If they didn't, they would never make a case. That's the problem, critics say, citing several high-profile drug cases in which federal agents have paid informants exorbitant fees, allowed them to lie under oath, ignored illegal activities, kept secret their deals for tips and testimony, and employed criminals who were arguably more dangerous than the targets themselves. Law enforcement officials say abuses are relatively few and are far outnumbered by the successful cases made against increasingly sophisticated organized crime groups, which are too vigilant and deadly to risk sending in agents undercover. It gets tougher and tougher to build cases. Critics, however, charge that in their zeal to run up arrest numbers and seize more and more property, agents often deal with sleazy people who will say and do anything to make a score.
Informants cost money, but exactly how much is impossible to document.
But the FBI, Customs Service and the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms declined to even estimate the number they handle. Obviously, no one really wants to keep the exact number of informants and amount paid them, because most intelligent people know that the system is being distorted by all the selling of information. But without help on the inside, say federal agents, crime rings are difficult, if not impossible, to crack. Such shortcuts, say two former agents, are increasingly the problem, often replacing old- fashioned undercover and surveillance work while allowing overeager agents to be easily manipulated into believing any kind of tip. Michael Levine, a retired DEA agent who worked with hundreds of informants during his 25-year career, said they were crucial to most of his successful cases but are increasingly being used in a numbers game.