THE ARTS
CHILD POLICY
CIVIL JUSTICE
EDUCATION
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public
service of the RAND Corporation.
Jump down to document6
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research
organization providing objective analysis and effective
solutions that address the challenges facing the public
and private sectors around the world.
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE
Support RAND
Purchase this document
Browse Books & Publications
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore the RAND Safety and Justice Program
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in
this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only.
Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under
copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research
documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.
This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may
include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey
instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND
reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.
Understanding Forfeitures
An Analysis of the Relationship
Between Case Details and Forfeiture
Among TEOAF High-Forfeiture
and Major Cases
Amy Richardson, Noreen Clancy
Sponsored by the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture
Safety and Justice
A RAN D I N FR A ST R UC T UR E , SA FE T Y, A N D E NVIRONMENT PROGRAM
This research was sponsored by the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture and
was conducted under the auspices of the Safety and Justice Program within R AND
Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment (ISE).
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Richardson, Amy Frances, 1967 Understanding forfeitures : an analysis of the relationship between case details and forfeiture among teoaf
high-forfeiture and major cases / Amy Richardson, Noreen Clancy.
p. cm.
“TEOAF commissioned the RAND Corporation to examine the effects of targeted funding support of
significant financial investigations, on prosecutorial and forfeiture outcomes of such investigations”—ECIP
data view.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-8330-4692-5 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Forfeiture—United States. 2. Fines (Penalties)—United States. 3. Forfeiture—United States—Statistics.
I. Clancy, Noreen. II. Public Safety and Justice Program (Rand Corporation) III. United States. Dept. of the
Treasury. Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture IV. Title.
KF9747.R53 2009
345.73'0773—dc22
2009008063
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis
and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors
around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its
research clients and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark.
© Copyright 2009 RAND Corporation
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered
and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized
posting of R AND documents to a non-R AND Web site is prohibited. R AND
documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking
permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/
permissions.html).
Published 2009 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org
Preface
The Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) administers the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF), which is the receipt account for the deposits of nontax forfeitures made by
the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation division (IRS-CI), U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the U.S. Secret
Service (USSS). TFF resources support participating agencies in their efforts to disrupt and
dismantle criminal enterprises. TEOAF asked the RAND Corporation to examine the effects
of targeted funding support of significant financial investigations on the prosecutorial and forfeiture outcomes of such investigations.
This report presents the findings of that analysis, which will assist TEOAF in understanding and evaluating the major-case funding program and refining its funding strategies in
the future. This report is in line with a body of work that RAND has conducted in policy and
program evaluation. It is intended primarily for those with an interest in financial-crime investigation and federal law-enforcement data systems, particularly involving financial crimes.
The RAND Safety and Justice Program
This research was conducted under the auspices of the Safety and Justice Program within
RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment (ISE). The mission of ISE is to improve the
development, operation, use, and protection of society’s essential physical assets and natural
resources and to enhance the related social assets of safety and security of individuals in transit
and in their workplaces and communities. Safety and Justice Program research addresses occupational safety, transportation safety, food safety, and public safety—including violence, policing, corrections, substance abuse, and public integrity.
Questions or comments about this report should be sent to the project leader, Amy Richardson (Amy_Richardson@rand.org). Information about the Safety and Justice Program is
available online (http://www.rand.org/ise/safety). Inquiries about research projects should be
sent to the following address:
Greg Ridgeway, Director
Safety and Justice Program, ISE
RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
310-393-0411, x7734
Greg_Ridgeway@rand.org
iii
Contents
Preface.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Figures.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Acknowledgments.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Abbreviations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Chapter One
Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background on TEOAF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Agencies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major-Case Initiative.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Study Purpose and Methodology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Methodology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
About This Report.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chapter Two
High-Forfeiture Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overview of High-Forfeiture Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Analysis of High-Forfeiture Cases in the Database.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Data Limitations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
How to Read the Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Relationship Between Forfeitures and Characteristics of a Case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Year.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Type of Case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Field Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Hours.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Coordination with Other Agencies and Task Forces.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Use of Confidential Sources.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
External Funding and Support.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Other Outputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
v
vi
Understanding Forfeitures
Chapter Three
Major Cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Overview of Cases Receiving Major-Case Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Analysis of Major Cases in the Database.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
How to Read the Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Relationship Between Forfeitures and Characteristics of a Case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Type and Level of Funding.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Year.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Type of Case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Field Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Other Inputs and Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Other Outputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Chapter Four
Recommendations for Major-Case Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Awareness/Coordination.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Approval Process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
IRS-CI Cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
USSS Cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Timing of Approval.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The Role of the Asset Forfeiture Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Tracking and Reporting Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
IRS-CI Cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
USSS Cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter Five
Tracking Future Major Cases Through a Database.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Prototype Database.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Database Components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Chapter Six
Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendixes
A. Interview Guide.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
B. Analytic Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
References.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figures
2.1a.
2.1b.
2.2.
2.3a.
2.3b.
3.1a.
3.1b.
Forfeiture of All Cases and Database High-Forfeiture Cases, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Forfeiture of All Cases and Database High-Forfeiture Cases, USSS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sample Table of Cases.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Value of High-Forfeiture Cases and Hours Spent, IRS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Value of High-Forfeiture Cases and Hours Spent, USSS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Forfeiture of All Cases and Major Cases, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Forfeiture of All Cases and Major Cases, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
vii
Tables
1.1.
2.1.
2.2a.
2.2b.
2.3a.
2.3b.
2.4a.
2.4b.
2.5a.
2.5b.
2.6a.
2.6b.
2.7a.
2.7b.
2.8a.
2.8b.
3.1a.
3.1b.
3.2a.
3.2b.
3.3a.
3.3b.
3.4a.
3.4b.
3.5a.
3.5b.
3.6a.
3.6b.
3.7a.
3.7b.
B.1.
B.2.
Major-Case Funding, 2002–2006.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Forfeitures to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, 2002–2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Year, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Year, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Type of Case, IRS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Type of Case, USSS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Field Office, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Field Office, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Other Inputs and Activities, IRS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Other Inputs and Activities, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Confidential Sources, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Confidential Sources, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by External Funding and Support, IRS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by External Funding and Support, USSS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Other Outputs, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Other Outputs, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Major-Case Analysis, by Type and Level of Funding, IRS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Major-Case Analysis, by Type and Level of Funding, USSS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Major-Case Analysis, by Use of Major-Case Funding, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Major-Case Analysis, by Use of Major-Case Funding, USSS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Major-Case Analysis, by Year, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Major-Case Analysis, by Year, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Major-Case Analysis, by Type of Case, IRS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Major-Case Analysis, by Type of Case, USSS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Major-Case Analysis, by Field Office, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Major-Case Analysis, by Field Office, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Major-Case Analysis, by Other Inputs and Activities, IRS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Major-Case Analysis, by Other Inputs and Activities, USSS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Major-Case Analysis, by Other Outputs, IRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Major-Case Analysis, by Other Outputs, USSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Logic Model: IRS Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Logic Model: U.S. Secret Service Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
ix
Summary
The U.S. Department of Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) provides
management oversight of funds collected through nontax forfeitures into the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF). The forfeitures deposited into this account are those that result from lawenforcement actions against criminal enterprises, such as drug cartels, terrorist organizations,
and individual embezzlers, by agencies that are currently, or were historically, part of the U.S.
Treasury. High levels of forfeiture from the prosecution of these crimes serve to punish the
individuals involved, help to dismantle the operations associated with the crime, may deter
others from engaging in similar crimes, and provide funds to support future investigations
among participating agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation
division (IRS-CI), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the U.S. Secret
Service (USSS).
Major-Case Initiative
While some of the TFF reinvestment is guided by regulation, TEOAF also has discretion over
a portion of the fund to support investigations. In 2002, TEOAF created the major-case initiative, a discretionary fund to support significant investigations with forfeiture potential. Major
cases are individually selected by TFF member agencies from all those cases with revenue
potential of more than $100,000. Major cases receive targeted and, as needed, continual support from TEOAF. The amount of major-case funding distributed has varied since its inception from $2.9 million in 2002 to $5 million in 2005. Distribution of the funds is allocated
across four government entities: IRS-CI, ICE, CBP, and the USSS.
Study Purpose and Methodology
The purpose of this research is to identify any common patterns that exist between characteristics of an investigation, including funding sources, and higher levels of forfeiture. This information will assist TEOAF in understanding and evaluating the major-case funding program
and to refine its funding strategies in the future.
We examined samples from two sets of cases: cases that produced the highest forfeitures
and cases that received major-case funding. We examined both sets of cases to explore the
relationship between the level of forfeiture from each case and various factors of a case, such as
xi
xii
Understanding Forfeitures
level of funding, number of investigative hours, and the type of case, to identify characteristics
of a case that are associated with higher levels of forfeiture.
For the high-forfeiture sample of cases, RAND requested case details from IRS-CI and
the USSS on the 15 highest-forfeiture cases that closed in each of the five years between 2002
and 2006. For the sample of cases that received major-case funding, RAND requested information from IRS-CI and the USSS on all cases that closed in those years that received funding
from the major-case initiative. Although we requested the 15 highest-forfeiture cases for each of
the five years for each agency, we received 65 cases from IRS-CI and 29 cases from the USSS.
The quantitative analysis was supplemented by interviews with agents from IRS-CI and
the USSS.
Analysis
Total contributions to the TFF come from comparatively few forfeiture cases. For IRS, onethird of the total amount forfeited into the TFF between 2002 and 2006 came from just eight
of the 844 cases.
Based on our analysis of a sample of high-forfeiture cases, few factors are associated with
this high level of forfeiture. Among the high-forfeiture cases examined, the number of hours
spent working a case and the presence of major-case funding are both factors associated with
a higher level of forfeiture. The level of forfeiture does not appear to be getting higher or lower
over time, and it does not seem to be related to the involvement of other federal, state, and local
agencies, except possibly the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), where involvement is somewhat associated with relatively higher levels of forfeiture. High-forfeiture cases are investigated
across many field offices but concentrated in New York and Miami for IRS-CI cases and in Los
Angeles for USSS cases. Nearly all high-forfeiture cases include tax evasion, money laundering,
and fraud, but this is also the case for IRS-CI and USSS investigations more generally.
Our subsample of major cases for which we received data was much smaller—11 IRS-CI
cases and four USSS cases. The average forfeiture value for the 11 IRS-CI major cases in our
analysis is $1.9 million, while the average value of all IRS cases in our sample is $328,000, indicating that major cases have a higher average value than IRS-CI cases overall. The four USSS
major cases produced an average forfeiture value of $788,000, compared with $88,248 for all
USSS cases in our sample, again indicating that major cases have a higher forfeiture value on
average than USSS cases overall.
Higher levels of major-case funding do not appear to be associated with higher levels of
forfeiture. There does appear to be an association between the forfeiture value of IRS-CI major
cases examined here and the presence of other funding sources either from TEOAF, such as
joint-operations funding, or from another source. All four of the USSS cases had received other
funding support, so we cannot determine a direct association between major-case funding and
forfeiture amount.
Working major cases does seem to take appreciably more time than working regular highforfeiture cases: 8,900 hours versus 3,600 hours for IRS-CI and 1,250 hours versus 449 hours
for the USSS. However, there does not appear to be a relationship between the forfeiture value
and the number of hours worked on the case. Also, for IRS-CI major cases, there does appear
to be an association between use of a confidential informant and a high level of forfeiture.
Summary
xiii
In many ways, the set of major cases examined looked very similar to the set of
high-forfeiture cases. The types of cases, the level of agency collaboration, the presence
of victims, and the success rate in convictions are similar across the two data sets. Yet, the field
offices that pursued the greatest number of major cases (Seattle for IRS-CI and New Orleans
for the USSS) are quite different from the field offices that produced the greatest number of
high-forfeiture cases (New York for IRS-CI and Los Angeles for the USSS). This may be attributed to individual agents who were aggressive at pursuing major-case funding, or it may be
because larger field offices have an easier time finding the funding they need without requesting TEOAF funds, or both.
Recommendations
Overall, the major-case funding process appears to function fluidly with good relationships
between TEOAF and the law-enforcement agencies. Based on our analysis of cases and our
interviews with case agents, we recommend modifications to the major-case funding process
to make it more transparent and efficient. For example, it may be impractical for the many
thousands of law-enforcement agents to be familiar with the major-case funding process and
when it may or may not be appropriate for a case. However, if the small subset of supervisory
agents is well versed in major-case funding, they can appropriately advise the agents under
them. The RAND team also suggested that TEOAF begin to track more formally, through a
database system, the cases it funds. Future analysis of the effectiveness of major-case funding
will be hampered by the lack of connection between funding and forfeiture information and
case details.
A prototype database was developed to track cases receiving major-case funding and
to connect details of each case to forfeitures and other outcomes, such as convictions. This
database should provide TEOAF with the information to better understand and evaluate the
major-case funding program. The data should also allow TEOAF to quickly identify trends in
forfeitures over time and across agencies and make adjustments to its management process as
necessary.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge with appreciation the guidance and support of the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, particularly Eric Hampl, Irina Dline, and Nadir Isfahani. We
also are appreciative of the effort made to collect case information by IRS-CI, especially by
Bernadette Reghi and Joseph Caswell, and the USSS, especially by Stephen Howerter. We
would also like to thank the agents interviewed for this research for sharing their thoughts.
Within RAND, we would like to acknowledge the contributions made by Scot Hickey,
who designed and developed the database, and Alisher Akhmedjonov, who developed the data
set of current cases and conducted analyses of the data.
Finally, we are particularly grateful for the many contributions made by Peter H. Reuter,
co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, who was instrumental in developing
and guiding the research and analysis.
xv
Abbreviations
AFC
Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
AFTRAK
Asset Forfeiture Tracking and Retrieval
BALCO
Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative
BSA
Bank Secrecy Act of 1970
CBP
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CIMIS
Criminal Investigation Management Information System
CTR
Currency Transaction Report
DHS
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOJ
U.S. Department of Justice
FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FinCEN
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
ICE
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IRS
Internal Revenue Service
IRS-CI
Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation division
MCI
Master Central Index
MSB
money-service business
OCDETF
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
PD
police department
RIB
Resource Investment Board
SAC
special agent in charge
SAR
Suspicious Activity Report
TEOAF
Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture
TFF
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
USSS
U.S. Secret Service
xvii
Chapter One
Introduction
The Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) receives the nontax-forfeiture deposits from agencies
that are currently, or were historically, part of the U.S. Treasury. Assets that are forfeited due
to criminal activity are deposited into the TFF.1 Funds from the TFF are reinvested back
into the agencies contributing to the TFF to support future investigations that may lead to
additional forfeitures. The crimes that, when successfully prosecuted, fuel the fund are at the
heart of many of today’s societal scourges—drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling of
un­documented immigrants, identity theft, and organized crime. High levels of forfeiture from
the prosecution of these crimes serve to punish the individuals involved, help to dismantle the
operations associated with the crime, may deter others from engaging in similar crimes, and
provide funds to support future investigations among participating agencies. This research
examines the relationship between the level of forfeiture and various factors associated with
these cases and examines, in detail, cases that have been funded through the major-case initiative, a discretionary fund to support significant investigations with forfeiture potential.2
Background on TEOAF
The U.S. Department of Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) provides
management oversight of the TFF. The forfeitures deposited into this account are those that
result from law-enforcement actions against criminal enterprises, such as drug cartels, terror1
The IRS has the authority to seize and forfeit property under the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the U.S. Code).
Forfeitures under this code are referred to as tax forfeitures. The IRS also has the authority to seize and forfeit property under
the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§981–982. These are Title 18 forfeitures and are considered nontax forfeitures. All of the IRS
deposits into the TFF are nontax forfeitures.
2
The government can forfeit assets through two mechanisms: civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture. Civil forfeitures are
legal actions directed at the property (rather than at an individual) that was used in illegal activity (e.g., a plane used to
transport drugs). There are two types of proceedings in civil forfeitures: administrative and judicial. Administrative proceedings are conducted by the seizing agency, while judicial proceedings are conducted in a court before a judge. The value and
type of seized property determine the type of proceeding. Generally, an administrative proceeding is used if the value of the
property seized is less than $500,000 and there are no other claims to the property. Otherwise, a judicial proceeding must
be used.
Criminal forfeitures are directed at the individual. If a defendant is found guilty at a criminal trial, criminal-forfeiture proceedings are conducted before a judge in court. The proceedings may result in a verdict forfeiting property used in the crime
or obtained with proceeds from the crime.
Assets that member agencies have seized using criminal or civil forfeiture are deposited into the TFF. This discussion of civil
and criminal forfeitures was adapted from TEOAF (undated[a]).
1
2
Understanding Forfeitures
ist organizations, and individual embezzlers, by the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation division (IRS-CI), the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Coast
Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). Monies from forfeited assets from these member
agencies are reinvested into future criminal investigations, which produce additional forfeiture
revenue.
Agencies
IRS-CI has investigative authority over potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue
Code and related financial crimes. The USSS has primary investigative authority for counterfeiting, access-device fraud (i.e., credit- and debit-card fraud), and cybercrimes; parallel authority with other federal law-enforcement agencies for identity crimes and financial-institution
fraud; and limited criminal jurisdiction over financial crimes and cybercrimes. Two other participating agencies, ICE and CBP, were formerly part of the U.S. Treasury but now fall under
DHS. ICE is responsible for the investigation of immigration crimes, human-rights violations,
and human smuggling; narcotics, weapon, and other types of smuggling; and some financial crimes, cybercrime, and export-enforcement violations. CBP investigates crimes associated
with terrorism, human and drug smuggling, and illegal migration.
Major-Case Initiative
While some of the reinvestment of the TFF is guided by regulation, TEOAF also has discretion over a portion of the fund to support investigations. The mission of the TFF, “to Affirmatively Influence the Consistent and Strategic use of Asset Forfeiture by Participating Agencies
to Disrupt and Dismantle Criminal Enterprises” (TEOAF, undated[b]), is carried out primarily through emphasis on high-impact forfeitures. For this reason, priority is given to cases that
fall under the major-case initiative (major cases). Major cases are individually selected by TFF
member agencies from all those cases with revenue potential of more than $100,000. TEOAF
realized that agencies often needed funds to conduct an investigation to determine whether
there was property to be seized. Major-case investigations receive targeted and, as needed, continual support from TEOAF. Major-case funding is notably helpful, since access to investigative dollars is not contingent upon a seizure first.
The amount of major-case funding distributed has varied since its inception in 2002 from
$2.9 million in 2002 to $5 million in 2005. Distribution of the funds is allocated across three
agencies—IRS-CI, DHS, and the USSS—with the USSS receiving on average somewhat less
than the other two agencies (see Table 1.1).
Table 1.1
Major-Case Funding, 2002–2006 (thousands of dollars)
Agency
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total
IRS-CI
1,500
698
1,033
1,767
1,900
6,898
DHS
723
1,500
1,100
2,000
1,480
6,803
USSS
680
750
1,150
1,150
1,000
4,730
Total
2,903
2,948
3,283
4,917
4,380
18,431
Source: TEOAF data.
Introduction
3
Study Purpose and Methodology
Purpose
The purpose of the study, as outlined in TEOAF’s request for proposals is to “analyze cases
supported by TEOAF’s Major Case funding initiative, as well as the largest revenue-producing
cases regardless of their funding sources, in order to compare their outcomes and the nature
of incurred expenses.“ In our analysis, we identified common patterns among characteristics
of an investigation, including funding sources, that may be associated with higher levels of
forfeiture.
We examined both high-forfeiture cases—regardless of the funding they received—and
cases that received major-case funding. This enabled us to examine both cases that were identified as high forfeiture retrospectively and cases that were identified prospectively to be high
forfeiture. This information will assist TEOAF in understanding and evaluating the majorcase funding program and to refine its funding strategies in the future.
There are numerous statutes that set forth the legal parameters of asset forfeiture under
various circumstances, including USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-56), Controlled Substances Act (Pub. L. No. 91-513), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, or RICO Act (Pub. L. No. 91-452).3 These laws, the seizing agency, the case agent, the
individuals involved in the proceedings (administrative and judicial), and the general market
economy are all factors in determining the amount of revenue produced from forfeited assets.
For example, case agents we interviewed indicated that, while official procedure is for forfeited
assets to be deposited into the TFF first and any payments to victims or legal claimants to the
forfeited assets be withdrawn from the TFF, sometimes judges will direct that the proceeds
from the forfeited assets go directly to the victim or claimant prior to being deposited into the
TFF. This analysis did not explore the factors that may affect which assets are forfeited and
how the values of those assets are determined.
To date, TEOAF has reviewed details of the cases it has supported, including expenditures and resulting forfeitures, but has not tracked that information in a systematic fashion.
Much of this information is documented by the agencies funded by TEOAF. Collecting this
information on past cases and developing a framework for collecting it in the future pre­
sents a number of advantages to TEOAF. First, it would provide TEOAF greater oversight of
the expected and actual performance of individual cases. It would enable TEOAF to quickly
understand trends in funding and forfeitures over time, across agencies, and by type of case, as
well as to examine expenditures across cases. Second, it would create a useful record of port­
folio performance both within TEOAF and across the agencies. As new cases are initiated and
new caseworkers are assigned to them, a well-designed database of earlier cases can inform the
decisions that are made on future cases.
Third, a well-designed database, populated with data on recent cases, can help TEOAF
understand the relationship between funding and the outcome of cases on the one hand and,
on the other, possible factors that contribute to the success of cases. These factors may include
the type of case, the lead agency, the level of sustained support, the level of interagency cooperation, the availability of targeted funding, the speed with which that funding is provided, and
the flexibility and autonomy allowed by that funding. A better understanding of these factors
3
A selected list of the legal authorities for forfeiture is available from TEOAF (undated[b]).
4
Understanding Forfeitures
would inform both the allocation decisions of TEOAF and the decisions made by the agencies
and individual caseworkers.
For this study, we designed and populated a database that will enable TEOAF to track
cases supported by the major-case initiative. The database is designed to simplify the process
of updating case information, adding new cases, and analyzing the cases within the database
across dimensions of interest to TEOAF and the funded agencies. This database is populated
with information provided by the agencies on high-forfeiture and major-case–initiative cases
that closed during the time period 2002–2006.4
Methodology
There are two overlapping sets of cases that were examined in this study: high-forfeiture cases
and cases supported by TEOAF’s major-case initiative. The study focused on forfeitures from
the criminal-investigation divisions of two agencies: IRS-CI and the USSS. While we intended
to examine ICE, data were not provided in time to be included in the analysis. We did not
attempt to examine cases conducted by CBP, as they represent a small number of the TFF
cases.
This work proceeded in three phases: (1) the development of the analytic framework
within which to collect and analyze the data associated with the cases, (2) data collection, and
(3) data analysis.
The Analytic Framework. We first developed a framework to analyze the relationship
between factors associated with an investigation and forfeitures resulting from that investigation. This was the necessary first step to determine the information required for the analysis
and the type of analysis to be conducted. The analytic framework was developed through
interviews and a review of public and internal documents, such as mission statements, annual
reports, and internal reports. We first interviewed TEOAF staff to get their perspective on
the process of distributing TEOAF funds, how decisions are made about allocations, and
how TEOAF tracks those cases it funds. We then interviewed the agency liaisons who work
at TEOAF and other agency staff. We primarily asked process-related questions, such as how
major cases are identified, how cases are worked, how agents apply for major-case funding,
how major-case funding is used, and what the reporting requirements are. The interviews
helped us to further scope out the analytic framework and allowed us to identify the most
important elements describing a case and that we would need to collect to conduct our analyses. For the guide that oriented those interviews, see Appendix A. For more information on
the analytic framework, see Appendix B.
Data Collection and Analysis. We requested case details from IRS-CI, the USSS, and ICE
on the 15 highest-forfeiture cases that closed in each of the five years between 2002 and 2006
and on all cases that closed in those years that received funding from the major-case initiative.
The selection of the specific case details requested was guided by the analytic framework and
included details about case inputs (e.g., hours worked, field office involved, information provided by a confidential informant or wiretap), case activities (e.g., collaboration with another
agency or task force), and case outputs (e.g., forfeiture, convictions, restitution).
The high-forfeiture cases were determined by identifying the 15 cases per year per agency
that had deposited the greatest single forfeiture. TEOAF currently tracks only individual
4
Information in the database is limited to what was provided by the agencies, so it is not comprehensive. Only two agencies provided data: IRS-CI and the USSS.
Introduction
5
deposits and does not track the total level of forfeiture per case. One case can result in multiple deposits into the TFF over multiple years. However, our analysis required us to evaluate
the total forfeitures for the case. This required the IRS and the USSS to go back and match
deposits with cases, which was a surprisingly labor-intensive manual task. As a consequence,
the high-forfeiture cases provided for this analysis do appear to be high forfeiture but may not
be the highest-forfeiture cases for each agency. We do not believe that this undermined the
quality of the analysis.
In determining the total value of a case, we considered whether to include in the forfeiture
amount the forfeitures that were deposited into the account but then withdrawn to reimburse
victims, to provide collaborating agencies with their equitable share of the forfeiture, or for
other purposes. Excluding these items provided a clearer picture of what monies were actually deposited into the account for future investigative activities, but including them provided
a clearer picture of the total forfeiture impact regardless of dispersal, which would be a better
measure of the punishment and possibly deterrent value of the case. For our analysis, we used
the net forfeiture amount excluding what was paid out in restitution or revenue sharing with
other agencies. However, we also examined the data using the alternative measure of forfeiture
(gross forfeiture amount) and found few appreciable differences. For the IRS, the gross forfeiture amount increased in four of the 65 cases, but these shifts do not affect the conclusions.
For the USSS, the forfeiture amount changed for only one case, but this case remained in the
highest quintile so did not change the analysis at all.
We examined the relationship of these factors with the level of forfeiture from each case.
More-complete details on the analysis are found in Chapters Two and Three, where this analysis is presented. It is important to keep in mind that the total number of cases for both the
IRS and the USSS is small both absolutely and relatively (for both agencies together, less than
10 percent of cases during the relevant time period). This analysis was based only on cases
that have produced high levels of forfeiture or were identified as having received major-case
funding. As a result, the conclusions reached in this analysis may not be applicable to all cases
supported by TEOAF funding. The number of cases for which we received data was not generally sufficient to conduct regression analysis. Nonetheless, the results of the analysis provide
insights into whether certain factors associated with the program objectives might be considered predictors of success as it relates to higher levels of forfeiture, subject to a more comprehensive analysis. For more detail on the specific information collected for this research, see
Appendix B.
To examine what makes a high-forfeiture case different from one that is not, we might
also have compared high-forfeiture cases with low-forfeiture cases, but we chose not to do
this. TEOAF was interested in understanding what makes one case higher in forfeiture than
another so that it could reexamine its strategies for supporting cases to make its funding support more efficient. The major-case initiative was established with the belief that there is a
subset of cases that have significant forfeiture potential but also require additional or sustained
investigative dollars above and beyond what a typical case might require. TEOAF is interested
in knowing whether there are changes it might make to the major-case funding program to
support high forfeitures more efficiently.
In order to meet TEOAF’s objectives most effectively, we selected cases that already had
significant forfeiture potential. Many lower-forfeiture cases would never be expected to produce high forfeiture, so comparing them to high-forfeiture cases is not useful. For example,
some low-forfeiture cases are relatively small, straightforward cases involving a single individ-
6
Understanding Forfeitures
ual caught stealing a credit card. These cases are expected to be relatively small even as the case
is opened and would never produce high levels of forfeiture even with more resources. Other
cases are not expected to produce significant forfeiture but are pursued for their larger societal
benefit, such as cases involving child smuggling. To help TEOAF understand how to support
cases more efficiently, it is more useful to compare cases that are already fairly high forfeiture
but that, with additional funding, could have been even higher.
The quantitative analysis was supplemented by interviews with agents from IRS-CI and
the USSS. We interviewed ten Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents and Asset Forfeiture
Coordinators (AFCs)5 and six USSS agents, covering such topics as how cases are initiated, the
types of cases, the role of major-case funding, and the process of applying for and receiving
major-case funding.
The database that was developed includes information on the core variables of cases,
such as those identified through our analytic framework. Even though the data sets used for
this study are quite small and the implications limited, as TEOAF continues to populate the
database, it will be able to conduct similar analyses with more statistically significant numbers
of cases in the future. This should provide helpful information in assessing and managing the
targeted funding approach.
About This Report
This report provides a synthesis of the study findings, with each chapter integrating relevant
information from the background study, data analyses, and interviews as appropriate. Chapters
Two and Three examine high-forfeiture cases and major cases, respectively. Chapter Four provides observations about the effectiveness of the major-case initiative based on our interviews
with case agents and our analysis of our sample of cases. It also includes a set of recommendations for more efficient collection of data that will allow TEOAF to better track the cases
it funds and to follow metrics that are indicative of the success of the cases it funds. Chapter
Five includes a description of the prototype database that was developed to track information
related to major cases, such as details about the type of case investigated, the amount of majorcase funding received, and the resulting forfeitures and convictions. Chapter Six provides a
brief conclusion of the research conducted.
5
AFCs are present in each field office. They are typically special agents who are also tasked with assisting fellow agents in
the administrative forfeiture process. A few field offices have dedicated AFCs who do not carry duties of working their own
cases.
Chapter Two
High-Forfeiture Cases
TEOAF evaluates its success, and the success of the cases that deposit into the TFF, primarily by the level of forfeiture. TEOAF also recognizes that some of the cases it funds may not
result in large forfeitures but still further the cause of justice through other means, such as
preventing distortions to the U.S. monetary system (e.g., counterfeiting cases) or high-profile
cases that send strong policy signals and have a deterrent effect (e.g., the Bay Area Laboratory
Co-Operative, or BALCO, case).1 Yet, all other things being equal, a higher-forfeiture case is
preferred as a more punitive case and one that provides additional funds for future investigative activities. This chapter examines high-forfeiture cases to assess whether, among these cases,
there are any inputs, activities, or outputs that are associated with higher forfeiture values. This
information may help TEOAF better target its funding in the future.
Interestingly, while total forfeiture value was of keen interest to TEOAF, IRS and USSS
agents give little priority to this measurement, and consequently this information is very difficult to get. In order to determine the total forfeitures for a case, an individual from the IRS
and another from the USSS had to spend considerable time linking up TEOAF records on
individual forfeitures with case identifiers (IDs). Among agents, forfeiture is rarely cited as a
metric of success without prompting, and, in some interviews, agents offered that they were
even discouraged from focusing on the forfeiture value. Convictions and the level of profile of
the case were more often cited as indicators for success.
Overview of High-Forfeiture Cases
For both the IRS and the USSS, much of the total forfeiture value of all cases comes from a
comparatively small number of cases (see Table 2.1). For the IRS, one-third of the total amount
forfeited into the TFF between 2002 and 2006 comes from just eight of the 844 cases and
more than half from the top 5 percent of cases. The pattern is even more skewed for the USSS,
where the top 1 percent of cases (four cases) produced 40 percent of the total forfeitures into
the TFF over that same period.
1
The BALCO case was a high-profile case involving the marketing of a then-undetected performance-enhancing steroid
that was provided to a number of high-profile sport stars. The IRS participated in the investigation. Although this case
did not result in forfeiture, the high-profile investigation and prosecution changed the course of academic and professional
sports. It led to the adoption of antidoping policies and self-policing within sport activities.
7
8
Understanding Forfeitures
Table 2.1
Forfeitures to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, 2002–2006
IRS
Case Ranking
Number of Cases
USSS
Percentage of Total
Forfeiture
Number of Cases
Percentage of Total
Forfeiture
Top 1% of cases
8
33
4
40
Top 5% of cases
42
57
20
67
Top 10% of cases
84
70
40
80
The cases included in this analysis are among the higher-forfeiture cases. The 65 IRS highforfeiture cases included in this analysis have forfeiture values ranging from $0 to $40 million,
with an average of $3.1 million (versus $328,000 for all IRS cases). The 29 USSS high-forfeiture
cases in this analysis have forfeiture values ranging from $0 to $3 million, with an average of
$413,000 (versus $88,248 for all USSS cases) (see Figures 2.1a and 2.1b).2
Figure 2.1a
Forfeiture of All Cases and Database High-Forfeiture Cases, IRS
Forfeiture value of case ($ millions)
40
30
20
10
0
0
200
400
600
800
Cases
NOTE: All cases in green; high-forfeiture cases in blue.
RAND TR631-2.1a
2
Our ability to make other comparisons between the high-forfeiture cases in our sample and other high-forfeiture cases
or the broader sample of all forfeiture cases is limited. No such database exists to enable such comparisons, and one would
be very labor-intensive to construct.
High-Forfeiture Cases
9
Figure 2.1b
Forfeiture of All Cases and Database High-Forfeiture Cases, USSS
Forfeiture value of case ($ millions)
6
4
2
0
0
100
200
300
400
Cases
NOTE: All cases in green; high-forfeiture cases in orange.
RAND TR631-2.1b
Analysis of High-Forfeiture Cases in the Database
To examine whether there is a relationship between various case inputs, activities, and outputs
and the level of forfeiture yielded in a case, we divided the cases into quintiles by total asset
forfeiture value. For this, we ordered the 65 IRS cases by forfeiture value and divided them into
five equally sized groups and then did the same with the 29 USSS cases.3
In examining these data, it is important to look at two different characteristics. First, are
there differences between the lower-quintile cases and the higher-quintile cases? Presence of
characteristics among the higher quintiles that are not found at the lower quintiles may indicate factors associated with high-forfeiture cases.4 Second, are there differences between this
set of high-forfeiture cases and a more typical set of cases? The extent to which they are different from all cases suggests an association with high forfeiture. This analysis is harder for us to
do because there is no set of cases with which to compare those examined here. But we have
identified these patterns where we believe they exist.
3
As described in Chapter One, the total forfeiture value of the case represents the amount that remained in the TFF after
any deductions for restitution, revenue sharing, or other purposes. If a forfeiture was made to the fund then part or all was
withdrawn to pay restitution to victims, the forfeiture value would be correspondingly lower. We also examined the data
excluding any withdrawals, and the results were very similar.
4
While it is true that many cases, even in the lower quintile of our database, are still in the highest-forfeiture quintile of all
IRS or USSS cases, these cases represent the lion’s share of revenue forfeited to the TFF, and, therefore, differences among
them are of considerable import to understanding total forfeitures to the fund.
10
Understanding Forfeitures
Data Limitations
It is important to keep in mind that the total number of cases for both the IRS and the USSS is
small both absolutely (65 and 29 cases, respectively) and relatively (for both agencies together,
less than 10 percent of cases during the relevant period). There also may be some bias introduced by the fact that the cases included in the analysis were not selected entirely randomly;
some cases that were requested to be included in the analysis were not included, and others
that were not requested were included. It was decided that the time and resources required to
address those issues were not worth the benefit of doing so, and we do not believe that the quality of the analysis suffered as a consequence.
This analysis was based only on cases that have produced high levels of forfeiture or were
identified as having received major-case funding. As a result, the conclusions reached in this
analysis may not be applicable to all cases supported by TEOAF funding. Nonetheless, the
results of the analysis provide insights into whether certain factors associated with the program objectives might be considered predictors of success, subject to a more comprehensive
analysis.
How to Read the Tables
The tables displaying the quintile analysis use a dot to represent one case. This helps the reader
to visually identify where any clustering may occur. Occasionally, where the dots are too
numerous to count easily, numbers are given instead of dots. In the fictitious sample table in
Figure 2.2, cases have been coded based on whether they opened on an odd or even day. A
total of eight cases in our database were opened on an even day, while 12 were opened on an
odd day. This disparity suggests that high forfeitures might be associated with odd days, since
it seems likely that, overall, the days that cases are opened are more evenly distributed (further
analysis would be needed to confirm that this is true). We also see in the sample table that the
cases that were opened on even days tend to fall in the lower quintiles, while cases that were
opened on odd days cluster in the higher quintiles. This provides additional evidence that
cases opened on odd days are associated with higher forfeitures.
The Relationship Between Forfeitures and Characteristics of a Case
In this analysis, we explore the relationship between forfeiture values and the following variables: year, type of case, field office, the number of hours spent working the case, coordination
with other agencies, use of confidential sources, external funding, and other variables.
Figure 2.2
Sample Table of Cases
Day Opened
Even
Lowest
→
Middle
••••
•••
•
•
•••
••••
••••
12
4
4
4
4
20
Odd
Total
RAND TR631-2.2
4
→
Highest
Total
8
High-Forfeiture Cases
11
Year
We examined whether the levels of forfeiture increased or decreased over time. An upward
trend (with higher forfeitures occurring in the more recent years) might suggest that the IRS,
the USSS, or TEOAF had made adjustments that produced cases with higher yields. We also
examined the data for the converse, that the agencies and TEOAF were less effective in supporting their cases than before. However, we found no evidence in either direction (see Tables 2.2a
and 2.2b). There appears to be no relationship between forfeitures and year in the cases we
examined. There is no evidence that certain years cluster in the higher or lower quintiles. In
the case of year, it is not useful to look at the number of cases per year, since we requested an
even distribution across years (15 in each of the years). While we did not get this distribution,
the fluctuations by year are based on choices made by the individuals at the agencies compiling the data.
Type of Case
We examined the relationship between the type of case and the level of forfeiture. If a positive
relationship existed—for example, if drug cases yielded higher forfeitures—and if this result
were confirmed in other analyses, TEOAF could consider such information in future funding
decisions for major cases.
Criminal investigations come to the attention of IRS-CI through multiple means. The
case may be referred to IRS-CI from the civil side of the IRS or referred by another investigative agency, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Attorneys Office,
Table 2.2a
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Year, IRS
Middle
→
Highest
Total
•••
••••
•••
11
••
•••
••
•••
13
•••
•••••
••
•
••
13
2005
••
••
••••
••
•
11
2006
••••
••••
•
••••
••••
17
Total
13
13
13
13
14
65
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
••
•
••
•
6
•
••
3
Year
Lowest
2002
•
2003
•••
2004
→
Table 2.2b
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Year, USSS
Year
Lowest
2002
2003
2004
•
••
•
•
•
6
2005
••••
••
•••
•
•
11
•
•
•
3
6
6
6
29
2006
Total
5
6
12
Understanding Forfeitures
the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
(OCDETF), or local law enforcement.5 The IRS’s assistance to other agencies is often sought
because of its expertise in investigating financial crimes.
Many cases develop from regular reports filed by banks and other cash businesses (e.g., car
dealerships, jewelry stores) as required by law. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA) (Pub. L.
No. 91-508) requires U.S. financial institutions and cash businesses to file Suspicious Activity
Reports (SARs) for any suspicious activity that might signal money laundering, tax evasion,
or other criminal activities. Similarly, financial institutions and cash businesses must report
any cash transactions over $10,000 by filing Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs). SARs
and CTRs populate a database maintained by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN). Most field offices have a SAR review team that combs through the FinCEN database to identify any potential criminal activity. This background work often leads to the initiation of investigations. There is also a civil BSA review team that conducts audits on banks and
businesses to ensure that they are in compliance with documenting SARs and CTRs. If these
reviews uncover suspicious activity, the BSA review team can refer the case to IRS-CI.
USSS investigations are initiated in a variety of ways—referrals, tips, confidential informants, concerned citizens, victims, local police departments, and spin-offs from ongoing
investigations; in a few instances, the USSS initiates its own investigations (e.g., sets up a
fake storefront). As with IRS-CI, the USSS receives cases referred from other agencies, such
as the FBI or local law enforcement, when financial crime or cybercrime has been discovered
in the investigation.
Nearly all of the IRS cases we examined involved tax evasion, two-thirds involved money
laundering, and one-half involved fraud. It is likely that these patterns would be similar for
all IRS cases, not just the high-forfeiture ones. Most of the USSS cases in our sample involve
fraud, and about two-thirds included money laundering—again, as we would expect of USSS
cases more generally. There do not appear to be any strong associations between the type of
case and the level of forfeiture among the high-forfeiture case sample used for this study.
Tables 2.3a and 2.3b show the distribution of cases by the type of case. A single case can fall
into multiple categories, such as money laundering, fraud, and tax evasion. Money-laundering
cases tend to be among the higher-quintile cases for both the IRS and the USSS, but this is not
a clear association. In our interviews with IRS case agents, drug cases and those involving BSA
violations were perceived to be of high value, but we did not find evidence of this among these
cases. It is possible that drug and BSA-violation cases are overrepresented among the cases in
our data set and that there is a lower percentage of these cases in the general population of
cases, but we do not have sufficient information to evaluate this.
We also explored whether there are any trends in the type of case over time—particularly,
whether there has been a rise in the number of international cases, as some have speculated.
In our data set, we find no evidence for this. The number of international cases per year for
the IRS ranges from zero to four, with the highest year in 2004 followed by the lowest year in
2005. The results are similar for the USSS.
5
Although entities that participate as part of the TFF may collaborate on investigations with agencies outside of the Treasury Department, such as the FBI, DOJ has a separate Asset Forfeiture Program. Like the TFF, which includes agencies
and entities that are part of the Treasury Department, the DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program includes agencies and entities that
are part of DOJ, such as the FBI; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives; and the U.S. Marshals Service.
High-Forfeiture Cases
Table 2.3a
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Type of Case, IRS
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
12
13
10
13
13
61
6
5
7
9
11
38
Fraud/theft/embezzlement
••••
•••
•••••••
•••••
•••••
24
International component
•••
•••
••
••
••
12
Drugs
•••
•
•••
•••
•
11
Bulk currency
••
•••••
••
•
10
BSA violations
•••
•
•
••
8
Health care/insurance fraud
•••
•
••
Organized crime
•••
•
•
•
•
Type of Case
Tax evasion
Money laundering
Sex offenses
Government benefit/program fraud
•
•
6
•
6
••
4
••
3
Pharmaceutical fraud
•
Gambling (includes offshore)
Employment/payroll schemes
•
2
••
2
•
1
Offshore money laundering
Other
0
••
•
••
5
Table 2.3b
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Type of Case, USSS
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
Fraud/theft/embezzlement
4
6
6
6
6
28
Money laundering
3
3
4
6
5
21
••
••
7
••
••
7
•
•
6
Type of Case
ID theft
•••
International component
•
•
Access-device fraud (identity theft)
•
•••
Access-device fraud (counterfeit accounts)
••
•
••
Government benefit/program fraud
•
•
Tax evasion
••
•
Offshore money laundering
••
Gambling (includes offshore)
•
5
•
••
5
3
•
•
3
1
Organized crime
•
1
Health care/insurance fraud
•
1
Other
•
•
••
••
6
13
14
Understanding Forfeitures
Field Office
The sample of cases was examined to identify any correlation between the number of cases
and level of forfeiture with the field office that worked the case. The existence of a relationship could indicate that certain field offices were more adept at working asset-forfeiture cases,
and it could influence future major-case funding decisions. For the IRS, the New York and
Miami offices produced the highest number of cases in our analysis overall (see Table 2.4a).
For the USSS, the Los Angeles office is the best represented among these cases (see Table 2.4b).
The relative success of the cases appears to be evenly distributed, with offices that account for
forfeitures in the higher quintiles also accounting for those in the lower quintiles.
Hours
We also examined whether the level of forfeiture is associated with the number of hours spent
on the case. If additional hours resulted in higher forfeitures, and if this finding were borne out
in other analyses, TEOAF may consider investing in labor-intensive major cases in the future.
The current analysis reveals that there appears to be a modest, positive relationship between
the amount of forfeiture and the hours worked on the case. For the IRS, each additional hour
is associated with an increase of $260 in forfeiture (see Figure 2.3a), and, for the USSS, each
Table 2.4a
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Field Office, IRS
Field Office
New York, N.Y.
Miami, Fla.
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
•
•••
••
•
•••
10
•••
•
•
•••
8
Denver, Colo.
•
Houston, Tex.
•
•
••
Las Vegas, Nev.
Los Angeles, Calif.
•
•
•
Alexandria, Va.
Charlotte, N.C.
Newark, N.J.
••
••
San Antonio, Tex.
•••
•
Nashville, Tenn.
•
Boston, Mass.
•
•
Chicago, Ill.
•
4
•
3
3
••
3
•
••
3
•
3
•
2
•
2
•
2
•
2
1
New Orleans, La.
San Diego, Calif.
4
3
•
Seattle, Wash.
••
•••
•
•
4
••
St. Paul, Minn.
St. Louis, Mo.
•
•
•
Cincinnati, Ohio
5
•
•
1
1
High-Forfeiture Cases
Table 2.4b
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Field Office, USSS
Field Office
Lowest
→
••
•
Los Angeles, Calif.
Chicago, Ill.
••
Cleveland, Ohio
•
Houston, Tex.
•
Las Vegas, Nev.
Middle
→
Highest
Total
••
•
6
2
•
•
•
2
•
2
New York, N.Y.
Washington, D.C.
••
2
•
2
•
Charleston, S.C.
2
•
1
Greensboro, N.C.
•
1
Melville, N.Y.
•
1
Omaha, Neb.
•
1
San Diego, Calif.
•
1
Santa Ana, Calif.
•
1
Tampa, Fla.
•
1
Figure 2.3a
Value of High-Forfeiture Cases and Hours Spent, IRS
Forfeiture amount ($ million)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Hours spent (thousands)
RAND TR631-2.3a
14
16
18
15
16
Understanding Forfeitures
additional hour is associated with an increase of $781 in forfeiture (see Figure 2.3b) (both are
statistically significant at the 99-percent confidence level).6 On average, IRS cases yield $878
in forfeiture per hour worked, and the USSS yields $917 per hour worked.
Coordination with Other Agencies and Task Forces
We explored whether coordination with other agencies or task forces resulted in higher levels
of forfeiture. Such a correlation could encourage TEOAF to carefully consider working major
cases in concert with other agencies. Our examination of sample cases from IRS-CI and the
USSS reveal that both agencies frequently conduct investigations in conjunction with other
investigative and law-enforcement agencies. Tables 2.5a and 2.5b show that 87 percent of the
sample cases from the IRS and 76 percent of the samples cases from the USSS involved other
agencies. About 40 percent of the sample cases from both agencies involved a special task force,
which usually involve multiple agencies.
Figure 2.3b
Value of High-Forfeiture Cases and Hours Spent, USSS
3,500
Forfeiture amount ($ millions)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Hours spent
RAND TR631-2.3b
Table 2.5a
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Other Inputs and Activities, IRS
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
5
5
6
4
6
26
11
11
11
12
13
58
Used federal agency other than FBI
5
1
5
5
6
22
Used FBI
3
3
4
7
8
25
Used state and local agencies
8
8
8
4
7
35
Other Inputs
Special task force involvement
Other agencies involved
6
One outlier case, with a total forfeiture value of $40 million, was removed from this analysis.
High-Forfeiture Cases
17
Table 2.5b
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Other Inputs and Activities, USSS
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
Special task force involvement
••
•
••
•••
••
10
Other agencies involved
••
••••
••••
••••
•••••
19
•
•••
4
•
1
••
4
Other Inputs
Used federal agency other than FBI
Used FBI
Used state and local agencies
••
IRS-CI is often brought in on investigations that involve complicated financial networks.
For example, if ICE were working a drug case, it may reach out to the IRS to assist with the
case because the IRS has expertise in untangling and tracking financial transactions that criminal enterprises have purposefully made opaque. In other instances, the U.S. Attorneys Office
may request that IRS-CI participate in an investigation being conducted by another federal
agency. Primarily, the IRS is asked to help track criminal-enterprise financing.
The USSS jurisdiction overlaps with those of other agencies, so it often shares case investigations with these agencies, often at the request of the U.S. Attorneys Office, to bring different sets of expertise to bear on one case. For example, if the FBI is working a case that involves
counterfeiting, the U.S. Attorneys Office will often request that the FBI involve the USSS
because the USSS’s counterfeiting expertise will help build a stronger case.
The USSS is also commonly referred cases through local police departments (PDs). The
USSS interacts regularly with local PDs when providing protective service. Relationships are
built, and, when a financial crime or cybercrime is suspected, the local PD will often involve
the USSS.
With respect to coordination with other agencies and task forces, there appears to be no
strong relationship between most inputs and forfeiture amounts among the cases included
in this analysis. The only exception to this is that there may be an association between FBI
involvement and the level of forfeiture; the higher-forfeiture cases also tend to be more likely
to include the FBI, and this is true both for the IRS and the USSS. Otherwise, the higherforfeiture cases were no more likely to involve a special task force or other federal, state, or local
agency.
These conclusions should be placed in context, however. While there appear to be few
associations between various inputs and forfeiture, this comparison may be made only for the
cases that are included in this data set. It may be that these cases, which are relatively high in
forfeiture when compared with all IRS and USSS cases, are more likely to involve special task
forces or other agencies than the cases not included in this data set. We cannot comment on
this because we were not able to obtain this information on all IRS and USSS cases.
Use of Confidential Sources
Occasionally, IRS-CI and the USSS will use information provided by confidential sources,
such as informants or wiretapping (although the IRS tightly restricted its use of wiretapping in
response to the Watergate scandal), to support their investigations. We explored the relationship between the use of confidential sources and higher forfeiture levels. A positive relationship,
if confirmed in other analyses, might indicate that the use of a confidential source could be a
18
Understanding Forfeitures
key element to a high-yielding forfeiture, perhaps due to the nature of information to which
such sources have access. This might give TEOAF confidence that future major cases using
confidential sources could result in a high forfeiture. In early interviews in preparation for this
research, we were told that the use of confidential sources was likely to be associated with high
forfeitures. However, we did not find this among the cases we examined (see Tables 2.6a and
2.6b). Confidential sources are not associated with the higher-quintile cases for either IRS-CI
or the USSS.
However, it was clear from our interviews with agents that many of them believe that
information obtained from these sources was often critical for the successful prosecution of the
case. This analysis looks only at the relative forfeiture value of the cases, not at whether the case
was successful. Therefore, it is possible that confidential sources are of enormous value to the
success of a case, including high-forfeiture cases.
External Funding and Support
We also examined whether cases that received external funding from TEOAF or another
source were more likely to produce high forfeitures. Perhaps the presence of external funding
reflects the asset-forfeiture potential or merits of a case and is thereby a proxy for high-forfeiture
potential. Alternatively, external funding may provide cases the resource boost they need to
be successful. Among the high-forfeiture cases in our database, the only source of funding
that may be associated with higher forfeitures is major-case funding. Table 2.7a reveals that,
of the 10 IRS cases that received major-case funding,7 four fell in the highest quintile and six
in the highest two quintiles. Similarly, for the USSS, Table 2.7b shows that three of the four
cases in the high-forfeiture data set that received major-case funding fall in the highest quintile of forfeitures.8 In addition, ten of the 65 IRS cases and four of the 29 USSS cases received
major-case funding, which is likely a higher percentage than would be found among all IRS
or USSS cases, also suggesting that major-case funding is associated with higher forfeitures.
Of course, major-case funding is provided to cases that are anticipated to be relatively high in
forfeitures, so this would be expected.
Table 2.6a
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Confidential Sources, IRS
Other Inputs
Confidential informant/
wiretapping involved
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
3
0
2
3
2
10
Table 2.6b
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Confidential Sources, USSS
Other Inputs
Confidential informant/
wiretapping involved
Lowest
→
Middle
•
→
Highest
Total
•
2
7
Actually, 12 out of the 65 IRS cases in our sample received major-case funding. One of those cases has not yet resulted
in forfeiture, and, in another case, the major-case funding amount was not reported.
8
There were five USSS cases out of the total of 29 cases in the sample that received major-case funding. One of those cases
has not yet produced forfeiture.
High-Forfeiture Cases
19
Table 2.7a
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by External Funding and Support, IRS
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
Any TEOAF funding
••••
•••••
•••••
••••
••••••
24
Major-case funding
••
•
•
••
••••
10
Other TEOAF funding
••
••••
•••••
•••
•••
17
Other funding
•••
•
••
•••••
•••
14
Other in-kind support
••
•
•
••
•••
9
External Funding
Table 2.7b
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by External Funding and Support, USSS
External Funding
Any TEOAF funding
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
•
••
•••
•••
••••
13
•••
4
•••
12
••
2
Major-case funding
Other TEOAF funding
•
•
••
•••
•••
Other funding
Other in-kind support
0
Except for major-case funding, there does not appear to be an association between funding sources and the level of forfeiture.
Other Outputs
Finally, we examined the association between other outcomes, such as whether there were victims in the case, whether there were referrals for prosecution, and whether there were convictions, and high levels of forfeiture. For example, if high-forfeiture cases also tended to produce
high levels of convictions, that would provide TEOAF with additional motivation to support
cases with high forfeiture potential. Data from our sample of cases provided in Tables 2.8a and
2.8b show that, for both agencies, virtually all the cases were referred for prosecution and had
convictions, so there is not enough variability to examine any relationship between these factors and forfeiture. This is also the case for the presence of victims in USSS cases. The IRS cases
had proportionately fewer victims than the USSS cases, but the distribution of these cases does
not appear to be associated with the level of forfeiture.
Table 2.8a
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Other Outputs, IRS
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
4
4
6
3
5
22
Referrals for prosecution
10
8
11
12
13
54
Convictions
12
10
10
12
12
56
Other Outputs
Victims
20
Understanding Forfeitures
Table 2.8b
High-Forfeiture Quintile Analysis, by Other Outputs, USSS
Lowest
→
Middle
→
Highest
Total
Victims
4
5
5
5
3
22
Referrals for prosecution
5
6
6
6
6
29
Convictions
5
6
5
6
5
27
Other Outputs
Summary
High-forfeiture cases represent a comparatively small number of cases but the bulk of the
contributions into the TFF, so they are very important to the overall forfeiture contributed to
the TFF. However, based on our small sample of cases, our analysis suggests that very few factors are associated with this high level of forfeiture. Among these cases, the number of hours
worked on the case is associated with high forfeiture. In addition, the presence of major-case
funding is associated with high-forfeiture cases. This will be discussed at greater length in
Chapter Three.
The level of forfeiture does not appear to be getting higher or lower over time, and it does
not seem to be related to the presence or absence of involvement of other federal, state, and
local agencies, except possibly the FBI, whose involvement is somewhat associated with higher
levels of forfeiture. High-forfeiture cases are investigated across many field offices but concentrated in New York and Miami for IRS-CI cases and in Los Angeles for USSS cases. Nearly all
high-forfeiture cases include tax evasion, money laundering, and fraud, but this is also true for
IRS-CI and USSS investigations more generally.
Chapter Three
Major Cases
The major-case funding initiative was established in 2002 to provide a mechanism for additional support for investigations conducted by agencies that participate in the TFF that are
anticipated to be high in forfeiture. Many high-forfeiture cases do not require additional funding: Their costs are fully borne by the agencies conducting the investigation. But in other cases,
the investigation requires additional funding to fill a specific need for which resources are not
available. For example, agents may need to travel internationally to obtain evidence or conduct
interviews, but the field office budget cannot absorb that cost. Alternatively, an investigation
may require specific electronic equipment and skills that were not anticipated but internal
funding cannot cover. When the internal budget cannot fund investigative expenses deemed
critical to the success of the case and the case is anticipated to be high in forfeiture, an agent
might request funding from the major-case initiative to cover these costs. If the investigator
can show that the case is anticipated to bring in a relatively high level of forfeiture (at least
$100,000), TEOAF will consider this request. To date, if the request is considered reasonable
and there is sufficient major-case funding allocated to the agency that year to cover costs, the
request is granted.
For the USSS in particular, the major-case initiative is seen as filling an important gap.
Much of the agency’s budget is devoted to protective services, and funds appropriated for
investigations cover only basic costs, such as salaries, office space and limited expenses, cars,
and minimal travel. The agency relies heavily on TEOAF for investigative expenses, which
may be funded through the major-case initiative, other TEOAF investigative-support programs (such as joint operations), or as a cost leading to seizure. Prior to major-case funding,
the agency would investigate a case using its own resources, and, if that case resulted in forfeiture, the agency could submit to TEOAF some of its investigative expenses for reimbursement.
Major-case funding enables agents to spend a significant amount of time investigating a case
before a seizure is made, as long as there is significant forfeiture potential. Additionally, majorcase funding is not contingent upon a seizure. For these reasons, it seems likely that the lack of
major-case funding would likely impair the USSS’s ability to work cases with forfeiture potential. On the other hand, those we interviewed from the IRS believed that, while major-case
funding has been very helpful, a denial of a request for major-case funding would be unlikely
to imperil a case with merit.
21
22
Understanding Forfeitures
Overview of Cases Receiving Major-Case Funding
For this research, we asked each agency to share data with us about all the cases that had
received major-case funding at any time and that had closed between 2002 and 2006. We
received information about 12 IRS-CI cases and five USSS cases. It is likely that other cases
that had received major-case funding had not yet closed and, therefore, were not available to
share for our analysis. But given that the major-case funding for our sample cases represents
only a small portion of the major-case funding distributed during that time frame, it is also
likely that our sample is only a subset of closed major cases. Therefore, the analysis included
here applies only to the cases in our sample and not to all major cases. Both the IRS-CI and
USSS samples of major cases included one case in which the forfeiture is still pending. Therefore, for analysis purposes, we examined only 11 IRS-CI cases and four USSS cases.
The forfeiture value for the 11 IRS-CI major cases in our analysis averages $1.9 million and ranges from $0 to $8.7 million. The average value of all IRS cases in our sample is
$328,000, so the major cases are clearly of higher value than IRS cases overall. Figure 3.1a
depicts this more visually, showing that the major cases tend to cluster to the higher end of the
forfeiture scale for IRS cases.
The four USSS cases in our analysis that received major-case funding produced a forfeiture value of $788,000 on average, with a range of $299,000–$1,100,000. This is higher
than the average forfeiture amount for all USSS cases in our sample, which was $88,248. The
forfeiture values for the major cases as compared with all USSS cases from our sample may be
found in Figure 3.1b.
Figure 3.1a
Forfeiture of All Cases and Major Cases, IRS
Forfeiture value of case ($ millions)
40
30
20
10
0
0
200
400
Cases
NOTE: All cases in green; major cases in blue.
RAND TR631-3.1a
600
800
Major Cases
23
Figure 3.1b
Forfeiture of All Cases and Major Cases, USSS
Forfeiture value of case ($ millions)
6
4
2
0
0
100
200
300
400
Cases
NOTE: All cases in green; major cases in orange.
RAND TR631-3.1b
Analysis of Major Cases in the Database
Because there are comparatively few major cases, we did not divide them into quintiles as
we did in examining the high-forfeiture cases but rather examined them individually. In the
analy­sis in this chapter, we array the cases from lowest forfeiture (on the left side) to highest
forfeiture (on the right side) and examined patterns in the relationships between forfeiture
value and inputs, outputs, and other related factors.
As with the high-forfeiture cases analysis, we looked at two characteristics: whether there
are variables that are associated with the higher-forfeiture major cases that are less common
among the lower-forfeiture major cases and whether there are variables that are associated with
major cases that are less common among the more typical IRS-CI and USSS cases. We also
examined whether there are differences between the major cases and high-forfeiture cases in
our data set. For this reason, we also include a column summarizing the high-forfeiture data
in the tables in this chapter.
How to Read the Tables
Each column in the tables represents a case from our sample of cases that received major-case
funding (11 IRS-CI cases and four USSS cases). The tables also include a column that provides
the average of all the major cases in our sample (“Total MC”) and the average of all the highforfeiture cases in our sample (“Total HF”) for purposes of comparison.
24
Understanding Forfeitures
The Relationship Between Forfeitures and Characteristics of a Case
Type and Level of Funding
The IRS major cases included in our data set received between $10,000 and $228,000 in majorcase funding, with an average amount of $90,708. Among these major cases, higher levels of
funding do not appear to be associated with higher levels of forfeiture (although recall from
Chapter Two that major cases do yield, on average, higher levels of forfeiture than the typical
IRS case—$1.9 million versus $328,000). The average forfeiture value of the IRS major cases
is lower than that of the high-forfeiture cases ($1.9 million versus $3.1 million), although this
would be expected: The high-forfeiture cases were selected because they were high forfeiture,
while the major cases were selected because the agencies anticipated high forfeiture early in the
investigation. The USSS did not provide information about the amounts of major-case funding provided to the cases in our sample. However, from our interviews with USSS agents, the
average amount of major-case funding was estimated at $10,000 per case. The major cases in
our sample have a higher average forfeiture than our sample of high-forfeiture cases ($788,000
versus $413,000), suggesting that these major cases were very well chosen for funding. (Recall
from Chapter Two that USSS major cases also yielded higher forfeitures than the typical USSS
case—$788,000 versus $88,248.)
There does seem to be an association between the forfeiture value of the IRS-CI major
cases examined here and the presence of other funding sources. The five cases with the highest
forfeiture value all received some other funding or in-kind support as well, either from TEOAF
or another source (see Table 3.1a). Among the USSS cases, all had received other support, so
we cannot determine whether there is a direct association between major-case funding and
forfeiture amount (see Table 3.1b). Recall that the USSS has a very limited budget to pursue
investigations and so relies on outside sources more heavily than IRS-CI.
The two agencies use major-case funding in somewhat different ways. Both agencies use it
for travel that would not otherwise be funded internally and for electronics, such as computer
or surveillance equipment. But IRS-CI also used major-case funding to pay for office supplies,
transcription and translation, document management, search-warrant expenses, and victim
Table 3.1a
Major-Case Analysis, by Type and Level of Funding, IRS
Funding Type
Forfeiture
value
($ thousands)
0
0
0
391
433
500
688
1,860
Major-case
funding
($ thousands)
20
n.a.
10
27
180
113
32
75
Other TEOAF
funding
Other funding
Total
MC
Total
HF
8,700
1,917
avg.
3,100
avg.
100
77
avg.
Cases
•
2,515 6,000
194
•
•
•
Other in-kind
support
Note: n.a. = not available.
18
•
•
•
•
3
17
2
14
3
9
Major Cases
25
Table 3.1b
Major-Case Analysis, by Type and Level of Funding, USSS
Funding Type
Cases
Total MC
Total HF
Forfeiture value ($ thousands)
299
654
1,100
1,100
788 avg.
413 avg.
Major-case funding ($ thousands)
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
•
•
3
12
1
2
0
0
Other TEOAF funding
•
Other funding
•
Other in-kind support
Note: n.a. = not available.
care (and, likely, other uses not covered by this subset of cases) (see Table 3.2a). The USSS, on
the other hand, used major-case funding in these five cases for subpoenas, undercover purchases, and forensic accounting (see Table 3.2b).
If an analysis were to find that certain uses of major-case funding produced greater levels
of forfeiture, TEOAF might encourage agencies to use major-case funding more often for this
purpose. However, there does not appear to be a relationship between the way in which majorcase funding was used and the forfeiture level of the case.
Table 3.2a
Major-Case Analysis, by Use of Major-Case Funding, IRS
Use of Major-Case
Funding
Forfeiture value
($ thousands)
0
0
Travel
Office space and
supplies
Electronics
Transcription/
translation
Total Total
MC
HF
Cases
0
391
433
500
688
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1,860 2,515 6,000 8,700 1,917 3,100
avg. avg.
•
•
•
8
•
4
•
2
•
•
2
Publication of
documents for
discovery
•
1
Relocation of
documents
•
1
Search-warrant
expenses (vehicles
and supplies)
•
Securing evidence
materials
Care for victims
Unknown
1
•
1
•
1
•
1
26
Understanding Forfeitures
Table 3.2b
Major-Case Analysis, by Use of Major-Case Funding, USSS
Use of Major-Case Funding
Cases
Forfeiture value ($ thousands)
299
Subpoena costs
•
Travel
•
654
1,100
1,100
•
Total MC
Total HF
788 avg.
413 avg.
2
1
Electronics
•
1
Undercover purchases
1
Forensic accounting
•
1
Year
We examined the major cases in our analysis to see whether there appeared to be any changes,
positive or negative, in the forfeiture value over time. If forfeiture value were increasing with
time, this might suggest that the major-case funding was producing better results with time,
and the reverse might also be true. However, we found no such trends in the IRS-CI cases (see
Table 3.3a). Among the USSS cases, three of the four cases closed in 2005, so we did not have
sufficient variation to examine this question (see Table 3.3b).
Table 3.3a
Major-Case Analysis, by Year, IRS
Year
Cases
Forfeiture value
($ thousands)
0
2003
•
0
0
391
500
688
1,860
2,515 6,000 8,700
•
2004
2005
433
•
•
•
2006
•
•
•
•
•
•
Total
MC
Total
HF
1,917
avg.
3,100
avg.
2
13
3
13
3
11
3
18
Table 3.3b
Major-Case Analysis, by Year, USSS
Year
Forfeiture value ($ thousands)
Cases
299
654
1,100
1,100
2002
2003
•
2004
2005
2006
•
•
•
Total MC
Total HF
788 avg.
413 avg.
0
6
1
3
0
6
3
11
0
3
Major Cases
27
For the IRS cases, we also examined whether there were a relationship between majorcase funding yield (amount of forfeiture per dollar of major-case funding spent) and year and
also found no trend.
Type of Case
The types of cases pursued with major-case funding appears to be consistent with the highforfeiture cases: tax evasion (for IRS) and money laundering, fraud, theft, embezzlement, and
ID theft (for the USSS), and both sets often have an international component (see Tables 3.4a
Table 3.4a
Major-Case Analysis, by Type of Case, IRS
Type of Case
Total Total
MC
HF
Cases
Forfeiture value
($ thousands)
0
0
0
391
433
500
688
Tax evasion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Money laundering
•
•
•
•
•
•
1,860 2,515 6,000 8,700 1,917 3,100
avg. avg.
•
•
•
11
61
•
•
•
9
38
•
•
4
24
3
12
3
11
0
10
1
8
1
6
1
6
3
4
1
3
Pharmaceutical fraud
0
2
Gambling
(includes offshore)
0
2
Employment/
illegal payroll scheme
0
1
Offshore money
laundering
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
5
Fraud/theft/
embezzlement
•
International
component
•
Drugs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bulk currency
BSA violation
•
Health care/
insurance fraud
Organized crime
•
•
Sex offense
•
Government benefit/
program fraud
•
Alien smuggling/
trafficking
MSB violation
•
•
Other
Note: MSB = money-service business.
•
•
28
Understanding Forfeitures
and 3.4b). There is a slightly higher representation of money-laundering cases among the IRS
major cases (83 percent of major cases and 58 percent of high-forfeiture cases) and under­
representation of bulk-currency cases (no major cases but 15 percent of high-forfeiture cases),
but the numbers of cases is small, and, therefore, this difference may be attributable to ordinary variation.
Field Office
For IRS-CI, the field offices with the greatest number of major cases were Seattle (four cases)
and Miami (three cases). Tampa, Nashville, Denver/San Antonio, Oakland, and New Jersey
each had one case (see Table 3.5a). This is a very different pattern from that of the high-forfeiture
cases, where Seattle produced a relatively low number of high-forfeiture cases (two out of the
65 high-forfeiture cases) and New York produced a relatively low number of major cases (no
major cases but ten of the 65 high-forfeiture cases, the most productive office of the ones examined here). Miami was second in the number of both high-forfeiture and major cases.
Among the USSS cases, none of the offices that produced major cases also produced any
of the high-forfeiture cases examined here, and none of the offices that produced high-forfeiture
cases produced any of the major cases included in this analysis. New Orleans produced the
greatest number of major cases (three), and Rochester and Spokane each produced one (see
Table 3.5b).
Table 3.4b
Major-Case Analysis, by Type of Case, USSS
Type of Case
Forfeiture value ($ thousands)
Cases
Total MC
Total HF
299
654
1,100
1,100
788 avg.
413 avg.
Fraud/theft/embezzlement
•
•
•
•
54
28
Money laundering
•
•
•
3
21
•
1
7
32
7
Access-device fraud (identity theft)
0
6
Access-device fraud (counterfeit accounts)
0
5
1
5
Tax evasion
0
3
Offshore money laundering
0
3
Gambling (includes offshore)
0
1
Organized crime
0
1
Health care/insurance fraud
0
1
2
6
Identity theft
International component
•
Government benefit/program fraud
Other
•
•
•
•
Major Cases
29
Table 3.5a
Major-Case Analysis, by Field Office, IRS
Field Office
Forfeiture value
($ thousands)
Total
MC
Cases
0
0
0
391
433
500
688
Total
HF
1,860 2,515 6,000 8,700 1,917 3,100
avg. avg.
New York, N.Y.
0
10
2
8
1
5
Houston, Tex.
0
4
Las Vegas, Nev.
0
4
Los Angeles, Calif.
0
4
Alexandria, Va.
0
3
Charlotte, N.C.
0
3
1
3
San Antonio, Tex.
0
3
St. Paul, Minn.
0
3
1
3
Boston, Mass.
0
2
Cincinnati, Ohio
0
2
St. Louis, Mo.
0
2
4
2
Chicago, Ill.
0
1
New Orleans, La.
0
1
San Diego, Calif.
0
1
1
0
1
0
Miami, Fla.
•
•
Denver, Colo.
•
Newark, N.J.
•
Nashville, Tenn.
•
Seattle, Wash.
Tampa, Fla.
•
•
•
•
Oakland, Calif.
•
•
Other Inputs and Activities
There does not appear to be a relationship between the forfeiture value of these cases and
the number of hours worked on a case. Major cases do seem to take appreciably more time.
For the IRS, the major cases took, on average, 8,900 hours, versus 3,600 hours for the
high-forfeiture cases, and, for the USSS, major cases required, on average, 1,250 hours, versus
449 hours for the high-forfeiture cases (see Tables 3.6a and 3.6b). This is to be expected, as
the major cases tend to be those that are somewhat more complicated and require additional
resources to complete.
There also appears to be no clear relationship between forfeiture and whether other agencies or task forces were involved in the investigation. For IRS-CI, however, use of a confidential
informant does appear to be associated with a high level of forfeiture among the major cases
we examined.
30
Understanding Forfeitures
Table 3.5b
Major-Case Analysis, by Field Office, USSS
Field Office
Forfeiture value ($ thousands)
Cases
299
654
1,100
1,100
Total MC
Total HF
788 avg.
413 avg.
Los Angeles, Calif.
6
Chicago, Ill.
2
Cleveland, Ohio
2
Houston, Tex.
2
Las Vegas, Nev.
2
New York, N.Y.
2
Washington, D.C.
2
Charleston, S.C.
1
Greensboro, N.C.
1
Melville, N.Y.
1
Omaha, Neb.
1
San Diego, Calif.
1
Santa Ana, Calif.
1
Tampa, Fla.
1
New Orleans, La.
•
•
•
Rochester, N.Y.
Spokane, Wash.
•
3
0
0
0
1
0
Other Outputs
As with the high-forfeiture cases, nearly all of the major cases were referred for prosecution. For the IRS, most cases also resulted in a conviction (one was settled by plea) (see
Table 3.7a). For the USSS, one case resulted in convictions, and two others are still pending
(see Table 3.7b). The major cases were about as likely to have victims as the high-forfeiture
cases, and there does not appear to be any clear relationship between cases that include victims and their level of forfeiture.
Summary
This analysis finds that major cases do tend to cluster around the higher levels of forfeiture.
While both IRS-CI and the USSS had major cases that did not produce forfeiture, their average forfeiture values are $1.9 million and $788,000, respectively, which fall in the 98th percentile of cases for each agency.
While there does appear to be an association between major and high-forfeiture cases,
the amount of major-case funding is not associated with the resulting level of forfeiture. This
makes sense, given that the level of major-case funding provided is not determined by the
Major Cases
31
Table 3.6a
Major-Case Analysis, by Other Inputs and Activities, IRS
Other Input
Forfeiture value
($ thousands)
Case hours
(thousands)
0
0
0
391
433
500
688
1.1
4.0
2.0
3.8
6.2
3.5
n.a.
4.5
45.4
11.6
5.0
8.7
avg.
3.6
avg.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10
58
•
•
•
4
35
3
26
•
5
25
Other agencies
involved
Used state and local
agencies
Special task force
involved
Total Total
MC
HF
Cases
•
•
•
Used FBI
•
Used federal agency
other than FBI
•
•
1,860 2,515 6,000 8,700 1,917 3,100
avg. avg.
•
•
•
•
Confidential
informant/
wiretapping involved
•
•
•
5
22
•
•
•
3
10
Table 3.6b
Major-Case Analysis, by Other Inputs and Activities, USSS
Other Inputs
Forfeiture value ($ thousands)
Case hours (thousands)
Other agencies involved
Cases
Total HF
299
654
1,100
1,100
788 avg.
413 avg.
1,000
2,000
500
1,000
1,125 avg.
449 avg.
•
•
•
3
19
•
1
10
•
2
4
Special task force involved
Used state and local agencies
Total MC
•
Used federal agency other than
FBI
4
Used FBI
1
Confidential informant/
wiretapping involved
•
1
2
importance of the case. The decision of how much major-case funding to request is left up
to the case agent conducting the investigation, and rarely is a case that is considered to be a
candidate for major-case funding not given the full amount requested. Judgments about the
amount of major-case funding are based more on the merits of the case than on the level of
funding requested.
32
Understanding Forfeitures
Table 3.7a
Major-Case Analysis, by Other Outputs, IRS
Other Outputs
Forfeiture value
($ thousands)
Total Total
MC
HF
Cases
0
0
0
Victims
391
433
•
500
688
1,860 2,515 6,000 8,700 1,917 3,100
avg. avg.
•
•
3
22
Referrals for
prosecution
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10
54
Convictions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10
56
Table 3.7b
Major-Case Analysis, by Other Outputs, USSS
Other Outputs
Forfeiture value ($ thousands)
Cases
299
654
Convictions
•
Total HF
1,100
1,100
788 avg.
413 avg.
•
n.a.
1
22
•
•
•
4
29
•
n.a.
n.a.
1
27
Victims
Referrals for prosecution
Total MC
Note: n.a. = not available (case is still open for these purposes).
In many ways, the set of major cases examined here looks very similar to the set of highforfeiture cases. The types of cases, the level of agency collaboration, the presence of victims,
and the success rate in convictions are similar across the two sets. Yet, the field offices that
pursue major cases are very different from what would be expected from the field-office representation among high-forfeiture cases. This may be a result of individuals in certain field
offices who are particularly aggressive in pursuing major-case funding, or it may be that the
larger offices that yield many of the high forfeitures have an easier time finding the funding
they need without making additional requests to TEOAF, or both. As awareness of major-case
funding grows with time, the differences in field-office representation between the two sets of
cases may diminish.
Chapter Four
Recommendations for Major-Case Funding
Major-case funding appears to be serving the purpose for which it is intended: supporting the
investigations of cases that are likely to be relatively high in forfeiture. TEOAF anticipates that
there is a risk associated with the cases it funds and that not all will produce forfeiture. From
the sample of cases examined for this analysis, three IRS-CI major cases did not produce forfeiture. For one IRS-CI case and one USSS case, it is too soon to tell whether they will produce
forfeiture.
The quantitative analysis presented in Chapters Two and Three was supplemented by
interviews with agents from IRS-CI and the USSS. We interviewed ten IRS agents and AFCs
and six USSS agents, covering such topics as how cases are initiated, the types of cases, the role
of major-case funding, and the process of applying for and receiving major-case funding. Most
agents whom we interviewed reported that major-case funding provided greater resource flexibility as they investigated cases and believed that the funding had been critical to the success
of the case.
Most agents were also very satisfied with the major-case funding program overall. We
asked those who were familiar with the program what they would change, and many had trouble thinking of any areas of dissatisfaction or suggested changes. In this chapter, we explore a
few areas for improvement that emerged from these interviews and from our analysis.
Awareness/Coordination
For IRS-CI, awareness of major-case funding seemed to vary by field office. Some agents
thought that only a few fellow agents knew about major-case funding, while in other offices,
agents believed that everyone knew of this resource. The 29 field offices were described as 29
small businesses. There is some overall corporate structure, but there is also individuality that
may be driven by the nature of the cases in that field office or the personality of the supervisory
agent in charge. Some of the field offices have aggressive forfeiture programs, while others do
not. Many of the agents we interviewed had requested major-case funding only once, the case
about which we were inquiring. When asked why they had not requested major-case funding
more often, they noted that not all cases are appropriate for major-case funding. Most cases
can be investigated with the resources from their office budgets. Those agents and others noted
that major-case funding is appropriate for investigations that are large or complex in nature
and that will require resources beyond those required for a typical case. This is especially true
for cases that will require extensive travel, specialized computer equipment and data analysis,
33
34
Understanding Forfeitures
or translation of recordings or documents. Many of the agents we interviewed had participated
in the TEOAF-provided training course on seizing and forfeiting assets.
Those we interviewed believed that, even if agents are not aware of major-case funding,
their supervisors are fully aware and encourage use of these funds when appropriate. We interviewed a number of case agents who were not aware of major-case funding until their supervisors suggested that they apply for it for a specific case. Often, those supervisors applied for the
funding on their behalf. Many of these agents knew that they received TEOAF funds but had
no idea which pot of TEOAF funding was the source (e.g., joint operations, major cases). Ideally, all case agents would be aware of the resources available from TEOAF for working forfeiture cases. That does not appear to be the situation. However, the IRS seems to be doing a good
job of educating supervisory agents about major-case funding, and that knowledge appears to
be flowing to the case agents.
For the USSS, awareness of TEOAF as an investigative resource is much higher, possibly because the agency relies more heavily on external funding for major investigative programs. When asked whether their fellow agents were aware of TEOAF funding, all those
interviewed said yes, although they indicated that not all agents apply for major-case funding
because not all cases meet the requirements (for forfeiture potential, for example). One agent
noted that the success of their investigations may be limited by the U.S. Attorneys Office.
For example, the U.S. Attorneys Office in that agent’s jurisdiction was not aggressive on
asset forfeiture. That particular U.S. Attorneys Office will do only criminal forfeitures and
will not pursue civil forfeitures, and the USSS has only limited authority over administrative
forfeitures.
To improve awareness of major-case funding, we recommend that TEOAF work with the
agencies that receive TEOAF funds to ensure that any agent who functions in a supervisory role be
made aware of major-case funding. This seemed to be occurring within the limited number of
field offices with which we spoke, but we are unsure how agency-wide this practice might be.
Because agents tend to work cases that are appropriate for major-case funding infrequently,
and because details about funding and forfeiture potential are reviewed with supervisors, a
model that depends on the supervisor to identify candidates for major-case funding seems to
be an efficient approach.
In addition, TEOAF should develop materials targeted to the smaller offices, where forfeiture
cases may be more infrequent and awareness of TEOAF resources may be low. Agents who have
received the TEOAF training indicated that having materials to share with their colleagues
would help them spread the word about the availability of major-case funding and when it is
appropriate for a case.
TEOAF might also consider the benefits of improved communications with U.S. Attorneys
Offices regarding both criminal and civil forfeitures. As we discussed earlier, agents often view a
successful investigation as one that produces convictions or forfeiture or both. If a U.S. Attorneys Office is reluctant to pursue forfeiture cases, the case agent has less incentive to pursue
certain investigations and ultimately will limit the deposits into the TFF.
Recommendations for Major-Case Funding
35
Approval Process
IRS-CI Cases
From our interviews, we understand that, to apply for major-case funding for an IRS-CI case,
the agent working the case, or his or her supervisor, usually writes a memo to the Warrants
and Forfeiture Section outlining the merits of the case and identifying the forfeiture potential.
The memo must include the funding request and the equipment and services the funds would
cover. The memo is first evaluated by the special agent in charge (SAC) in the field office and,
if approved, is sent to the Warrants and Forfeiture Section at headquarters. If the request is
less than $50,000, Warrants and Forfeiture can submit those requests it approves directly to
TEOAF. If the request is $50,000 or greater, the agent must also receive approval from the
Resource Investment Board (RIB), which is provided similar information as contained in the
request memo to the Warrants and Forfeiture Section. A response from the RIB can take a few
months. Those interviewed were not clear about who sits on the RIB or whether additional
signatures within the agency are also required for approval. However, only one agent reported
that a major-case funding request was denied, and that was because the funding had already
been allocated for that year.
This approval process has been in place only a few years. Prior to that time, requests for
funding were very informal. Agents or supervisors would make a phone call to the Warrants
and Forfeiture Section requesting the funding, and they would often receive an answer within
a day. Reporting requirements were fairly minimal under the old system. The more formalized
process requires more signatures for approval, which means that the time between request and
approval can now be months. Despite the formality of the procedures, most major-case funding
requests are granted, provided that the Warrants and Forfeiture Section considers the request
reasonable and there is sufficient major-case funding allocated that year to cover costs.
USSS Cases
For the USSS, the process for requesting major-case funding remains fairly informal and
straightforward. The agent writes up a brief summary of the case and what the major-case
funding would be used for, including the potential for forfeiture, and submits it to the USSS
agent functioning as a liaison with TEOAF. If it is approved, the liaison sends the request
along with an authorization letter to TEOAF. The TEOAF liaisons we interviewed said that
they were discriminating in how they allocated the money. They preferred to fund agents or
offices that had participated in the asset-forfeiture training and therefore had some knowledge
of the forfeiture process and a greater chance of success. Here, too, however, most requests for
major-case funding are granted if the request seems reasonable to the liaison and if there is
major-case funding left to allocate that year.
To improve the approval process, we recommend that TEOAF develop guidelines for request
submissions. These guidelines might vary slightly for large and small requests, for large and
small offices, or for IRS-CI and the USSS, but more clarity is needed about what information
is required in making the request. Some agents struggle in developing these requests because
of the lack of clarity about the information that is required. Examples of well-designed requests
may also be provided to agents for them to use for reference. In addition, better standardization of the information requested will improve the quality of information that TEOAF collects
about the cases requesting funding, which may be helpful in its ongoing efforts to track and
analyze cases that request and receive major-case funding.
36
Understanding Forfeitures
We also recommend that IRS-CI and TEOAF create greater transparency around the RIB
request and approval process. Agents expressed confusion and concern about the information
that is required, the evaluation criteria used for assessing the requests, and the time line. Greater
clarity in this process will likely improve the quality of these requests, the efficiency with which
they are prepared, and the comfort with which they are submitted.
Timing of Approval
As the major-case funding program has expanded and become more formalized, some IRS-CI
agents perceived that one of the primary benefits of the fund—quick access to funding for
case-related expenses—has eroded somewhat. The more formal application process allows
for greater accountability of the funding, but the downside is that it also can take months to
receive approval. Some agents worried that they may miss opportunities to seize assets if they
are waiting months for the funds to travel to conduct a seizure. The approval process is an IRS
procedural holdup and not under the control of TEOAF. Agents did note that TEOAF tried
to address this concern by exploring the option of issuing TEOAF-sponsored credit cards to
the AFCs to cover immediate expenses in such instances, but IRS rejected the proposal. Our
understanding is that the IRS wanted its agents to be subject to IRS procurement rules rather
than Treasury procurement rules.
We recommend that TEOAF continue to explore avenues with IRS-CI to cover forfeiturerelated expenses that may arise during the months-long approval process so as to not miss potential
seizure opportunities.
The Role of the Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
IRS-CI assigns some agents to be AFCs. The AFC assists agents with the administrative process of seizing and forfeiting assets. Most field offices have at least one AFC, and the AFC role
seems to vary by field office, depending on the preferences of the SAC who runs the field office.
In most offices, the AFC assists only with the administrative process of seizing and forfeiting
assets but leaves all the requests and reporting requirements to the case agent. These AFCs are
informed about a potential major case early on and follow it (from a distance) throughout its
investigation. Typically, these AFCs serve as case agents on their own investigations in addition to serving in the AFC capacity. A few offices have an AFC dedicated solely to that role. In
this case, the AFC may write the funding requests and provide TEOAF with monthly reports.
AFCs are important conduits between investigations and deposits into the TFF.
Tracking and Reporting Requirements
IRS-CI Cases
The current system that IRS-CI uses for tracking forfeiture cases is, aptly named, the Asset
Forfeiture Tracking and Retrieval (AFTRAK) system. AFTRAK tracks the receipt and disposal of assets. IRS-CI uses AFTRAK to create reports for TEOAF, particularly for its annual
accountability report. AFTRAK does not incorporate any details about the case. Case details,
Recommendations for Major-Case Funding
37
but not forfeiture information, however, are contained in the Criminal Investigation Management Information System (CIMIS). This database tracks cases by the individual (defendant),
not by assets seized. These two systems are not connected electronically and are difficult to link
even manually. We were surprised to find out how challenging it is to determine the total forfeitures associated with a single closed case. The IRS is currently in the process of integrating
these two systems into one, although no one interviewed thought that this would be finalized
in the near future.
IRS-CI agents who are leading investigations that receive major-case funding are required
to submit a monthly report to the Warrants and Forfeiture Section to document how the funds
were spent and how they intend to use any remaining funds. Additionally, the field-office
budget analyst is required to submit a monthly reimbursables report requesting reimbursement
from TEOAF for any expenses incurred.
Some IRS-CI agents found the reporting requirements burdensome. They found the
guidance vague on what information should be included in the reports and therefore felt that
they likely spend more time than necessary fulfilling this obligation. In addition, while some
felt that monthly reporting on spending of the major-case funding made sense, they thought
that reporting on the case progress could be less frequent.
USSS Cases
The USSS has a database called FastTrack that catalogs all forfeiture cases. The database was
supposedly paid for by TEOAF, although TEOAF funding for a case will not show up in the
database. Interestingly, none of the agents we interviewed was aware of this database. Some
guessed that the database is likely populated and used by the Asset Forfeiture Branch at headquarters rather than by the case agents themselves.
The USSS also has the Master Central Index (MCI), which is the central database for
investigations, though it appears to track information on suspects and other identifiers rather
than investigative cases per se. The variables included reflect individual information, such as
social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, license numbers, and known associates. Case
information contained in FastTrack is not linked to case information in the MCI. As with
IRS-CI, there is no easy way to link cases with the forfeiture deposits made into the TFF or to
determine the total forfeitures associated with a single case.
USSS agents who receive major-case funding are also required to submit reports, but these
are integrated with existing USSS reporting requirements, so there is no additional administrative burden on the case agents. During an investigation, an agent is required to write a report
documenting all the actions of the case and a brief summary of the case every 60 days. Once a
case moves into judicial status, agents are required to report on the case every 120 days. Agents
provide information on seizures to the Asset Forfeiture Branch and status reports on investigations to the Criminal Investigation Division. Agents submit these reports to the TEOAF liaison as well, and this functions as their TEOAF reporting requirement.
We recommend that TEOAF, in collaboration with IRS-CI and the USSS, develop a mechanism to link forfeitures with cases, at least for cases receiving major-case funding, and ideally for all
cases. This is critical in TEOAF’s ongoing efforts to track and analyze major cases and all forfeiture cases more generally. In addition, TEOAF should develop the capability to retain and
track other case details, such as the type of case, the field office handling the case, the way in
which the funding that TEOAF provided was spent, and other details.
38
Understanding Forfeitures
We recommend that TEOAF work with IRS-CI in an effort to streamline the reports required
by the case agents. Perhaps the TEOAF-related reports can be integrated with other progress
and budget reports internally required of case agents. This would be similar to the reporting
process of the USSS.
Chapter Five
Tracking Future Major Cases Through a Database
Prototype Database
We developed a prototype database that connects case information with funding and forfeiture information using the data collected from IRS-CI and the USSS on a sample of highforfeiture cases that closed between 2002 and 2006. These same data were the basis for the
analyses in Chapters Two and Three, where we examined whether certain variables correlated
well with certain outcomes. Previously, TEOAF has reviewed details of the cases it has funded,
including expenditures and resulting forfeitures, but has not tracked that information in a systematic fashion.
The prototype database currently includes case information on high-forfeiture cases and
cases funded through the major-case initiative that closed between 2002 and 2006. However,
in the future, this database is expected to be a mechanism through which TEOAF will, at a
minimum, track investigations funded through the major-case initiative.
Having a database to track major cases provides TEOAF with information to better
understand and evaluate the major-case funding program and to refine its funding strategy as
necessary. Such information will allow TEOAF to identify any common patterns that exist
between characteristics of an investigation that may be associated with higher levels of forfeiture or contributes to the success of the case, which includes the amount of major-case funding
it received. Information in the database will allow TEOAF to provide greater oversight of the
performance of individual cases it has funded. The data should also allow TEOAF to quickly
identify trends in forfeitures over time and across agencies.
Database Components
As was previously mentioned, gathering all the necessary details and outcomes of a single case
was a surprisingly manual task. We identified the key elements of a case through interviews
with the agency liaisons who work at TEOAF and other agency staff. We asked primarily
process-related questions, such as how major cases are identified, how cases are worked, how
agents apply for major-case funding, how major-case funding is used, and what the reporting requirements are. The interviews helped us to further refine the analytic framework and
allowed us to identify those case variables that we would need to collect to conduct our analyses. These same variables are represented in the database.
Even within the agencies, this information does not sit in one location—except in the
head of the case agent who conducted the investigation. Therefore, both IRS-CI and the USSS
facilitated the collection of this information from the individual case agents. Once we identified the sample of cases from which we wanted to collect information, the case agents were
39
40
Understanding Forfeitures
sent a form and asked to provide the necessary information regarding the details of the case.
TEOAF provided data regarding deposits made into the TFF across that same time period so
that we could verify the forfeitures flowing from a single case. Even the case agent may not be
aware of the final forfeiture amount, given payouts for revenue sharing with other agencies and
any restitution or victim’s compensation that may be paid out of the forfeiture deposit. Again,
it was a manual effort to aggregate multiple forfeitures over multiple years for a single case.
The information we collected about each case fell into the following four categories:
• Case description: Includes such details as case number, case agent, field office, and the
dates the investigation opened and closed. It also provides the type of case (e.g., money
laundering, fraud, illegal drugs, identify theft).
• Case inputs: Includes the number of hours the agents spent investigating the case; whether
the case was investigated as part of a federal or state task force; whether other federal,
local, or international agencies assisted with the investigation; and whether confidential
inputs were used, such as a confidential informant, wiretapping, or surveillance.
• Case funding: Includes how much major-case funding was received, how the funding
was utilized (e.g., travel, transcription services, surveillance equipment, subpoena costs),
and whether the investigation received any other TEOAF funds, such as joint operations
funds.
• Case outputs: Includes information about the forfeiture amount, details about the categories of forfeiture (e.g., cash, real estate, cars), and information about revenue sharing and
victim’s compensation.
In developing the prototype database of past cases, we collected historical information
about cases, which is never easy. In the future, information about cases may be included in the
database on an ongoing basis, preferably by the case agent.
We previously suggested that the agencies internally streamline the reports required of
case agents for a single investigation. Currently, agents must provide similar information about
the progress and budget of a case to multiple overseers at varying intervals. Similarly, over
time, TEOAF may want to consider integrating its reporting and tracking requirements with
those already existent within IRS-CI and the USSS. The information that TEOAF is interested in tracking about a case is currently available within each agency. However, as we have
pointed out, this information is not currently in a form that is integrated internally within the
agency, though such plans are under way at least at IRS-CI. But to the extent that TEOAF can
streamline its tracking and reporting requirements with those of the other agencies, this places
a lighter burden on the agents themselves.
The agencies that receive TEOAF funds and TEOAF itself all want similar information
about the same case (case details, case funding, case outcomes). However, this information
does not currently exist in one location, either within the agencies or within TEOAF. As a
result, TEOAF lacks comprehensive information on the cases that it funds. In an effort to
improve the tracking and oversight of the cases that it funds, TEOAF could make major-case
funding contingent upon recording and tracking the case information in the TEOAF majorcase database.
Chapter Six
Conclusion
Major-case funding appears to be serving the purpose for which it was intended—to provide
discretionary funds to support significant investigations with forfeiture potential. Most agents
whom we interviewed reported that major-case funding provided greater resource flexibility
as they investigated cases and believed that the funding had been critical to the success of the
case. Our analysis also suggests that major-case funding is associated with higher forfeitures.
From our relatively small sample of high-forfeiture cases examined, those receiving major-case
funding produced higher forfeiture values than those that received other types of TEOAF
funds. In addition, the major cases that we examined, on average, yield a higher level of forfeiture than the average IRS or USSS case, although here, too, the sample sizes are small. All the
cases in our sample had similar rates of convictions.
Overall, the major-case funding process appears to function fluidly with good relationships between TEOAF and the law-enforcement agencies. Based on our analysis of cases and
our interviews with case agents, we provided some recommendations for small changes to the
major-case funding process to make it more transparent and efficient. We also suggested that
TEOAF begin to track more formally, through a database system, the cases it funds. Future
analysis of the effectiveness of major-case funding will be hampered by the lack of connection
between funding and forfeiture information and case details.
A prototype database was developed to track cases receiving major-case funding and to
connect details of each case to forfeitures and other outcomes, such as convictions. Our analysis lacked a robust sample of cases from which to strongly link the relationship of case characteristics and forfeiture levels. A database of ready case information should help overcome this
problem. This database should provide TEOAF with the information to better understand
and evaluate the major-case funding program. The data should also allow TEOAF to quickly
identify trends in forfeitures over time and across agencies and make adjustments to its management process as necessary.
41
Appendix A
Interview Guide
This guide was used to orient our discussions with TEOAF staff and agency-liaison staff serving at TEOAF. Information from these interviews helped us structure our analytic framework
for the study, including identifying the variables to collect from our sample of cases. A similar
interview guide was used for our interviews with agents who worked the cases in our sample.
Of course, with this set of interviews, we were able to inquire about details of the specific case
at hand rather than information about cases in general.
Operations/Activities
Individual
1. Describe your personal responsibilities here at TEOAF.
a. How does this fit in with what others do here?
Specific Cases
2. Can you describe a few specific cases that TEOAF has funded that have been particularly successful? What makes you say that they were successful? What factors do you
think led to their success?
3. Describe a few that were less successful. What kept them from being successful? Were
there ways in which they might be considered a success?
4. In general, from what you have seen, what factors do you believe contribute to successful cases?
All Cases
5. Could you take me through, step-by-step, how agencies receive funding from
TEOAF?
a. Start with the perspective of the agencies (from what you know). Perhaps they first
identify specific funding that they need to support a case. How do they identify
that need? How do they decide when to come to TEOAF versus another funding
source?
b. How do they actually make the request to TEOAF? Who receives those requests for
TEOAF? In what form? On an ongoing basis, or just at certain times?
43
44
Understanding Forfeitures
c. How does TEOAF decide what gets funded and what does not? Are there guidelines
that drive the decisions primarily or are requests evaluated more on a case-by-case
basis? What are some examples of funding requests that TEOAF typically honors?
Ones TEOAF typically does not grant? What happens if TEOAF doesn’t fund
something? Do agencies go to another source? Does TEOAF consider a number of
requests at once or decide on funding cases individually as the requests come in?
d. Do the agencies report back to TEOAF in any way how they spent the funds? What
information do they give? What else? At what point—at the end of the year or at the
end of the case? What if they don’t give TEOAF that information—does someone
then request it from them?
6. Do TEOAF’s processes for interaction vary by agency?
7. Does TEOAF fund activities that are not case-related but either relevant to many cases
or more general in nature (database development, training, other “infrastructure” or
capital projects)?
8. Are there other external factors that influence funding decisions (e.g., a particular
administration focus)?
9. Once a case has been successfully made, how is the monetary amount of the forfeiture
determined (how do you determine how much of the assets to seize; when it’s a monetary payment in lieu of assets, how is that number arrived at)?
10. How does TEOAF work with other nonfund partners (e.g., with state and local law
enforcement) in determining the seizure split across entities?
11. What are some other activities that TEOAF supports (if necessary: e.g., funding law
enforcement activities, evaluating funded activities, providing training to agencies)?
Anything else?
Documentation/Outputs
I would like to ask you about the reports and other documentation that TEOAF may produce
or maintain. This is particularly relevant to our study, so it is important for me to understand
what exists currently so that we don’t replicate that work unnecessarily. This will also help us
better understand where we might be able to fill in some blanks.
Case-Specific Documentation
I know that some cases are detailed in the annual report but want to find out more about other
places where case details are collected.
12. What, if any, documentation is produced from each TEOAF-funded case (e.g., case
report, others)? (Ask for documentation if they mention it.)
13. What data are collected about each case, and how are those data organized (e.g., in a
database)? (Ask to see database if they mention it.)
14. Are there required methods of reporting to TEOAF (e.g., particular documentation
format—text or data files)?
Interview Guide
45
Using the Case Documentation
15. Do you use this information in any way when considering future funding decisions?
16. Is there any effort made to evaluate cases after they have been funded? If so, can you
please describe that? Are there specific criteria for determining success of a case?
17. What other documentation does TEOAF keep and/or produce on a regular basis (annual
report, for example)? What information is included? Who uses that information, and
how? Any internal documents that you use that are not widely shared—tracking documents, record-keeping, etc.?
Overview
18. What would you say are the main goals for TEOAF—what is the primary purpose of
TEOAF?
a. What have been some of your major accomplishments over the past few years?
b. What are some goals that you hope to achieve over the next few years?
19. Who do you see as your main customers and other stakeholders? Dept of Treasury;
American public; federal, state, and local law enforcement?
20. Who are TEOAF’s external audiences, and how do they use the information?
21. Are there other roles that TEOAF plays that we have not asked about?
Recommendations
One of the outputs of this research is a database to help TEOAF track cases that it has
funded.
22. What do you think that database should include?
23. How should it be organized?
24. How should the data be inputted?
25. What kind of analyses should the database help you do?
26. How would you use the database? Would you use it? Why or why not?
Appendix B
Analytic Framework
To determine which variables to examine and what forms of analyses to apply, we developed logic models that provided an analytic framework. This framework was not specifically
requested, but rather developed as a means to an end, and therefore is included in the appendix
for reference, but not in the main text itself.
A logic model is a simplified representation of the path of a program’s operations, starting
with inputs (e.g., people, funds, information) and then progressing to the program’s activities
(undercover investigations, data mining), its outputs (indictments, seized property), its customers (taxpayers, citizens, victims), and its intended outcomes (forfeiture, criminal-enterprise
disruption). By itemizing the variables in each step of the process, logic modeling provides a
powerful tool in identifying the data that we need to collect to be most relevant to the evaluation process.
We developed logic models for the IRS (Table B.1) and the USSS (Table B.2), using
information obtained through background research and refined in interviews with agents and
TEOAF.1 There are many similarities, and some important differences, in how the two agencies go about their work. Both agencies (and many others) rely on a mix of information, human
resources, training, travel, technology and capital, office space and equipment, and funding to
investigate their cases. IRS-CI cases can be referred from the civil side of the IRS or referred by
another investigative agency, such as the U.S. Attorneys Office, FBI, or local law enforcement.
Many cases are referred from the SAR review teams that are present in most field offices or
from other federal task forces (e.g., OCDETF). USSS investigations are initiated in a variety of
ways—referrals, tips, confidential informants, concerned citizens, victims, local police departments, and spin-offs from ongoing investigations; in a few instances, the USSS initiates its own
cases (e.g., sets up a fake storefront). The USSS might get referrals from other agencies, such as
the FBI having discovered financial crime or cybercrime as part of an ongoing investigation.
The IRS has a budget for case investigations that funds at least some agent travel, needed
technology, and other investigative expenses in addition to agent salaries, while the USSS relies
almost entirely on external funding for costs incurred beyond agent salaries. The activities in
which IRS agents may engage at various stages of the investigation are based on the amount
of evidence or information that has been uncovered, with a broader range available as the evidence of malfeasance becomes more convincing. The USSS is not subject to the same stages of
evidence gathering.
1
We also developed a preliminary logic model for ICE, which is not presented here, since data were never received and,
therefore, analysis on their cases was never conducted.
47
48
Understanding Forfeitures
Finally, as expected, the outcomes of the two agencies are quite different. The IRS mission
is to increase voluntary compliance with tax law, while the USSS mission is to safeguard the
nation’s financial infrastructure, including currency and financial payment systems. But both
agencies use forfeiture as a punishment for those who undermine the pursuit of their mission,
as a deterrent for others, and as a means to finance investigations of those who may do so in
the future.
Table B.1
Logic Model: IRS Process
Program Inputs
Information: referred-case
details (if case is referred to IRS);
from informants & confidential
informants; from wiretaps (very
rare); SARs & other reports;
from ongoing investigations
Human resources: case hours
worked, overtime, quality of
caseworker
Training
Travel: routine, supplemental
Technology/capital: scanners,
laptops, computers, Nextel
Direct Connect® devices,
supplies, leased vehicles for
surveillance, surveillance
equipment
Funding: appropriated IRS
funds, TEOAF funding (e.g.,
major case, joint operations),
other funding
→
Program Activities
Routine investigative activities: case
development (referred from IRS
or other agencies); collecting info
(reading public documents [incl.
translation]; obtaining tax returns/
auditing [under limited circumstances];
reviewing referrals from IRS civil
functions, incl. anti–money-laundering
groups; reviewing info from state,
local, & other federal agencies; talking
with informants; interviewing [may
include traveling]; visually inspecting
property [surveillance]); analyzing
relevant investigative info, including
info from other agencies
→
Program Outputs
→
Customers
→
Outcomes
Referral to U.S. Attorneys
Office that leads to
arrest, indictment,
conviction, seizure,
forfeiture, restitution,
fine/penalty, plea,
publicity
DOJ/U.S. Attorneys
(prosecute cases)
Voluntary compliance with
tax law
Other agencies (pick up
referred cases)
A tax system that is fair &
has integrity
Victims
Confidence in the tax
system
Referral to another
agency
U.S. taxpayers
Case closed without
referral
U.S. citizens
Justice
Metrics: increased
voluntary compliance,
closing the tax gap,
convictions
Restitution to victims
General & primary case-investigative
activities: limited undercover
operations, surveillance & monitoring,
reviewing IRS & public databases,
interviewing individuals from foreign
governments, searching property with
warrant (primary only, IRS not affiant),
educating individuals in identification
of suspicious activities, documenting
all activities, analyzing bank records
obtained by other agencies, preparing
spreadsheets & analyses, storing info
Post–case referral support: grand-jury
testimony
Activities across multiple cases:
establishing task forces; collaborating
with special task forces & federal,
state, & local law enforcement;
prioritizing of cases
Analytic Framework
Subject criminal-investigation case
activities: above + contacting &
interviewing subject & 3rd parties
& making full use of subpoenas &
summonses
49
→
Program Activities
Information: from local police depts
or other federal law enforcement;
from tips, confidential informants,
concerned citizens, victims, banks;
from ongoing investigations; from
sting operations
Investigative activities for financial crimes:
collecting & analyzing info (bank records, other
financial documents, phone records); interviewing
witnesses; sting operations (e.g., false storefronts);
specialized financial consultants to analyze records;
document/data analysis, storage, & duplication
Human resources: case hours
worked, overtime, quality of
caseworker
Investigative activities for cybercrimes: monitoring
suspicious cyberactivity, sting operations (e.g.,
posing as a criminal enterprise), computer forensics
Training
Travel: routine, supplemental
Technology/capital: computer &
network equipment, surveillance
equipment, vehicle leases
Equipment/space: office equipment,
office space
Funding: appropriated USSS funds,
TEOAF (e.g., major case, joint
operations), other funding
→
Program Outputs
Referral to U.S.
Attorneys Office
that leads to
arrest, indictment,
conviction, seizure,
restitution, fine,
plea, forfeiture,
publicity
Referral to a state’s
attorney or another
agency
→
Customers
DOJ/U.S. Attorneys
(prosecute cases)
State, local, and
foreign lawenforcement
counterparts
Other federal
partners (e.g.,
Bureau of
Engraving &
Printing, Federal
Reserve, FBI, DOJ)
Victims
U.S. citizens
Private financial
institutions
→
Outcomes
Safeguard the
nation’s financial
infrastructure,
incl. currency &
financial payment
systems: amount of
counterfeit dollars
passed per genuine
million dollars; direct
dollar loss prevented
Understanding Forfeitures
Program Inputs
50
Table B.2
Logic Model: U.S. Secret Service Process
References
Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, “About TEOAF & TFF,” undated Web page (a). As of February 9, 2009:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/about.shtml
———, “About Forfeiture,” undated Web page (b). As of February 9, 2009:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/about-forfeiture.shtml#forfitureauth
———, Department of the Treasury Treasury Forfeiture Fund Strategic Plan, FY 2000–2005, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of the Treasury, September 2000. As of February 10, 2009:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/publications/strategic-plan-2000-2005.pdf
———, Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2002, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of the Treasury, c. February 2003. As of February 10, 2009:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/publications/02-annual-report.pdf
———, Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2003, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of the Treasury, c. February 2004. As of February 10, 2009:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/publications/03-annual-report.pdf
———, Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2004, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of the Treasury, c. February 2005. As of February 10, 2009:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/publications/04-annual-report.pdf
———, Major Case Funding 2002–2006, c. 2007.
Gardiner Kamya and Associates, Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2005, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of the Treasury, c. February 2006. As of February 10, 2009:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/publications/05-annual-report.pdf
———, Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2006, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of the Treasury, c. February 2007. As of February 10, 2009:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/publications/06-annual-report.pdf
———, Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2007, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of the Treasury, c. February 2008. As of February 10, 2009:
http://ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/teoaf/publications/2007AccountabilityReport.pdf
Public Law 91-452, Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, October 15, 1970.
Public Law 91-508, Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, October 26, 1970.
Public Law 91-513, Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, October 27, 1970.
Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, October 26, 2001. As of February 9, 2009:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf
TEOAF—see Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Section 981, Civil Forfeiture.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Section 982, Criminal Forfeiture.
U.S. Code, Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
51