Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Corless, welcome. We have your statement also. You may proceed as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH V. CORLESS

Mr. CORLESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, Senator Pepper. For a number of years FBI seizures concerned criminally forfeited items. Following the receipt of concurrent jurisdiction to investigate violations of the Controlled Substances Act, the FBI initiated a Civil Forfeiture Program which involved the seizure, forfeiture, and maintenance of property.

Prior to the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, many forfeitures were thwarted due to the removal of assets and our inability to seize real property for facilitation. In addition, low thresholds for claim and cost bonds enabled criminals to delay the forfeiture process through initiation of judicial forfeiture proceedings.

The passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, corrected many perceived deficiencies in prior forfeiture laws and has provided law enforcement an effective investigative tool with which to seize and forfeit property. Law enforcement is realizing a significant impact on the criminal element as a result of the passage of the act and our increased ability to seize and forfeit property.

In your questioning today, gentlemen, I have with me the man who is in charge of our forfeiture program from headquarters, Mr. Paul King. He will handle any questions that I cannot answer other than the local questions and those that might involve our national program.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Corless.
[The statement of Mr. Corless follows:]

STATEMENT

OF

JOSEPH V. CORLESS

SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE

MIAMI DIVISION

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

ON

IMPLEMENTATION OF FORFEITURE PROVISIONS

OF COMPREHENSIVE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1984

IN SOUTHERN FLORIDA

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

NOVEMBER 25, 1985

MIAMI, FLORIDA

SYNOPSIS

For a number of years, FBI seizures concerned

criminally forfeited items.

Following the receipt of concurrent

jurisdiction to investigate violations of the Controlled Substances Act, the FBI initiated a civil forfeiture program which involved the seizure, forfeiture and maintenance of property. Prior to the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, many forfeitures were thwarted due to the removal of assets and our inability to seize real property for facilitation. In addition, low thresholds for claim and cost bonds enabled criminals to delay the frofeiture process through initiation of judicial forfeiture proceedings.

The passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 corrected many perceived deficiencies in prior forfeiture laws and has provided law enforcement an effective investigative tool with which to seize and forfeit property. Law enforcement is realizing a significant impact on the criminal element as a result of the passage of the Act and our increased ability to seize and forfeit property.

For a number of years, statutes which contained

forfeiture provisions within the investigative purview of the FBI dealt almost exclusively with nondrug issues. These statutes ranged from those dealing with Copyright and Interception of Wire Communication matters to the very powerful Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. RICO was used effectively by the FBI for a number of years to successfully prosecute and forfeit property, both real and personal, of almost every description. On many occasions, however, our investigative efforts were thwarted as assets were diluted or removed from the jurisdiction of the courts following indictment and prior to the successful conclusion of the trial, which sometimes took as long as 18 months. Court orders were utilized in an attempt to protect the Government's interest in these assets. However, on many occasions the penalties to be paid for noncompliance were minimal when compared to the value of the property at stake. Criminals would often liquidate their holdings or actually remove the assets from the country, preventing their ultimate forfeiture. These activities on their part caused many frustrations in the law enforcement community.

As our

The FBI received concurrent jurisdiction concerning the investigation of violations of the Controlled Substances Act with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in early 1982. involvement in drug-related matters developed, frustrations similar to those experienced in RICO matters increased. Criminals involved in drug activities often have very liquid assets such as cash, gold or jewelry, and it is extremely