home

DEA Criticized for Mishandling Seized Funds

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:48:00 AM EST
Tags: forfeiture, DEA (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This comes as no surprise to me and other criminal defense lawyers representing those charged with drug crimes, but it's good to see it made public.

In an audit published Friday, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine examined thousands of seizures between October 2003 and November 2005.

Fine's report states that drug agents rarely counted the cash they took, often didn't provide receipts for seized money, rarely recorded the seizures in agency ledgers and often didn't ask their colleagues to witness their counting and handling of the money.

What this means according to the Inspector General:

The lack of internal controls over the seized cash leads to accusations of theft by the agents, the report states.

What it means in my opinion: Sometimes less money is reported seized than actually is seized. Because of the faulty reporting, and because some may be less than honest about the amount seized, it's very hard to prove.

Also, sometimes the money isn't related to or the product of a drug deal. Just because it's cash doesn't mean it was acquired unlawfully.

That cash is often needed to feed children or make car and house payments. A lot of people suffer when agents don't follow the rules.

Just another reason why forfeited funds shouldn't go to the seizing agency.

< Blood For Oil? | Not-So-Free Speech >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DEA Criticized for Mishandling Seized Funds | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    prohibition was the classic example (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cpinva on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:59:40 AM EST
    of "the law of unintended consequences". meant to foster a more "moral" society, by removing "demon rum", it instead led to the rise of organized crime to unprecedented levels, as al capone, et al saw profits to be made by supplying the thirsty with illegal goodies.

    that's not to suggest that organized crime wouldn't exist without the volstead Act, but it sure got one hell of a bump.

    i remain unconvinced, in the absence of any supporting empirical data to the contrary, that the much vaunted 40 year-old "war on drugs" has had any significant impact on (illicit) drug use in this country whatever. it has, however, created an entire new industry: the penal industry.

    with mandatory sentencing laws, a multi-billion dollar industry has a huge stake in retaining the status quo; there be money in those draconian laws!

    for all the cash we've spent fighting illegal drugs, we could probably have put every addict through the betty ford clinic.

    the DEA should be dumped (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:28:40 AM EST
    it's a beast made up by nixon, for political purposes, and does nothing more than what the FBI and ATF were doing all along. certainly, it hasn't been any more successful at it than either of the aforementioned.

    it's become a hotbed of cowboys, and an embarrasment. snuff it now, it's the right thing to do.

    Look Further Back (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:08:13 AM EST
    You need to look back further than Nixon - the drug war started with prohibition.  Sadly, it wasn't ended with it.  To speak to TL's point, I'd go further - it demonstrates the corrupting nature of attacking the supply side of a problem without noticing the demand.  The war on drugs is the same kind of failure as prohibition was: it is holding down drug use (as prohibition held down alohol use) - but at a completely unacceptable cost - both in terms of lives ruined and violence generated.

    Is it? (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:16:11 AM EST
    I would argue it doesn't even hold down drug use, particularly with minors.

    Prohibition is a money-maker for certain special interests, and that's all.

    Parent

    Isn't it funny (none / 0) (