FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS July 21, 1997LS-21 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. I want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing on civil forfeiture reform. I am pleased to appear before you today to give Treasury's perspective on the federal asset forfeiture program how we use asset forfeiture, how it supports our law enforcement and other organizations, and how we view its prospects for the future. Day-in and day-out, Treasury law enforcement pursues a wide variety of cases in its many areas of responsibility including, but not limited to, trade and financial fraud,narcotics smuggling, illegal firearms trafficking, terrorism, counterfeiting and money laundering. In order to effectively address this diverse range of responsibilities, we work closely with other federal agencies and with state and local law enforcement officials. The Treasury Forfeiture Fund was established by Congress in 1992 to direct a professional application of the forfeiture sanction, and to fairly and systematically strip criminal organizations of both the proceeds and instrumentalities that facilitate their illegal enterprises. Thus far, though the program has enjoyed many successes, the need for prudent reform is acknowledged and solicited and we are here today to discuss our proposal for future direction. Our management of the program and the use of its funds is very important. We have taken measures in a number of areas to ensure that we fulfill our end of this responsibility. Since the establishment of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund in 1992, we have listened attentively to criticisms. We have heeded valid complaints and have closely managed our program, such as by conducting comprehensive training for all Treasury forfeiture personnel from our special agents and their supervisors to our seized property managers. We have underscored the importance of considered and responsible seizures and the need for the pre-seizure planning that makes these possible. We have emphasized quality in the management of seized property so that value, whether property is forfeited or returned, is never carelessly diminished. And, recognizing that justice delayed is often justice denied we have directed Treasury law enforcement to stay on top of their forfeiture caseloads, especially with regard to the adjudication of administrative forfeitures. We will continue to ensure that Treasury's program always affords due process that it notifies all affected parties of the seizure and intent to forfeit, that it apprises them of their right to contest the forfeiture in court, that it accommodates the indigent and that it offers opportunities to achieve just resolutions short of forfeiture. In short, we are striving not for advantage but for fairness. We recognize that asset forfeiture is a powerful tool in our arsenal and helps us accomplish our mission. As such, it must be carefully and consistently employed and monitored to protect citizens from abuse and unwarranted burden. As we confront large-scale criminal organizations, we are increasingly struck by the usefulness of asset forfeiture in dismantling their operations. By allowing us to target the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime, asset forfeiture strikes at the very core of criminal organizations. It enables us to attack their criminal enterprises in ways that the simple incarceration of the criminals could never accomplish. It cuts to the heart of and motivation behind most criminal activity, focusing on criminal profits. It says forcefully to all honest Americans that we will not stand idly by and allow criminals to keep those rewards that fuel their illicit activities. Asset forfeiture is the tool that permits law enforcement to remove such instrumentalities and profits of crime, to ensure that "crime does not pay." Asset forfeiture's purpose is to attack organized criminal activity and deprive criminals of their illegal profits. As an essential part of our overall law enforcement strategy, asset forfeiture has recently played a key role in a number of prominent cases involving drug trafficking, terrorism and avoiding cigarette excise taxes.
Simply put, we take the property that comes into our asset forfeiture funds and put it to good use. We take the proceeds of crime and re-invest them in law enforcement. First, we pay the often substantial direct expenses of seizure and forfeiture, allowing the tax payers to avoid this burden. Second, we invest in the seizure and forfeiture programs of our law enforcement bureaus, allowing them to keep pace with the increasingly sophisticated criminal challenges that they must confront. Finally, other amounts available from the asset forfeiture fund are used to support Treasury and other federal law enforcement efforts including victim restitution and community programs. We do all this fairly, ever mindful of the due process rights of citizens. We want to assure the Committee that when we do forfeit assets, we use those assets in responsible ways to further the purpose of the asset forfeiture law and combat crime. The benefits that flow from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund play out every day in many ways, including:
Asset forfeiture and the federal forfeiture funds are also major supporters of the unprecedented levels of cooperation that exist today among federal, state and local law enforcement. The forfeiture funds allow us to share equitably among all agencies that have contributed to investigations leading to forfeiture. In FY 1998, the Treasury Fund alone shared $72 million in currency and $3 million in property with state and local law enforcement agencies. These are amounts that are available to supplement the resources of our state and local law enforcement colleagues. In other years, forfeiture funds have:
When we view the future of asset forfeiture, we see it continuing to be a valuable tool to do what prisons alone cannot do: give the victimized a chance at restitution; build communities torn apart by drugs and violence; and, strengthen law enforcement's ability to protect and serve. We recognize, however, that the citizens of the United States will be comfortable with federal forfeiture authorities only as long as they have faith in the integrity of the program. That faith is best secured by Congress' enactment of necessary statutory changes to update asset forfeiture laws as well as by our implementation and continual refinements of policies and guidance that reflect America's sense of fair play. From our perspective, we also recognize that program improvements can be made which is why we support the Administration's bill regarding civil asset forfeiture. The Administration's Bill would:
The House Bill, however, would have a significantly negative impact on our current ability to use asset forfeiture against organized criminal activity. Chiefly, it would:
While refinements to the asset forfeiture process would be useful, they should not be allowed to undo asset forfeiture's longstanding record of accomplishment in serving the best interests of American citizens. This is especially true in the area of civil forfeiture, the most historic and tested element of our forfeiture program. If the use of civil forfeiture is curtailed, it will seriously undermine our effectiveness in investigating drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud and other financial crimes. As I said at the start, we are making important strides in our struggle against most types of organized criminal activity, treating it now for just what it truly is a subversive business enterprise that needs to be acquired, taken over and deconstructed lock, stock and barrel. I hope that I have been able to convey to you the actual intent and application of this most valuable law enforcement tool. If change is to be made, it should be based on a factual analysis of need, not misconception based on anecdotal stories from the early days of the program. I thank you for allowing us to present our views on the asset forfeiture program. We appreciate the support of the Committee in this area and throughout federal law enforcement. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time. |
||