AND INS. THE INS HAS IMPLEMENTED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED CHANGES, NOT ONLY IN SOUTHERN FLORIDA, BUT NATIONWIDE PURSUANT ΤΟ GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IN EFFECTING THE CHANGES THE INS HAS AMENDED ITS REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DOLLAR LIMIT CHANGES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FORFEITURES AND COST AND CLAIM BONDS. THE AGENCY HAS FORWARDED FORMS FOR PROCESSING EQUITABLE TRANSFER OF FORFEITED PROPERTY TO THE CHIEF PATROL AGENTS NATIONWIDE, INCLUDING SOUTHERN FLORIDA. FINALLY, THE INS IS PRESENTLY WORKING WITH THE U.S. MARSHALLS SERVICE TO DEVELOP A STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR DEPOSITS TO, AND REIMBURSEMENTS PRESENT THE INS HAS RECEIVED NO FORMAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN SOUTHERN FLORIDA. AT REQUESTS FOR EQUITABLE STATE OR LOCAL LAW UNLIKE THE DEA AND THE FBI, INS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DRAW FROM THE ASSET FORFEITURE FUND FOR EXPENSES RELATED ΤΟ PURCHASE OF EVIDENCE AND PAYMENT OF AWARDS TO INFORMANTS. CORRECTION OF THIS SEIZURE PROGRAM, INEQUITY WOULD GREATLY ENHANCE THE INS FUNDS REQUIRED INS TO CEASE PAYMENT OF AWARDS TO INFORMANTS AS Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Lenck, Drug Enforcement Administration, wel come. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LENCK Mr. LENCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pepper, and other members. I appeared before you in 1983 when you were here before, and it is a pleasure to come back and represent DEA. I have with me Peter Gruden, our special agent-in-charge here in Miami, so if I get in trouble he is here to bail me out. Mr. HUGHES. It is good to welcome Pete back also. Mr. LENCK. Thank you, sir. The largest impact we have seen from the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, Mr. Chairman, is that we roughly doubled our seizures in one fiscal year. We jumped from approximately 1,900 seizures in fiscal year 1984 to 4,385. Our seizure value jumped from $63 million to approximately $137 million. The figures you will see in the future may be slightly different from these because we will include State and local cooperation cases. But these are hard figures; all of these are files that I have in my office and am now processing. That is what these figures relate to, so I can say with some confidence that we have roughly doubled, and I think that is an excellent result. This is due I think, largely to the provision which shifts administrative forfeitures from $10,000 to $100,000 or unlimited for most conveyances. For example, we recently had a case in Palm Beach where we seized nine cars worth approximately $197,000, two aircraft worth $900,000, and 10 vessels worth $1.3 million. Prior to passage of the new law, virtually all of those pieces of property, with the exception of two or three of the vehicles would have gone to Federal court, taken U.S. attorneys' time, judges' time. We received no claim or bond on any of those properties, and have forfeited virtually all of them administratively. I sent the two aircraft which are worth almost $1 million for official use last Friday, which represents a tremendous saving. Mr. HUGHES. What kind of aircraft? Mr. LENCK. One is a 1980 and one is an 1984. One is valued at $400,000, the other $500,000. They are good aircraft that we need for enforcement use. In years past, DEA has been in the situation where we often have to buy aircraft. Everyone thinks we have a host of aircraft, but Customs, of course, seizes 10 times as many aircraft as we do. We do not have to go to the Congress and ask for money to buy new aircraft when we can get aircraft like these, and get them quickly. So I think that is very important. As Mr. Kellner stated, for southern Florida the real estate seizures have roughly trebeled; they have also roughly tripled in the United States as a whole. In the last fiscal year we seized $8 million in real estate. We are already over $20 million in real estate this year. Again this increase is due to the facilitation provision, the growing provision and the storing provisions in (a)(7). We are trying to use that law with caution, very judiciously and go against property where the property is an integral part of the violation, where it has been used as a lab site, a continuing loca tion place to sell drugs or a growing site, storage site, so the law is excellent. It is very broad. We can seize a house for almost any use, but we are trying, for instance, to avoid a deal done in a hallway you could forfeit the house technically, but we are trying to get good cases and try to get good law in that area. I am happy to report, too, that during the last 18 months the General Services Adminsitration has been giving us excellent service here in southern Florida. They have established a system whereby they pick up with car carriers vehicles that DEA wants to have sold after forfeiture. They pick them up within a week, and they load four or five cars on a carrier. They take them up to Cape Canaveral and the cost is only like $40 or $50 a vehicle. They sell them in a timely fashion. Within the next month the vehicles are sold. They not only sell them, they detail them up there, prepare them, and instead of bringing about half of wholesale, which is what they used to bring, those vehicles are bringing close to wholesale prices at the auction. That is a substantial gain for the Government and for all concerned. I think that is important too, and I think GSA is to be commended on that. Also the new law has resulted in a great deal more cooperation between the agencies involved, that is, the seizing agencies in the department, DEA, FBI, INS, the Asset Forfeiture Office, and the Associate Attorney General's Office. We meet about every 4 weeks as a committee chaired by a representative of the Associate Attorney General to review many of the mutual problems involved in this area. We have also received very good cooperation from the U.S. attorney's office here in Miami. We appreciate that. That is about the extent of my statement, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. LENCK FORFEITURE COUNSEL DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME JUDICIARY COMMITTEE U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILLIAM J. HUGHES, CHAIRMAN ON FORFEITURE MIAMI, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 25, 1985 Mr. Chairman, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) appreciates this opportunity to again appear before this Subcommittee. I last appeared before you in October 1983 in Ft. Lauderdale regarding seizures and forfeitures in Southern Florida. My remarks will be limited to the implementation of Public Law 98-473, with emphasis on the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft in the Southern District of Florida. The Miami Division of DEA is one of the six DEA Divisions that is currently operating under DEA's Computerized Asset Program (CAP). Under the CAP system, once the DEA office transmits the initial seizure report to the DEA Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) in DEA headquarters, all subsequent forfeiture correspondence is handled by the AFU. Attached to this statement is a short summary of how the CAP system operates. The passage of the enhanced forfeiture provisions of Public Law 98-473 on October 12, 1984, had a number of impacts on the forfeiture activities of DEA. The most noticeable impact on a National basis is that from FY 1984 to FY 1985 the number and value of seizures by DEA agents more than doubled, increasing from 1,958 seizures valued at 63 million dollars in FY 1984 to 4,385 seizures valued at 137 million dollars in FY 1985. I believe this doubling of volume and value is basically attributable to Public Law 98-473 shifting the line between administrative and judicial forfeitures from $10,000 to $100,000 in most cases. This shift allows DEA to forfeit a large volume of property administratively with attendant savings in the time of agents, prosecutors and judges. |