| State or Territory | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| ALABAMA |
$ 3,781,372 |
| ALASKA | $ 1,406,806 |
| ARIZONA |
$ 10,654,886 |
| ARKANSAS | $ 3,835,953 |
| CALIFORNIA | $ 50,807,639 |
| COLORADO |
$ 9,199,699 |
| CONNECTICUT |
$ 2,984,869 |
| DELAWARE |
- |
| D.C. |
$ 6,628,389 |
| FLORIDA(1) | $ 58,330,083 |
| GEORGIA | $ 33,537,480 |
| GUAM |
$ 322,585 |
| HAWAII |
$ 3,919,680 |
| IDAHO |
$ 836,293 |
| ILLINOIS | $ 33,259,777 |
| INDIANA |
$ 6,947,188 |
| IOWA |
$ 2,958,027 |
| KANSAS |
$ 4,550,002 |
| KENTUCKY |
$ 4,906,750 |
| LOUISIANA |
$ 1,897,165 |
| MAINE |
$ 345,392 |
| MARYLAND(2) | $ 16,057,799 |
| MASSACHUSETTS |
$ 5,460,494 |
| MICHIGAN | $ 18,544,729 |
| MINNESOTA | $ 15,317,357 |
| MISSISSIPPI |
$ 7,913,893 |
| MISSOURI |
$ 6,600,926 |
| MONTANA |
$ 459,706 |
| NEBRASKA |
$ 5,313,973 |
| NEVADA |
$ 8,834,753 |
| NEW HAMPSHIRE |
$ 1,006,436 |
| NEW JERSEY | $ 14,718,384 |
| NEW MEXICO |
$ 4,153,886 |
| NEW YORK |
$ 57,121,977 |
| N. CAROLINA |
$ 22,454,318 |
| N. DAKOTA |
$ 192,585 |
| N. MARIANA ISLAND |
- |
| OHIO | $ 20,241,972 |
| OKLAHOMA |
$ 8,793,025 |
| OREGON |
$ 1,838,868 |
| PENNSYLVANIA | $ 14,934,436 |
| PUERTO RICO |
$ 3,782,985 |
| RHODE ISLAND |
$ 2,380,153 |
| S. CAROLINA |
$ 6,425,021 |
| S. DAKOTA |
$ 217,907 |
| TENNESSEE |
$ 8,444,789 |
| TEXAS(3) | $ 41,648,902 |
| UTAH(4) |
$ (120,243) |
| VERMONT |
$ 1,755,553 |
| VIRGIN ISLAND |
$ 13,578 |
| VIRGINIA |
$ 6,868,683 |
| WASHINGTON |
$ 7,047,968 |
| WEST VIRGINIA |
$ 559,697 |
| WISCONSIN |
$ 6,047,033 |
| WYOMING |
$ 149,405 |
| OTHER(5) | $ (3,775,044) |
| INVEST. INCOME : |
$ 26,287,715 |
| Grand Total : |
$ 578,803,657 |
Notes:
** These figures represent official accounting transactions. They do not
reflect total forfeiture activity for any jurisdiction.
(1) Deposits include cases handled by the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Marshals Service, where the initial seizure originated out of the following judicial districts: Northern Alabama, Southern Georgia, and Middle North Carolina.
(2) Deposits include cases handled by the District of Maryland, U.S. Marshals Service, where the initial seizure originated out of the following judicial districts: Delaware, Western Michigan, Western Missouri and Western Virginia
(3) Deposits include cases handled by the Southern District of Texas, U.S. Marshals Service, where the initial seizure originated out of the following judicial districts: Western Louisiana and Northern Mississippi.
(4) Negative deposits recorded for Utah were due to large refunds of monies transferred to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) for participation by TFF member agencies in forfeitures that led to deposits in a prior fiscal year.
(5) The "Other" line comprises transactions, either deposits or refunds, where a district has not been identified. An example is a transfer from the TFF to the AFF resulting from participation of Department components in seizures that led to the forfiture of assets, or a payment(s) to an individual or organizations for assets forfeited and deposited into the AFF and subsequently returned to them through a settlement agreement or by court order.
Return to FY2005 Asset Forfeiture Funds Reports