Overview
During the audit period, the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office (NDAO) disbursed to two police departments (PDs) $28,086 in forfeited assets that it should have retained. In October 2019, NDAO auctioned off a house that the court deemed forfeited to the Commonwealth and generated $168,520 in forfeited assets. The investigation that led to the seizure of this house was conducted by the Randolph and Weymouth PDs. NDAO split the forfeited assets of this house equally three ways, between itself and the two PDs, with each party receiving $56,173. However, NDAO should have received $84,260, and the two PDs should have split the remaining $84,260 equally ($42,130 each). NDAO overpaid the PDs a total of $28,086.
If NDAO does not collect all of the forfeited assets to which it is entitled, it cannot use the associated revenue for other purposes, such as anti-drug or neighborhood crime watch programs.
Authoritative Guidance
Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the Massachusetts General Laws states,
The final order of the court shall provide that [forfeited assets] and the proceeds of any such sale shall be distributed equally between the prosecuting district attorney . . . and the city, town or state police department involved in the seizure. If more than one department was substantially involved in the seizure, the court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding shall distribute the fifty percent equitably among these departments.
Reasons for Noncompliance
NDAO officials told us that they decided to split the forfeited assets equally three ways because of the complexity of the case and the amount of work put in by each party involved. However, Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws does not authorize such a practice. Additionally, NDAO does not include language in its policies that references (1) the part of Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws about forfeited asset splits involving multiple PDs or (2) its process for forfeited asset distribution calculation review, in which NDAO officials approve distributions when forfeiture split letters are sent.
Recommendations
- NDAO should collect all of the forfeited assets to which it is entitled.
- NDAO should include language in its policies that references (1) the part of Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws about forfeited asset splits involving multiple PDs and (2) its process for forfeited asset distribution calculation review to ensure that all forfeitures are processed in compliance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws.
Auditee’s Response
The [State Auditor’s Office (SAO)] reviewed hundreds of asset forfeiture cases both open and closed during the audit period. The cited case was the only case during the audit period and in its forfeiture history in which the NDAO split the proceeds three ways instead of the 50/50 split. This case also represented the first time the NDAO seized a house under Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C. It required an inordinate amount of time, effort and work on the part of the NDAO as well as the two police departments involved.
The NDAO will follow the language of the forfeiture statute.
Auditor’s Reply
We encourage NDAO to implement our recommendations fully, including using language in its policies that references the part of Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws about forfeited asset splits involving multiple PDs and its process for forfeited asset distribution calculation review.
| Date published: | October 24, 2023 |
|---|