented proceeds from the scheme. In total, over 1,000 

people were defrauded of approximately $56,000,000. Some of the investors’ money was used to 

purchase the Redstone Castle properties. 

SECTION I - OVERVIEW 9
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

ICE, Wal-Mart Reach $11 Million Settlement 

An ICE investigation into the hiring of illegal aliens by contractors that provided cleaning services to 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ended March 18, 2005, with a landmark $11 million civil settlement. In

addition, 12 corporations that provided contract janitorial services to Wal-Mart stores agreed to

forfeit an additional $4 million to the United States and agreed to enter corporate guilty pleas to

criminal immigration charges. These amounts constitute the two most significant enforcement actions 

in the field of immigration employment sanctions since the laws were first enacted in 1986. The $11 

million civil settlement alone is approximately four times larger than any other single payment 

received by the government in an illegal alien employment case. 

Under the terms of the civil settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to the entry of a consent decree that: 

• Directs Wal-Mart to make a payment of $11 million (civil settlement); 

• Permanently enjoins Wal-Mart from knowingly hiring, recruiting and continuing to employ 

unauthorized alien workers; 

• Directs Wal-Mart to establish a means to verify that independent contractors are also taking 

reasonable steps to comply with immigration laws; 

• Directs Wal-Mart to provide, over the next 18 months, all of its store managers and future 

store managers with training regarding immigration employment laws while complying with 

pertinent anti-discrimination laws; 

• Directors Wal-Mart to maintain its own pre-existing program of taking reasonable steps to 

ensure that Wal-Mart employees are authorized to work in the United States, while complying

with pertinent anti-discrimination laws; 

• Directs Wal-Mart to continue cooperation in the investigation of the alleged illegal 

employment. 

The civil settlement does not entail any admission of wrongdoing by any party. 

10 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 11

Michael Keith Ritter – Money Laundering – forfeits $1 Million

A Maui man who ran an elaborate multi-million dollar marijuana smuggling scheme was sentenced 

May 26, 2005, to two years in prison for money laundering and filing false income tax returns. In 

addition, Michael Keith Ritter, 56, forfeited $1 million in cash proceeds from his illegal ventures. 

Ritter’s sentencing follows an investigation by ICE and the Internal Revenue Service that revealed he 

was responsible for importing massive loads of marijuana from Thailand into the United States from 

the late 1970s through the mid-1980s. Ritter pleaded guilty last year to money laundering, criminal 

forfeiture, fraud and making false statements in connection with those activities. Although the drug 

offenses occurred many years ago, Ritter continued to actively manage his foreign offshore trust fund 

accounts derived from unlawful proceeds. Court documents reveal that Ritter participated in at least 

a dozen ventures using boats to smuggle multi-ton loads of Thai marijuana to the West Coast, 

including a 1986 three-ton shipment that grossed more than $5 million. Ritter concealed these funds 

in foreign offshore trust fund accounts in Hong Kong and in the Isle of Man, filed U.S. tax returns 

without reporting all income, and failed to file reports for the foreign offshore trust funds he owned 

and controlled. 

Former President of Pro Net Link Corporation – Stock Fraud -- forfeits 3 New York 

properties and $940,000 in cash

Jean Pierre Collardeau, the former president of Pro Net Link Corporation, was sentenced on July 8, 

2005, to 50 months in federal prison for conspiring with at least 12 other individuals to engage in an 

elaborate scheme to defraud investors of more than $20 million. Collardeau, 63, was ordered to 

forfeit to the United States three New York housing units with a total estimated value in excess of 

$3 million and more than $940,000 in cash. The value of the forfeited properties and the cash will be 

made available to defrauded investors. 

At his plea hearing in August 2004, Collardeau admitted that he conspired with others to create Pro 

Net Link (PNLK) as a public company, and agreed with them to issue millions of shares of PNLK 

stock in the names of co-conspirators in order to conceal their scheme from the investing public. 

Collardeau admitted that he secretly controlled millions of dollars worth of PNLK stock that was 

issued in the names of foreign nominees. Collardeau also admitted that he issued a large block of 

PNLK stock to a fictitious identity that was created in furtherance of the scheme. Collardeau 

admitted that these shares were then deposited into nominee accounts in Canada, which he and his 

conspirators controlled. 

Collardeau admitted that in March 1998, he and others entered into an agreement with Irving 

Freiberg and Irving Stitsky to tout PNLK to the investing public in order to spark interest and greater 

demand for the company’s stock. Freiberg and Stitsky were told by Collardeau along with others that 

they secretly controlled almost all of the free-trading PNLK stock held in nominee names in 

brokerage accounts in Canada. Collardeau admitted that in return for their promotion, Freiberg and 

Stitsky were to receive a significant percentage of the profits from the sale of PNLK stock through 

the nominee accounts. He also admitted this arrangement was concealed from the investing public 

through the creation and execution of a sham contract, wherein Freiberg and Stitsky purportedly were 

to receive only $50,000. Collardeau admitted that Freiberg and Stitsky ultimately received $5.8 

million for their efforts. 
12 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Operation “Blowfish” nets Pamela Y. Hoffler-Riddick, Assistant Superintendent in Charge of 

35 Schools, Prince George’s County, Maryland , among others - $2 million seized 

The information provided in this article comes from information published by ICE. However, also 

included is information published in a Washington Post article, dated October 17, 2005, by Nick 

Anderson. The title of the article is “Md. Ex-Educator Guilty of Money Laundering.” That article 

also gives credit to an article published in the Virginia-Pilot newspaper, Hampton Roads for 

information source. 

ICE Agents, leading a joint operation, dismantled a large-scale drug and money laundering 

organization that spanned much of the southeastern United States. As part of “Operation Blowfish,” 

ICE agents arrested 36 individuals on drug and money laundering violations in Virginia, Maryland, 

Texas, Georgia, Kentucky and other states. The individuals are charged in a 324-count indictment 

issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 14, 2005. ICE worked on the two-year 

investigation with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and the 

Peninsula Narcotics Enforcement Task Force of Virginia, which is comprised of officers from the 

Hampton, Newport News and Poquoson Police Departments and the Virginia State Police. Also 

assisting in the investigation were officers from the Henrico County and City of Norfolk Police 

Departments. 

According to the indictment, beginning in September 1996, the drug ring moved about $20 million in 

illicit drugs across several states, including Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Texas. The indictment 

charged members of the group with establishing fictitious businesses and laundering the illegal 

proceeds of the drug sales through bank accounts and credit unions. Some purchased real estate and 

some threatened people and carried firearms. 

One of those arrested January 24, 2005, was Pamela Y. Hoffler-Riddick, an assistant superintendent 

in charge of 35 schools in Prince George’s County, Maryland, arrested by ICE agents at her home in 

Rockville, Maryland, and charged with five counts of money laundering. Hoffler-Riddick allegedly 

used proceeds from laundering illegal drug money to pay off loans on two houses and a car. As 

reported on October 17, 2005 by the Washington Post’s Nick Anderson, on Friday, October 14, 2005, 

Ms. Hoffler-Riddick, 44, was found guilty of all five counts of money laundering by a jury in 

Norfolk, Virginia. According to the Post article, officials have stated that each of the counts on which 

she was convicted carries a maximum prison term of 20 years. The article also states that HofflerRiddick faces another trial on a charge of witness tampering. 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund adds Oil Wells to Seized Inventory – Hindelang Money Laundering

Case continues....

In what may be a first for federal law enforcement, in January 2005, ICE seized a U.S. oil company 

and its 43 oil wells in Pennsylvania in an ongoing money laundering investigation. The assets, which 

include numerous trusts and bank accounts in Europe, are valued at roughly $6.5 million, bringing 

the total amount seized in this ongoing money laundering investigation to more than $70 million. 

On January 21, 2005, ICE agents seized Shaboom Oil, Inc., its 43 operating oil wells and the mineral 

rights to approximately 1,100 acres of land in the Allegheny National Forest in northwest 

Pennsylvania. ICE agents also seized a Panama-based investment company that owns Shaboom Oil. 

In the principality of Monaco, ICE agents seized assets in numerous trusts and bank accounts. 

The oil company, its oil fields and the other assets have all been linked to Paul Edward Hindelang, 

who operated one of the nation’s largest marijuana smuggling operations in the late 1970’s. In 1981, 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 13

Hindelang pled guilty to importing roughly 250 tons of marijuana, and conspiring to import an 

additional 150,000 pounds of marijuana to Florida, Louisiana and other U.S. locations. As part of his 

plea agreement, Hindelang agreed to forfeit $640,000 to U.S. authorities, asserting this amount 

represented all of his illegally earned assets. 

Several years later, ICE agents learned that Hindelang had hidden away millions of dollars worth of 

drug funds in overseas accounts. Working together with the Monroe County, Florida Sheriff’s 

Office, ICE launched “Operation Cash Extraction,” in 1992 to track down Hindelang’s hidden funds. 

After years of investigative work, agents found many of his assets in a maze of offshore accounts and 

corporations in Switzerland, Panama, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Netherlands Antilles, the 

Cayman Islands and other locations. In 1998, ICE agents seized $50 million from accounts tied to 

Hindelang. The agents continued their search and, in 1999, located additional drug proceeds in bank 

accounts in the Channel Islands and invested in a property in Colorado. ICE agents launched 

forfeiture proceedings and were ultimately able to recover approximately $15 million in assets that 

constituted illicit proceeds of drug sales. Last year, further investigation by ICE and the Monroe 

County Sheriff’s Office turned up an additional $6.5 million worth of illicit assets in Monaco and the 

United States, including the above-referenced oil company and fields. 

ICE Returns Stolen $2.7 Million to Nicaragua

On December 9, 2004, ICE Miami Special Agent in Charge Jesus Torres and United States 

Ambassador to Nicaragua, the Honorable Barbara C. Moore, presented the Republic of Nicaragua 

with a $2.7 million check to return funds that were embezzled from the treasury of Nicaragua and 

from there invested in South Florida. The repatriated funds stem from the seizure and forfeiture of 

eight certificates of deposit (CD’s) and a luxury condominium in Key Biscayne, Florida, that were 

purchased with funds embezzled by former Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Aleman and Byron Jerez, 

Nicaragua’s former tax commissioner. The ICE-led Foreign Corruption Task Force in Miami, in 

coordination with the ICE Asset Identification and Removal Group, conducted the two-year 

investigation that resulted in the seizure of U.S. assets traced to the diversion of embezzled 

Nicaraguan government funds. 

“This case illustrates ICE’s commitment to curb political corruption around 

the globe. It also highlights our efforts to keep the proceeds of foreign 

corruption from ending up in the United States. Our goal is to find these 

illicit funds and return them to nations whose treasuries have been looted,” 

said Special Agent Torres. “With today marking the first anniversary of the 

United Nations Convention Against Corruption, ICE is proud to play a key 

role in the fight against bribery, extortion and political corruption.” 

Both Aleman and Jerez have been convicted of various charges in Nicaragua relating to these 

embezzled funds and are serving sentences in Nicaragua. 

Drug Dealer Must Forfeit $2.7 Million in Lottery Winnings

A Mexican national in Brownsville, Texas, who won a $5 million Texas Lottery jackpot is now being 

ordered to forfeit his winnings since his ticket was purchased with illegal drug monies. The Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and substantial sentence of Jose Luis Betancourt 

for drug trafficking offenses, and the forfeiture of his interest in the December 11, 2002, Texas 

Lottery jackpot drawing. Betancourt, 52, a resident alien from Mexico residing in Brownsville, 

Texas, appealed the May 30, 2003, conviction for conspiracy and two counts of possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine. He also appealed the jury’s June 2, 2003, verdict that Betancourt had 
14 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

purchased a winning lottery ticket with drug proceeds and must, therefore, forfeit his one-half interest 

in more than $5 million in Texas Lottery winnings. 

Two days after the Texas Lottery Commission paid Betancourt approximately $5.5 million, 

representing the cash out proceeds from the Texas Lottery minus an amount withheld for federal 

income taxes, Betancourt delivered cocaine that led to his arrest and convictions. His arrest followed 

a long involvement in drug trafficking activities in the Brownsville, Texas, area. 

In a written opinion, Judge Edith Brown Clement, writing for a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit 

Court of Appeals, concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that Betancourt was the 

leader of a drug dealing organization that involved at least five persons. The panel also concluded 

that District Judge Hilda Tagle made a reasonable and conservative extrapolation of the evidence 

from the trial when she approximated the amount of cocaine Betancourt sold between May 2000 and 

his arrest in early 2003 at 102 kilograms (224 lbs.). The Court of Appeals found that Betancourt’s 

sentence, a total of 292 months (24.3 years) in federal prison without parole, was “reasonable” under 

the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker. In denying Betancourt’s claim to the 

contrary, the appellate court found that he had failed to prove the District Court would have 

sentenced him to a lower sentence. 

Federal law authorizes the government to seek to forfeit all property and proceeds obtained from drug 

trafficking and any monies or other property obtained with those proceeds. The Fifth Circuit agreed 

with the District Court’s determination that Betancourt did not have any other source of income aside 

from selling cocaine. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that Betancourt’s Texas Lottery 

proceeds of approximately $1.7 million, representing his interest in the total amount of the winnings, 

were correctly forfeited to the United States Government. 

Woman Pleads Guilty to Operating Illegal Money Transfer Business that moved $15.5 Million 

Overseas - $273,627 seized

On September 13, 2005, Aissatou Pita Barry, 38, of Silver Spring, Maryland, pleaded guilty to 

operating an unlicensed money transmitting business in violation of 18 USC 1960. This case 

represents the first conviction in the District of Columbia under this federal statute. Barry is subject 

to up to five years of imprisonment, a $250,000 fine or both, when she is sentenced. The defendant 

admitted that she incorporated Guinex International, Inc., in the District of Columbia on August 16, 

1999, with the stated purpose of transmitting money from the United States to various parts of the 

world. Since its inception, Guinex has conducted transactions on behalf of approximately 5,000 

customers. Between October 26, 2001 and November 15, 2004, Guinex conducted more than 65,000 

transactions for its customers. During this time period, Guinex received deposits from its customers 

in the form of cash, personal and traveler’s checks, money orders and wire transfers, totaling more 

than $17 million. Guinex, in turn, transferred more than $15.5 million via wires to various overseas 

locations, including Guinea, Gambia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Hong Kong, Singapore, China, the 

United Arab Emirates, Turkey, India, England and France, for further distribution to individuals who 

had been designated by Guinex customers in the United States. 

Guinex generally charged a fee for its services of 10 percent of the total amount of money 

transferred. The defendant and other Guinex employees accepted cash and other deposits from 

customers at Guinex’s office. Barry and other Guinex employees also provided customers with the 

numbers of various bank accounts controlled by the defendant and Guinex instructed customers that 

they could make deposits directly into those accounts. The defendant and other Guinex employees 

did not ask customers to provide any information about the source of the monies they were 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 15

transmitting. The defendant admitted that she violated 18 USC 1960 by failing to obtain a license to 

operate a money transmission business in the District of Columbia, as required by D.C. law and by 

failing to register her business with the Secretary of the Treasury as required by federal law. 

In connection with her plea, the defendant also acknowledged that a total of $273,627 seized by the 

government from various assets belonging to her and her company is property involved in, or is 

traceable to property involved in her operation of Guinex International Inc., as an unlicensed money 

transmitting business. The Court accordingly signed a preliminary order of forfeiture for those funds. 

The arrest and conviction of Barry is the latest enforcement action in ICE’s nationwide crackdown on 

unlicensed money transmittal businesses. The USA Patriot Act, signed into law in October 2001, 

enhanced ICE’s ability to combat the international movement of illicit funds through money 

transmittal businesses by amending Title 18 USC 1960. As a result of the change in the law, money 

transmittal businesses in the United States must be registered with the Treasury Department and be 

licensed by appropriate state authorities. 

Since the enactment of the USA Patriot Act in 2001, ICE agents have aggressively targeted illegal 

money transmittal businesses and underground “hawalas” nationwide given the vulnerabilities they 

pose. ICE investigations into unlicensed money service businesses have resulted in the arrest of 155 

individuals, 142 criminal indictments and the seizure of some $25.8 million since the Patriot Act 

became law. 

Record-Setting Seven Ton Pot Seizure Found in Texas Trucks – Two Trucks seized

An ongoing multi-agency investigation headed by ICE led to the seizure of two semi-trucks loaded 

with 13,421 lbs. (nearly 7 tons) of marijuana and the arrest of one man on March 14, 2005. The 

investigation led ICE agents to a truck yard where they discovered 9,100 lbs. of marijuana inside one 

semi-truck. A search warrant obtained by ICE agents for a second truck resulted in seizing an 

additional 4,268 lbs. of marijuana. 

“The investigation resulted in one of the largest marijuana seizures in Houston, if 

not in the state of Texas,” said Joseph R. Webber, ICE Special Agent in Charge 

in Houston. 

The street value of the seizure is in excess of $6 million. The marijuana was discovered hidden 

inside the drywall compartments and flat bed liners of the trucks. ICE agents believed the drugs 

were linked to a large scale smuggling organization that distributed narcotics from the Houston area 

to other cities throughout the United States. 

Cooperation with Federal Agencies Results in Substantial

Equitable Shares Paid to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies

ICE Shares $430,900 with Plattsburgh Police, New York

Officials from ICE presented a check for $430,909 to Plattsburgh Police Chief Desmond Racicot for 

the department’s assistance in cracking a number of drug smuggling cases. The money is part of the 

proceeds seized during the investigation of illegal narcotics activity along the Canadian border north 

of Plattsburgh. 

“Having a Plattsburgh officer working with our federal agents brings invaluable 

expertise about local illegal activity and the community,” Resident Agent in 
16 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Charge Michael Bridgeman said. “Having a Plattsburgh detective working with 

ICE full time gives us immediate information and insight into suspicious activity 

at a local level.” 

In accepting the funds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, Plattsburgh Police Chief Desmond 

Racicot said that the proceeds would be used to fight crime in the community and to continue 

assisting state and federal agencies along the border. 

“Plattsburgh sits squarely on a major smuggling route into the United States,” the 

Chief commented, “and it is the community’s best interest to help keep drugs out 

of our schools and off our streets. By working with ICE and Homeland Security 

at the local level we also help stop smuggling into the interior of the country.” 

ICE’s asset forfeiture program, initiated under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, as a 

member agency of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) since 1992, provides funding, provided by 

the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, to state and local law enforcement agencies that participate in ICE 

investigations that lead to seizures and forfeitures. The law allows the government to take illegal 

profits from crimes such as narcotics smuggling, money laundering, and fraud to name but a few. 

Bridgeman pointed out that the seizures allow the government to turn the table on the criminal 

organizations by using their own profits to enhance local enforcement efforts. 

ICE Shares $279,435 with Iredell County Sheriff’s Office and Statesville Police Department

In July 2005, ICE officials in North Carolina presented checks today totaling $279,435 to the 

Statesville Police Department and the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office. The monies shared were from 

a seizure that was part of “Operation Tar Heel Gauntlet,” an ICE investigative initiative that targeted 

bulk cash smuggling activities of drug trafficking and money laundering organizations that utilized 

the interstate highway system located within the middle and eastern judicial districts of North 

Carolina. 

The $279,435 represents an equitable share of money seized during the course of a joint operation 

conducted by ICE, the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office and the Statesville Police Department during 

several routine traffic stops. Luis Fernando Baldenegro-Villa was among the individuals stopped for 

routine traffic violations. Officers discovered that Baldenegro-Villa had hidden $410,962 in his 

vehicle. He subsequently pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 months in prison. 

Another seizure resulted out of a vehicle stopped for displaying invalid tags. The driver, who 

provided inconsistent statements, consented to a search of the vehicle. The officers found bundles of 

money using special inspection devices. The driver denied knowledge of the currency and ICE 

seized it under 18 USC 981, drug proceeds. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

CBP Officers find 4 People in Dry Cleaning Tank - Smuggling

On May 8, 2005, a 20-year old Mexican man was arrested at the downtown port of entry, Calexico, 

after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers discovered four Mexican nationals, 

including one minor, hidden within a metal tank inside a carpet cleaning van the man was driving. A 

CBP officer conducting anti-terrorism inspections opened the rear doors of a white 1987 Dodge van 
and noticed a collection of hoses, buckets, carpet cleaning materials and a large metal tank. Peering

inside one of the holes in the tank, the officer saw what appeared to be blue cloth and some human 

fingers. The vehicle and driver were escorted into the secondary inspection lot for a thorough 

examination. CBP officers subsequently found two adult males, an adult female and a 17-year old 

female hidden inside the large metal tank. All four were removed from the vehicle and identified as

undocumented citizens of Mexico. The driver was arrested for the smuggling attempt. 

CBP officers found two adult males, an adult 

female and a 17-year old female hidden inside 

this large metal dry cleaning tank aboard a truck. 

CBP Officers Seize Cocaine Valued at $1.7 Million, Headed for Canada

CBP officers at the U.S. Highway 97 port of entry, Oroville, Washington, seized approximately 185 

pounds of cocaine during an outbound truck examination in March 2005. The cocaine had an 

estimated street value of $1.7 million. Officers discovered the cocaine concealed under the bunk of 

the sleeper compartment in the cab of an 18 wheel truck destined for Canada. Examinations of the 

truck revealed cocaine-filled packages within two duffel bags and a cardboard box. The truck,

trailer and cargo were also seized. One count of possession with intent to distribute over 5 kilograms

of cocaine in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1) was charged, which carries a penalty, if convicted, of 

not less than 10 years to life in prison, up to a $4 million fine, and not less than 5 years nor more 

than a life term of supervised release.

CBP Officers Rescue Screaming Woman Hidden in Running Sedan’s Engine Compartment

In May 2005, a screaming woman hidden inside the engine compartment of a car was rescued by 

CBP officers after the vehicle entered the U.S. at the Calexico port of entry. Officers heard loud 

screaming coming from a late model Ford Grand Marquis as it approached the primary inspection 

booths. Several officers rushed to the vehicle and realized that the screaming was coming from the 

engine compartment. A CBP officer opened the hood and found a 40-year old Mexican female lying 

horizontally between the front grill and the radiator. Officers quickly pried off the front grill 

assembly of the car and removed the woman who complained of burns. The driver, a 60-year old 

male from Mexicali, Mexico, was arrested to face smuggling charges. 

CBP Officers Seize 132 Pounds of Cocaine, 134 Pounds of Heroin in Coffee Cans

CBP officers at JFK International Airport seized approximately 134 pounds of heroin and 132 

pounds of cocaine concealed in coffee cans, false-bottom suitcases and oversized wooden mortars. 

Four people were arrested. In June, CBP officers examined the luggage of a passenger, age 57, and 

uncovered approximately 8 pounds of heroin concealed in 4 cans of coffee and approximately 31 

pounds of cocaine hidden in 3 oversized wooden mortars. Examinations of accompanying travelers’ 

luggage revealed dozens more cans and mortars of cocaine. 

SECTION I - OVERVIEW 17
CBP Officers Discover 55 Illegal Aliens Hidden in a Refrigerated Tractor-Trailer

In August 2005, CBP Border Patrol Agents assigned to a checkpoint near Winterhaven, California, 

arrested 55 illegal aliens hidden in a refrigerated tractor-trailer. A black semi truck pulling a 

refrigerated box trailer approached the westbound Interstate 8 checkpoint near Winterhaven, 

California. When the truck came to a stop, a Border Patrol Agent spoke to the driver whereupon the 

agent became suspicious and then asked for consent to open the small access port to view the 

contents of the trailer. The agent noticed clothing inside and then saw movement. The trailer doors 

were opened to reveal 55 illegal aliens, later determined to be from Mexico, hiding inside the trailer 

along with a load of lettuce. The trailer was refrigerated for hauling lettuce, not people, and the 

temperature inside was set to a frigid 37 degrees Fahrenheit. 

El Centro Sector Chief Patrol Agent McClafferty had this to say about the 

incident, “This event is an example of how smugglers, literally, treat the people 

in their trust like nothing more than a commodity...” 

205 Pounds of Cocaine Seized in Tractor-Trailer Transporting Bank Equipment to Nashville

In August 2005, CBP Border Patrol Agents in Alamogordo, New Mexico seized $6.8 million in

cocaine in two separate seizures at New Mexico checkpoints. Ten pounds of cocaine was seized 

from a 1997 Ford Expedition after a canine confirmed the agent’s suspicion of the presence of 

contraband. The canine alerted on the passenger side of the vehicle where agents subsequently 

located four black bundles hidden in the dashboard area. The bundles weighted 10 pounds, with a 

street value of $328,000. Later, agents seized 205 pounds of cocaine in a tractor-trailer that was 

transporting band equipment to Nashville, Tennessee. The seizure was made after 70 cellophane 

bundles were located in the cargo area. The estimated street value of the cocaine seizure was $6.5 

million. 

Humanitarian Relief to Victims of Hurricane Katrina

Pictured are three of nine fully loaded

tractor trailer trucks loaded with cartons of 

seized clothing for distribution to 

Hurricane Katrina victims. The goods 

were seized pursuant to trademark 

violations. CBP has authority pursuant to 

Title 19 of the U.S. Code to donate such 

items when the President declares a state of 

emergency. 

A convoy of nine fully-loaded U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trucks made its way to San 

Antonio and the Reliant Astrodome complex on September 6, 2005, and delivered roughly 100,000 

items of new clothing for use in the Hurricane Relief effort. The agency’s field operations at 

Houston, Dallas, Laredo and El Paso loaded the trucks with hundreds of cartons of seized clothing 

and drove the goods to Houston over the period of two days. 

18 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005
Included in the shipments arriving in Houston were girls’ and boys’ jeans and summer shorts, 

women’s slacks and blouses, men’s jeans and polo shirts and lightweight jackets, and other

seasonally appropriate clothing. CBP had seized the clothing for violations of U.S. trademark laws.

Shipments also include much needed socks and shoes, dog food, toys for children and clean sheets 

and blankets. 

CBP has authority (19 U.S.C. 1318, “Emergencies”) to donate these items when the President 

declares a state of emergency. The value of these items was estimated at $2.3 million. 

 

Photographs courtesy of Seizures and Penalties Division, CBP Headquarters Washington, DC

U. S. Secret Service 

Operation Firewall 

Major case funding provided by the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to the U.S. Secret Service contributed 

to the successful investigation, known as Operation Firewall, of broad-based international cyber 

crimes. On October 24, 2004, the United States Secret Service (USSS) arrested 30 individuals across

the United States for credit card fraud, identity theft, computer fraud and conspiracy. These suspects 

were part of a multi-count indictment out of the District of New Jersey and were involved in a 

transnational cyber “organized crime” network that spanned around the world. In addition to the 30 

arrests, 28 search warrants were served simultaneously across the United States. Internationally, 13 

search warrants were served in 11 different countries in conjunction with this USSS led investigation. 

This case began in July of 2003, when the USSS Newark Field Office initiated an investigation 

involving global credit card fraud and identity fraud. Although the catalyst for the case came from a

more “traditional” crime of access device fraud, the case evolved into a very technical, transnational 

investigation. Much of the aforementioned criminal activity primarily occurred over the internet. 

After the initial act(s) of fraud, suspects would exchange contraband (i.e. counterfeit credit cards, 

counterfeit driver’s licenses, etc.) This case, entitled Operation Firewall has developed into a 

multilateral effort involving 18 USSS domestic offices and 11 foreign countries. As the lead

investigative office, the USSS Newark Field Office conducted a complex undercover operation 

involving the first ever wire tap on a computer network. 

SECTION I - OVERVIEW 19
20 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Beginning in 2000, several websites were created in an effort to expand the credit card and 

identification fraud. These websites not only shared information on how to commit such fraud, but 

also provided a forum to purchase such information. Illegally obtained credit card information (i.e. 

account numbers, pin numbers, etc.) and personal identification (either stolen or counterfeit) 

information was readily available on these types of sites. “Counterfeit Library” was one such site. In 

2001, law enforcement and the hosting server were able to shut down the illegal website. 

Subsequently, “Counterfeit Library” morphed into a website called “Shadowcrew.” This new 

website boasted 7,000 (approximately) users and was responsible for millions of dollars in fraud. 

Since “Shadowcrew” was posted as an English language site, many users in Russia and the former 

Soviet Republic states experienced a language barrier. This communication problem led to the 

creation of a new website called “Carderplanet.” Administrators from “Shadowcrew” embraced this 

new website, as they agreed the alliance would ultimately be profitable for both groups. Approved 

users were able to visit both websites, thereby creating an international organized crime network. In 

February 2003, a new website called “Darkprofits” emerged and appeared to have stolen 

“Shadowcrew’s” complete database. “Shadowcrew” was later able to regain its online ability and 

slowly reestablish itself. 

Operation Firewall identified Shadowcrew, Carderplanet and Darkprofits as three organized criminal 

groups dedicated to promoting malicious computer hacking, dissemination of stolen credit card 

numbers, compromised bank account information, stolen individual identifying information and the 

sale of such compromised information. This global USSS led investigation disrupted cyber crime 

(which is the initial forum for identity theft crimes, stolen and counterfeit credit cards, counterfeit 

documents, etc.) affecting financial infrastructure in the United States. This case alone has resulted in 

the prevention of hundreds of millions of dollars in possible fraud losses. The initial arrests and 

search warrants served domestically and internationally was merely phase one of this USSS led 

investigation. The USSS is currently being assisted by international law enforcement, particularly, 

Europol and Interpol. International assistance has come from Argentina, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, 

Estonia, Poland, Russia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Distinctively, 

Europol in The Hague and the National Hi-Tech Crimes Unit in the United Kingdom has been a 

continuous international law enforcement partner to the United States Secret Service. 

A variety of assets, including cash, vehicles and jewelry, were seized for forfeiture in this matter. 

U. S. Coast Guard 

1,100 Pounds of Marijuana Hidden in 21 Foot Powerboat

In May 2005, two men were arrested after a team of CBP and U.S. Coast Guard officers found almost 

1,100 pounds of marijuana hidden inside the men’s 21-foot powerboat following a brief chase in San 

Diego coastal waters. 
 

The officers, on coastal patrol in a marked CBP marine interceptor, apprehended the U.S.-registered 

Searay after observing the vessel and its two occupants entering the U.S. from Mexico about eight

miles offshore. After intercepting the vessel and demanding the occupants stop for boarding, the 

CBP boat chased the powerboat for about a quarter mile until it eventually stopped. The Coast Guard 

law enforcement officers boarded the vessel, took custody of the two men and found 73 wrapped 

packages of marijuana hidden in the boat’s cabin and under the stern seats. The boat and narcotics 

were seized by CBP. 

Nearly 1,100 pounds of marijuana found 

in this 21-foot powerboat in San Diego 

coastal waters. 

SECTION I - OVERVIEW 21
22 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

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 seizure, 

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 including 

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. 

Asset Identification and Removal Groups

Asset Identification and Removal Groups (AIRGs) help ensure that seizure operations are conducted 

in the right way, with maximum precision and efficiency. Again, in FY 2005, the Fund allocated 

$7.6 million in mandatory funding, including necessary travel, to the efforts of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security AIRGs. The AIRG groups are comprised 

of special agents, auditors, accountants and contract data analysts who are specially trained to 

identify assets of criminal organizations. Today, there are 21 AIRGs located within ICE field offices 

throughout the United States. The personnel assigned to the groups receive special training at the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to prepare them in the areas of asset identification, 

removal and forfeiture. The AIRGs are particularly valuable in international investigations, where 

criminal proceeds can be moved rapidly around the world. Their expertise in identifying and tracking 

these assets is critical to an effective seizure and forfeiture program. These groups assist their 

agencies in meeting their mandates. The results that they attain can be used as a tool to assist 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 23

managers in assessing the strength and depth of criminal organizations and gauge their success in 

disrupting crime. 

Treasury Computer Investigative Specialist Program, multi-bureau

An increasing number of investigations conducted by law enforcement bureaus participating in the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund are in an electronic environment or contain electronic evidence. A key 

component of the bureaus’ ability to perform their investigative mission in today’s high-tech and 

rapidly changing environment is the Treasury Computer Investigative Specialist (CIS) Program. This 

joint initiative began in 1997 as a means of coordinating Treasury resources and leveraging assets. 

Since that time, it has developed into one of the premier computer forensics programs in the world, 

with over 400 special agents deployed throughout the United States and abroad. Some of the primary 

features of the program are: 

• All computer forensic examiners are experienced criminal investigators (as opposed to other 

programs that have technicians conducting exams); 

• Uniform basic and advanced computer forensic training (planned and delivered jointly by the 

three bureaus) that allows the bureaus to share CISs and technical resources on large cases; 

• Each bureau’s CISs are provided the same state-of-the-art equipment; and 

• Continuous in-service training and equipment upgrades for CIS agents in the field maintains high 

skill-levels for all CISs. 

In FY 2005, EOAF provided over $6.1 million to the CIS program, up from $5.7 million provided to 

the program in FY 2004. Since the inception of the program in 1997, the participating bureaus of the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund have combined talents and resources to produce highly trained computer 

forensic agents capable of recovering digital evidence from stand alone and networked computer 

systems. Highly successful casework stemming from electronic evidence indicates that this is a 

sound investment for the Fund.

Payments for Remission and Mitigation and Innocent Owner/Victims

A long-standing policy of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund is to ensure that any innocent owners of 

property forfeited by the Fund receive restitution to the extent that policy and law provide for such 

restitution. A number of the law enforcement bureaus participating in the Fund become involved in 

cases in which there are victims of fraud that may range from private citizens to Trust Funds of the 

Federal Government. While the “net proceeds” to the Fund after restitution is paid may be quite 

small or, in some cases, nothing at all, it is imperative that the forfeiture sanction be applied to such 

cases to deter this type of crime and to recover as much of the property on behalf of victims as 

possible. In so doing, our law enforcement bureaus work not only to protect the citizenry but also the 

public welfare in terms of protecting federal resources from waste, fraud and abuse, i.e., when one of 

the “victims,” is a Federal Trust Fund. In addition, Customs and Border Protection mitigates 

forfeitures in a number of instances and the Fund provides resources for those important law 

enforcement decisions. The Fund allocated over $25 million toward this expense category. The 

Jamieson Investment Fraud case described earlier is an excellent example of the use of asset 

forfeiture to find and return resources to victims of fraud. 

General Property Contract

As noted in the Profile section of our Accountability Report, the Treasury Forfeiture Fund continued 

in its capacity as a multi-Departmental Fund in FY 2005, representing the interests of law 
24 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

enforcement components of the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security. With enactment of 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Treasury’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 

and Secret Service were moved to the Department of Homeland Security, and the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) was reorganized with Customs into two agencies: Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The U.S. Coast Guard was also 

reorganized into the Department of Homeland Security and continues it close working relationship 

with the legacy Customs bureaus. 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States, there was renewed Administration 

emphasis on border security that resulted in a large, rapidly escalating caseload including a seized car 

inventory that grew from a count of 3,000 at the beginning of FY 2004 to about 21,000 seized cars by 

the end of that fiscal year. Low-value cars not previously seized were being seized at an escalating 

rate and, in addition, destruction of low-value cars was delayed to post-forfeiture. Both actions 

marked a significant departure from standing operating policy of the Fund. As the result of this issue, 

and other matters, the national general property contract required funding in FY 2004 of $51.3 

million as compared to $27.1 million allocated to the contract for FY 2003, nearly doubling the cost 

of the contract in less than a year’s time. 

This trend continued into FY 2005 although the peak had been reached in terms of on-hand car 

seizures. In order to contain costs to the Fund from the escalating low-value car inventory, Fund 

management established a limit to the resources that could be allocated by the Fund to the general 

seized property contract in FY 2005. Despite this change, however, Fund management allocated a 

near-record $50 million to the general seized property contract in FY 2005, and just under $8 million 

to the real property contract. The real property contract is managed by the Executive Office for Asset 

Forfeiture. 

Equitable Sharing

Federal law enforcement bureaus participating in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund enjoy a continuing 

high level of critical support from state and local law enforcement agencies in the fight against crime. 

As evident in the investigative case narratives earlier in previous pages of this Accountability Report, 

federal and state and local law enforcement work side-by-side daily to stop criminals. Pursuant to a 

long-standing goal of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to encourage state and local law enforcement to 

assist federal law enforcement, by policy, the Fund pays equitable shares to state and local law 

enforcement agencies that participated in a forfeiture of the Fund. The Fund also pays equitable 

shares to the Justice forfeiture fund and the Postal forfeiture fund for any role their federal law 

enforcement bureaus play in a forfeiture of our program. 

In recognition of this ongoing high level of support, and consistent with expense projections tied to 

revenue deposits, Fund management allocated over $100 million for equitable sharing obligations in 

FY 2005. This compares to $93 million allocated for FY 2004; both being record-setting years for 

equitable sharing with our state and local law enforcement partners. The revenue for the two years is 

similar which explains the fairly similar level of sharing between the two years. State and local 

governments are required to use equitable shares for law enforcement purposes with certain limited 

exceptions and, as a result, their law enforcement programs and capability have benefited 

significantly from their cooperative efforts with federal law enforcement. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 25

Training

Fund Management places significant emphasis on training as a mechanism for reinforcing the Fund’s 

Mission, which is to affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic use of asset forfeiture by our 

law enforcement bureaus to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises. During FY 2005, the 

Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture continued expanding its training program, addressing cutting 

edge subjects of investigation and forfeiture and innovative practices of our member bureaus. 

We launched a new seminar series on International Issues involved in Investigation and Forfeiture, 

with each seminar focusing on a specific geographic region of the world. The topics include tradebased money laundering, black market peso exchange, money services businesses and tracing money 

hidden off-shore. Among the speakers were law enforcement attaches from IRS-CI, ICE and the U.S. 

Secret Service stationed abroad. The first two seminars, one focusing on Central and South America 

and the Caribbean countries, and another one focusing on Asia, received very positive and 

enthusiastic reviews from the attendees. Each seminar was attended by over 100 Special Agents. 

Additionally, in conjunction with ICE, we offered a modified version of the seminar to an audience 

of 35 U.S. law enforcement attaches stationed in Europe. This seminar took place in The Hague in 

June 2005 and included additional subjects pertaining to European issues, such as Conducting 

Undercover Operations in the European Environment and a Europol Overview. 

We also conducted two final seminars in the series “Technology Issues involved in Investigation and 

Forfeiture” developed in FY 2004. Each seminar was attended by 60 to 70 Special Agents and 

included two days of discussion and one full day of hands-on computer training. 

Finally, we conducted a seminar for Executives, senior management officials, Special Agents in 

Charge (SACs) and Assistant Special Agents in Charge (ASACs) of IRS-CI and ICE. The seminar 

addressed a variety of management and policy issues such as the funding available for the bureaus’ 

investigative and forfeiture activities, equitable sharing and general and real property contracts. This 

conference was held in Baltimore, Maryland in July 2005. 

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 Treasury law enforcement bureaus 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 2005, the Fund allocated $27.5 million in SEF spending to the law enforcement 

agencies, up from $11.7 million in FY 2004. 

Major Case Initiatives, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, IRS-CI and U.S. Secret 

Service

Consistent with the Treasury Forfeiture Fund’s goal of supporting major case initiatives, during 

FY 2005, substantial funding was allocated from the SEF to support bureaus’ large scale 

investigations. This funding was used to continue to support undercover operations, and a variety of 

tasks including document analysis and translation for investigative and evidentiary purposes, Title III 

wiretaps, agent travel and specialized software and hardware. 
26 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Fleet Maintenance and Repairs and Special Purpose Vehicles, ICE and IRS-CI

Critical to the ongoing viability of our participating law enforcement bureaus are their vehicle fleets. 

The sum of $3.5 million was allocated to ICE and IRS-CI in support of the regular law enforcement 

fleet and for special purpose investigative vehicles. 

National Money Laundering Coordination Center (MLCC), ICE

The Fund continued to provide financial support of just under $600,000 in SEF funding to the MLCC 

databases of ICE, and other critical databases used for case support for financial investigations at 

more than 170 field offices. 

Cornerstone Financial Intelligence Unit, ICE

Funding of over $500,000 was provided to ICE to be used to establish a stand-alone unit capable of 

processing the increased intelligence flow to generate field investigations and seizures. The new unit 

will use an enhanced data mining tool to establish connections between conspirators that would 

otherwise go undetected using conventional investigative techniques. 

Human Smuggling and Trafficking, ICE

Funding of nearly a quarter of a million dollars was provided to ICE to cover costs to support the 

Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center operated by the Departments of Homeland Security, State 

and Justice. 

Undercover Storefront Operations and Enforcement Equipment, IRS-CI

IRS-CI operates undercover storefronts around the United States to develop and support undercover 

operations and undercover agents. Other funding was provided during FY 2005 to provide for 

investigative equipment required by IRS-CI to carry out is investigative and enforcement functions. 

This includes equipment utilized by agents in carrying out their duties on a daily basis in addition to 

specialized equipment used during surveillance, undercover operations, the execution of search 

warrants, and in other investigative circumstances. Due to budget constraints and competing needs 

for resources within this large law enforcement bureau, IRS-CI was unable to purchase replacement 

state-of-the-art evidence gathering devices or even raid gear and jackets. The Fund invested several 

million dollars in IRS-CI towards these critical needs. 

Computer Forensic Investigative Capability, IRS-CI

Approximately $4.5 million in SEF funding was provided to IRS-CI to support: investigations related 

to illegal income, funds needed to stay current with advances in technology that ensures the ability to 

recover digital evidence in CI investigations, and funds to enhance the network capabilities required 

for digital evidence demands. 

Computer Forensic Capability, U.S. Secret Service

Approximate $2 million in SEF funding was provided to the U.S. Secret Service to enhance and 

expand sophisticated computer forensics capabilities. No additional information about these 

capabilities can be provided without compromising investigative techniques of the bureau. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 27

Other funding initiatives, various bureaus

Other funding initiatives were supported by SEF resources not described here in order to protect and 

preserve investigative techniques of the bureaus. 

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. The Fund allocated Super Surplus funds in the amount of just under $15 million for 

FY 2005, down from $23.1 million in FY 2004. 

Computer Forensics, Various Bureaus

A growing percentage of the investigations that our agencies handle now center on computer 

evidence. It is critical for the law enforcement bureaus to protect the integrity of original computer 

evidence and be able to authenticate any evidence originating from an electronic source. Each of the 

law enforcement bureaus has a computer laboratory devoted to assessing the impact of technological 

change on methods for obtaining digital evidence, developing forensics procedures and standards, 

and providing technical assistance to the computer forensics examiners in the field. The funding 

provided for these initiatives has allowed the agencies to maintain or build laboratories and sustain 

their computer forensics programs. These forensic programs involve a significant amount of research 

and development that cannot be funded through the mandatory authority. The majority of Super 

Surplus allocations during FY 2005 are in support of these continuing critical investigative efforts. 

 
Cutter Boats and Equipment, U.S. Coast Guard

Funds in the amount of $600,000 were authorized from the Super Surplus to allow the U.S. Coast 

Guard to replace six rigid hull inflatable boats that are near the end of their service life with six new 

Cutter Boats known as “Over the Horizon” boats used for the final leg of an open ocean interception

and seizure. 

28 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005

Cutter Boats - 

“Over the 

Horizon” 

rigid hull 

inflatables 

used for final

stage 

interdiction. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 29

Over the 

Horizon boats 

underway. 

The smaller, high-speed boats are kept aboard U.S. Coast Guard cutters in areas of high drug 

trafficking and are deployed for purposes of interdicting drug smuggling, “go-fast” vehicles. 

Over $1 million in additional Super Surplus funding was provided to the U.S. Coast Guard for critical 

investigative needs including but not limited to funds to support satellite links, night vision 

capabilities and other investigative and training needs. 
30 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

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. In addition, the Fund continues to support at a record level the sharing of 

Federal forfeitures with the state and local and foreign governments that contributed to the successful 

seizure and forfeiture activity of the Fund. The Fund provided over $100 million toward equitable 

sharing expenses in FY 2005 alone, up from $93 million provided in FY 2004. These are critical 

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 Treasury 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 During FY 2005 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund continued in its capacity as a multi-Departmental Fund in FY 2005, 

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

Homeland Security. As the result of the multi-Departmental status, FY 2005 brought some 

management challenges and the need to assess new policies of the reorganized bureaus against the 

broad management interests of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund which now encompass the concerns of 

more than one Department. 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. 

FY 2005 was, like FY 2004, a robust revenue year for the Fund with regular revenue exceeding 

$300 million from all sources. As we closed FY 2005, Fund Management was pleased with our prior 

year efforts to support the Homeland Security Act through intensive and consuming transition 

endeavors and pleased with the evidence that we were successful in meeting our goals of a smooth 

transition. FY 2005 follows on the robust year of FY 2004 with regular revenue over $335 million 

in that year. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 31

 

As we enter fiscal year 2006, 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 2005, 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 2005 is as follows: 

Performance Measure 

FY 2004 

Actual 

FY 2005 

Target 

FY 2005 

Actual 

Percent of forfeited cash proceeds resulting from 

high-impact cases 

84.0% 75% 81.0%

A target of 75 percent high-impact cases was set for FY 2005. 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 2005 

was 81.0 percent, fully 6 percentage points above the target. This compares favorably with our 

FY 2004 achievement of 84 percent, also well beyond our target. This achievement remains 

excellent given the significant diversion of bureau law enforcement personnel to other than routine 

law enforcement involved with anti-terrorism and, in the latter part of the year, with Hurricane 

Katrina recovery efforts. FY 2005 was a robust revenue year and the results of our performance 

indicator point to the successful year of our dedicated law enforcement bureaus. This measure was 

put into effect in FY 2001. 

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. 

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 levels of 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 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, major case initiatives 
32 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

and training to support these areas of emphasis. This has and will continue to be the key to the 

growing success of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Fund Management will continue to work with Customs and Border Protection to resolve issues 

related to the national general property contract, the costs for which escalated and accelerated at an 

alarming rate during FY 2004 and FY 2005. An enduring and primary goal of Fund Management is 

to manage the Treasury Forfeiture Fund in a manner that ensures its ongoing viability and ability to 

support all of our participating law enforcement bureaus into the future. We are confident that a 

satisfactory resolution of these issues will be accomplished on behalf of all bureaus. 

We look forward to another successful year in FY 2006. 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 33

Financial 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, 2005. 

These statements have been prepared to disclose the financial position, results of operations and 

changes in net position 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. Therefore, it should be noted that direct 

comparisons are not possible between figures found in this report and similar financial figures found 

in the FY 2005 and FY 2004 Appendix, Budget of the United States Government. Further, the notes 

to the financial statements and the independent auditor’s opinion and report on internal controls 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 2005 and 2004. 

Net Position – End of Year. For FY 2005, 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 $255.3 million 

versus $194.1 million at the end of FY 2004. Both years closed with a strong and viable net position 

given that annual revenue totaled between $280 million and $320 million each year. 

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. Fund 

Management generally forecasts between $200 million and $250 million for the Fund from regular 

seizure and forfeiture activities of our participating bureaus. For FY 2005, the Fund closed with 

$313.5 million in Gross Non-Exchange Revenues versus a total for the FY 2004 closing of $289.2 

million, an increase of 8.4 percent over FY 2004. 

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 2005, Treasury Forfeiture Fund bureaus earned a total of $22.3 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 $22.7 million during FY 2004. Fund Management 

continues to work with the Department of Justice to identify the basis for delays associated with 

Reverse Asset Sharing payments 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 but can be used for any law enforcement purpose of our 
34 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

participating bureaus. Significant projects may be funded in FY 2006 if long-anticipated revenue is 

received early enough in the fiscal year. 

Cost of Operations. For FY 2005, the Cost of Operations totaled $135.2 million, up from 

$122.1 million in FY 2004. 

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

As of September 30, 2005, investments totaled $499.9 million, up from $455.1 million invested as of 

September 30, 2004. Given the increase in investment balances, investment income totaled $13.3 

million in FY 2005 as compared to $4.6 million in FY 2004. 

Equitable Sharing with 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 2005, the Fund shared a total of $75.7 million with state and local law enforcement 

agencies, and another $4.2 million with foreign countries. This compares with $98.7 million shared 

with state and local law enforcement agencies during FY 2004, and another $2.7 million with foreign 

countries in FY 2004. 

Victim Restitution. During FY 2005, the Fund paid restitution to victims the amount of $2.1 

million as compared with $0.4 million in FY 2004. 

Summary of Statements of Changes in Net Position. FY 2005 represents a very successful year in 

high-impact cash forfeiture cases, with 81.0 percent of all cash forfeitures stemming from cases with 

a value of $100,000 or more, as compared with 84.0 percent in FY 2004. Along with a high water 

mark in forfeiture revenue for the year, the performance against this measure exceeded our target 

performance of 75 percent. The FY 2005 performance in forfeiture revenue earnings and highimpact cases is truly a credit to the dedicated law enforcement personnel of the Treasury Forfeiture 

Fund participating bureaus. 

Statements: Net Cost

Costs of the Forfeiture Program – Intragovernmental. 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 increased to $135.1 million in FY 2005, 

up from $122.1 million in FY 2004, attributable to increased asset management costs. 

Intragovernmental Costs less Secretary’s Enforcement Fund and Super Surplus Expenses. 

This net figure represents the amounts incurred by participating bureaus in running their respective 

forfeiture programs. Secretary Enforcement Fund Expenses generally represent expenses that while 

key to the law enforcement bureau are not costs of running the forfeiture program itself. 

National Seized Property Contract. The largest single program cost of the Fund is the storage, 
SECTION I - OVERVIEW 35

maintenance and disposal of real and personal property. This function is performed by EG&G 

Technical Services, a private firm under multiple contracts to the Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There is one contract for 

the custody and maintenance of real properties and a separate contract for general property of the 

program. Both of these contracts, at this time, are awarded to EG&G Technical Services. Fund 

management took action to move the Real Property Contract from the auspices of CBP to direct 

management by the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. In FY 2005, storage and maintenance 

expenses totaled just over $56.8 million, slightly down from $61.5 million in FY 2004. 

Statements: Balance Sheet

Assets, Liabilities and Net Position

Total assets of the Fund increased in FY 2005 to $776.0 million, up from $697.7 million in FY 2004, 

an increase in asset value of nearly 11.2 percent. If seized currency, which is an asset in the custody 

of the government but not yet owned by the government, is backed out of both figures, the adjusted 

total assets of the Fund increased to $395.0 million in FY 2005, up from $324.3 million in FY 2004, 

an increase of 21.8 percent. 

During FY 2005, total liabilities of the Fund increased to $520.7 million, up from 503.6 million in 

FY 2004, an increase of only 3.4 percent in overall liabilities pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

Likewise, if seized currency is backed out of both figures, the adjusted liability totals of the Fund 

increased to $139.7 million in FY 2005 from $130.2 million in FY 2004, an increase of 7.3 percent. 

The Cumulative Results of Operations, i.e., retained earnings, increased at the end of FY 2005 to a 

total of $255.3 million, up from $194.1 million at the end of FY 2004. 

Summary of Financial Highlights 

Net Position. To summarize, Fund management concluded FY 2005 “in the black,” with the 

necessary resources to commence the business of the asset forfeiture program for FY 2006. Fund 

management may declare some level of Super Surplus from FY 2005 operations although the 

estimate for this spending has not been finalized. 

FY 2005 Audit. The Fund’s independent auditors have given the FY 2005 financial statements an 

Unqualified Opinion. A Material Weakness was identified. Auditors concluded that TEOAF’s 

organizational structure does not provide for effective Chief Financial Officer (CFO) function and 

responsibilities. This is the first time in several years that the Fund has incurred a Material Weakness. 

Fund management is reviewing this aspect of the auditor’s findings and will work to ensure the most 

effective management structure for the Fund. In addition, a Reportable Condition remains regarding 

the recording of indirect overhead expenses of property to the line item level. This is a long-standing 

condition that Fund management has worked to resolve for the real property contract though the 

remedy has not been implemented by Customs and Border Protection as of the close of FY 2005. We 

have information that the EDP-related work required by our Executive Agent to correct the finding 

for the real property contract is underway and Fund management is hopeful that it will be 

implemented in time to cure the weakness for the Real Property Contract for FY 2006. Corrective 

action for general property cannot be taken pending award of a new general property contract which 

is actively underway at this time. 
36 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Program Performance 

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. In that regard, Fund 

management provides the following information with regard to the remaining reportable condition 

identified by auditors in prior years’ financial statement audit. 

Material Weakness: In fiscal year 2005, the Auditors of the Fund’s financial statements 

concluded that TEOAF’s organizational structure does not provide for effective Chief Financial 

Officer (CFO) function and responsibilities. The Treasury Forfeiture Fund will reexamine its 

organizational structure and operating processes, particularly in the area of Financial Statement 

preparation, and will make the needed changes to ensure both the timely preparation of Financial 

Statements, as well as an effective program of internal controls. 

Reportable Condition: In fiscal year 2005, the auditors of the Fund’s financial statements reported 

one Reportable Condition associated with the Fund’s internal controls: indirect asset specific 

expenses are not recorded and accounted for to the line item level by the Fund. This is a longstanding condition that Fund management has worked to resolve for the real property contract though 

the remedy has not been implemented by Customs and Border Protection as of the close of FY 2005. 

Asset Specific Expenses: Fund Management will continue to work toward the capture of indirect 

asset specific expenses. The accounting system of the Real Property Contractor is capable of 

capturing and reporting both direct and indirect costs. However, to capture this data for the Fund’s 

financial statements, Customs and Border Protection’s SEACATS system requires additional 

programming. To date, this programming has not been completed though the contractor-proposed 

remedy has been identified for over three years. The award of the new general property contract has 

been delayed and until such time as the new contract provisions can be implemented, efforts to 

develop a methodology to distribute indirect overhead costs to general property will also be delayed. 

Management will continue to work with participating bureaus to improve the capture of all expense 

data to the asset level. 

Look Forward. The Fund will reexamine its organizational structure and operating processes, 

particularly in the area of Financial Statement preparation, and will make the needed changes to 

ensure both the timely preparation of Financial Statements, as well as an effective program of internal 

controls. Efforts will continue to ensure that progress is made toward resolving the remaining second 

tier finding. Fund Management looks forward to another successful year in FY 2006. 

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 statement 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 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 


Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund

BALANCE SHEETS

As of September 30, 2005 and 2004

( Dollars in Thousands)

2005 2004

Assets:

Intragovernmental :

Fund balance with Treasury $ 164,996 $ 146,527 

Investments and related interest (Note 3) 499,885 455,142 

Advances (Note 5) 143 12 

Total Intragovernmental 665,024 601,681 

Cash and other monetary assets (Note 6) 64,736 52,626 

Accounts receivable 793 850 65,529 53,476 

Forfeited property (Note 7)

Held for sale, net of mortgages, liens and claims 43,622 41,743 

To be shared with federal, state or local, or foreign 

 governments 1,789 820 

Total forfeited property, net of mortgages, liens

 and claims 45,411 42,563 

Total Assets $ 775,964 $ 697,720 

Liabilities:

Intragovernmental:

Distributions payable

Other Federal agencies $ 1,545 $ 748 

Accounts payable 42,825 30,040 

Total Intragovernmental 44,370 30,788 

Seized currency and other monetary instruments (Note 9) 381,012 373,445 

Distributions payable (Note 10)

State and local agencies and foreign governments 44,120 50,385 

Accounts payable 7,208 6,970 

Deferred revenue from forfeited assets 43,947 42,029 

Total Liabilities 520,657 503,617 

Net Position:

Cumulative results of operations (Note 11) 255,307 194,103 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 775,964 $ 697,720 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 39 
Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund

STATEMENTS OF NET COST

For the years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004

(Dollars in Thousands)

2005 2004

Program:

ENFORCEMENT

Intragovernmental:

Seizure investigative costs and asset management $ 47,053 $ 34,170 

Other asset related contract services 3 331 

Awards to informer - 141 

Data systems, training and others 19,658 16,756 

Super surplus (Note 13) 2,239 - 

Secretary's enforcement fund (Note 14) 500 40 

Total Intragovernmental 69,453 51,438 

With the Public:

 National contract services seized property and other 56,851 61,524 

Joint operations 8,850 9,172 

Total with the Public 65,701 70,696 

Net Cost of Operations $ 135,154 $ 122,134 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements

40 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 2005
Department of theTreasury Forfeiture Fund

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

For the years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004

(Dollars in Thousands)

2005 2004

Net Position - Beginning of year $ 194,103 $ 177,231 

Financing Sources (Non-Exchange Revenues):

Intragovernmental

Investment interest income 13,272 4,612 

Public

Forfeited currency and monetary instruments 209,139 228,905 

Sales of forfeited property net of mortgages and claims 49,497 42,660 

Proceeds from participating with other federal agencies 22,337 22,740 

Value of property transferred in equitable sharing 6,992 6,237 

Payments in lieu of forfeiture, net of refund (Note 19) 2,023 (51,756) 

Reimbursed costs 6,815 4,220 

Others 3,455 31,604 

Total Gross Non-Exchange Revenues 313,530 289,222 

Less: Equitable Sharing

Intragovernmental

Federal (3,241) (9,758) 

Public

State and local agencies (75,684) (98,667) 

Foreign countries (4,227) (2,708) 

Victim restitution (2,086) (437) 

(81,997) (101,812)

Total Equitable Sharing (85,238) (111,570)

Total Non-Exchange Revenues, Net 228,292 177,652 

Transfers-Out

Intragovernmental

Super surplus (Note 13) (19,211) (25,207) 

Secretary's enforcement fund (Note 14) (12,723) (13,439) 

Total Transfers-Out (31,934) (38,646) 

Total Financing Sources- Net 196,358 139,006 

Net Cost of Operations (135,154) (122,134)

Net Results of Operations 61,204 16,872 

Net Position - End of Year $ 255,307 $ 194,103 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 41
Department of theTreasury Forfeiture Fund

STATEMENTS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES

For the years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004

(Dollars in Thousands)

2005 2004

Budgetary Resources:

Budget authority $ 320,870 $ 313,130 

Unobligated balance- beginning of year 95,779 74,826 

Spending authority from offsetting collections - 154 

Recoveries from prior year obligations 15,028 23,265 

Total Budgetary Resources $ 431,677 $ 411,375 

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Obligations incurred $ 344,917 $ 315,596 

Unobligated balances - available 86,760 95,779 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources 431,677 411,375 

Relationship of Obligations to Outlays:

Obligated balance, net - beginning of year 176,382 172,651 

Obligated balance, net - end of year

Undelivered orders 164,066 89,450 

Accounts payable 92,189 86,932 

Outlays

Disbursements $ 250,017 $ 288,600 

Less: Spending authority from offsetting collections - (154) 

Net Outlays $ 250,017 $ 288,446 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements

42 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 2005
For the years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004

(Dollars in Thousands)

2005 2004

Resources Used to Finance Activities:

Budgetary resources obligated

Obligations incurred $ 344,917 $ 315,596 

Less: Spending authority from offsetting collections and

recoveries (15,028) (23,419) 

Net obligations 329,889 292,177 

Other Resources

Transfers - out (31,934) (38,646) 

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 253,531 297,955 

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 (58,916) 47,910 

Other resources or adjustments to net obligated resources that

do not affect net cost of operations

Mortgages and claims (10,501) (7,331) 

Refunds (8,146) (60,406) 

Equitable sharing (federal, state/local and foreign) (83,152) (111,133) 

Victim restitution (2,086) (437) 

Total Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the

Net Cost of Operations (131,397) (162,801) 

Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations 122,134 135,154 

Net Cost of Operations $ 135,154 $ 122,134 

43

Department of theTreasury Forfeiture Fund

STATEMENTS OF FINANCING

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
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 and receive relatively few 

distributions from the Fund. 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 join 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. 

44 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 
SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

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. 

Financial Statements Presented

These financial statements are provided to meet the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act 

of 1990, and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. They consist of the balance sheet, 

the statement of net cost, the statement of changes in net position, the statement of budgetary 

resources, and the statement of financing, all of which are prescribed by OMB. 

Comparative financial statements are presented in order to provide a better understanding of, and 

identifying trends in the financial position and results of operations of the Fund. 

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 

45
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

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. 

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. 

46 
SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

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 new 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 – Intragovernmental receivables principally represent monies due from the law 

enforcement agencies participating in the Fund. 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, 2005 and 2004. 

• 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. 

• 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 

47
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

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 

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 8 

and 9. 

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. OMB issued SFFAS No. 3 which 

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 are disclosed in 

the footnotes in accordance with SFFAS No. 3. 

• Investments – 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. 

• 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

48 
SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

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 

2006. 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. 

Prior to Fiscal Year 1999, expenses and liabilities were recognized and the corresponding 

obligations reduced when final management approval for an equitable sharing request was given 

(See also Distributions Payable at Note 10). 

• 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. 

49
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Note 3: Investments and Related Interest

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 (market value), 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 investment, net, 

represents the required market value. 

The following schedule presents the investments on hand as of September 30, 2005 and 2004, 

respectively (dollars in thousands):

Entity Assets 

Description Cost

Unamortized 

Discount

Investment, 

Net

September 30, 2005:

Treasury Forfeiture Fund - $ 178,565 $ (547) $ 178,018

28 days 3.15% U.S. 

Treasury Bills 

Interest Receivable – 

 On entity investments 

 On non-entity investments 

234

424

 Total Investment, Net, and Interest Receivable $ 178,676

September 30, 2004:

Treasury Forfeiture Fund - 

28 days 1.520% U.S. 

Treasury Bills $ 125,820 $ (186) $ 125,634

Interest Receivable – 

 On entity investments 

 On non-entity investments 

74

 195

 Total Investment, Net, and Interest Receivable $ 125,903

50 
SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Non-entity Assets 

Description Cost

Unamortized 

Discount

Investment, 

Net

September 30, 2005:

Treasury Forfeiture Fund – Seized Currency 

Suspense Account 

28 days 3.15% 

U.S. Treasury Bills $ 322,196 $ (987) $ 321,209

September 30, 2004:

Treasury Forfeiture Fund – Seized Currency 

Suspense Account 

28 days 1.520% 

U.S. Treasury Bills $ 329,726 $ (487) $ 329,239

Note 4: Intragovernmental and Other Non-Entity Assets

The following schedule presents the intragovernmental and other non-entity assets as of September 

30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2005 2004

Intragovernmental Assets:

Seized currency: 

Investments (Note 3) $ 321,209 $ 329,239

Seized currency: 

Cash and other monetary assets (Note 6) 59,803 44,206

Total Non-Entity Assets 381,012 373,445

Total Entity Assets 394,952 324,275

Total Assets $ 775,964 $ 697,720

Note 5: Advances

Advances amounted to $143 thousand and $12 thousand as of September 30, 2005 and 2004, 

respectively. 

Note 6: 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 $4.9 million and $8.4 million as of 

51
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 

September 30, 2005 and 2004, 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, amounting to $59.8 

million and $44.2 million as of September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. 

Note 7: Forfeited Property

The following summarizes the components of forfeited property (net), as of September 30, 2005 and 

2004, respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2005 2004

Held for Sale $ 52,874 $ 42,943 

To be shared with federal, state or local, or foreign 

government 1,789 820 

 Total forfeited property (Note 8) 54,663 43,763 

Less: Allowance for mortgages and claims (9,252) (1,200) 

Total forfeited property, net $ 45,411 $ 42,563 

52 
Note 8: FY 2005 Analysis of Changes in Forfeited Property and Currency

The following schedule presents the changes in the forfeited property and balances from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005. (Dollar value is in thousasnds.)

10/1/04 Financial 10/1/04 Carrying

Statement Balance Adjustments Value Forfeitures Deposits/Sales Disposals/T

Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value 

Currency 6,725$ - -$ - 6,725$ - $ 188,046 - $ (201,069) - $ (12,491) 

Other Monetary 

Instruments 1,695 - - - 1,695 - 8 - (10) - - 

Subtotal 8,420 - - - 8,420 - 188,054 - (201,079) - (12,491) 

Real Property 31,603 114 (12,245) - 19,358 114 42,115 147 (29,575) (126) (2,175) General Property 2,855 5,335 15,972 - 18,827 5,335 20,134 13,431 (9,747) (2,263) (7,705) Vessels 566 32 282 - 848 32 2,511 104 (1,818) (74) (231) Aircraft 103 2 72 - 175 2 561 5 (350) (3) (183) Vehicles 8,636 8,686 5,378 - 14,014 8,686 38,373 26,887 (25,502) (4,584) (11,074) 

Subtotal 43,763 14,169 9,459 - 53,222 14,169 103,694 40,574 (66,992) (7,050) (21,368) 

Grand Total $ 52,183 14,169 $ 9,459 - 61,642$ 14,169 $ 291,748 40,574 $ (268,071) (7,050) $ (33,859) 

Fair Marke

Victim Restitution Destroyed Other Adjustments Value Change 2005 Carrying Value Adjustm

Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value 

Currency -$ -$ 23,518 - $ - - $ 4,729 $ - 

Other Monetary

Instruments - - - - (1,489) - - - 204 - - 

Subtotal - - - - 22,029 - - - 4,933 - - 

Real Property - - - - 2,385 13 18 - 32,126 138 7,243 

General Property - - (95) (9,689) 404 197 (6,891) - 14,927 6,079 (9,640) 

Vessels - - - (23) 137 - 5 - 1,452 29 (706) 

Aircraft - - - - - - - - 203 2 (56) 

Vehicles - - (25,431) 482 (90) (1,705) - 14,588 4,138 (5,474) 

Subtotal - - (95) (35,143) 3,408 120 (8,573) - 63,296 10,386 (8,633) 

Grand Total -$ - (95)$ (35,143) $ 25,437 120 $ (8,573) - $ 68,229 10,386 $ (8,633) 

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
Note 8 (Contd.): FY 2004 Analysis of Changes in Forfeited Property and Currency

The following schedule presents the changes in the forfeited property and balances from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004. (Dollar value is in thousasnds.)

10/1/03 Financial 10/1/2003 Carrying

Statement Balance Adjustments Value Forfeitures Deposits/Sales Dispos

Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value 

Currency 6,853$ - -$ - 6,853$ - 159,420$ - $ (164,845) - $ (1,8

Other MonetaryInstruments 1,581 - - - 1,581 - 136 - (23) - 

 

Subtotal 8,434 - - - 8,434 - 159,556 - (164,868) - (1,8Real Property 23,025 99 (2,052) - 20,973 99 18,783 96 (21,512) (85) (2

 

General Property 7,043 4,080 27,254 - 34,297 4,080 21,469 10,862 (20,455) (2,421) (3,8

 

Vessels 374 33 292 - 666 33 2,089 95 (2,062) (78) (1

 

Aircraft 20 2 - - 20 2 384 6 (133) (4) (

 

Vehicles 4,727 1,559 3,470 - 8,197 1,559 29,034 19,364 (15,324) (2,270) (6,4

 

Subtotal 35,189 5,773 28,964 - 64,153 5,773 71,759 30,423 (59,486) (4,858) (10,8Grand Total 43,623$ 5,773 28,964$ - 72,587$ 5,773 231,315$ 30,423 $ (224,354) (4,858) $ (12,6

Fair M

Victim Restitution Destroyed Other Adjustments Value Change 2004 Carrying Value Ad

Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value 

a Currency -$ -$ 7,130$ - -$ - $ 6,725 

$ 

b Other Monetaryc Instruments - - - - 1 - - - 1,695 - 

 

d Subtotal - - - - 7,131 - - - 8,420 - 

 

ef Real Property - - - - 1,442 8 (126) - 19,358 114 12,2

 

g General Property - - (80) (8,012) (7,532) 1,456 (4,985) - 18,827 5,335 (15,9

h Vessels - - - (11) 352 1 (14) - 848 32 (2

 

i Aircraft - - - - - - - - 175 2 (

 

j Vehicles - - (67) (9,316) (346) (9) (1,009) - 14,014 8,686 (5,3

 

h Subtotal - - (147) (17,339) (6,084) 1,456 (6,134) - 53,222 14,169 (9,4

i Grand Total -$ - (147)$ (17,339) 1,047$ 1,456 $ (6,134) - $ 61,642 14,169 $ (9,4

jkl

54 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 2005
Note 9: FY 2005 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 Fund until judicially or administratively forfeited. Because oand the high level of control necessary over these assets and the possibility that these monies may be returned to their owners in lieu of forfeiture, seized currency is repseizure. Seized property other than currency is reported as a custodial asset upon forfeiture. (Dollar value is in thousands.)

9/30/04 Financial 

Statement Balance Seizures Remissions Forfeitures Adjustments Value C

Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value 

Currency $ 371,969 - $ 257,156 - $ (51,382) - $ (188,046) - (9,843)$ - $ (589) 

Other MonetaryInstruments 1,476 - 652 - (326) - (8) - (47) - - 

Subtotal 373,445 - 257,808 - (51,708) - (188,054) - (9,890) - (589) 

Real Property 234,725 581 122,458 225 (16,243) (89) (42,115) (147) (38,626) 57 974 

General Property 187,362 10,432 177,847 21,696 (135,019) (4,641) (20,134) (13,431) (2,328) (3,723) (61,169) 

Vessels 3,148 95 6,252 158 (2,073) (46) (2,511) (104) (365) (6) (101) 

Aircraft 5,989 14 7,014 12 (6,987) (10) (561) (5) (29) (3) (1,272) 

Vehicles 61,928 13,555 127,426 34,235 (74,958) (9,032) (38,373) (26,887) (4,235) (1,580) (10,767) 

Subtotal 493,152 24,677 440,997 56,326 (235,280) (13,818) (103,694) (40,574) (45,583) (5,255) (72,335) 

Grand Total $ 866,597 24,677 $ 698,805 56,326 $ (286,988) (13,818) $ (291,748) (40,574) $ (55,473) (5,255) $ (72,924) 

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
Note 9 (Contd.): FY 2004 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 Fund until judicially or administratively forfeited. Becand the high level of control necessary over these assets and the possibility that these monies may be returned to their owners in lieu of forfeiture, seized currency seizure. Seized property other than currency is reported as a custodial asset upon forfeiture. (Dollar value is in thousands.)

9/30/03 Financial 

Statement Balance Seizures Remissions Forfeitures Adjustments Va

Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Val

Currency $ 395,706 - $ 254,451 - $ (123,051) - $ (159,420) - 4,283$ - 

$ 

Other MonetaryInstruments 850 - 268 - (362) - (136) - 856 - 

 

Subtotal 396,556 - 254,719 - (123,413) - (159,556) - 5,139 - 

 

Real Property 96,331 293 143,081 292 (7,258) (60) (18,783) (96) 21,353 152 

 

General Property 151,771 9,992 296,201 18,861 (234,946) (5,463) (21,469) (10,862) (18,660) (2,096) 14

 

Vessels 2,626 70 5,156 148 (1,900) (31) (2,089) (95) (432) 3 

 

Aircraft 5,393 14 33,209 22 (31,248) (16) (384) (6) (981) - 

 

Vehicles 22,988 1,866 125,080 35,594 (54,949) (4,421) (29,034) (19,364) (736) (120) (1

 

Subtotal 279,109 12,235 602,727 54,917 (330,301) (9,991) (71,759) (30,423) 544 (2,061) 12

 

Grand Total $ 675,665 12,235 $ 857,446 54,917 $ (453,714) (9,991) $ (231,315) (30,423) 5,683$ (2,061) 12

$ 

56 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 2005
Note 10: Distributions Payable (state and local agencies and foreign governments)

Distributions Payable (state and local agencies and foreign governments) amounted to $44.1 million 

and $50.4 million as of September 30, 2005 and 2004, 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, 2005 and 2004, 

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 11: Net Position

Cumulative Results

The following summarizes components of cumulative results as of and for the years ended 

September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2005 2004

Retained Capital 133,730 $ 111,691

Unliquidated Obligations 60,373 65,540

Results of Operations 61,204 16,872

$ 255,307 $ 194,103

Unliquidated Obligations 

The following summarizes the components of unliquidated obligations as of September 30, 2005 

and 2004, respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

2005 2004

Discretionary $ -- $ --

Equitable Sharing 37,087 50,386

Mandatory 23,286 15,154

$60,373 $ 65,540

Note 12: 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 13: 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. 

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 57
Amounts distributed to other federal agencies for law enforcement activities under “Super Surplus”

requirements amounts to $21.5 million and $25.2 million in fiscal years 2005 and 2004, respectively. 

Note 14: 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 $13.2 million and $13.5 million in fiscal years 2005 and 2004, 

respectively. 

Note 15: Commitments and Contingencies

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 10, Distributions Payable). 

In addition to the amounts estimated above, there are additional amounts, which may ultimately be 

shared, which are not identified at this time. 

CONTINGENCIES 

Possible claims of potential significance include the following: 

1. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that it is unconstitutional to 

forfeit currency based upon a violation of a federal currency reporting statute. Accordingly, 

the court has ruled that in returning currency, the government must return the benefit that is 

received from holding the currency. 

The interest to be returned will be payable out of the income of the Fund, and, at present, represents 

a possible claim of potential significance. 

2. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government must return forfeited currency in those 

cases of individuals convicted for currency reporting violations who have had currency 

forfeited due to the violation. The amount of the currency that might be refunded will be 

payable from the Fund, and, at present, represents a possible claim of potential significance. 

At present, it is not possible to determine the likelihood that the above claims will arise. Similarly, it 

is not possible to determine the value of such potential claims against the Fund. 

Judgements and settlements of $2,500 or greater, resulting from litigation and claims against the 

Fund are satisfied from various claims and judgement funds maintained by Treasury. 

58 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 
Note 16: 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: 

2005 2004

Gross Costs $ 135,154 $ 122,134

Earned Revenues -- --

Net Costs $ 135,154 $ 122,134

The Fund falls under the Treasury’s budget functional classification related to Administration of 

Justice. 

Note 17: Disclosures Related to the Statements of Budgetary Resources

The Fund’s net amount of budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at the end of fiscal 

years 2005 and 2004 are $164.0 million and $89.5 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 borrowing authority. No adjustments were required during the reporting period to 

budgetary resources available at the beginning of the year. 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 2005 and 2004 consist 

of the following (in thousands): 

 2005 2004

Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations $ 15,028 $ 23,265

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections -- 154

Total $ 15,028 $ 23,419

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 18: Dedicated Collections 

The Fund is classified as a special fund. All its activities are reported as dedicated collections 

held for later use. 

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 59
Note 19: Payments in Lieu of Forfeiture, Net of Refund

The following summarizes Payments in Lieu of Forfeiture, Net of Refund as of September 30, 2005 

and 2004, respectively, (dollars in thousands): 

 2005 2004

Payments in Lieu of Forfeiture $ 10,169 $ 8,650 

Refunds (8,146) (60,406) 

Total $ 2,023 ($51,756)

60 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 
SECTION III 

OTHER REPORTS

However, we noted certain matters discussed in the following paragraphs involving the internal 

control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions. 

These reportable conditions, as defined above, are summarized below with further explanations and 

Fund Management’s responses in Exhibits I and II of this report. 

Material Weakness 

The Organizational Structure does not Provide for Effective Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 

Function and Responsibilities 

The Fund’s organizational structure with respect to the CFO function is not clearly defined. In the 

Fund’s organization chart dated March 3, 2005, the CFO/Financial Management Officer reports to 

the Assistant Director, Operations and does not appear to have responsibilities for functions that are 

typically within the purview of a CFO, such as financial operations and analysis, financial systems, 

budget formulation and execution. During the course of the audit, we also noted that, in different 

situations, different individuals have taken on the responsibilities of the CFO. For instance, the 

Director signed off as the Director and CFO for the Fund’s FY 2005 Management Representation 

Letter dated November 7, 2005, provided to the Department for preparation of the Department’s 

Consolidated Financial Statements and Performance and Accountability Report. In other 

correspondence during the audit, the Financial Management Officer signed off as the Acting CFO 

and Deputy CFO. The Fund needs to have an individual clearly designated and recognized as the 

CFO. This individual should be delegated authority over the customary functions stated above. 

Reportable Condition

Indirect Overhead Expenses of the National Seized Property Contractor are not Recorded and

Accounted for by the Fund to the Line Item Level. (Repeat Condition)

Indirect overhead expenses of the national seized property contractor are not recorded and accounted 

for by the Fund to the line item level. The Fund’s Property Custodian incurs costs on behalf of the 

Fund from the time of seizure until the asset is ultimately disposed. Currently, only holding costs 

and direct selling costs related to general property are captured in the Seized Assets and Case 

Tracking System (SEACATS) at the line item level, but not the indirect costs. 

Because the weakness impacts the control environment of the Fund and related lines of authority, 

and the condition can impact equitable sharing expenses of the Fund, these should be remedied. 

 

We also noted other matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we have 

reported to Fund Management in a separate letter dated December 1, 2005. 

Finally, with respect to internal control related to performance measures reported in Section 1, 

“Overview,” we obtained an understanding of the design of significant internal controls relating to 

the existence and completeness assertions, asrequired by OMB Bulletin No. 01-02. Our procedures 

were not designed to provide assurance on internal control over reported performance measures, and, 

accordingly, we do not provide an opinion on such controls. 

SECTION III – OTHER REPORTS 62



EXHIBIT I 

MATERIAL WEAKNESS
THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE 

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (CFO) FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Fund’s organizational structure with respect to the CFO function is not clearly defined. In the 

Fund’s organization chart dated March 3, 2005, the CFO/Financial Management Officer reports to 

the Assistant Director, Operations and does not appear to have responsibilities for functions that are 

typically within the purview of a CFO, such as financial operations and analysis, financial systems, 

budget formulation and execution. During the course of the audit, we also noted that, in different 

situations, different individuals have taken on the responsibilities of the CFO. For instance, the 

Director signed off as the Director and CFO for the Fund’s FY 2005 Management Representation 

Letter dated November 7, 2005, provided to the Department for preparation of the Department’s 

Consolidated Financial Statements and Performance and Accountability Report. In other 

correspondence during the audit, the Financial Management Officer signed off as the Acting CFO 

and Deputy CFO. The Fund needs to have an individual clearly designated and recognized as the 

CFO. This individual should be delegated authority over the customary functions stated above. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for 

Internal Control, defines the control environment as the organizational structure and culture created 

by management and employees to sustain organizational support for effective internal control. 

Within the organizational structure, management must clearly: define areas of authority and 

responsibility; appropriately delegate the authority and responsibility throughout the agency; and 

establish a suitable hierarchy for reporting. 

The role of the CFO should be the linchpin in an organization’s plan to ensure the integrity of 

financial accounting and reporting. This includes providing for effective financial management 

systems, development of accounting policies and ensuring compliance with applicable internal 

control standards. 

Role conflicts and ambiguities with respect to who has the authority and responsibility of the CFO 

for the Fund can adversely impact the Fund’s operations and related financial reporting. For 

example, the FY 2005 and 2004, closing instructions for equitable sharing expenses, sent out by the 

Director, did not provide for an accrual for September expenses. As a result, $3.3 million and $7.6 

million of equitable sharing expenses were not accrued at year end for FY 2005 and 2004, 

respectively. The Director and the CFO/Financial Management Officer did not realize that the 

closing instructions did not provide for a September accrual until after the FY 2005 year end which 

caused a delay in the completion of the FY 2005 audit. An effective CFO function would have 

provided for an accrual for September equitable sharing expenses to compensate for the closing 

instructions limitation and ensure that 12 months of activity was reported in the annual financial 

statements. If the role of the CFO and related lines of authority and responsibilities are not clarified, 

additional errors may occur in the future that may be material. 

The current organizational structure (i) weakens the control environment in which the Fund 

operates; and (ii) undermines the objectives of a good internal control system to ensure effectiveness 

and efficiency of operations, reliability of financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws 

and regulations. 

EXHIBIT 1 – MATERIAL WEAKNESS 66
RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that: 

(1) The Under Secretary (Terrorism and Financial Crimes) establishes an organizational 

structure for the Fund that clearly designates a CFO and assigns appropriate authority and 

responsibilities to the CFO. 

(2) The Director of EOAF ensures that procedures are established to estimate September 

equitable sharing obligations for financial reporting purposes. This estimate can be based on 

an average of equitable sharing percentages for the eleven months preceding September. 

The estimate can be adjusted after year end for any significant difference from the official

estimates received from the applicable bureaus in October. 

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE 

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund duly notes the aforementioned concerns and acknowledges that the 

auditors were not provided all of the required assistance and information according to the agreed 

upon schedules and timetables. Additionally, the management team did not always act as cohesively

as it should have, particularly during the conduct of the audit. The Treasury Forfeiture Fund will 

reexamine its organizational structure and operating processes, particularly in the area of Financial 

Statement preparation, and will make the needed changes to ensure both the timely preparation of 

Financial Statements, as well as an effective program of internal controls. 

The Fund will adopt the auditor’s suggestion regarding the estimated obligations for equitable 

sharing obligations during the month of September. 

67 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 
EXHIBIT II 

REPORTABLE CONDITION
INDIRECT OVERHEAD EXPENSES OF THE NATIONAL SEIZED PROPERTY 

CONTRACTOR ARE NOT RECORDED AND ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FUND TO THE 

LINE ITEM LEVEL. (Repeat Condition)

Indirect overhead expenses of the national seized property contractor are not recorded and accounted 

for by the Fund to the line item level. The Fund’s Property Custodian incurs costs on behalf of the 

Fund from the time of seizure until the asset is ultimately disposed. Currently, only holding costs 

and direct selling costs related to general and real property are captured in the Seized Assets and 

Case Tracking System (SEACATS) at the line item level, but not the indirect costs. 

The Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, Section 3512, Executive Agency's Accounting 

System requires Federal agencies to establish an internal control which ensures the safeguarding of 

assets and the proper recording of revenues and expenditures. It is further reinforced by the Federal 

Manager's Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA) which requires that internal accounting and 

administrative controls be established to provide reasonable assurances that revenues and 

expenditures applicable to agency operations are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the 

preparation of accounts and reliable financial and statistical reports and to maintain accountability 

over the assets. Additionally, the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program’s (JFMIP) 

Seized Property and Forfeited Assets Systems Requirements require seized property and forfeited 

assets systems to record costs incurred while the asset is in custody, and costs incurred in disposition 

activities. 

The Fund relies on the Property Custodian for providing asset specific expenses information. 

Deficiencies in the system (SEACATS) that the Property Custodian uses preclude the capturing of 

certain expense information at the asset level. Currently, only holding costs and direct selling costs 

related to general and real property are captured in SEACATS at the line item level. 

The Fund is unable to report total asset specific expenses in the inventory systems. Overhead costs 

of the general and real property contracts are not distributed to the line item level. The Fund’s asset 

management function will deteriorate if the above conditions are allowed to continue, resulting 

ultimately in a lack of accountability over the assets of the Fund. This is because revenue associated 

with the asset may be overhead for purposes of equitable sharing, victim restitution and possibly 

other uses of the funds where the calculation will result in a distribution of all resources after 

expenses. If expenses are understated, the resulting distribution will be over-stated which can 

damage the long-term viability of the Fund if uncorrected and chronic in nature. 

RECOMMENDATION

In view of the Fund’s acknowledgement of this condition and SEACATS’ inability to capture the 

required information, we make the following recommendations: 

a. For all common support costs not directly traceable to individual seizures, an allocation 

process needs to be developed and implemented. Indirect costs will have to be applied to the 

individual seizures. Direct and indirect costs will have to be added together to provide total 

costs per seizure. 

EXHIBIT II – REPORTABLE CONDITION 68
b. EOAF should vigorously pursue the enhancement of SEACATS system capabilities to 

record and report total expenses at the asset level. 

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE 

Management Assessment on Progress: 

(1) Real Property Contract: Although the real property contract has been in place for four 

years, and resolution of this reportable condition is a specifically stated requirement for the contract, 

the condition remains open and unresolved. TFF Management took action to move the Real Property 

Contract from the auspices of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland 

Security to direct management by the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. However, the problem

remains because resolution of the issue requires software programming by CBP to implement the 

approved methodology for capturing the overhead expenses to the line item level for the real 

property contract. To date, CBP has not accomplished this initiative although the Fund provided 

resources to do so in the initial year the methodology was identified and approved. 

(2) General Property Contract: The requirement to distribute contract overhead costs to the 

line item level is included in the Statement of Work for the general property contract now in process. 

TFF Management has taken action to move procurement of the general property contract to the 

auspices of the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. Until such time as a new contract can be 

awarded, resolution of the Reportable Condition for the general property contract will remain open. 

Discussion/Background and Planned Action: 

Summary of Current Status: Fund management concurs with the auditor’s recommendation 

regarding the development and implementation of an allocation process for indirect costs. EOAF 

relies on a national seized property contractor (the contractor) to account for all costs related to the 

storage, maintenance and sale of seized and forfeited property. Currently, the real property 

contractor has proposed a methodology for identifying indirect costs to the line item level. CBP has 

not yet implemented the methodology through SEACATS. Implementation of an indirect cost 

methodology for general property will have to await the re-competition of the successor contract for 

general property, which is suspended at this time. The requirement is not a part of the current 

general property contractor’s statement of work. 

69 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 
SECTION IV 

REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Required Supplemental Information 

(Required by OMB Circular A-136) 

For the Years Ended September 30, 2005 and 2004 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

SECTION IV – REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 70

Intragovernmental Amounts – Assets (Dollars in thousands) 

2005 2004

Partner Agency

Fund 

Balance with 

Treasury

Accounts 

Receivable/

Advances Investments

Fund 

Balance with

Treasury

Accounts 

Receivable

/Advances Investments

Departmental Offices $-- $143 $ -- $-- $12 $ --

Bureau of Public 

Debt 

 -- -- $499,885 -- -- $455,142

Totals $-- $143 $499,885 $-- $12 $455,142

Intragovernmental Amounts – Liabilities (Dollars in thousands) 

2005 2004

Partner Agency

Accounts 

Payable

Accounts 

Payable

Department of Justice $18,820 $2,280

Departmental Offices 2,190 1,584

Department of Homeland Security 7,488 8,336

Internal Revenue Service 15,872 18,588

Totals $44,370 $30,788
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Required Supplemental Information 

(Required by OMB Circular A-136) 

For the Years Ended September 30, 2005 and 2004 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Intra-Governmental Amounts – Revenues and Costs (Dollars in thousands)

2005 2004

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 

$ -- $ 69,453 $ -- $ 51,438

Intragovernmental Amounts – Non-exchange Revenue (Dollars in thousands) 

2005 2004

Partner Agency In Out In Out

Department of Justice $-- $44 $-- $2,091

Department of Homeland Security -- 15,753 -- 21,671

Department of Treasury -- -- -- 200

Internal Revenue Service -- 14,137 -- 14,506

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network -- 2,000 -- 178

Totals 

______

$ --

______

$31,934 

_______

$ --

______

$38,646

71 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005 
SECTION V 

OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 

(Unaudited) 
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Equitable Sharing Summarized by State and U.S. Territories 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2005 

 (Dollars in Thousands) 

(Unaudited) 

State/U.S. Territories Currency Value Property Value

Alabama $ 359 $ 14 

Alaska 5 -

Arizona 5,836 423

Arkansas - -

California 4,729 117

Colorado 215 -

Connecticut 9 -

D.C. Washington 124 - 

Delaware 11 -

Florida 5,070 984

Georgia 1,061 9

Guam - -

Hawaii 188 -

Idaho 713 33

Illinois 868 131

Indiana 669 201

Iowa - 91

Kansas 18 8

Kentucky 1,438 22

Louisiana 172 16 

Maine 25 16

Maryland 1,883 3

Massachusetts 656 7

Michigan 1,225 26

Minnesota - -

Mississippi 365 97

Missouri 32 -

Montana 80 -

Nebraska 20 -

Nevada 103 -

New Jersey 3,021 - 

New Hampshire - - 

New Mexico 101 16 

New York 15,244 59 

North Carolina 3,584 218 

North Dakota - - 

Ohio 554 20

Oklahoma 121 21

Oregon 674 246

Pennsylvania 586 124

Puerto Rico 1,839 - 

Rhode Island 584 - 

South Carolina 959 53 

South Dakota 1 - 

Tennessee 412 67

Texas 10,716 398

Utah 36 -

Subtotal carried forward $64,306 $3,420 

SECTION V – OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 72
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Equitable Sharing Summarized by State and U.S. Territories 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2005 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

(Unaudited) 

State/U.S. Territories Currency Value Property Value

Subtotal brought forward $64,306 $3,420 

Vermont 90 -

Virgin Islands - - 

Virginia 3,801 76

Washington 547 28

West Virginia 373 - 

Wisconsin 83 7

Wyoming - -

 Totals $69,200 $3,531

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. 

73 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Uncontested Seizures of Currency and Monetary Instruments Valued Over 

$100,000, Taking More Than 120 Days from Seizure to Deposit in Fund 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2005 

(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 $100,000, which were not deposited in the Department of the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund within 120 days of the seizure date. There were no administrative seizures over $100,000 

over 120 days old for all bureaus in FY 2005. 

SECTION V – OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 74
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Analysis of Revenue and Expenses and Distributions 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2005 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Revenue, Expenses and Distributions by Asset Category: 

Revenue

Expenses and 

Distributions

Vehicles $17,296 $35,855

Vessels 4,805 45,684

Aircraft 4,805 14,718

General Property 15,375 145,002

Real Property 53,811 5,680

Currency and monetary instruments 236,085 85,238

332,177 332,177

Less: 

 Mortgages and claims (10,501) (10,501)

 Refunds (8,146) (8,146)

Add: 

Excess of net revenues and financing sources over total program

 expenses 

 -- --

Total $313,530 $313,530

Revenues, Transfers, Expenses and Distributions by Type of 

Disposition: 

Sales of property and forfeited currency and monetary instruments 240,124 63,113

Reimbursed storage costs 6,815 33,218

Assets shared with state and local agencies 75,684 75,685

Assets shared with other federal agencies 3,241 3,241

Assets shared with foreign countries 4,227 4,227

Victim Restitution 2,086 2,086

Destructions -- 39,861

Pending disposition -- 110,746 

332,177 332,177

Less: 

 Mortgages and claims (10,501) (10,501)

 Refunds (8,146) (8,146)

Add: 

Excess of net revenues and financing sources over total program

 expenses 

 -- --

Total $313,530 $313,530

The revenue amount of $313,530 is from the Statement of Net Position. This supplemental schedule “Analysis of 

Revenues, Expenses and Distributions” is required under the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992. Because the 

Fund does not have a cost accounting system, the method used does not provide reliable information in the analysis 

of revenue and expenses and distributions by type of disposition. The information is presented to comply with the 

requirements of the Treasury Forfeiture fund Act of 1992. 

75 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Information Required by 31 U.S.C. 9703(f) 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2005 

(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, 2005, the Fund had forfeited property 

held for sale of $43,622. 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 suspense account. Upon forfeiture, it is transferred to 

the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. At September 30, 2005, there was $4,933 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 $12,491 and total property 

transferred was $21,368 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, 2004 which became the 

beginning balance for the Fund on October 1, 2004, as reported in the audited financial statements is 

$194,103. 

(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 $10,501. The 

amount actually paid on a cash basis was not materially different. 

SECTION V – OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 76
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Information Required by 31 U.S.C. 9703(f) 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2005 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

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: 

State and local $75,684 

Foreign countries 4,227 

Other federal agencies 3,241 

Victim restitution 2,086 

(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 $135,154. 

The amount of seized currency not on deposit in the Fund’s suspense account at September 30, 2005, 

was $59,803. This amount includes some funds in the process of being deposited at yearend; cash 

seized in August or September 2005, 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 $86,760 for fiscal year 

2005. 

(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: 

U.S. Customs Service $78,003 25 seizures 

IRS 242,629 78 seizures

(E) The total dollar value of uncontested seizures of monetary instruments having a value of over 

$100,000 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 $0. This is also documented on page 74. 

77 TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT – FISCAL YEAR 2005
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND 

Information Required by 31 U.S.C. 9703(f) 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2005 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

(F) The balance of the Fund at the end of the preceding fiscal year. 

The total net position of the Fund at September 30, 2005, as reported in the audited financial statements 

is $255,307. 

(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 2006 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, is found in Section II. 

(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 75. 

 

SECTION V – OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 78