Combating Alien Smuggling: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Federal Response
Published: 2005-05-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Globally, alien smuggling generates billions of dollars in illicit revenues annually and poses a threat to the nation's security. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March 2003 has provided an opportunity to use financial investigative techniques to combat alien smugglers by targeting and seizing their monetary assets. For instance, the composition of DHS's largest investigative component--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)--includes the legacy Customs Service, which has extensive experience with money laundering and other financial crimes. Another DHS component, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has primary responsibility for interdictions between ports of entry. In summer 2003, ICE announced that it was developing a national strategy for combating alien smuggling. Among other objectives, GAO determined the implementation status of the strategy and investigative results in terms of convictions and seized assets.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As of April 2005, ICE had not finalized its strategy for combating alien smuggling. ICE was adjusting the draft strategy to focus on the southwest border and encompass all aspects of smuggling, aliens as well as drugs and other contraband. In adjusting the strategy, ICE officials stressed the importance of incorporating lessons learned from ongoing follow-the-money approaches such as Operation ICE Storm, a multi-agency task force launched in October 2003 to crack down on migrant smuggling and related violence in Arizona. Also, the strategy's effectiveness depends partly on having clearly defined roles and responsibilities for ICE and CBP, two DHS components that have complementary antismuggling missions. In this regard, ICE and CBP signed a memorandum of understanding in November 2004 to address their respective roles and responsibilities, including provisions for sharing information and intelligence. Currently, however, there is no mechanism in place for tracking the number and the results of referrals made by CBP to ICE for investigation. CBP and ICE officials acknowledged that establishing a tracking mechanism could have benefits for both DHS components. Such a mechanism would help ICE ensure that appropriate action is taken on the referrals. Also, CBP could continue to pursue certain leads if ICE--for lack of available resources or other reasons--cannot take action on the referrals. In fiscal year 2004, about 2,400 criminal defendants were convicted in federal district courts under the primary alien-smuggling statute, and ICE reported seizures totaling $7.3 million from its alien-smuggling investigations. For the first 6 months of fiscal year 2005, ICE reported $7.8 million in seizures from alien-smuggling investigations. A concern raised by ICE and the Department of Justice is the lack of adequate statutory civil forfeiture authority for seizing real property, such as "stash" houses where smugglers hide aliens while awaiting payment and travel arrangements to final destinations throughout the nation. However, Justice does not have a legislative proposal on this subject pending before Congress because the department's legislative policy resources have been focused on other priorities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Globally, alien smuggling generates illicit revenues estimated to total  billions of dollars annually and is recognized as a significant and growing  problem that can pose a serious threat to the security of the United States,  a primary destination country. Our May 2000 report noted that although it  is likely that most aliens smuggled into the United States seek economic  opportunities, some are brought into the United States as part of criminal  or terrorist enterprises. This concern has heightened since September 11,  2001. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March  2003 has provided new opportunities to more effectively combat alien  smuggling, particularly in reference to using financial investigative  techniques to target and seize the monetary assets of smuggling  organizations. For instance, the department’s largest investigative  component—U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)— integrates the legal authorities and investigative tools of the legacy  Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Customs Service,  which has extensive experience in combating money laundering and other  financial crimes.
Accordingly, at congressional hearings in June and July 2003, ICE officials  testified that ICE was developing a national strategy to dismantle criminal  and terrorist organizations that smuggle or traffic in people by tracing and  stripping away their monetary assets. This report addresses the following  principal questions:    What is the implementation status of ICE’s strategy for combating alien  smuggling, particularly regarding efforts to use financial investigative  techniques to follow the money trail and seize the monetary assets of  smuggling organizations?
Since the creation of DHS and ICE, what results have been achieved  from alien-smuggling investigations in terms of prosecutions and  convictions, as well as seizures of smugglers’ monetary assets?
Also, to provide supplementary and contextual perspectives on the federal  response to alien smuggling, appendix III of this report presents an  overview of the roles of various federal agencies—DHS components such  as ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as  components of the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State; and  appendix IV discusses federal efforts to work with the governments of  source and transit countries to reduce the flow of smuggled aliens into the  United States.
To address these questions and topics, we interviewed responsible  officials at and reviewed relevant documentation obtained from the  Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury, and State and  their components. Regarding ICE’s strategy for combating alien smuggling,  we interviewed ICE officials to determine its implementation status and  the extent to which it includes a focus on following the money trail.  Regarding prosecutions and convictions in alien-smuggling cases, we  obtained relevant statistics from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.  Regarding seizures of monetary assets, we obtained data from the federal  government’s applicable asset forfeiture funds. We discussed the sources  of these data with federal agency officials and worked with them to  resolve any inconsistencies. We determined that the data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this review. Also, to more fully understand and  illustrate the results of alien-smuggling investigations, we identified and  summarized recent alien-smuggling cases prosecuted in federal district  courts in three districts—the District of Arizona, the Southern District of  California, and the Southern District of Texas—each of which is  coterminous with the U.S.-Mexico, or southwest, border (see app. V). To  identify recent alien-smuggling cases federally prosecuted in these  districts, we reviewed press releases issued by the respective U.S.  Attorney’s Office during January through June 2004. We discussed each of  these cases with U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE officials. Because these  cases were selected using a nonprobabilistic method, they are not  representative of all cases in the districts or nationwide. We conducted  our work from April 2004 to March 2005 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I presents more details  about our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: By definition, alien smuggling (sometimes called people smuggling or  human smuggling) is transnational in that it involves more than one  country and also usually involves persons who have consented to be  transported to another country. This activity generally produces short- term profits for the smugglers. That is, after the aliens reach their final  destinations, they have no continuing relationship with the smugglers. In  legal and diplomatic references, alien smuggling is distinct from human  trafficking, although both smuggling and trafficking may have similarities  or common elements. In human trafficking, the criminality and human  rights abuses—such as coercion for prostitution, labor sweat shops, or  other exploitative purposes and servitude arrangements—may continue  after the migrants reach the United States in order to produce both short- term and long-term profits. Whereas a trafficked person is a victim, an  alien who consents to be smuggled is subject to criminal processing and  deportation.
Given the underground nature of alien smuggling, exact figures quantifying  the size or scope of this transnational crime are not available. Nonetheless,  estimates by the United Nations and the federal law enforcement and  intelligence communities indicate that people smuggling is a huge and  highly profitable business worldwide, involving billions of dollars  annually, and the United States is a major destination country. People  smuggling is a continuously growing phenomenon, according to the  International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). The types of  smugglers can range from opportunistic business owners who seek cheap  labor to well-organized criminal groups that engage in alien smuggling,  drug trafficking, and other illegal activities. Partly because of increased  border monitoring by governments, Interpol has noted that criminal  networks increasingly control the transnational flow of migrants. That is,  willing illegal migrants increasingly rely on the services of criminal  syndicates that specialize in people smuggling, even though traveling  conditions may be inhumane and unsafe.
Alien smuggling generally is prosecuted under section 274 of the  Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits knowingly or recklessly  bringing in, transporting, or harboring certain aliens. Depending on the  conduct charged, a conviction under section 274 could result in a  maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment per alien smuggled.  Moreover, significant enhanced penalties are provided for some section  274 violations that involve serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy.  If certain violations result in the death of any person, the convicted  defendant may be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or be  subjected to a death sentence. Other federal criminal statutes may also be  applicable. Specifically, alien-smuggling-related offenses are among the list  of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations predicate offenses (18  U.S.C. § 1961(1)) and also are included within the definition of specified  unlawful activity for purposes of the money-laundering statute (18 U.S.C. §  1956). Further, criminal and civil forfeiture statutes may apply to alien- smuggling cases.
Although ICE is a primary DHS component for investigating alien  smuggling, combating the smuggling of aliens into the United States can  involve numerous federal agencies, as well as the cooperation and  assistance of foreign governments. In addition to ICE, other relevant DHS  components are the Border Patrol (a “front-line defender”), which is now  part of CBP, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which is tasked with enforcing  immigration law at sea. Additionally, significant roles in combating alien  smuggling are carried out by Department of Justice components, including  the Criminal Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and U.S.  Attorney’s Offices, and Department of the Treasury components, such as  Internal Revenue Service (Criminal Investigation) and the Financial  Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Further, Department of State  components have significant roles. For instance, the Bureau of Diplomatic  Security—the law enforcement arm of the State Department—is  statutorily responsible for protecting the integrity of U.S. travel  documents. Perhaps the most coveted and sought after travel documents  in the world are U.S. passports and visas. Alien smuggling and travel  document fraud often are inextricably linked.
The March 2003 creation of DHS, including its largest investigative  component (ICE), ushered in an opportunity for developing a strategy to  combat alien smuggling by, among other means, using financial  investigative techniques. Two months later, in May 2003, ICE used such  techniques to follow the money and prosecute the perpetrators of a  smuggling operation that had resulted in the deaths of 19 aliens in Victoria,  Texas. The Victoria 19 case has been cited by ICE as representing a new  model for fighting alien smuggling—a model that ICE (1) subsequently  used to launch a multi-agency task force (Operation ICE Storm) in the  Phoenix (Arizona) metropolitan area and (2) reportedly was using to  develop ICE’s national “Antismuggling/Human-Trafficking Strategy.”
section_title: ICE’s Strategy for Combating Alien Smuggling Not Yet Issued
paragraphs: Although its development was announced as early as June 2003, a national  strategy for combating alien smuggling had not been finalized and  implemented by ICE as of April 2005. In the absence of a national strategy  to combat alien smuggling, including investigating the money trail, ICE  used various means to provide interim guidance to investigators. ICE  officials indicated that the draft strategy was being adjusted to broadly  cover all aspects of smuggling—encompassing aliens, as well as drugs and  other illegal contraband—and to focus initially on the southwest border.  The strategy’s continuing development period is attributable partly to  organizational and training needs associated with integrating the separate  and distinct investigative functions of the legacy INS and the U.S. Customs  Service, following creation of DHS in March 2003. Also, ICE and CBP— two DHS components with complementary antismuggling missions— signed a memorandum of understanding in November 2004 to address  their respective roles and responsibilities, including provisions to ensure  proper and timely sharing of information and intelligence. Such sharing is  critical to achieving ICE’s investigative objective of determining “how each  single violation ties into the larger mosaic of systemic vulnerabilities and  organized crime.” The ability to make such determinations should be  enhanced when DHS components have compatible or interoperable  information technology systems—which is a long-term goal of an ongoing,  multiyear project called the Consolidated Enforcement Environment.  Currently, however, there is no mechanism in place for tracking the  number and the results of referrals or leads made by CBP to ICE for  investigation, including even whether ICE declined to act on the referrals.  Without such a mechanism, there may be missed opportunities for  identifying and developing cases on large or significant alien-smuggling  organizations. For instance, if a tracking mechanism were in place, CBP  could continue pursuing certain leads if ICE—for lack of available  resources or other reasons—does not take action on the referrals.
subsections: section_title: National Strategy Announced as Early as June 2003 Is Still in Draft and Has Changed to Focus on the Southwest Border
paragraphs: At congressional hearings in June and July 2003, ICE officials testified that  ICE was developing a strategy—the Antismuggling/Human-Trafficking  Strategy—to address alien smuggling and human trafficking at the national  and international levels. The strategy was to concentrate ICE’s efforts in  intelligence-driven investigations against major violators, specifically  targeting organizations with ties to countries that support terrorist  organizations such as al Qaeda. A strategic goal was to dismantle the  criminal and terrorist organizations that smuggle or traffic in people by  tracing and stripping away their monetary assets.
In May 2004, in response to our initial inquiry, ICE headquarters officials  told us that the national Antismuggling/Human-Trafficking Strategy was  still in draft and was being vetted among DHS components. In October  2004, the officials told us that ICE was narrowing the initial focus of the  strategy to the southwest border, between the United States and Mexico— the most active area in terms of smuggling activity and open  investigations. The officials explained that ICE was developing a  comprehensive southwest border strategy, given the anticipated  displacement of smuggling activity to other areas along the border  resulting from Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona Border Control  Initiative (see app. II). In further elaboration, ICE headquarters officials  said that the southwest border strategy would broadly cover all aspects of  smuggling to encompass aliens as well as drugs and other illegal  contraband. The officials explained that lessons learned—based, for  example, on the results of Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona Border  Control Initiative—indicated that criminal enterprises tend to smuggle not  only people but also drugs, weapons, counterfeit trade goods, and other  illegal contraband. The ICE officials emphasized that it was important to  incorporate these lessons learned into the southwest border strategy  before issuing it. Also, the officials noted that irrespective of whether  smuggling involves aliens or contraband, ICE can use similar investigative  techniques for following the money trail.
In April 2005, ICE officials told us that the draft southwest border strategy  was in the final stages of review; had been vetted with CBP, which is ICE’s  closest partner in the antismuggling arena; and was expected to be  implemented within the next 30 to 60 days. Moreover, the officials said  that, following a certain period of implementation, the southwest border  strategy would be evaluated and expanded into a nationwide strategy. The  officials noted, for instance, that although there is no one law enforcement  strategy totally effective in all areas of the nation, the methodologies  applied in Arizona with both Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona Border  Control Initiative would be evaluated and tailored for use in other parts of  the country.
section_title: Continuing Development Period for ICE’s Strategy Attributable Partly to Organizational and Training Needs
paragraphs: “The integration of INS and Customs investigators into a single investigative program has  involved blending two vastly different workforces, each with its own culture, policies,  procedures, and mission priorities. Both programs were in agencies with dual missions that  prior to the merger had differences in investigative priorities. For example, INS primarily  looked for illegal aliens and Customs primarily looked for illegal drugs. In addition, INS  investigators typically pursued administrative violations, while Customs investigators  typically pursued criminal violations.”
Thus, at the outset of ICE’s formation in March 2003, a substantial amount  of cross-training was needed regarding the relevant enforcement functions  and authorities of the respective legacy agencies. As of October 1, 2003,  for example, ICE had about 2,400 legacy INS agents who were not trained  on the subject of money laundering or financial investigative techniques.
Equally important, legacy Customs agents had to obtain training and  experience in handling immigration-related cases. In several aspects, alien- smuggling cases can be challenging and time-consuming. ICE and CBP  officials noted, for example, that alien-smuggling cases usually involve  language and humanitarian issues, as well as logistical challenges and  difficulties (e.g., transporting, housing, and processing aliens). Also, the  officials explained that certain investigative techniques, such as controlled  delivery operations used to develop drug-trafficking cases, are either very  difficult or unavailable in alien-smuggling cases because humans are  involved. Further, the officials said that unlike drug-trafficking cases  where the contraband itself is proof of the illegal activity, the successful  prosecution of alien-smuggling cases relies on the availability of material  witnesses (illegal migrants) who often get terrified before or during trial  and change their mind about testifying against smugglers. The officials  noted that this is an everyday phenomenon—partly because, in an alien- smuggling case, even the best witness is a party of interest to the crime.
section_title: Working Relationship between ICE and CBP Addressed in Memorandums of Understanding
paragraphs: The continuing development period for issuing and implementing an  antismuggling strategy also stems partly from the fact that the working  relationship between ICE and CBP is still evolving, as evidenced by two  memorandums of understanding signed by these DHS components in 2004.
subsections: section_title: ICE and CBP Agreement (April 2004)
paragraphs: The March 2003 formation of ICE raised issues about the future of the  antismuggling investigative units that the Border Patrol had established in  sectors and districts along the southwest border. About a year later, in  April 2004, ICE and CBP—two components within DHS—signed a  memorandum of understanding regarding the transition of the Border  Patrol’s former antismuggling units to ICE. The memorandum listed the  following general guidelines to facilitate the transition:  ICE would assume the full burden of administratively supporting,  equipping, and funding the antismuggling units. Existing equipment  would not be transferred from one DHS component to another unless  otherwise mutually agreed upon.
ICE would have lead responsibility for certain nationally designated  cases as well as Joint Terrorism Task Force cases.
The Border Patrol would have lead responsibility for all cross-border,  border-related interdiction activities, including check-point operations.
The Border Patrol and ICE would be jointly responsible for ensuring  the proper and timely sharing of information and intelligence.
The April 2004 memorandum of understanding also recognized a need to  develop a more comprehensive agreement regarding the working  relationship between ICE investigations and CBP.
section_title: ICE and CBP Agreement (November 2004)
paragraphs: In November 2004, ICE and CBP signed a second memorandum of  understanding, which acknowledged that the missions of the two DHS  components “are intricately connected and complementary.” The  memorandum stated, for instance, that ICE’s Office of Investigations has  primary responsibility for all investigations, while the Border Patrol has  primary responsibility for all interdictions between ports of entry. The  purpose of the November 2004 memorandum of understanding (a 14-page  document) was to comprehensively address the roles and responsibilities  of the Border Patrol and ICE’s Office of Investigations, including  provisions for sharing intelligence. To ensure proper and timely sharing of  information and intelligence, the memorandum stated that colocation of  the intelligence assets of ICE and the Border Patrol is a “best practice and  a policy preference.”
The November 2004 memorandum of understanding also contains  provisions requiring periodic implementation reviews, which are to be the  joint responsibility of the Assistant Secretary, ICE, and the Commissioner,  CBP. Specifically, the memorandum calls for joint reviews (1) 6 months  from the date of the memorandum, (2) 1 year after its initial effective date,  and (3) thereafter every 2 years or at any time requested by either party.  After these reviews are conducted, the Under Secretary for the Border and  Transportation Security Directorate (or his designee) is to concur with any  modifications to be made to the memorandum of understanding.
section_title: Interim Guidance in Absence of a Strategy
paragraphs: In the absence of a national strategy to combat alien smuggling, including  investigating the money trail, ICE used various means to provide interim  guidance to investigators. Such guidance included, for instance, the  formation of working groups with members from various field offices and  disciplines, as well as a presentation at a March 2004 conference of  special-agents-in-charge and attachés. Moreover, ICE said it continues to  provide guidance to the field in the form of training seminars and  managerial conferences. Also, ICE indicated that it has posted guidance  and policy memorandums to the field on its Web site, which is available  and accessible to agents at their desktops for reference. According to ICE,  the Web site is regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that the most  recent guidance is available to the field. Additionally, ICE officials said  that headquarters staff routinely travel to field offices to review ongoing  undercover operations and large-scale investigations to help ensure  compliance with existing policies and priorities. “is now evolving far beyond its initial designation as an umbrella financial program … and  represents the essence of what ICE …  should be striving for in all  disciplines. We should be focusing our resources on efforts that determine systemic  vulnerabilities that can be exploited by criminal organizations and terrorists … We should  be looking to examine all of our different investigative activities to see if there is  connectivity between them and to see if this connectivity provides evidence of systemic  vulnerabilities. … We may start each investigation with the most simple of border  violations, but we should always aim to see how each single violation ties into the larger  mosaic of systemic vulnerabilities and organized crime.”
Generally, the ability to identify connectivity or the larger mosaic depends  largely on the effectiveness of information and intelligence sharing by ICE  and CBP—whose working relationship is continuing to evolve. Also, the  necessary technology infrastructure is continuing to evolve, as discussed  in the following section.
section_title: Ongoing Project to Improve Information Technology Systems
paragraphs: A key aspect of implementing any antismuggling strategy is the  interagency sharing of information and intelligence. Such sharing is  critical to achieving ICE’s investigative objective of determining “how each  single violation ties into the larger mosaic of systemic vulnerabilities and  organized crime.” This analytical connectivity ability should be enhanced  when DHS components have interoperable information technology  systems—the goal of an ongoing, multiyear project (the Consolidated  Enforcement Environment).
The ongoing Consolidated Enforcement Environment project is a  department-level information technology initiative to address the  enforcement and investigative needs of DHS components—ICE, CBP  (including the Border Patrol), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,  Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Secret  Service. In December 2004, ICE officials told us that the initiative was still  in the conceptual stage.
In further perspective, the Consolidated Enforcement Environment  project is part of a larger initiative—the Federal Investigative Case  Management System—that envisions a “common solution platform” to be  used governmentwide to support the missions of investigative agencies.  Here again, this initiative is in its early stages. In September 2004, DHS and  the Department of Justice jointly released a “request for information” and  scheduled an “industry day” to seek submission of product/solution  descriptions that would allow investigative agencies to “systematically  build new and/or evolve existing case management systems into common  case management architecture throughout the federal government.” An  interim goal is to have the system’s architecture reflected in business  cases submitted for the fiscal year 2006 budget review. The envisioned  common system architecture could have particular relevance for managing  alien-smuggling cases, given that various federal agencies—including  components of the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, the  Treasury, and State—can be involved in investigations (see app. III).
section_title: Opportunity for Increasing the Utility of Referrals from CBP to ICE
paragraphs: An important aspect of the working relationship between ICE and CBP  involves referrals of alien-smuggling leads for investigation. The Border  Patrol is the primary DHS component responsible for interdicting aliens  smuggled between ports of entry. Generally, after the Border Patrol makes  an interdiction, the smuggled aliens are separated from members (drivers,  guides, etc.) of the smuggling organization; interviews are conducted of  both groups; sworn statements are solicited from material witnesses;  fingerprints are taken; and other relevant information is accumulated.  Given the large annual volume of interdictions, the Border Patrol usually  refers to ICE’s Office of Investigations only those cases that it believes  involve a significant scope, violence, or other egregious circumstances. To  facilitate investigative efforts, the November 2004 memorandum of  understanding specified, for example, that the Border Patrol is to notify  ICE’s Office of Investigations of certain interdiction events, such as the  deaths of aliens, hostage situations, and the arrests of aliens from special  interest countries. During our review, ICE officials stressed to us the  importance of maximizing enforcement efforts by prioritizing  investigations to target the most egregious cases, such as criminal  organizations, violent offenders, and threats against U.S. security.
In addition to making notifications or referrals that result from tactical  interdictions, the Border Patrol also makes referrals to ICE based on more  in-depth or strategic analyses conducted by intelligence units. That is, the  Border Patrol’s intelligence units—which are located in each of the  organization’s 20 geographical sectors—routinely analyze alien-smuggling  interdictions to develop information on smuggling patterns and identify  leads warranting further investigation. For these leads, the Border Patrol  prepares and submits target or intelligence folders to ICE. In this regard,  the November 2004 memorandum of understanding specified that the  Border Patrol would actively prepare intelligence folders and forward  them to ICE on a case-by-case basis as the need arises.
The memorandum made no mention of tracking either the number or the  results of such referrals. Moreover, headquarters officials at both ICE and  CBP told us there was no mechanism in place for tracking the number and  the results of these referrals, including even whether ICE declined to act  on the referrals. ICE officials noted, however, that establishment of a  tracking mechanism would help ICE ensure that appropriate action is  taken on referrals. Also, in response to our inquiry at ICE headquarters,  the chief of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Unit said that  implementing a tracking mechanism could have benefits for both agencies,  particularly in reference to identifying opportunities for developing cases  on large or significant alien-smuggling organizations.
Similarly, CBP headquarters and field officials commented that having a  mechanism for tracking the disposition of investigative referrals to ICE  could have benefits for the Border Patrol. The officials noted, for instance,  that the Border Patrol could continue pursuing leads if ICE—for lack of  available resources or other reasons—does not take action on the  referrals. Further, the CBP officials said that having information on the  results of referrals—including, if applicable, the reasons for declinations— could help the Border Patrol develop better target or intelligence folders in  making referrals to ICE.
CBP officials also commented that implementing a tracking mechanism  probably would involve minimal costs while providing substantial benefits.  The CBP officials noted, for instance, that such a mechanism could consist  of recording referrals and monitoring progress or dispositions.
section_title: Prosecutions and Convictions Pursued in Alien-Smuggling Cases; Asset Seizures Expected to Increase
paragraphs: About 2,400 criminal defendants were convicted in federal district courts  in fiscal year 2004 under the primary alien-smuggling statute. According to  federal officials we interviewed, most alien-smuggling prosecutions stem  from reactive or interdiction-type cases at the border, wherein in-depth  investigations to follow a money trail either are not warranted or are  precluded by resource and time constraints. For fiscal year 2004, ICE  reported seizures totaling $7.3 million from its alien-smuggling  investigations—plus an additional $5.3 million generated by the state of  Arizona under Operation ICE Storm. Officials at Treasury’s Executive  Office for Asset Forfeiture told us they anticipate that ICE will have  increased seizures in fiscal year 2005 or later, as ICE further applies its  financial and money-laundering expertise to address alien smuggling.  Similarly, ICE officials anticipate increased seizures. In this regard, for the  first 6 months of fiscal year 2005, ICE reported seizures of $7.8 million  from alien-smuggling investigations. Also, according to Justice and ICE  officials, federal efforts to dismantle smuggling organizations could be  enhanced by civil forfeiture authority for real property (such as stash  houses) used to facilitate alien smuggling.
subsections: section_title: Prosecutions of Alien Smugglers: More than 2,000 Convictions Annually
paragraphs: The principal federal statute used to prosecute alien smugglers is section  274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits knowingly or  recklessly bringing in, transporting, or harboring certain aliens. Under this  statute, which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324, federal prosecutors have  obtained more than 2,000 convictions annually since fiscal year 1999, as  table 1 shows.
Prosecutions of immigration offenses may result from either reactive or  proactive investigations. As the name implies, the first category (reactive  investigations) is analogous to instances where police officers encounter  and instantly react to street crimes as they occur. Whereas proactive  investigations generally have planning and targeting aspects and may  involve undercover operations and the use of electronic surveillance and  other long-term investigative techniques, including support from ICE’s  Asset Identification and Removal Groups, which are specialized units that  focus on locating, tracing, and seizing assets of criminal organizations.  Regarding table 1, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys data did not  indicate which cases resulted from proactive versus reactive  investigations.
section_title: Officials Reported That Most Immigration Offense Cases Are Reactive, but the Formation of ICE Has Provided an Opportunity for More Proactive Cases Using Financial Investigative Techniques
paragraphs: According to the federal officials we interviewed in three federal judicial  districts encompassing much of the southwest border—the District of  Arizona, the Southern District of California, and the Southern District of  Texas—the vast majority of immigration offense cases are reactive rather  than proactive. Officials noted, for instance, that most prosecutions result  from interdictions made by the Border Patrol, the front-line DHS  component that functions in a fast-paced operations tempo and  encounters a tremendous volume of instant cases, wherein in-depth  investigations either are not warranted or are precluded by resource and  time constraints.
Nevertheless, the creation of DHS—which included the formation of  ICE—has provided an opportunity for more proactive investigations of  alien-smuggling organizations, such as using financial investigative  techniques to follow the money trail from smuggling fees. ICE officials told  us that while many of the investigations opened by ICE are the result of  referrals from the Border Patrol and other law enforcement first- responders, ICE has always been involved in proactive investigations  related to alien smuggling and trafficking.
In response to our inquiry, officials in the Domestic Security Section of  Justice’s Criminal Division indicated that the creation of DHS was an  important development and has resulted in an investigative entity (ICE)  that can focus on asset forfeiture and money-laundering offenses as part of  significant alien-smuggling investigations. According to ICE  headquarters, significant investigations would include, for example, alien- smuggling networks identified by the targeting subgroup of the National  Security Council’s Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking Interagency Working  Group.
During our visits in September 2004 to ICE field offices responsible for  southwest border areas, we asked to review the files of any closed alien- smuggling cases that reflected the use of financial investigative techniques.  In response to our inquiries, the field office managers informed us that  their respective offices had not yet completely closed relevant cases. For  instance, ICE officials in the southern district of Texas said that they were  still tracing illegal proceeds in the Salman case involving the smuggling of  Chinese nationals, which is summarized in appendix V based on press  release information. ICE headquarters officials explained that criminal  investigations in which persons are targeted for prosecution and assets are  identified for seizure can remain open for 1, 2, or more years before being  completely closed. The officials noted that it is not uncommon for targeted  individuals to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced while seized assets  are still pending final disposition through civil or criminal forfeiture  proceedings.
Also, during our field visits in September 2004, we asked U.S. Attorney’s  Office officials for their observations regarding whether there has been an  increasing emphasis on the financial aspects of alien-smuggling  investigations since the creation of DHS and ICE. In Arizona, federal  prosecutors emphasized that Operation ICE Storm is a clear indication of  ICE’s efforts to become more proactive in alien-smuggling investigations.  Also, federal prosecutors in Texas (Houston) said the money trail is being  pursued when appropriate, such as proactive cases involving smuggling  organizations that are based in the Far East (e.g., Thailand and certain  provinces in the People’s Republic of China) and have networks in Latin  America and Mexico. The federal officials noted that investigations of  these cases may include FBI participation and the use of undercover  agents and electronic surveillance and may result in assets being seized  and suspects being charged with money laundering and violations of the  Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
In December 2004, ICE headquarters officials told us that ongoing alien- smuggling cases in other areas of the nation—Florida, Georgia, New York,  and Washington—were also using financial investigative techniques and  are expected to result in substantial seizures. Because these cases were  ongoing, the officials declined to provide specific details, other than  information already made available to the public. For example, according  to ICE or U.S. Attorney’s Office news releases:    Southern District of Florida: Sixteen people were arrested in  December 2004, following an investigation conducted by ICE in Miami,  New York, and Ecuador. Using immigration documents provided by  undercover agents, the defendants participated in smuggling  Ecuadorian and Chinese nationals into the United States by  commercial airline. The criminal organizations behind the scheme  charged as much as $20,000 per alien.
Northern District of Georgia: In November 2004, federal indictments  were unsealed regarding 19 defendants allegedly connected with an  illegal-alien-smuggling conspiracy. According to the indictments, the  defendants employed hundreds of undocumented aliens in various gas  station/convenience stores in the Atlanta metropolitan area as a means  of attaining higher profits through nonpayment of overtime  compensation, nonpayment of employer-share taxes, and nonpayment  of mandatory employee benefits. Forfeitures amounting to “millions of  dollars” are being sought.”
Northern District of New York: From January 1999 through November  17, 2004, the defendants, all operators of various Chinese buffet  restaurants in Albany, Schenectady, Saratoga, Columbia, and Dutchess  Counties, used illegal aliens of Chinese and Mexican nationality as  workers in their restaurants and laundered proceeds from the  operation of those restaurants. Forfeitures are being sought relating to  more than 40 bank accounts, as well as vehicles (allegedly used during  the commission of the offenses) and parcels of real property (allegedly  purchased with the illegal proceeds).
Western District of Washington: In November 2004, the defendant— who had admitted to organizing a scheme whereby Cambodian  children were taken from their families and represented on  immigration forms as orphans for adoption by American families—was  sentenced to 18 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, 300  hours of community service, and more than $60,000 in restitution. Also,  the defendant was ordered to forfeit the proceeds of the crime to the  government—a home in Hawaii worth $1.4 million and a Jaguar car  (approximately $25,000).
More recently, in April 2005, ICE officials emphasized to us that ICE has  many ongoing investigations in which criminal organizations are targeted  for alien smuggling violations and their assets are being targeted for  seizure. The officials declined to provide specific details because  disclosure of information could compromise the ongoing investigations.
section_title: Alien-Smuggling Cases: ICE Reported Seizures Totaling $7.3 Million in 2004
paragraphs: For fiscal year 2004, ICE reported seizures totaling $7.3 million from alien- smuggling investigations, as table 2 shows.
Also, under Operation ICE Storm, the state of Arizona had generated an  additional $5.3 million in seizures, as of September 2004 (see app. II).  Further, at the time of our visit to Phoenix in September 2004, ICE officials  told us that the most significant alien-smuggling cases under Operation  ICE Storm were still being developed. The officials anticipated that several  major smuggling organizations would be the subjects of arrests and  indictments in the coming months. In October 2004, for example, ICE and  the Arizona Attorney General’s Office announced that a multi-agency  investigation had resulted in state grand jury indictments of 21 individuals  involved in providing criminal groups with used cars for smuggling illegal  immigrants, drugs, or cash. According to ICE, 11 used car lots located in  the Phoenix metropolitan area were shut down, and 349 cars worth almost  $1.4 million were seized by ICE and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
To obtain additional perspectives on the results of alien-smuggling  investigations in terms of recovered funds or seized assets, we contacted  Treasury’s Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, which provides  management oversight of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund—the receipt  account for the deposit of nontax forfeitures made pursuant to laws  enforced or administered by the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal  Investigation and DHS components (including ICE, CBP, the U.S. Secret  Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard). Regarding fund deposits since October  2003 that resulted from alien smuggling cases, Executive Office for Asset  Forfeiture officials commented (in July 2004) substantially as follows:    Fund deposits are not tracked by type of case. All member agencies are  mandated to deposit forfeited funds regardless of the type of  investigation.
Anecdotally, however, as of July 2004, the Executive Office for Asset  Forfeiture has had no real experience with alien-smuggling  investigations that resulted in substantial enforcement actions  (seizures with a value of more than $100,000). But substantial  investigations of any kind (except bulk cash smuggling) go through the  judicial process, which in many cases takes 1 to 3 years from the date  of seizure to perfect the forfeiture. “FY 2004 was a robust and unprecedented revenue year for the law enforcement bureaus  participating in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, with over $335 million from all sources. … It  is our view that the greatest damage to criminal enterprise can be effected 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 2004 we exceeded our target significantly with 84 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.”
To illustrate the types of investigative cases worked by the fund’s law  enforcement agencies, the report gave summary highlights of 33 cases— IRS (17 cases), CBP (8 cases), ICE (5 cases), U.S. Secret Service (2 cases),  and U.S. Coast Guard (1 case). None of the 33 case summaries referenced  alien smuggling. The 5 ICE cases involved, respectively, a bank scam, an  adult video store and other businesses seized for racketeering, counterfeit  cigarette traffickers, a counterfeit motion picture network, and a church  fraud scheme. Of the 17 IRS cases, 5 were narcotics-related investigations,  and another 3 involved bulk-cash seizures in south Texas of approximately  $370,000; $993,000; and $5.3 million, respectively. Also, of the 8 CBP  cases, 4 involved bulk-cash seizures—Nogales, Arizona (about $464,000);  Eagle Pass, Texas (about $518,000); and 2 separate seizures at Rouses  Point, New York (about $991,000 and $995,000).
section_title: Alien-Smuggling Cases: Asset Seizures Expected to Increase, although There Are Caveats
paragraphs: Treasury’s Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture officials told us they  anticipate that ICE’s alien-smuggling investigations will begin having an  impact on the fund in fiscal year 2005 or later. The officials explained that,  over time, if ICE applies the financial and money-laundering expertise of  the former Customs Service special agents to address alien smuggling, ICE  should develop an immigrations investigations program on par with the  narcotics, money-laundering, trade, and export programs—each of which  produces significant asset forfeiture revenue. For instance, according to  the Treasury officials, it is not uncommon for export or trade cases to  render plea agreements for cash forfeitures of tens of millions of dollars.
ICE headquarters officials also told us they anticipate that alien-smuggling  investigations will begin having an impact on the Treasury Forfeiture Fund  in fiscal year 2005 and future years. For the first 6 months of fiscal year  2005, ICE reported seizures totaling $7.8 million from alien-smuggling  investigations, as table 3 shows.
Generally, regarding asset seizures and forfeitures from alien-smuggling  investigations, ICE officials noted that there can be competing demands  for investigative resources. The mission of ICE’s Office of Investigations— which has more than 5,000 agents in 26 field offices nationwide— encompasses a broad array of national security, financial, and smuggling  violations, including narcotics smuggling, financial crimes, illegal arms  exports, commercial fraud, child pornography/exploitation, immigration  fraud, and human trafficking. Regarding immigration enforcement, the  Office of Investigations is responsible not only for deterring, dismantling,  and diminishing the smuggling and trafficking of aliens but also for  minimizing immigrant benefit fraud, removing employers’ access to  undocumented workers, and responding to community complaints about  illegal immigration. Nationally, about 7 percent of ICE’s total investigative  hours were devoted to alien-smuggling cases in fiscal year 2004. As noted  in table 4, these investigative hours included cases involving alien- smuggling organizations (5 percent), as well as individuals and groups (2  percent).
In its technical comments on a draft of this report, DHS noted that other  investigative programs conducted by ICE involve criminal organizations  that profit, wholly or in part, from alien smuggling. Specifically, DHS said  that the percentage of ICE’s total investigative hours devoted to alien- smuggling cases in fiscal year 2004 could be up to 29 percent when, in  addition to the 7 percent statistic, other relevant investigative programs  are considered (see table 4)—criminal alien (12 percent), identity and  benefit fraud (5 percent), Joint Terrorism Task Force (3 percent), and  human trafficking (2 percent). In providing an overall perspective  regarding ICE investigative resources devoted to alien-smuggling cases,  we agree that the 7 percent statistic is properly supplemented by other  investigative programs. However, reporting a 29 percent statistic may be  overreaching, given that these other programs may only partly involve  alien smuggling.
In further reference to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, ICE headquarters  officials cautioned that alien-smuggling cases, in comparison with drug  cases, are much less likely to result in seizures of money. The officials  explained that almost all drug deals are conducted in cash; therefore, it is  not unusual for law enforcement to arrest criminals handling hundreds of  thousands or even millions of dollars in drug money. In contrast, the  officials noted that alien-smuggling fees per person generally involve  smaller amounts that are paid by wire transfers, which present law  enforcement the challenge of identifying consolidation points. ICE  officials said that wire transfers reflect a developing trend by alien  smugglers to exploit money services—a trend that ICE is addressing. For  instance, the officials noted that the use of wire transfers by criminal  organizations has been aggressively investigated during Operation ICE  Storm and the Arizona Border Control Initiative.
From another perspective, Canadian immigration and law enforcement  officials, including Royal Canadian Mounted Police representatives, told  us that alien-smuggling cases that result in seizures of money can be  considered a bonus—that is, such results are more the exception than the  norm. However, even absent seizures of money or other assets from alien  smugglers, ICE headquarters and field office officials stressed to us the  importance and utility of applying financial investigative expertise in  appropriate cases. The officials noted that such investigative expertise is  very useful for determining the scope and operational patterns of alien- smuggling organizations, identifying the principals, and obtaining evidence  to build prosecutable cases. As a case in point, the officials cited the  Victoria 19 case (see app. II), which they described as being very  successful in dismantling a smuggling organization, even though the case  did not produce substantial asset seizures or forfeitures.
section_title: According to Justice and ICE, Civil Forfeiture Authority Is Not Adequate to Seize Stash Houses Used by Alien Smugglers
paragraphs: Regarding potential forfeitures in alien-smuggling cases, Justice and ICE  headquarters officials said a concern for investigators is the lack of  adequate statutory civil forfeiture authority for seizing real property— particularly stash houses used by smugglers. Asset forfeiture law has long  been used by federal prosecutors and law enforcement as a tool for  punishing criminals and deterring further illegal activity. For instance, as a  result of the government’s seizure of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft used to  traffic drugs or smuggle aliens, criminals are prevented from using the  property to commit new crimes. Under current federal law, the  government has both criminal and civil forfeiture authority, but its  availability depends on several factors, including whether there has been a  conviction for the underlying offense and the nature of that offense.
subsections: section_title: Criminal Forfeiture Authority: Not Available for Fugitive Defendants or Property Owners Not Indicted
paragraphs: “shall order that the person forfeit to the United States, regardless of any provision of State  law—(i) any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used in the commission  of the offense of which the person is convicted; and (ii) and property real or personal—(I)  that constitutes, or is derived from or is traceable to the proceeds obtained directly or  indirectly from the commission of the offense of which the person is convicted; or (II) that  is used to facilitate, or is intended to be used to facilitate, the commission of the offense of  which the person is convicted.”
Before the resolution of a criminal forfeiture action, there must be a  conviction of the defendant based on a high evidentiary standard—the  beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Thus, irrespective of the type of  criminal offense involved, the criminal forfeiture authority is not available  for seizing the property of alleged felons who have fled to avoid  prosecution.
Additionally, in alien-smuggling cases, the use of the criminal forfeiture  authority is rarely an option for seizing rented real property (e.g., stash  houses) used to facilitate the offense. In many alien-smuggling cases,  according to Justice and ICE, the real properties at issue are not owned by  the smugglers; rather, the properties are rental units, often in distressed  areas. Justice and ICE noted that evidence that the owner of a rented stash  house knew about the illegal activity and intentionally ignored it is not  sufficient to indict the owner for smuggling, and there is rarely evidence of  greater involvement in the offense by the owner; as a result, the criminal  forfeiture option is not available in such cases.
section_title: Civil Forfeiture Authority: Innocent Owners Have Statutory Protections
paragraphs: In contrast to criminal forfeiture procedure, civil forfeiture, in which the  government seizes real property and initiates a civil action to forfeit the  property, does not require that the owner of the property be charged with  a federal offense. Rather, the action is against the property, and the  government would have to demonstrate that the property is subject to  forfeiture under the applicable civil forfeiture statute for the underlying  offense. If the government is able to do so, the burden would shift to the  property owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or  she was an innocent owner. The innocent-owner defense is not available  to someone who intentionally turned a blind eye to the illegal use of his or  her property, although such an individual most likely could not be  convicted of the offense involved.
The innocent-owner defense and other substantive and procedural  protections were enacted as part of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act  of 2000 (CAFRA), which was intended to prevent abuses of civil asset  forfeiture law. Before CAFRA’s enactment, news articles and  congressional hearings recounted stories of innocent owners of motels or  air transport services who had lost their businesses trying to meet the legal  requirements for recovering their seized property. CAFRA eliminated or  modified some of these requirements. For example, the burden of proof  shifted to the government to show that the property was subject to  forfeiture, rather than the claimant having to prove that it was not. Also,  individuals seeking to recover their property no longer have to post a bond  in order to make a claim.
After CAFRA, in order to forfeit facilitating property that was purchased  with legitimately earned funds, the government must demonstrate a  substantial connection between the use of the property and the offense.  Before CAFRA, some courts had allowed such forfeitures based on a  weaker connection to the crime. CAFRA was written to create uniform  procedures for civil asset forfeiture, regardless of the nature of the  underlying offense. Moreover, CAFRA increased uniformity among the  substantive forfeiture statutes by creating a single definition of proceeds  of the offense, expanding statutes to allow forfeiture of proceeds if not  already allowed, and creating a single innocent-owner defense with clearer  criteria for invoking it. Although its focus was civil forfeiture, CAFRA also  amended the criminal asset forfeiture provision for alien-smuggling cases,  which had been inadvertently written in a manner that rendered it  inoperable when it was enacted as part of a larger package of legislation  addressing immigration law in 1996. There is no evidence in the CAFRA  legislative history that Congress considered expanding civil asset  forfeiture in alien-smuggling cases to include real property used to commit  the offense.
section_title: Civil Forfeiture Authority: Statutorily Limited in Alien- Smuggling Cases Compared to Other Criminal Offenses
paragraphs: “Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in  the commission of a violation of subsection (a) , the gross proceeds of  such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized  and subject to forfeiture.”
It is important to note that the civil forfeiture authority for alien smuggling  is not parallel to the criminal forfeiture provision. Most notably, the civil  provision does not include forfeiture of real property used to facilitate the  offense. Rather, the civil forfeiture provision addresses only personal  property, such as vessels, vehicles, and aircraft. Thus, under the civil  forfeiture statute for alien smuggling, a house used to hide the aliens,  conduct the alien-smuggling business, etc., could not be forfeited as  facilitating property.
This statutory limitation contrasts with provisions in other federal criminal  statutes, which do have parallel civil forfeiture provisions. That is, civil  forfeiture provisions applicable to various criminal offense categories— including drug trafficking, child pornography, and money laundering—are  available for seizing facilitating real property. For instance, if a house is  used to conduct drug transactions, store the drugs and money, etc., the  house can be forfeited as facilitating property. In the view of Justice and  ICE, regarding civil forfeiture authority for seizing facilitating real  property, the statutory distinction between alien smuggling and other  criminal offenses is inappropriate.
section_title: Justice and ICE Consider the Current Civil Forfeiture Authority Inadequate
paragraphs: “One of the major remaining omissions in the forfeiture statutes for alien smuggling  offenses is the lack of civil forfeiture authority over facilitating property other than vessels,  vehicles and aircraft. In particular, there is no civil forfeiture authority over real property  used to conceal illegal aliens or otherwise to facilitate the alien smuggling offense. … The  Department of Justice supports amending section 1324 to address this problem.”
An amendment to the civil forfeiture authority, according to Justice, would  enhance federal efforts to dismantle smuggling organizations because  would-be defendants often are fugitives, which makes criminal forfeiture  unavailable. Also, a civil forfeiture authority for real property used to  facilitate alien smuggling would enable the government to establish willful  blindness arguments against landlords who hope to profit from such  ventures without becoming directly involved. Justice officials told us in  April 2005, however, that the department does not have a legislative  proposal on this subject pending before Congress because the  department’s legislative policy resources have been focused on other  priorities.
We asked Justice whether there has been a broad analysis of investigative  case data to determine the scope and significance of the perceived  inadequacy of the current civil forfeiture authority—that is, an analysis to  provide a basis or justification for consideration of a legislative  amendment. In its response, Justice noted that statistics are not collected  on civil forfeiture cases that could not be brought, such as cases involving  real property held by fugitives or third parties that was used to facilitate  alien smuggling. However, Justice’s analysis of civil and criminal forfeiture  statutes generally has led the department to conclude that a statute that  provides only for criminal and not civil forfeiture of facilitating property  will be inadequate in such cases. In addition, Justice officials told us that  investigative experience with alien smuggling has convinced them that  such cases are numerous. Further, in March 2005, Justice provided us  summary examples of recent or pending alien-smuggling cases in which  real property used to facilitate the offense could not be forfeited because  of the absence of statutory civil forfeiture authority (see app. VI).  According to Justice, the summary examples provided are illustrative of  typical cases that recur with great frequency in federal judicial districts  along the southwest border.
Expanding civil forfeiture authority in alien-smuggling cases to include  real property used to facilitate the offense may raise some of the same  concerns addressed by CAFRA in 2000. These concerns include the  potential for abuse of this type of forfeiture and the adequacy of  protection for the rights of innocent property owners. CAFRA was  compromise legislation that was developed over several years by  Congress, the Executive Branch, and interest groups. Some observers felt  that the legislation did not provide enough reforms and protections, while  others felt that it went too far and would curtail a legitimate law  enforcement tool. The procedural protections in CAFRA included specific  requirements for real property forfeitures, such as notice and an  opportunity to be heard prior to seizure and judicial, as opposed to  administrative, forfeiture for all real property. CAFRA’s requirement that  the government prove a substantial connection between facilitating  property and the underlying offense also would apply to any expansion of  civil forfeiture authority in the alien-smuggling statute, absent a specific  exemption. Views as to whether these CAFRA protections were adequate  likely will affect whether expanding the civil forfeiture authority to include  real property used to facilitate alien smuggling is seen as striking an  appropriate balance of the law enforcement and the property interests  involved.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Creation of DHS in March 2003 has provided new opportunities to more  effectively combat alien smuggling, particularly in reference to using  financial investigative techniques to target and seize the monetary assets  of smuggling organizations.
However, after more than 2 years, the federal response to alien smuggling  is still evolving, including development and implementation of a strategy  to follow the money trail. Also evolving is the working relationship of ICE  and CBP, two DHS components that have the primary responsibility for  investigating and interdicting alien smugglers. Having clearly defined roles  and responsibilities for these components is important, given their  complementary antismuggling missions. In this regard, ICE’s and CBP’s  November 2004 memorandum of understanding did not address a  mechanism for tracking the number and the results of leads referred by  CBP to ICE for investigation. If a tracking mechanism were in place, CBP  could continue pursuing certain leads if ICE—for lack of available  resources or other reasons—does not take action on the referrals. As such,  a tracking mechanism would help to further ensure that large or  significant alien-smuggling organizations are identified and investigated.
Federal law enforcement has concerns that efforts to dismantle alien- smuggling organizations are constrained by the current absence of civil  forfeiture authority for real property used to facilitate the smuggling of  aliens. In contrast, for drug trafficking and various other criminal offense  categories, civil forfeiture authority is available for seizing real property  used to facilitate these crimes. Our review of CAFRA legislative history  found no evidence that Congress considered modifying this statutory  distinction when CAFRA was enacted. According to Justice and ICE, the  absence of civil forfeiture authority for real property used to facilitate the  smuggling of aliens is inappropriate because law enforcement is unable in  many cases to seize stash houses where smugglers hide aliens while  awaiting payment and travel arrangements to final destinations throughout  the nation. However, because its legislative policy resources have been  focused on other priorities, Justice has not developed and submitted a  legislative proposal to Congress.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the federal response to alien smuggling, we are making two  recommendations. Specifically, we recommend that  the Secretary of Homeland Security establish a cost-effective  mechanism for tracking the number and results of referrals by CBP to  ICE, and the Attorney General, in collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland  Security, consider developing and submitting to Congress a legislative  proposal, with appropriate justification, for amending the civil  forfeiture authority for real property used to facilitate the smuggling of  aliens.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for comment to the Departments of  Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury, and State. In its written  comments, DHS expressed general agreement with our findings and  outlined steps it planned to take to implement our recommendation on the  establishment of a cost-effective mechanism for tracking the number and  results of referrals by CBP to ICE.
DHS also raised a concern regarding interpretation of the data in table 4  (national overview of ICE’s investigative hours worked by program, fiscal  year 2004), noting that the percentage of ICE’s total investigative hours  devoted to alien-smuggling cases in fiscal year 2004 could be up to 29  percent when, in addition to the 7 percent statistic we reported, other  relevant investigative programs are considered.  In providing an overall  perspective regarding ICE investigative resources devoted to alien- smuggling cases, we agree that the 7 percent statistic is properly  supplemented by other investigative programs. However, reporting a 29  percent statistic may be overreaching, given that these other programs  may only partly involve alien smuggling.  The full text of DHS’s written  comments is reprinted in appendix VII.  DHS also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated in this report where appropriate.
We also received comments via e-mail from designated liaisons at the  Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State.  Justice agreed with our  recommendation to consider developing and submitting to Congress a  legislative proposal, with appropriate justification, for amending the civil  forfeiture authority for real property used to facilitate the smuggling of  aliens.  Treasury said that the report accurately and fairly portrayed the  department’s role in helping to identify, track, and attack the financing of  alien smuggling. Treasury did not comment on the two recommendations,  which were made to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney  General, respectively.   Similarly, State concurred with the report but did  not comment on the recommendations. Also, State provided one technical  comment, which we incorporated in this report where appropriate.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the  date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to  interested congressional committees and subcommittees. We will also  make copies available to others on request. In addition, this report will be  available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss  the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Danny Burton at  (214) 777-5600. Other key contributors to this report were Odilon Cuero,  Kathleen Ebert, Frances Cook, Jan Montgomery, Mary K. Muse, Maureen  Shields, and David Alexander.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Objectives
paragraphs: Our overall purpose was to study the federal response to alien smuggling,  especially efforts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its  largest investigative component, U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE). The key questions addressed were as follows:    What is the implementation status of ICE’s strategy for combating alien  smuggling, particularly regarding efforts to use financial investigative  techniques to follow the money trail and seize the monetary assets of  smuggling organizations?
Since the creation of DHS and ICE, what results have been achieved  from alien-smuggling investigations in terms of prosecutions and  convictions, as well as seizures of smugglers’ monetary assets?
Also, to provide supplementary and contextual perspectives on the federal  response to alien smuggling, we obtained overview information on (1) the  roles of various federal agencies—DHS components such as ICE and U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as components of the  Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State; and (2) federal efforts to  work with the governments of source and transit countries to reduce the  flow of smuggled aliens into the United States.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address these questions and obtain contextual perspectives, we  interviewed responsible officials at and reviewed relevant documentation  obtained from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, the  Treasury, and State and their components. Our work focused on alien  smuggling and not human trafficking, although both smuggling and  trafficking may have common elements. In legal and diplomatic  references, alien smuggling is distinct from human trafficking. By  definition, alien smuggling (sometimes called people smuggling or human  smuggling) involves more than one country—that is, alien smuggling  involves procuring illegal entry into a country of which the smuggled  person is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. Alien  smuggling usually involves persons who have consented to be transported  to another country, and this activity generally produces short-term profits  for the smugglers. That is, after the aliens reach their final destinations,  they have no continuing relationship with the smugglers. In contrast, the  criminality and human rights abuses associated with human trafficking— such as coercion for prostitution, labor sweat shops, or other exploitative  purposes and servitude arrangements—may continue after the migrants  reach the United States in order to produce both short-term and long-term  profits. Whereas a trafficked person is a victim, an alien who consents to  be smuggled is subject to criminal processing and deportation.
Initially, in addressing the key questions, we reviewed information  available on the Web sites of the Departments of Homeland Security,  Justice, the Treasury, and State. To obtain additional background and  overview perspectives, we conducted a literature search to identify  relevant reports, studies, articles, and other documents—including  congressional hearing testimony—regarding the federal response to alien  smuggling. For example, at congressional hearings in June and July 2003,  ICE officials testified that ICE was developing a strategy—the  Antismuggling/Human-Trafficking Strategy—to address alien smuggling  and human trafficking at the national and international levels and that the  strategy would concentrate ICE’s efforts in intelligence-driven  investigations against major violators, specifically targeting organizations  with ties to countries that support terrorist organizations such as al  Qaeda.
subsections: section_title: ICE’s Strategy for Combating Alien Smuggling
paragraphs: Regarding ICE’s strategy for combating alien smuggling, we interviewed  officials of relevant DHS components, particularly ICE, to determine the  status of the strategy’s development and implementation and the extent to  which it included a focus on investigating the money trail from smuggling  fees. The scope of our review was limited because ICE’s strategy for  combating alien smuggling had not been finalized as of April 2005. Rather,  ICE was in the process of adjusting the draft strategy to focus on the  southwest border and encompass all aspects of smuggling, aliens as well  as drugs and other contraband.
In the absence of a final strategy, we determined what interim guidance  ICE headquarters had disseminated to its field offices to ensure a focus on  following the money trail in alien-smuggling investigations. Also, we  obtained information about Operation ICE Storm, a multi-agency task  force launched in October 2003 to crack down on migrant smuggling and  related violence in Arizona by, among other means, targeting the monetary  assets of smuggling organizations (see app. II).
section_title: Results Achieved from Investigations
paragraphs: To determine the results that have been achieved from alien-smuggling  investigations in terms of prosecutions and convictions, we obtained  statistics from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Specifically, for  fiscal years 1995 through 2004, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys  provided us data on the number of defendants convicted (under 8 U.S.C. §  1324) in federal courts for smuggling unlawful aliens.
To determine the results that have been achieved from alien-smuggling  investigations in terms of recovered funds or seized assets, we contacted  managers of the federal government’s applicable asset forfeiture funds:    Asset seizures and forfeitures resulting from alien smuggling cases  accrued to the Department of Justice Forfeiture Fund in 2003 and  previous fiscal years, given that the legacy Immigration and  Naturalization Service was a component of Justice.
For 2004 and subsequent fiscal years, seizures and forfeitures made by  ICE accrue to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. The Department of the  Treasury’s Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture provides management  oversight of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, which is the receipt account  for the deposit of nontax forfeitures made pursuant to laws enforced or  administered by DHS components (including ICE, U.S. Customs and  Border Protection, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard)  and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation.
Further, we obtained perspectives from Justice and ICE on the usefulness  (and limitations) of statutory revisions (under the Civil Asset Forfeiture  Reform Act of 2000) that were intended to enhance the government’s  authority to pursue civil forfeiture of the gross proceeds of alien  smugglers.
Also, to more fully understand and illustrate the results of alien-smuggling  investigations, we identified and summarized recent cases that have been  prosecuted in three federal judicial districts—the District of Arizona, the  Southern District of California, and the Southern District of Texas (see  app. V). Each of these federal judicial districts is coterminous with the  U.S.-Mexico, or southwest, border. To identify alien-smuggling cases  federally prosecuted in these districts, we reviewed press releases issued  by the respective U.S. Attorney’s Office during January through June 2004.
In this 6-month period, the three districts issued press releases that  covered a collective total of 23 alien-smuggling cases—District of Arizona  (9), Southern District of California (3), and Southern District of Texas  (11). We discussed these cases with U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE  officials in each of the three districts. Because these cases were selected  using a nonprobabilistic method, they are not representative of all cases in  the districts or nationwide.
section_title: Other Departments’ Efforts to Help Address Alien Smuggling
paragraphs: To determine how the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State  have helped DHS address alien smuggling, particularly efforts of smugglers  to launder their proceeds, we interviewed component agency officials and  reviewed documentation regarding relevant initiatives, programs, task  forces, or other activities (see app. III). Also, from the applicable  components, we solicited examples of recent alien-smuggling cases that  agency officials considered to be significant, and we discussed with  agency officials the nature and extent of interagency cooperation in the  cases. A limitation is that these cases may not be representative of the  universe.
As an additional probe regarding interagency efforts, we obtained  information about the roles and functioning of relevant coordination  mechanisms, such as (1) the National Security Council’s Migrant  Smuggling and Trafficking Interagency Working Group, which has a  targeting subgroup to identify for investigation the most dangerous  international alien-smuggling networks, especially those that pose a threat  to national security and (2) the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center,  an interagency entity for disseminating intelligence and other information  to address the separate but related issues of alien smuggling, trafficking in  persons, and clandestine terrorist travel.
section_title: Working with Source and Transit Countries
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which federal entities have been working with  the governments of source and transit countries to reduce the flow of  smuggled aliens into the United States, we interviewed officials at and  reviewed documentation obtained from the Departments of Homeland  Security, Justice, the Treasury, and State (see app. IV). We focused on  relevant bilateral efforts with border nations (Mexico and Canada), as well  as other source and transit countries. We discussed bilateral efforts with  representatives of the Mexican and Canadian embassies in Washington,  D.C.
Regarding multilateral efforts, we contacted the Department of State to  obtain information about the implementation status of the “Protocol  against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air,” which is an  agreement supplementing the United Nations Convention against  Transnational Organized Crime.
section_title: Data Reliability
paragraphs: We conducted our work from April 2004 to March 2005 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards. Regarding the results  of alien-smuggling investigations—for example, convictions and asset  seizures and forfeitures—we discussed the sources of the data with  federal agency officials and worked with them to resolve any  inconsistencies. Similarly, regarding ICE investigative hours by program,  as well as analytical support provided for alien-smuggling cases by the  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, we discussed the sources of the  data with federal agency officials and worked with them to resolve any  inconsistencies. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of this review.
Also, appendix III summarizes Department of State data—such as the  number of passports issued and the number of arrests for passport fraud— that were presented in a fact sheet (dated May 12, 2004). Because these  data are used in our report only for background or contextual purposes,  we did not assess their reliability.
section_title: Appendix II: Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Has Provided New Opportunities for Combating Alien Smuggling
paragraphs: Creation of the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003 provided  new opportunities to more effectively combat alien smuggling by, among  other means, bringing to bear financial investigative techniques. In  particular, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—the largest  investigative component of DHS—integrates the legal authorities and  investigative tools of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service  and the Treasury Department’s U.S. Customs Service, which has extensive  experience in combating money laundering and other financial crimes.
subsections: section_title: Seminal Case Cited as New Model for Fighting Alien Smuggling
paragraphs: “ICE worked closely with other DHS components, local law enforcement, and intelligence  and law enforcement agencies in Mexico and Guatemala. Our unique combination of  investigative tools allowed us to follow the money, pinpoint the conspirators, and bring  them to justice. In one month’s period, ICE’s coordinated approach led to the arrest and  prosecution of 14 defendants in the United States and abroad.  “This success was the foundation for a new model for fighting smuggling, which we’ve now  taken to Arizona. ICE assembled a task force known as ‘Operation ICE Storm’ to combat  violent crime in the Phoenix metropolitan area.”
section_title: Operation ICE Storm Launched in Phoenix: A Focus on Targeting the Monetary Assets of Smuggling Organizations
paragraphs: “ICE … brings to bear a broad array of authorities and resources that make it uniquely  qualified to lead the fight against human smuggling. ICE agents will combine immigration,  smuggling, and financial investigative powers to attack the criminal rings from a variety of  levels. ICE’s financial investigations expertise, for example, will allow the task force to  follow the money trail in ways not previously possible. … A critical facet of ICE Storm  involves targeting the monetary assets of smuggling organizations. Authorities say  ‘following the money trail’ and crippling the organizations’ financial infrastructure is crucial  to disabling their operations.”
A key aspect of the initiative was formation of a task force consisting of  local, state, and federal agencies (see table 5)—including ICE’s  deployment of 50 additional special agents to the Phoenix area, which  effectively doubled the size of ICE’s field office there.
In September 2004, about 1 year after Operation ICE Storm was launched,  we visited Phoenix to discuss the progress and results of the initiative.
According to ICE officials, results as of September 20, 2004, included the  following:    Some $5.5 million in U.S. currency (funds potentially earmarked for  smuggling organizations) had been seized.
Some 275 persons had been arrested for alien smuggling or violence- related offenses. Of these, 36 had been charged with hostage taking,  which is punishable by a term of imprisonment up to life.
Some 5,013 smuggled aliens had been arrested. Of these, about 700 had  been held against their will by the smugglers, who were attempting to  extort additional payments.
Of the currency seized, the large majority ($5.3 million) resulted from  efforts conducted by state and local agency participants—e.g., the Arizona  Attorney General’s Office, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and  the Phoenix Police Department—in the multi-jurisdictional task force. ICE  officials noted that this success is due partly to the fact that Arizona’s laws  and judicial processes are more conducive (compared with federal laws  and processes) to using “sweeping or damming warrants” for seizing alien- smuggling-related funds being transmitted through money remittance  outlets. In this regard, the ICE officials commented that the ability to draw  upon and leverage the authorities and resources of all participants are  important advantages of the multi-agency law enforcement task force led  by ICE.
As of September 20, 2004, none of the seizures under Operation ICE Storm  involved real property, such as stash houses used by smugglers. However,  the Arizona Attorney General’s Office expects that a new state law enacted  in June 2004 will facilitate such seizures in the future. Sometimes referred  to in the vernacular as “coyote RICO” legislation, the new law allows a  house to be seized if there is evidence that it was used to facilitate the  smuggling of at least 15 immigrants a month.
Further, at the time of our visit to Phoenix, in September 2004, ICE  officials told us that the most significant alien-smuggling cases under  Operation ICE Storm were still being developed. The officials anticipated  that several major smuggling organizations would be the subjects of  arrests and indictments in the coming months. In October 2004, for  example, ICE and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office announced that a  multi-agency investigation had resulted in state grand jury indictments of  21 individuals involved in providing criminal groups with used cars for  smuggling illegal immigrants, drugs, or cash. According to ICE, 11 used car  lots located in the Phoenix metropolitan area were shut down, and 349  cars worth almost $1.4 million were seized by ICE and the Arizona  Attorney General’s Office.
Regarding seizures of currency under Operation ICE Storm, as of April  2005, ICE reported that the cumulative total had reached $7.4 million,  which consisted of $6.7 million seized by the state of Arizona and about  $654,000 seized federally.
section_title: Arizona Border Control Initiative Launched in March 2004
paragraphs: “We’re building on ICE Storm’s success with DHS’ Arizona Border Control initiative, in  which the vigorous application of money laundering and other federal and state statutes is  depriving smuggling organizations of the criminal proceeds, disrupting their operations and  decimating their organizational hierarchies in the United States and abroad.”
ICE officials have characterized Operation ICE Storm as the “investigative  component” of the Arizona Border Control Initiative. Also, ICE officials  noted that a majority of the efforts under the Arizona Border Control  Initiative are geared toward interdiction as opposed to investigation,  which means that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has a larger role  than ICE.
section_title: Expansion of Strategy Beyond Arizona
paragraphs: In May 2004, ICE reported that Special Agents-in-Charge of ICE’s offices in  Chicago, Denver, El Paso, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tucson, and Mexico  City had met in Phoenix to “review the strides made under ICE Storm and  evaluate how aspects of the strategy might be adapted to combat  smuggling activity beyond Arizona.” In July 2004, ICE reported that as a  result of the crackdown in Arizona:    Many criminal smuggling organizations were shifting their activities to  the Los Angeles area, where they hold the undocumented migrants  while arranging for transportation to destinations nationwide.
And, in response, DHS was placing teams (including ICE investigators  and Border Patrol agents) for operation at Los Angeles International  Airport—a key West Coast transportation hub used increasingly by  smugglers.
The placement and operation of enforcement teams at the Los Angeles  International Airport, according to ICE, was an outgrowth of the Arizona  Border Control Initiative. In October 2004, ICE headquarters officials told  us that ICE was developing a comprehensive southwest border strategy,  given the anticipated displacement of smuggling activity to other areas  along the border resulting from Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona  Border Control Initiative. Also, the officials noted that although there is no  one law enforcement strategy totally effective in all areas of the nation, the  methodologies applied in Arizona with both Operation ICE Storm and the  Arizona Border Control Initiative were being evaluated and tailored for  use in other parts of the country.
section_title: Appendix III: Federal Agencies Responsible for Combating Alien Smuggling
paragraphs: Although Department of Homeland Security components, particularly U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border  Protection, have primary roles in investigating and interdicting alien  smuggling, various other agencies—including components of the  Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and State—also have significant  roles. While not exhaustive, this appendix highlights some of the  antismuggling roles of various components of the Departments of  Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury, and State (see table 6) and  provides some examples of actual cases. Also, this appendix discusses two  coordination mechanisms used to help ensure that available resources are  effectively leveraged. One coordination mechanism is the National  Security Council’s Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking Interagency Working  Group, which is cochaired by State and Justice. The Interagency Working  Group has a targeting subgroup, whose role is to identify for investigation  and prosecution the most dangerous international alien smuggling  networks, especially those that pose a threat to national security. Another  coordination mechanism is the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center,  an interagency entity for disseminating intelligence and other information  to address the separate but related issues of alien smuggling, trafficking in  persons, and clandestine terrorist travel. Although its establishment was  announced in December 2000, the center was not operational until July  2004.
subsections: section_title: Department of Homeland Security and Its Components
paragraphs: DHS components that have immigration enforcement responsibilities  include ICE, CBP, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
paragraphs: ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS. ICE’s Office of Investigations  has field offices throughout the nation that are supported by various  divisions, including the Smuggling/Public Safety Division, whose  Smuggling/Human Trafficking Branch is responsible for overseeing  programs to identify, locate, disrupt, and prosecute criminal enterprises  that (1) bring, transport, harbor, and smuggle people into the United States  in violation of law or (2) engage in human trafficking. Also, assigned to  U.S. embassies throughout the world, ICE attachés are to work with their  counterparts in foreign law enforcement agencies to help coordinate  investigations and communication, including efforts to follow the money  and seize the profits of smuggling organizations.
The types of alien-smuggling cases handled by ICE are illustrated in  appendix V, which summarizes recent cases prosecuted in three federal  judicial districts coterminous with the U.S.-Mexico border. Of the total 23  alien-smuggling cases summarized, the majority (15) involved enforcement  actions taken by ICE.
Also, in October 2003, ICE launched Operation ICE Storm in Phoenix, an  initiative to combat human smuggling and the violence it has generated in  Arizona (see app. II). The Office of Investigations and ICE’s other major  internal components—Office of Intelligence, Air and Marine Operations,  Federal Air Marshal Service, Detention and Removal Operations, and  Federal Protective Service—are represented in the initiative.
In August 2004, to enhance efforts aimed at shutting down narcotics and  human-smuggling routes and networks that operate along the U.S.-Canada  border, ICE opened an air and marine facility at Bellingham, Washington,  and announced that similar facilities in four additional northern states  (New York, Michigan, North Dakota, and Montana) were planned.
section_title: U.S. Customs and Border Protection
paragraphs: CBP resulted from the merger of most of the legacy U.S. Customs Service  with all the immigration inspectors and the Border Patrol from the former  Immigration and Naturalization Service—a merger designed to establish  “one face at the border.” The Border Patrol’s mission as a front-line  defender is to patrol the border between official ports of entry to deter,  detect, and prevent the entry of terrorists and terrorist weapons, illegal  aliens, and the smuggling of contraband into the United States.
The types of alien-smuggling cases handled by CBP or the Border Patrol  are illustrated in appendix V, which summarizes recent cases prosecuted  in three federal judicial districts coterminous with the U.S.-Mexico border.  Of the total 23 alien smuggling cases summarized, almost one-half (10)  involved enforcement actions taken by U.S. Customs and Border  Protection or the Border Patrol.
section_title: U.S. Coast Guard
paragraphs: The Coast Guard is tasked with enforcing U.S. immigration law at sea. The  Coast Guard implements this responsibility principally by interdicting  illegal migrants at sea before they reach the shores of the United States.  Through its interdiction and deterrence efforts, the Coast Guard’s goal is  to eliminate most of the potential flow of undocumented migrants entering  the country by maritime routes.
After the Coast Guard makes interdictions at sea, disposition of the  migrants may be determined under the Presidential Directive 27 process,  which involves interagency deliberations that include the National  Security Council, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and  other relevant federal entities. Some cases result in criminal prosecutions  in the United States, while others may result in foreign prosecutions.
Generally, however, most migrants interdicted by the Coast Guard are not  brought into the United States; rather, the migrants are repatriated to the  departure countries.
section_title: Department of Justice and Its Components
paragraphs: Department of Justice components that have roles in combating the  smuggling of aliens into the United States include U.S. Attorneys, the  Criminal Division’s Domestic Security Section and the Organized Crime  and Racketeering Section, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
subsections: section_title: U.S. Attorneys
paragraphs: U.S. Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction  of the Attorney General. There are 93 U.S. Attorneys stationed throughout  the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern  Mariana Islands. U.S. Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the  discretion of, the President of the United States, with the advice and  consent of the U.S. Senate. Each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law  enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular  jurisdiction. Among other responsibilities, U.S. Attorneys are responsible  for prosecuting criminal cases brought by the federal government. For  example, appendix V summarizes recent alien-smuggling cases prosecuted  by U.S. Attorneys in three federal judicial districts.
section_title: Criminal Division’s Domestic Security Section
paragraphs: Among other functions, the Criminal Division’s Domestic Security Section  has collaborative responsibility for criminal immigration offenses.  Domestic Security Section officials said:    The Domestic Security Section routinely collaborates with U.S.
Attorney’s Offices in the investigation and prosecution of alien  smugglers. Nearly all such cases involve investigative activity outside  the United States. The Domestic Security Section, by reason of its close  working relationship with ICE and the State Department’s Bureau of  Diplomatic Security investigators abroad, is in a position to provide  immediate legal advice and guidance at the early stages of  investigations. As an investigation develops to the point where venue  for prosecution becomes evident, the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s  Office is brought into the investigation. At times, U.S. Attorney’s  Offices also request the assistance of the Domestic Security Section in  cases where its expertise in international and intelligence matters  would significantly assist prosecution efforts.
Domestic Security Section attorneys routinely respond to inquiries  from U.S. Attorney’s Offices for legal and policy guidance on matters  relating to immigration crimes and violent crime. For example, the  section works closely with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern  District of Florida on matters related to maritime alien smuggling,  especially from Cuba and Haiti.
Moreover, the officials noted that the Domestic Security Section  participates on the committee that reviews ICE’s proposed undercover  investigations involving “sensitive circumstances” that relate to alien  smuggling or immigration fraud violations. Since proposals often involve  investigative activity in multiple districts, the Domestic Security Section  tries to ensure that the appropriate U.S. Attorneys Offices are fully  informed of and support the proposed undercover operational plans and  have agreed to prosecute meritorious cases that are developed.
section_title: Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section
paragraphs: According to Justice, the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section has a  role in combating alien smuggling because (1) alien smuggling has become  a sophisticated organized criminal activity and (2) the alien-smuggling  statute and certain immigration fraud offenses are predicate offenses  under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Justice  noted, for instance, that Organized Crime Strike Force Units in several  U.S. Attorney’s Offices, under the supervision of the Organized Crime and  Racketeering Section, prosecute alien-smuggling cases when the offenses  involve the activities of organized crime groups.
section_title: Federal Bureau of Investigation
paragraphs: While recognizing that DHS is the primary investigating agency with  respect to alien smuggling, the FBI may play a role in specific  investigations, particularly those with a nexus to terrorism. Also, the FBI  may also get involved when alien smuggling becomes the predicate crime  on an investigation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt  Organizations Act, or when federal officers, such as Border Patrol agents,  are assaulted by smugglers. Moreover, the FBI participates in various  international groups or projects that include a focus on addressing alien  smuggling. Further, FBI legal attaches in other countries participate in  activities related to combating alien smuggling.
subsections: section_title: Investigations with a Nexus to Terrorism or Organized Criminal Enterprises
paragraphs: At times, alien-smuggling activity may be a component of a terrorist  organization or other criminal enterprise. Regarding terrorist  organizations, the FBI’s goal is to identify the global infrastructure of  terrorists’ travel-facilitating networks that focus on alien smuggling, as  well as fraudulent document vendors, corrupt foreign government  officials, and suspect travel agencies. If a nexus to terrorism is established  for an identified target, the FBI is to assume the lead investigative role  pursuant to a memorandum of agreement, which was signed in May 2003  by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security and  contained a number of provisions designed to resolve jurisdictional issues  and enhance interagency coordination regarding terrorist-financing  investigations. The FBI’s lead role in these investigations is implemented  through Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which can have participants from  federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. In July 2004, the FBI  provided us the following information:    Each JTTF member, including assigned DHS agents, has access to  investigative and other pertinent information. For instance, the FBI is  to share intelligence gathered related to alien smuggling and assist in  assessing trends of this activity.
For the period following September 11, 2001, to date, records indicate  that 5 Joint Terrorism Task Forces reported a total of 11  accomplishments related to immigration violations. That is, four  persons were arrested and seven were summoned to appear, which  initiated their respective deportation process.
Additionally, in its July 2004 response to our inquiry, the FBI noted that  two investigations were recently opened with a primary focus on the use  of false visas and fraudulent entry documents by terrorist group affiliates.
section_title: Participation in International Groups or Projects
paragraphs: In its June 2004 response to our inquiries, the FBI cited the following as  examples of its participation in international groups or projects related to  alien smuggling:  Italian American Working Group. Historically, the Italian American  Working Group has been a “cop-to-cop” forum for U.S. and Italian  authorities (executives, supervisory special agents, investigators,  analysts, etc.) to discuss current law enforcement issues of mutual  interest, such as drug smuggling, organized crime, international  terrorism, computer crime, money laundering, and illegal immigration.  The group meets every other year, alternating between the United  States and Italy.
Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum. Held annually since its  establishment in 1997, the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum  allows Canadian and U.S. authorities to develop coordinated policies  for addressing cross-border crimes. According to Justice, the forum  works through subgroups that deal with various issues, including the  targeting of alien-smuggling organizations. Justice noted that  subgroups work on specific law enforcement issues and objectives  throughout the year and report on their progress and make  recommendations at the annual meeting of the forum.
Project Bridge. Initiated in 1999 and led by Interpol, Project Bridge  seeks to collect information on organized-crime groups and criminal  enterprises involved with alien-smuggling activity. The project provides  strategic intelligence analysis to identify human-smuggling trends and  routes. Also, the project provides a forum for the international law  enforcement community to identify issues, discuss cases, and develop  collaborative investigative and legislative efforts. Besides the FBI,  other U.S. participants are the Department of Justice, ICE, and U.S.  Customs and Border Protection. Also, in addition to the United States,  participating countries include Australia, Canada, Great Britain,  member states of the European Union, and countries in central Europe  and Asia.
section_title: FBI Attachés in Other Countries
paragraphs: According to the FBI, most (if not all) of the agency’s legal attachés  overseas are involved in activities related to combating alien smuggling.  Routinely, for instance, legal attachés liaise with law enforcement  agencies within the respective countries to target and address alien- smuggling problems. Some examples cited by the FBI in its June 2004  response to our inquiry included the following:    Legat Athens organized a visitation of a Macedonian delegation of  judges, prosecutors, and investigators. There have been attempts by  Macedonians to illegally enter the United States through the use of  false documents—that is, documents that have been found to be  counterfeit or legitimate documents with the pictures altered. The  Macedonians are also in the process of implementing more aggressive  laws to combat this issue.
Legat Bangkok is involved in multiple joint investigations targeting  alien-smuggling organizations based in Bangkok and addressing alien- smuggling activities transiting through Thailand.
Legat Rome has a priority interest in alien smuggling from the Balkan  countries, particularly Albania. For the sole purpose of prostitution,  women from Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, and other Eastern European  countries are trafficked through the Balkans for destinations  throughout Western Europe, Great Britain, and the United States.
Also, the FBI’s June 2004 response to our inquiry indicated that FBI  officials had recently met with host government officials in Albania and  Greece to address various crime problems, including alien smuggling and  trafficking of persons. As a result, the FBI noted that it will seek to  establish a task force in Albania as part of an “upstream” effort to address  crimes that affect the United States before problems become  insurmountable.
section_title: Department of the Treasury and Its Components
paragraphs: Department of the Treasury components that have roles in combating the  smuggling of aliens into the United States include Internal Revenue  Service-Criminal Investigation and the Financial Crimes Enforcement  Network (FinCEN).
subsections: section_title: Internal Revenue Service- Criminal Investigation
paragraphs: Criminal Investigation (CI) is the law enforcement arm of the Internal  Revenue Service (IRS). At times, IRS-CI has conducted alien-smuggling  investigations jointly with ICE, particularly in areas of high-volume illegal  immigration, such as Texas, Arizona, and New York. In June 2004, in  response to our inquiry, IRS-CI provided us the following examples of  alien-smuggling investigations conducted jointly with ICE (or legacy INS):    Valente Sillero, et al. (Austin, Tex.). From 1998 through May 2002,  Sillero and his associates in Austin were involved in smuggling more  than 1,000 aliens from Mexico into the United States, charging from  $800 to $2,200 a head. Sillero’s organization smuggled not only Hispanic  aliens but also Middle Eastern aliens, although for a higher fee. IRS-CI  estimates that Sillero’s organization grossed $2 million in a 2-year  period. Most of the smuggling fees were paid in cash, although a  portion was paid by wire transmittals made by the aliens’ relatives in  the United States. In 2002, Sillero was sentenced to 120 months of  imprisonment. Seized assets included cash ($10,000), a 2002 Solara  ($24,000), a Harley Davidson motorcycle ($10,000), and two tow trucks  ($8,000 and $5,000).
Robert and Sheery Lu Porges (New York, New York). From 1993  through September 2000, Robert Porges (a prominent Manhattan  immigration lawyer) and his wife, Sheery Lu Porges, aided Chinese  smugglers by using their law firm to fraudulently create asylum  requests. In that period of time, more than 1,000 Chinese aliens were  smuggled into the country, with the Porgeses charging $40,000 to  $50,000 per alien. Further, the Porgeses filed false income tax returns  and paid their employees in cash, avoiding all withholdings. On August  9, 2002, Robert and Sheery Lu Porges were each sentenced to 97  months of imprisonment and were also ordered to forfeit to the  government $6 million through the sale of assets.
Richard “Trigger” Jones (Abilene, Tex,). Jones was a Deputy U.S.
Marshal who used his position, from 1996 through 2002, to obtain  Immigration and Naturalization “parole” documents for several aliens  whom he had encouraged or induced to remain in the United States on  the false premises that they would be “law enforcement confidential  informants.” Jones and others made the aliens provide manual labor at  various places in and near Abilene. Jones transported the aliens for this  purpose, and he also filed false tax returns for 1997 through 2002. In  2004, Jones was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment and fined  $100,000.
According to IRS-CI case agents, the smuggling fees paid by aliens often  are in currency and, therefore, are very difficult to track. Agents noted, for  instance, that currency proceeds from smuggling on the southwest border  are simply “bulk carried” back to Mexico where the smugglers (called  coyotes) have trusted relationships.
section_title: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
paragraphs: FinCEN, which was established in 1990 to help combat money laundering  and other financial crimes, does not initiate or carry out any investigations  on its own. Rather, by serving as a central source for financial intelligence  information and analysis, FinCEN supports the investigative and  prosecutive efforts of numerous law enforcement agencies. In doing so,  FinCEN has access to a variety of commercially maintained databases, as  well as the investigative-case databases of various federal law  enforcement agencies. Also, FinCEN administers the largest financial  transaction reporting system in the world, which is based on record- keeping and reporting requirements mandated or authorized under the  Bank Secrecy Act, as amended.
Enacted in 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act—Public Law 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114  (1970)—provides the U.S. government’s framework for preventing,  detecting, and prosecuting money laundering. Despite its name, the Bank  Secrecy Act, among other things, is a record-keeping and reporting law. As  originally enacted, the legislation required, for example, the maintenance  of records by financial institutions and the reporting of certain domestic  currency transactions and cross-border transportation of currency. A  purpose of the Bank Secrecy Act is to prevent financial institutions from  being used as intermediaries for the transfer or deposit of money derived  from criminal activity and to provide a paper trail for law enforcement  agencies in their investigations of possible money laundering. Over the  years, the Bank Secrecy Act has evolved into an important tool to help  deter money laundering, drug trafficking, terrorist financing, and other  financial crimes. For instance, passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001  expanded provisions to prevent, detect, and prosecute terrorist financing  and extended anti-money laundering requirements to financial service  providers previously not covered.
For the period October 2000 through August 2004, FinCEN reported that it  provided analytical support for a total of 201 alien-smuggling cases. As  table 7 indicates, the large majority of these cases involved support for  current or legacy DHS components.
According to FinCEN, the value of its contributions and the significance of  cases may not be readily apparent because many cases involve long lag  times between investigation and successful prosecution. Generally,  however, the way in which FinCEN provided value to the majority of these  investigations involved identifying and tracking subjects, accounts, and  businesses through analysis of Bank Secrecy Act data and the available  commercial and law enforcement databases. Also, FinCEN noted that it  has helped investigators understand more complex money-laundering  methodologies, such as informal transfer systems, that may be associated  with alien smuggling.
section_title: Department of State and Its Components
paragraphs: Department of State components that have roles in combating the  smuggling of aliens into the United States include the Bureau of  Diplomatic Security and the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law  Enforcement Affairs.
subsections: section_title: Bureau of Diplomatic Security
paragraphs: The Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the law enforcement arm of the  Department of State, has agents posted in over 160 countries worldwide.  Diplomatic Security has statutory responsibility for protecting the integrity  of U.S. passports and visas—widely considered to be the most valuable  identity and travel documents in the world. Investigations of passport and  visa fraud often show direct links to alien smuggling. A State Department  fact sheet (dated May 12, 2004) stated:    Nearly 7 million U.S. passports are issued every year. Last year,  Diplomatic Security investigated 3,200 new cases of passport fraud and  made 642 arrests. Currently there are more than 400 active arrest  warrants for passport fraud.
Also, visa fraud is coming under closer scrutiny after September 11.
Such fraud is most commonly committed not by counterfeiting but  through the sale, or facilitating the issuance process for, unqualified  visa applicants.
Last year, Diplomatic Security arrested 90 individuals on visa fraud  charges. Of these, 16 arrests were the result of investigations of large- scale visa malfeasance operations at 4 locations—the U.S. embassies in  Colombo (Sri Lanka) and Prague (Czech Republic) and the U.S.  consulates in Nuevo Laredo and Ciudad Juarez (Mexico).
The Colombo case involved the payment of hundreds of thousands of  dollars by people in Sacramento, California, and elsewhere to two U.S.  citizen employees of the American embassy in exchange for the issuance  of visas to various foreign nationals, primarily from Vietnam and India.  The 2-year investigative case—which was initially indicted on May 1, 2003,  and resulted in guilty pleas on April 30, 2004—reflected multi-agency  cooperation that involved Diplomatic Security and the State Department’s  Bureau of Consular Affairs; the governments of Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and  Fiji; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California; the  Sacramento Joint Terrorism Task Force; FBI; ICE; and state and local law  enforcement in California, Oregon, and Virginia.
Announcing the guilty pleas, the Department of Justice’s press release  noted that the two employees—a State Department foreign service officer  and her husband, who had been employed in the consular section of the  American embassy in Sri Lanka—each faced a minimum of at least 5 years  in prison, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a substantial fine. Also,  Justice reported that the couple had agreed to forfeit two homes (one in  Oregon and another in Colorado); a sum of $361,766, including funds  seized from bank accounts in California, Oregon, Washington, and  Virginia; and nearly $90,000 in cash recovered from the Oregon home and  from the pillows of a love seat in Sri Lanka.
In response to our inquiry regarding efforts to follow the money trail in  this case, bureau officials explained that:    Diplomatic Security investigated the financial gains associated with  this conspiracy by using established relationships with both domestic  and foreign law enforcement agencies. Through the use of grand jury  subpoenas, Diplomatic Security acquired evidence and leads into  banking and investment firms located in the United States and abroad.  Additional ill-gotten gains were discovered through intelligence  analysis and law enforcement techniques, such as interviews,  surveillance, and trash recovery.
Also, Diplomatic Security performed financial analyses of all targets in  the case, including several “visa brokers.” Through the tracking of  assets and proceeds, targets were found to be involved in money  laundering, hiding profits, and using proceeds to invest and make  mortgage payments. Further, by working with Justice’s Office of  International Affairs, requests were sent to both Sri Lanka and Fiji for  information from banks, and both countries provided helpful  responses.
In sum, according to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Colombo case  exemplifies how document fraud investigations help dismantle illegal  smuggling rings.
section_title: Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
paragraphs: While the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs  does not have arrest or other law enforcement authority, its role is to help  develop policies and programs (e.g., technical assistance and training) to  combat international narcotics trafficking and other crimes, including  alien smuggling. For instance, the State Department’s fiscal year 2005  budget justification reported that the bureau, among other activities (1)  had provided law enforcement training on combating alien smuggling to  more than 300 foreign officials in the past 3 years and (2) will work with  international partners to interdict and halt alien smuggling as far from U.S.  borders as possible. The budget justification further noted that the bureau  anticipated providing support to foreign governments that have chosen to  ratify and implement the UN Convention against Transnational Organized  Crime and its protocol on migrant smuggling.
In addition to providing foreign governments with training and other  material assistance specifically targeted to counter alien smuggling and  trafficking in persons, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law  Enforcement Affairs works with various U.S. federal law enforcement  agencies to strengthen the institutional capacity of selected countries and  international organizations to fight crime. State Department officials noted  that strengthening the underlying rule of law and justice sector  institutions—such as legal codes, court systems, prosecutorial capabilities,  investigative capacity, and interagency cooperation—enhances the ability  to combat alien smuggling and trafficking in persons, even when  assistance efforts are not targeted exclusively against these crimes.
section_title: Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking Interagency Working Group: An Overarching Coordination Mechanism
paragraphs: In combating alien smuggling, an overarching coordination mechanism to  help avoid duplication of efforts and ensure that available resources are  effectively leveraged is the National Security Council’s Migrant Smuggling  and Trafficking Interagency Working Group, which is cochaired by State  and Justice and includes participants from DHS and the intelligence  community. The Interagency Working Group has a targeting subgroup,  whose role is to identify for investigation the most dangerous international  alien-smuggling networks, especially those that pose a threat to national  security. Generally, top priority is to be given to targeting smugglers who  are suspected of having links to terrorism, whether or not the smugglers  are aware of those links. Such links may include special interest aliens,  that is, aliens from countries hostile to the United States or where global  terrorist groups are known to have operated or recruited. Also, the  subgroup may recommend actions other than investigations. For example,  the subgroup may recommend intelligence gathering on an identified  target or recommend that the Department of State use diplomatic means  to convince a foreign government to take its own action against a target.
As mentioned previously, if a nexus to terrorism is established for an  identified target regarding terrorist financing investigations, the FBI is to  assume the lead investigative role pursuant to a memorandum of  agreement, which was signed in May 2003 by the Attorney General and the  Secretary of Homeland Security and contained a number of provisions  designed to resolve jurisdictional issues and enhance interagency  coordination. The FBI’s lead role in these investigations is implemented  through Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which can have participants from  federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
Since 2002, according to Justice and the FBI, the efforts of the Interagency  Working Group, its targeting subgroup, and investigative agencies have  resulted in the apprehension and prosecution of leaders (more than 15) of  major smuggling organizations. ICE was the lead investigative entity in the  majority of the targeted cases. In its May 2005 comments on a draft of this  report, DHS noted that several of the cases had a nexus to terrorism and  that ICE had the lead investigative role on all but one of these cases. DHS  explained that the May 2003 memorandum of agreement pertained to  financial investigations and not to alien-smuggling investigations. Also, in  its May 2005 comments on a draft of this report, the State Department  noted that ICE has been the lead investigative agency in many terrorism- related investigations, notwithstanding the May 2003 memorandum of  agreement. State explained that these investigations had considerable  overseas operations, and ICE had the legacy resources, experience, and  capabilities.
section_title: Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center: Operational Potential Not Yet Fully Achieved
paragraphs: The Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center is an interagency  coordination entity designed to address the separate but related issues of  alien smuggling, trafficking in persons, and clandestine terrorist travel.  The center has had an extended startup history. State and Justice  announced the center’s establishment (with a slightly different  predecessor name) as early as December 2000. However, because of  subsequent events—the attacks of September 11, 2001, which resulted in a  redirection of personnel and resources and a reorganization of the U.S.  government—the center did not become operational until July 2004.
The center’s current charter was signed on behalf of the Secretary of State  on May 19, 2004, and on behalf of the Attorney General and the Secretary  of Homeland Security on July 9, 2004. The charter states:    Federal agencies have acknowledged that intensified efforts, together  with enhanced interagency coordination, are needed to support more  effective enforcement, diplomatic, and other actions to counter  smugglers and traffickers.
The center’s efforts will be fundamentally supportive rather than  directive in nature, consisting primarily of facilitating the dissemination  of intelligence, preparing strategic assessments, identifying issues that  would benefit from enhanced interagency coordination or attention,  and coordinating or otherwise supporting agency or interagency efforts  in appropriate cases.
As such, the center will serve as an all-source fusion entity and  clearinghouse, with a view to ensuring that the entire community of  interest receives all useful information relating to migrant smuggling,  trafficking in persons, and clandestine terrorist travel.
In December 2004, the center was formally established by Section 7202 of  the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. In addition  to providing a statutory underpinning for the charter, the 2004 act added  several additional mandates to the center. Specifically, the act requires the  center to    serve as the focal point for interagency efforts to address terrorist    serve as a clearinghouse with respect to all relevant information from  all federal government agencies in support of the U.S. government  strategy to prevent terrorist travel, human smuggling, and trafficking in  persons;   ensure cooperation among all relevant policy, law enforcement,  diplomatic, and intelligence agencies of the federal government to  improve effectiveness, and to convert all information available to the  federal government relating to clandestine terrorist travel, human  smuggling, and trafficking in persons into tactical, operational, and  strategic intelligence that can be used to combat such illegal activities;  and   prepare and submit to Congress an annual strategic assessment  regarding vulnerabilities in the United States and foreign travel system  that may be exploited by international terrorists, human smugglers and  traffickers, and their facilitators.
In addition, as part of its mission to combat terrorist travel, the center is to  work to support the efforts of the National Counterterrorism Center.
According to State Department officials, the Human Smuggling and  Trafficking Center is to have a strong foreign focus, and information  synthesized by the center will support diplomatic efforts and U.S. law  enforcement cooperation with foreign agencies, as well as inform State’s  Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs in  providing assistance programs to strengthen certain foreign agencies. For  example, as of late July 2004, State reported that the center’s  accomplishments included (1) preparing a strategic assessment on alien  smuggling from a certain South American country and (2) proposing an  action plan that the United States presented to the G8 to address  fraudulent document production and alien smuggling in a certain Asian  country.
Also, according to State, the center serves as the venue for interagency  meetings on terrorist mobility, alien smuggling, and trafficking issues,  including hosting the targeting subgroup of the Interagency Working  Group. State recognized that partly because the center had only recently  become operational and was still being staffed, there is a need to more  fully establish procedures for processing and sharing intelligence, law  enforcement, and other information. For instance, State provided  explanatory details substantially as follows:    A significant amount of the information handled by the center will be  highly classified or originator controlled and may not be able to be  used in its original form by law enforcement. Thus, the center will  explore methods for redacting or summarizing information to be  shared in appropriate cases.
Also, the center is developing relationships with international  organizations, such as Interpol, as well as with foreign law  enforcement, intelligence, and immigration authorities to exchange  information more efficiently. If negotiated agreements are necessary,  estimating time frames is difficult.
As mentioned previously, as of March 2005, the center’s staffing level was  only about one-half of the total full-time-equivalent positions anticipated to  be filled by the end of calendar year 2005.  In this regard, it should be  noted that section 7202(d) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism  Prevention Act requires the President to transmit to Congress a report  that, among other things, describes the staffing and resource needs of the  center.  The required report is important because the center’s staffing and  resource needs may affect its ability to perform mandated functions, such  as preparing and submitting to Congress an annual strategic assessment  regarding vulnerabilities in the United States and foreign travel system that  may be exploited.
section_title: Appendix IV: Federal Efforts to Work with Foreign Governments to Reduce the Flow of Smuggled Aliens into the United States
paragraphs: Federal efforts to work with governments of source and transit countries  to prevent illegal entries into the United States include participation in  both bilateral and multilateral agreements and activities. While not  exhaustive, this appendix provides an overview of various agreements and  activities, including efforts to identify and seize smugglers’ funds or assets  located abroad.
subsections: section_title: Federal Bilateral Efforts to Work with Foreign Governments
paragraphs: Federal bilateral efforts to work with foreign governments include  focusing on source and transit countries, including border nations (Mexico  and Canada), and using the skills and contacts of federal agents posted  abroad to address issues upstream.
subsections: section_title: Bilateral Agreements Generally Cover a Broad Range of Criminal Activity
paragraphs: The United States has negotiated and signed more than 50 bilateral mutual  legal assistance treaties (MLATs) with law enforcement partners around  the world, according to the Department of Justice. Such treaties—which  are a mechanism for obtaining evidence in a form admissible in a  prosecution—provide for a broad range of cooperation in criminal  matters, such as locating or identifying persons, taking testimonies and  statements, obtaining bank and business records, and assisting in  proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets. Justice’s  Office of International Affairs coordinates the gathering of international  evidence and, in concert with the State Department, engages in the  negotiation of new MLATs.
According to the State Department, the U.S. government has few bilateral  agreements that solely address alien smuggling; rather, the agreements  cover a broad range of criminal activity. As examples of bilateral  agreements that have alien-smuggling provisions, State noted that the  cross-border accord with Canada and the accord with Cuba have alien- smuggling elements, as do agreements with the government of The  Bahamas concerning cooperation in maritime law enforcement (which  entered into force June 29, 2004) and with the government of the  Dominican Republic concerning maritime counterdrug operations. Also,  State noted that some extradition treaties that apply the concept of mutual  criminality allow extradition for the crime of alien smuggling.
section_title: U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Efforts
paragraphs: In March 2002, the U.S. and Mexican governments adopted a plan—the  U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership Agreement—designed to increase border  security while still facilitating the legitimate flow of people and goods. One  outcome of the agreement was establishment of a binational Alien  Smuggling and Trafficking Task Force, with a lead role designated for  ICE’s office in Mexico City. According to ICE, the task force has evolved  to a point whereby information sharing is now standard operating  procedure for both ICE and Mexican law enforcement and intelligence  agencies. ICE officials noted, for example, that Mexican authorities have  provided information useful in compiling target lists of smugglers to be  investigated under Operation ICE Storm.
Another outcome of the partnership agreement was initiation of a pilot  program in November 2002, the Guide Identification and Prosecution  Program. The pilot program was initiated by the U.S. Border Patrol’s El  Centro Sector (located in the southern judicial district of California) and  Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office (the Procuraduria General de la  Republica, or PGR). The program’s objective is to target alien smugglers  and turn them over to Mexican authorities for prosecution, particularly if  prosecution in the United States is declined. For instance, when a  smuggler is interdicted in the United States and the U.S. Attorney’s Office  declines prosecution, Mexican authorities are to review the case and—if  the case is deemed prosecutable in Mexico—the El Centro Border Patrol  Sector is to turn over any applicable evidence or casework information.
According to El Centro Sector officials, the prosecution program was  needed because the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of  California was unable to handle all of the potential immigration- enforcement cases. Equally important, both the U.S. and Mexican  governments were mutually concerned with preserving lives by identifying  and prosecuting unscrupulous “guides or coyotes” who may lead migrants  to death or harm in the harsh border terrain.
For the approximately 2-year period from inception of the pilot Guide  Identification and Prosecution Program in November 2002 to November  2004, the El Centro Border Patrol Sector has reported referring 80 alien- smuggling cases to Mexican authorities. On the basis of these referrals,  Border Patrol officials told us that Mexican federal authorities have  obtained 31 convictions with jail sentences ranging from 1 to 6 years.  According to Border Patrol headquarters officials, the Guide Identification  and Prosecution Program is important and useful in combating alien  smuggling because the program directly focuses on “foot guides.” The  officials explained that foot guides who have knowledge of routes through  deserts or other harsh terrain on the border are far fewer in number than  truck drivers and are much more difficult to replace or recruit. Thus, the  officials noted that prosecuting the foot guides helps to dismantle  smuggling organizations.
Regarding the future of the program, in August 2003, the Commissioner of  CBP approved expansion to three additional Border Patrol sectors—San  Diego, Tucson, and Yuma. However, as of January 2005, the program had  not been expanded. According to the Assistant Chief Patrol Agent of the El  Centro Sector, the government of Mexico supports expansion but faces  resource issues. To help facilitate expansion, the Assistant Chief Patrol  Agent suggested that it may be necessary for officials from CBP’s Office of  International Affairs to meet with Mexican government representatives in  Mexico City.
Also, to increase bilateral coordination and intelligence sharing, CBP  officials noted that every southwest border sector has a Mexican Liaison  Unit to work full-time with counterparts in Mexico.
section_title: U.S.-Canada Bilateral Efforts
paragraphs: U.S.-Canada bilateral efforts to address cross-border crimes include the  formation of multi-agency Integrated Border Enforcement Teams.  Originally developed in 1996 to target cross-border criminal activity  between British Columbia and Washington state, the teams have since  expanded to cover strategic locations across the entire northern border.  Core participants in these multi-agency teams are ICE, CBP, U.S. Coast  Guard, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Customs and Revenue  Agency, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Additional participants  are municipal and provincial law enforcement agencies. Besides targeting  trafficking in illegal drugs, weapons, vehicles, liquor, and tobacco, the  integrated teams have reported successful intercepts of criminal networks  attempting to smuggle illegal migrants across the border.
Another bilateral effort is the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum. The  purpose of the forum, held annually since its establishment in 1997, is to  allow Canadian and U.S. authorities to develop coordinated policies for  addressing cross-border crimes. According to Justice, the forum works  through subgroups that deal with various issues, including the targeting of  alien-smuggling organizations. Justice noted that subgroups work on  specific law enforcement issues and objectives throughout the year and  report on their progress and make recommendations to the Canadian  Deputy Prime Minister and the U.S. Attorney General at the annual  meeting of the forum.
In December 2001, the Canadian and U.S. governments signed the Smart  Border Declaration and an associated 30-point action plan designed to  enhance the security of the two nations’ shared border while facilitating  the legitimate flow of people and goods. The action plan reflected  continuing support for Integrated Border Enforcement Teams and the  Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum.
section_title: Federal Assistance to Ecuador and Other Countries
paragraphs: In recent years, recognizing that Ecuador had become a major source and  transit country for aliens entering the United States, the State  Department’s Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement  Affairs has provided technical assistance to Ecuador for strengthening its  investigative and prosecutorial capacity to combat alien smuggling. For  example, the bureau’s budget justification for fiscal year 2005 reported  that the first-ever, U.S.-funded alien smuggling vetted unit was established  in Quito, Ecuador; computers were purchased for use at the international  airport in Quito; and funding was also provided to detail a team of  attorneys to Ecuador to provide guidance on strengthening alien- smuggling legislation. Further, the 2005 budget justification noted plans  for creating one or more additional alien-smuggling vetted units in the  Dominican Republic, Guatemala, or Mexico and that the unit(s) would be  trained in the areas of investigative techniques, consensual monitoring,  anticorruption, and antismuggling.
As mentioned previously, in addition to providing foreign governments  with training and other material assistance specifically targeted to counter  alien smuggling and trafficking in persons, the Bureau for International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs works with various U.S. federal  law enforcement agencies to strengthen the institutional capacity of  selected countries and international organizations to fight crime. In this  regard, State Department officials noted that strengthening the underlying  rule of law and justice sector institutions—such as legal codes, court  systems, prosecutorial capabilities, investigative capacity, and interagency  cooperation—enhances the ability to combat alien smuggling and  trafficking in persons, even when assistance efforts are not targeted  exclusively against these crimes.
Also, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said that CBP has been  proactive in pushing out the border. As an example, the officials noted that  BORTAC—-a specially trained tactical unit of the Border Patrol—has  helped Honduras plan and put into operation an organization with border  police-type responsibilities.
section_title: Federal Law Enforcement Agents at U.S. Embassies and Consulates
paragraphs: “In order to develop prosecutable criminal cases against principals in international alien- smuggling organizations, the United States must have an effective investigative capability  in various parts of the world. … Exact capabilities will vary by country, but United States  law enforcement agents and prosecutors stationed at United States embassies and  consulates often have excellent working relationships with their counterparts. Frequently,  United States law enforcement personnel posted abroad can obtain information or  evidence informally. If formal mutual assistance is needed, for example, if the evidence  was not obtained in an admissible form, the information or evidence gathered informally  may provide the basis for drafting a formal request.”
As discussed in appendix III, federal agencies with overseas postings  include not only the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security,  but also the FBI and ICE.
ICE has 50 overseas offices (attachés). According to ICE, to reduce the  flow of aliens into the United States, federal agents posted abroad are a  necessary element in planning operations and exchanging case-related  intelligence between ICE investigative units and foreign law enforcement.  ICE headquarters officials said that human smuggling and related criminal  activities are directly connected to the activities of organizations operating  throughout the Americas (South America, Central America, and Mexico),  as well as South Africa. The officials noted, for example, that—as a result  of increased coordination, training, and communications led by ICE with  the governments of Colombia, Guatemala, and South Africa—new  investigations have been initiated into human-smuggling organizations.  Also, the officials noted that the ICE attaché in Ecuador has made  progress in addressing ICE’s mission of extending the border by  dismantling human-smuggling organizations abroad.
section_title: Multilateral Protocol on Migrant Smuggling
paragraphs: Regarding multilateral efforts to address people smuggling, in December  2000, the United States and over 120 other countries signed the UN  Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and more than 75 of  these countries signed a supplementary agreement—the Protocol against  the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. The main purpose of the  convention and the protocol is to enable the international community to  better combat organized crime by harmonizing nations’ criminal laws and  promoting increased cooperation. Before entering into force, the  convention had to be ratified by at least 40 countries. Nations may be a  party to the convention only but not to the protocol only.
The convention and the protocol have entered into force, although the  United States has signed but has yet to ratify the convention. According to  Justice, the entry into force of the convention and the protocol has  increased the effectiveness of immigration enforcement efforts with  regard to several countries. For instance, the fact that the protocol is now  in force in a particular country can be used to induce that country to  assume its responsibilities by accepting the return of its nationals and  prosecuting smugglers under its criminal laws. Also, Justice noted that,  once the United States becomes a party to the protocol, certain extradition  treaties that the United States has with other state parties will be deemed  amended to include alien-smuggling offenses and travel document fraud as  defined in the protocol. In addition, Justice noted that the United States  will be able to utilize the protocol’s mutual legal assistance provisions in  dealing with those state parties that currently do not have a bilateral treaty  with the United States for such assistance.
section_title: Federal Efforts to Identify and Seize Smugglers’ Funds or Assets Abroad
paragraphs: According to some estimates, alien smuggling globally generates billions of  dollars in illicit revenues annually. How much of the total involves aliens  smuggled into the United States is not known, although the United States  is often a primary destination country. Also, according to ICE officials,  much of the U.S.-related smuggling revenues either may not be paid in this  country or, if paid here, may be transported or transmitted abroad quickly.  As such, federal efforts to combat alien smuggling by following the money  trail frequently may present investigators and prosecutors with  opportunities and challenges related to identifying and seizing funds or  assets not located in the United States. The MLAT process is one tool  available to help investigators and prosecutors meet these opportunities  and challenges.
In March 2005, to get a sense of the extent to which federal law  enforcement agencies were using the MLAT process to follow the money  trail abroad in alien smuggling cases, we contacted Justice’s Office of  International Affairs. In reference to alien-smuggling cases, we asked for  information regarding the number of requests made to foreign  governments for assistance through provisions of an applicable MLAT or  by a letter rogatory. According to the Deputy Director, the number of  outgoing requests for formal law enforcement assistance in alien- smuggling cases is few in comparison with requests in cases of drug  trafficking, money laundering, fraud, and various other offenses. For  matters considered to be alien-smuggling cases, the Deputy Director noted  that it would be very difficult to quantify the exact number of requests  made to foreign countries. In explanation, the Deputy Director commented  substantially as follows:    The Office of International Affairs’ database was created a number of  years ago to track an extremely large volume of international requests.  The database was not originally designed to include a category of “alien  smuggling.” This category designation was added to the database  within only the last few years. Under this specific category, the  database currently shows 10 pending outgoing requests and 3 closed  outgoing requests.
Further, the database has an “immigration violation” category, which  would include alien smuggling and has existed for some time.  Currently, the database shows over 160 closed cases in this category.
Also, we asked ICE headquarters for information regarding formal  requests made in attempts to follow the money trail on alien-smuggling  investigations that have extended overseas. That is, we asked how many  MLAT requests were made in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to which  countries, and what have been the results in terms of assets tracked or  seized. The Office of Investigations’ Asset Forfeiture Unit responded that it  had no way of determining the number of MLAT requests. ICE officials  noted, however, that none of ICE’s reported seizures from alien-smuggling  cases in fiscal year 2004 ($7.3 million) and the first 6 months of fiscal year  2005 ($7.8 million) were made abroad.
We made a similar inquiry for information from the State Department’s  Bureau of Diplomatic Security. In response, the bureau noted that it has  been a full member of the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture  Program since October 1, 2004, and—after admission to the program—has  taken steps to prepare and encourage agents to consider forfeiture  whenever possible, including seeking the seizure and forfeiture of assets  abroad. Additional comments were substantially as follows:    Because participation in Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Program is relatively  new, the bureau has submitted only one MLAT request seeking the  seizure and forfeiture of illegal assets overseas, and this request was  still pending as of March 2005. However, the bureau currently is  conducting numerous criminal investigations that most likely will  result in the submission of several more MLAT requests to various  foreign countries to seek the seizure and forfeiture of illegal funds and  assets.
The MLAT process sometimes may be very time consuming and on  occasion has discouraged Assistant U.S. Attorneys from pursuing  forfeiture of illegal assets via an MLAT request. In the absence of an  MLAT, the letter rogatory process may be even more burdensome and  time consuming and the results less certain.
The bureau noted that in addition to utilizing the MLAT process, there are  other procedures for gathering evidence or seizing the proceeds of a  crime. For example, as part of a plea agreement, a defendant may consent  to repatriate overseas assets to the United States without the involvement  of the host country. Finally, the bureau emphasized that the ability to  equitably share with foreign law enforcement agencies a percentage of the  proceeds seized based on their assistance and participation in  investigations is a very useful tool in securing the seizure and forfeiture of  illegal assets overseas.
section_title: Appendix V: Examples of Alien-Smuggling Cases Prosecuted in Federal District Courts
paragraphs: This appendix summarizes selected alien-smuggling cases prosecuted in  federal district courts in three districts—the District of Arizona, the  Southern District of California, and the Southern District of Texas. Each of  these federal judicial districts is coterminous with the U.S.-Mexico, or  southwest, border. To identify alien-smuggling cases federally prosecuted  in these districts, we reviewed press releases issued by the respective U.S.  Attorney’s Office during January through June 2004. For this 6-month  period, our review found that the three districts issued press releases that  covered a collective total of 23 alien-smuggling cases—District of Arizona  (9), Southern District of California (3), and Southern District of Texas  (11). In April and May 2005, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys  provided us updated information on the results (e.g., convictions and  sentencing provisions) of these cases.
As summarized below, most of the 23 cases were reactive-type cases, with  no money trail being pursued. However, a few cases (particularly in  Texas) were proactive investigations—including the use of undercover  agents—and had a focus on pursuing financial transactions. Further,  according to ICE officials, certain aspects of the relevant cases were still  open at the time of our review, and investigators were continuing to follow  the money trail. Regarding the reactive-type cases, ICE and U.S. Attorney’s  Office officials emphasized that several of the cases involved fatalities and  were prosecuted based on public safety concerns. Also, officials indicated  that law enforcement agencies can gather and consolidate intelligence  from reactive cases as a basis for developing larger or proactive cases.
subsections: section_title: District of Arizona
paragraphs: The nine alien-smuggling cases prosecuted in Arizona reflected a range of  circumstances. For example (see table 8):    Five of the cases involved truck (or tractor-trailer) drivers who were  transporting as many as 65 undocumented aliens. In one of these cases,  when the driver was fleeing from authorities, a 16-year-old female fell  from the truck bed and died after being run over by the truck.
Another two cases involved female U.S. citizens who were attempting  to bring Mexican children into the United States. One of these cases  involved 5 Mexican children, and the other case involved a 1-year-old  Mexican boy.
Another case reflects victimization and intimidation in the human-  smuggling trade; that is, 23 undocumented aliens who were walking  through the desert near Three Points, Arizona, were robbed and held  for ransom.
section_title: California, Southern District
paragraphs: During the period January to June 2004, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the  Southern District of California issued press releases for three alien- smuggling cases (see table 9). One case involved the attempted smuggling  of Chinese aliens, which resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent. In  the second case, an inspector from the legacy Immigration and  Naturalization Service was charged with conspiracy. The third case  involved a vehicle accident, resulting in the death of four aliens.
section_title: Texas, Southern District
paragraphs: During the period January to June 2004, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the  Southern District of Texas issued press releases for 11 alien-smuggling  cases (see table 10):    Two of these cases involved multiple alien fatalities—specifically, 11  illegal immigrants in a locked railroad grain car and 19 from  confinement in an abandoned tractor-trailer. And, in a third case, a  fleeing 17-year-old Guatemalan national was struck and killed by  oncoming highway traffic.
Two other cases involved the smuggling of Chinese nationals into the  United States. In one of these cases, the convicted defendant forfeited  $250,000 in cash assets earned from the smuggling venture.
In another case, five South Americans involved in an international  smuggling ring were prosecuted in the United States, even though the  truck that transported the ring’s human cargo of undocumented aliens  was intercepted near Monterrey, Mexico. According to the press  release, prosecution of these defendants was the first use in the  Southern District of Texas of a law providing for the prosecution of  crimes that occurred outside the territorial limits of the United States.  The law takes into account the facts that the aliens’ ultimate  destination was the United States and the smuggling operation would  have the most effect in the United States.
Four defendants had pled to the conspiracy count, which carries a maximum penalty  of life imprisonment, and were awaiting sentencing.
One defendant had pled guilty to harboring and transporting a smuggled 3-year-old  child and was sentenced to 14 months’ confinement.
One defendant’s jury trial had been suspended pending completion of an appeal to  the Fifth Circuit.
Following a 3-week jury trial, two defendants were convicted on numerous counts of  the superseding indictment. Many of the counts carry a maximum penalty of life  imprisonment. The defendants were awaiting sentencing.
One defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal  Rules of Criminal Procedure was granted by the district court judge upon completion  of the government’s case in chief.  The defendant was in the custody of ICE and was  undergoing deportation proceedings.
Three defendants were expelled from Mexico to the United States on February 9,  2005, and were apprehended that same day upon arrival at the George Bush  Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas. The defendants were being detained  awaiting trial, which is scheduled for October 17, 2005.
One defendant was a fugitive in Mexico, and the United States was seeking  extradition.
Case facts, law enforcement agencies involved, and results (sentencing penalties  or case status)
Facts: The indictment is the result of an ICE undercover operation in late 2003, during  which federal agents infiltrated an organization by posing as alien smugglers willing to  transport Chinese nationals into the United States. The husband and wife defendants  (both Chinese nationals) made payments of $12,000 to $17,000 per alien to undercover  agents for their assistance in the smuggling scheme, which allegedly reached over  $100,000 for the 12 undocumented aliens brought to the United States over a 3-month  period.
According to the indictment, the two defendants were members of an organization  specializing in making arrangements for illegal alien immigrants from the People’s  Republic of China to be smuggled into the United States via Thailand and certain Central  American countries. Human smugglers guided the aliens in the Central American  countries to staging areas south of the U.S. border. Typically, the aliens were required to  pay a portion of their total smuggling fee in advance of their departure, with the balance  due after arriving in the United States. Upon being guided into the United States by  smugglers, the aliens were held in drop houses or hotels until their relatives or friends paid  the balance of the smuggling fee.
Law enforcement agencies: ICE.
Results: The defendants were charged with 12 counts of smuggling for commercial gain  and private financial advantage and 4 counts of money laundering for the more than  $100,000 in fees paid to the undercover officers.  Sentencing of the two convicted  defendants was set for May 2005; each defendant faces a mandatory minimum sentence  of 3 years in prison.
Facts: The evidence showed that on December 2, 2003, U. S. Border Patrol agents on  routine patrol near Premont, Texas, saw a pickup truck they believed to contain  undocumented aliens. The agents turned on their emergency equipment and attempted to  stop the vehicle. As the driver (later identified as the defendant) of the vehicle slowed, all  of the occupants of the truck jumped out and fled. One occupant, a 17-year-old  Guatemalan national, ran across the highway into the path of an oncoming tractor-trailer  and was struck and killed. The defendant was tracked down and arrested.
Law enforcement agencies: U. S. Border Patrol and ICE.
Results: The defendant (a Mexican citizen) pleaded guilty to transporting an  undocumented alien for private financial gain, resulting in the death of a 17-year-old  Guatemalan national. The defendant was sentenced to 64 months in prison.
Facts: Evidence revealed that on April 29, 2004, a Texas Department of Public Safety  trooper attempted to stop a speeding Chevrolet Suburban traveling along Highway 59  near El Campo, Texas. The defendant attempted to elude the trooper by veering into the  southbound lane of oncoming traffic, jumping the median into the northbound lane and  resuming travel at a high speed. However, a tire on the car blew out, forcing him to stop.  He attempted to escape on foot but was arrested by the trooper. Five aliens illegally in the  United States were found hiding in the Suburban.
The defendant admitted to ICE agents that he had received a telephone call from an alien  smuggler offering to pay him a fee to transport undocumented aliens from Victoria, Texas,  to Houston. He said he had picked up the aliens in Victoria, Texas, and was transporting  the aliens to Houston, Texas.
Law enforcement agencies: ICE and Texas Department of Public Safety.
Results: On June 28, 2004, the defendant (a U.S. citizen) pleaded guilty to transporting  undocumented aliens for private financial gain. The defendant was sentenced to 6 months  of imprisonment.
The press releases from this district did not cite U.S. Attorney case numbers.
section_title: Appendix VI: Possible Effects of Not Having a Civil Forfeiture Provision for Real Property Used to Facilitate Alien Smuggling
paragraphs: In March 2005, on the basis of its survey of U.S. Attorneys Offices along  the southwest border, the Department of Justice provided us summary  examples of recent or pending alien-smuggling cases in which real  property used to facilitate the offense could not be forfeited because of the  absence of statutory civil forfeiture authority. According to Justice, the  following summaries are illustrative of typical cases that recur with great  frequency.
subsections: section_title: District of Arizona
paragraphs: The Phoenix office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona  reported a variety of instances in which the absence of a civil forfeiture  statute for real property used to commit an alien-smuggling offense  precluded the forfeiture of the property. In one case, the government did  not discover that the alien smuggler owned real property that he had used  to commit the offense until after the criminal case was over. At that point  it was too late to seek criminal forfeiture of the property, because criminal  forfeiture must be imposed as part of the defendant’s sentence, and the  absence of civil forfeiture made it impossible to recover the property.  Therefore, the property remained in the hands of the convicted smuggler.
In two other cases, the U.S. Attorney was unable to forfeit stash houses  used to hold illegal aliens because the houses were rented from third  parties, who could not be charged with the criminal offense. In the  absence of civil forfeiture authority, the government was powerless to  forfeit these properties, even after the government sent the landlords  warning letters giving them notice that their property was being used  illegally and advising them to take steps to stop the illegal use.
The Tucson office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona  reported having cases in which properties used to store illegal aliens are  owned by corporations. Because the corporations themselves are not  prosecuted criminally for the alien-smuggling offenses, there was no  possibility of criminal forfeiture of the properties, even if the alien  smugglers were convicted.
section_title: Central District of California
paragraphs: The United States Attorney for the Central District of California reported  three separate incidents in the second half of calendar year 2004 in which  a rental property was used as a stash house for the forced detention of  large numbers of illegal aliens. In each case, the stash house was a virtual  prison, complete with bars and steel gates. Those facts and other  circumstances made it likely that the landlord was aware of the purposes  for which the properties were being used. Thus, the landlord would not  have been able to assert a valid innocent owner defense to a civil  forfeiture action. However, there was insufficient evidence to charge the  landlord (as opposed to the tenant) with an alien-smuggling violation— thus, precluding criminal forfeiture of the property. As a result, given the  absence of a civil forfeiture provision for real property, the rental  properties used as stash houses were exempt from forfeiture.
section_title: Southern District of Texas
paragraphs: The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas reported  having a pending case in which fugitives hiding in Mexico owned real  property in Texas that they have used as a staging area for alien smuggling.  Because the property owners are fugitives, there is no possibility of  forfeiting the property criminally. Also, in the absence of a civil forfeiture  statute for real property, there is no possibility of forfeiting the property  civilly.
The same office reported being currently engaged in active investigations  of cases in which hotels, motels, and private homes are used as staging  areas for alien smuggling. Typically, the properties are temporary holding  sites for aliens awaiting transport. In most cases, the owners of the  properties are relatives of the smugglers—and, therefore, are aware of the  smuggling activity—but are not themselves engaged in the smuggling  operation. Thus, it is unlikely that any of the properties could be forfeited  criminally.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security