Yesterday Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced the Asset Forfeiture Fund Reform and Distribution Act. The bipartisan legislation (co-sponsored by US Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC), John Tierney (D-MA), Frank Guinta (R-NH), Ed Markey (D-MA), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Steven Lynch (D-MA), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Michael Michaud (D-MA), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), James McGovern (D-MA) and Bill Keating (D-MA)) would make significant improvements in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The proposed legislation would initially redirect the monies in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) from NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) to reimburse the legal fees and associated costs assumed by those parties recommended by Special Master Hon. Charles B. Swartwood III.
Until September 30th, remaining funds would be directed to a split between stock assessments and state research projects with all such funds directed after October 1st to state and local research projects. These are positive and welcome changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act, but Congress should go further and remove any statutory allocation of forfeiture funds and simply mandate that all agency funds be allocated through appropriations. Without removing direct agency control of forfeited funds, there still exists incentives for seizures to be maximized and there is a significant risk that these reforms will be circumvented over time by law enforcement or other incentivized bureaucrats.
While in control of the asset forfeiture fund, employees of NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement have submitted duplicate, undocumented, and unexplained expenses for reimbursement, been accused of malicious and capricious treatment of fishermen, purchased more vehicles than the department had employees, shredded between 75-80% of the documents related to an ongoing investigation by the Inspector General of the Commerce Department at the behest of the then director of the OLE, spent some $580,000 on international travel to over 40 destinations with only 17% of the international travel related to investigations or enforcement proceedings, and employed such messy bookkeeping that outside auditors were unable to explain what happened to approximately 40% of NOAA’s asset forfeiture funds over a 4 ½ year period. These episodes, while egregious, are not unique to the NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement. They are a characteristic of agencies in direct control of asset forfeiture funds. Removing corrupting incentives to commit seizures will increase the honesty of our public officials and ultimately help restore public confidence in our government officials.
Read the complete editorial from Americans for Forfeiture Reform.