Overview
During the audit period, the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office (BCDA) did not prepare receipts to be signed by BCDA officials for 7 out of the 17 forfeiture cases (41%) processed. Further, it did not ensure that deposit slips were signed by the chief of appeals as proof that the funds were received and deposited for all 16 forfeiture cases3 for which BCDA physically received forfeited funds. Additionally, there were 3 cases for which BCDA did not document the portion of the forfeited funds owed to the police department that BCDA retained.
During our prior audit of BCDA (Audit No. 2018-1261-11J), we found that some forfeited funds were not deposited by BCDA until up to 780 days after cases were disposed of. In our current audit, we reviewed the entire population of 17 forfeitures, totaling $300,672, and found that 15 forfeitures (88%), totaling $198,592, had been ordered by court motions but were not deposited by BCDA as required until 55 to 377 days after they were ordered by a court.
By not signing receipts or deposit slips for the received forfeited funds or documenting any associated police department funds BCDA held, BCDA may not be able to ensure the accuracy and transparency of accounting of the received funds. This could result in discrepancies and disputes about the total amount of funds that are being deposited and distributed to the associated police departments. By not depositing forfeited funds in a timely manner, BCDA made it so that it and local police departments did not have access to this funding—for an extended time–to which they were entitled, which could have been used to defray the costs of investigations, equipment, federal grant matching applications, drug rehabilitation and education, or for other purposes deemed appropriate by the District Attorney or local police department.
Authoritative Guidance
BCDA’s “Forfeited Property Procedures” states,
When the funds are received from the police, a receipt must be signed before the funds are deposited and attached to the copy of the forfeiture order. . . . If the police share of funds is to be distributed at a later date, all funds received will be deposited and that information will be noted on receipt.
The Chief of Appeals will verify all funds have been received and deposited by regularly signing off on all deposit slips.
BCDA’s internal control plan states that “it is the responsibility of the Chief of Appeals to determine why funds are not deposited in a timely manner.”
Reasons for Issue
During a meeting with the District Attorney, it was stated that the audit period occurred before his administration and that, when he took over, there were no proper policies and procedures over the forfeiture process other than the policies that had been put in place in 2016.
Recommendations
- BCDA should establish controls to ensure that it promptly receives and distributes forfeited funds.
- BCDA should ensure that it prepares and signs receipts for received forfeited funds. These receipts should document any funds owed to the police department associated with the case as evidence of verifying and certifying the received forfeited funds.
- BCDA should ensure that, for all forfeiture cases, deposit slips are signed by the chief of appeals as proof that the funds were received and deposited.
Auditee’s Response
In its response to this audit report, BCDA provided background information regarding the audit period. See the Appendix for this background information.
The [BCDA] has developed a Forfeited Property Policy included in both the Internal Control Plan and the Procedures and Forms Manual that is an addendum to the Employee Handbook (all dated April 1, 2024). These controls outline the procedures for identifying assets that could potentially be subject to forfeiture at the outset of proceedings and require notation in the office case management system. The procedures outline the process for the documentation required for the receipt and disbursement of forfeited funds. The audit findings recommend the Chief of Appeals sign all deposit slips as proof of receipt of hinds, but the [BCDA] has designed the First Assistant as the person who will receive a copy of all forfeiture orders and will verify funds have been received in a timely manner, deposited and distributed. The policy also requires regular review of reports developed from the case management system to identify potential forfeitures and ensure the policies have been followed in securing these assets.
Auditor’s Reply
Based on its response, BCDA is taking measures to address our concerns regarding this matter. As part of our post-audit review process, we will follow up on this matter in approximately six months.
| Date published: | April 11, 2025 |
|---|