STATEMENT OF TESTIMONY Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee I want to thank you on of the implementation for inviting me to testify forfeiture portions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Two years ago, testifying before this Subcommittee, Judge Stanley Marcus, my predecessor as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, stated that the most serious federal crime problem facing this District was the drug problem. South Florida was and remains today the Wall Street of drug trafficking. We remain the entry point for more than 75 percent of all the marijuana and cocaine smuggled into the United States. It is in South Florida that the criminal wholesale transaction of the American drug trade is taking place. The Administration's response to this unique and staggering national problem has been a massive build-up in the development personnel and other resources, both investigative and of prosecutive. We recognized at the outset that simply utilizing the criminal laws to put people behind bars is not enough. Drug dealers are by and large motivated by pure and simple greed. In order to successfully attack drug smuggling, it is equally important to hit these criminals in the pocket book to take their assets away from them whenever we can. Thus, we have aggressively pursued narcotics assets utilizing both the civil and criminal forfeiture provisions of Title 21, the drug forfeiture laws, Title 31, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the RICO Statute. In the past four Fiscal years, in this District we have forfeited cash and assets having a value in excess of approximately $71 million. We have currently pending civil forfeiture proceedings of cash and assets having an assessed value of approximately $30 million. Of course we recognize that the amount realized after forfeiture will be less than the assessed value. The forfeiture provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 went a long way towards helping us achieve our goal of making criminal activities and, in particular, importation of drugs a non-profit business. At this juncture, I would like to briefly review how the forfeiture provisions of the Act have been implemented in this District. Rather than run through provision by provision, I would like to discuss these by category and comment on those provisions we have found to be the most significant. The Amendments which have had the greatest impact are those amending Title 21, Section 881. The Section that has been the most significant in expanding the authority of federal law enforcement to seize and forfeit drug property is 881 (a) 7 which explicitly authorizes the forfeiture of real property or an interest in real property used or intended to be used to facilitate a drug transaction. could be Prior to enactment of 881 (a) 7, real property forfeited only if it was purchased with the proceeds of drug transactions. That meant that a coke lab or a stash house could not be seized and forfeited for that reason. Today, we are seizing and forfeiting parcels of real property that are being used to store drugs or used for the manufacturing of cocaine. Seizures of real property have tripled since October 1984. We expect seizures of real property to increase even dramatically in the next year. more Other significant amendments are 881 (j) providing that the forfeiture proceeding may be brought in the district where the defendant is being prosecuted or the Owner is found, and amendments to Title 19 which increased the dollar amount of an administrative seizure to $100,000 and removed the dollar cap entirely from the administrative forfeiture of Previously, all property valued in excess of conveyances. $10,000 was automatically referred to the United States Attorney's Office for judicial forfeiture. more This This District is burdened by the largest non-immigration criminal caseload in the United States and indicts defendants than New York and Chicago combined. extraordinary caseload adversely impacts the court's ability to address its civil calendar. The amendment raising the cap reduced the number of cases being filed in federal court and, equally important, shortened the time period between seizure and ultimate disposition. It has also permitted overworked Government prosecutors to turn their attention to pursuing major assets. The amendments to the Criminal Forfeiture Laws are also of great benefit to the prosecutors in this District because they significantly clarified formerly vague provisions of the law. For example, the amendment gave greater specificity to the definition of forfeitable property; it is now clear that the definition of forfeitable property includes real estate, as well as tangible or intangible property which have been derived from the proceeds of a racketeering activity. Section 1963 (c) did nothing more than specify that the forfeitable property relates back to the commission of the racketeering activity doctrine long recognized in Civil Forfeiture Law. It served to eliminate a very large loophole in the previous law pre-conviction transfer of property to avoid forfeiture and a protection for the unwary who legitimately obtain - - a the tainted property, unaware of its origin. Finally, I would like to comment on another provision about which we feel very strongly the equitable sharing provisions of Section 881(e). - The problem of narcotics trafficking transcends state, local and federal boundaries. The Attorney General has stated on numerous occasions that law enforcement is a shared responsibility and the only way to successfully deter drug trafficking is through joint operations with state and local authorities. Federal law enforcement agencies in South Florida have successfully conducted numerous operations with local law enforcement. Federal law enforcement has for many years placed into service seized drug assets. This amendment gives federal authorities the opportunity to share these assets with state and local law enforcement agencies that participate in the seizure of those assets, thereby enhancing our joint ability to combat drug trafficking. We in South Florida are aggressively using the provisions of this Amendment and intend to expand its use implementing regulations are promulgated. as the The Subcommittee has also asked for my comments on the forfeiture of defense attorneys' fees and the issuance of grand jury or trial subpoenas to attorneys for information relating to the representation of clients. The Department of Justice is sensitive to the concerns raised in a number of quarters about this issue. In order to insure that these provisions are not abused and are handled in a similar fashion throughout the country, the Department of Justice has issued strict guidelines providing that before the forfeiture of attorney fees is sought |