Skip to main content

U.S. Attorneys' Manual

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

U.S. Attorneys' Manual
EOUSA Resource Manual

152. Credit For Multi-District Forfeiture Cases

As the Department of Justice has placed greater emphasis on Asset Forfeiture, the need for an accurate accounting system of the assets being forfeited by the United States Attorney's offices has arisen. The United States Marshals Service (USMS) statistics reflect only the monies they put in the Assets Forfeiture Fund in the district of deposit. This method of accounting does not accurately reflect the total monies being forfeited by the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the United States Attorney's office for that district. For example, when a United States Attorney's office forfeits any asset in another district or gives assistance to another district to complete a forfeiture and/or execute a forfeiture order, credit should be given to each United States Attorney's office participating in the case.

New emphasis is being placed on the Asset Forfeiture statistics reported into the individual United States Attorneys' offices' case management systems (PROMIS, PC-USACTS, and USACTS-II). The following procedures should be followed to ensure that your district receives the appropriate credit when more than one district is involved in a forfeiture case.

  1. NEW ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES FOR MULTI-DISTRICT FORFEITURE CASES

    When multiple districts are involved in a forfeiture case, the Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) should agree at the beginning of the forfeiture case on an approximate percentage to be credited to their respective districts based upon anticipated work hours and other factors. If the proportion of work on the forfeiture case has changed among the districts when all of the assets have been disposed of (this includes real property), the agreement should be modified.

    The following factors should be considered by the AUSAs:

    • Number of AUSA and support staff work-hours spent on the criminal prosecution and the criminal and/or civil forfeiture case by the United States Attorney's office during the investigation and the prosecution of the case;

    • District which initiated the criminal investigation and the criminal and/or civil forfeiture case;

    • Number of AUSA and support staff work-hours spent in post-forfeiture issues such as disposition of real property and resolution of equitable sharing requests.

    When a determination is made regarding the percentage of the monies to be credited to the participating United States Attorneys' offices, the AUSAs are to advise their financial litigation unit of the dollar amount to be credited to their district. The financial litigation unit should then report this case like all other forfeiture cases.

  2. PROCEDURES FOR DISAGREEMENT ON MULTI-DISTRICT CREDIT

    If an agreement cannot be reached by the AUSAs involved in a multi-district forfeiture case, the matter should be referred to the United States Attorneys in each district involved in the forfeiture for a determination of the credit each district is to be awarded using the factors above.

    If the United States Attorneys are unable to reach a decision, a request shall be made to the Director of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the Criminal Division (AFMLS) to convene a three-member panel consisting of a representative from EOUSA, a representative from AFMLS, and a representative from the AFMLS/JMD. This panel will determine the percentage of monies to be credited to each district involved in the forfeiture case. Each district will submit a memorandum stating the credit that is being sought by that district and a justification for its position. The panel will make a decision within 30 days of receipt of the memoranda from all the districts involved in the forfeiture case. The panel's decision will be final.

[updated April 1998] [cited in USAM 3-16.111]