Unmasking The Conjugal Collaborative: DOJ Assests Forfeiture Program

The Conjugal Collaboratives Beseiging The Castle
On Orders Of The Celestial Goddess
Of The Woodshed To Save Her Errant Knight

After all this time, I have been calling this organization a conjugal collaborative when I am just now finding out that it is called the Assests Forfeiture Program.

 I am still going to call it a conjugal collaborative because it is sounds more romantic and is part of my fairy tale I am writing.

HA!

Organization of the Assests Forfeiture Program:

An agency is by definition a participating member of the AFP if the forfeited proceeds of its seized assets are deposited into the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF). Only member agencies that contribute to the AFF in this way are eligible to receive an annual allocation of resources from it. AFP participants from the Department of Justice include, the Asset Forfeiture Management Staff (AFMS) of the Justice Management Division; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); INTERPOL Washington, which withdrew from the AFP in March 2016; Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) of the Criminal Division (renamed in January 2017 from Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS)); Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF); Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and United States Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs); and United States Marshals Service (USMS). Other participants are Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS); Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS); Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA); Department of Agriculture, Office of the Inspector General (USDA); and United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS).

U.S. Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund Management’s Discussion and... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

One should bare in mind the name of the publication: U.S. Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)

I even highlighted that in fuchsia.

The primary mission of the DOJ AFP is to maximize the effectiveness of forfeiture as a deterrent to crime. This is accomplished by means of depriving drug traffickers, racketeers, and other criminal syndicates of their ill-gotten proceeds and instrumentalities of their trade. Components responsible for administration and financial management of the AFP are charged with lawfully, effectively, and efficiently supporting law enforcement authorities in the application of specified forfeiture statutes. 

This Assests Forfeiture Program has a fund, but as to what kind of fund that is, well, this is left open for query.

Is it a trust fund?

Is it a children's trust fund because it has that posterity thing going on from its mission statement, above.

What is exactly in the fund and how is it managed, or rather invested?

This DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program has already targeted child welfare fraud, so, I guess we wait.

I smell another DOJ internal investigation, and soon enough, restructuring of its conjugal collaboration, because the Meanie collaborators are cojugating with other Meanies to make a DOJ slush fund, or that is what it looks like to me because of the properties.

I bet there are no chains of command in the recordkeeping of those properties.

I bet those properties have very interesting backgrounds and financial futures, too, considering the fact that KMPG, the global auditing firm which conducted this Assets Forfeiture Program & Seized Asset Deposit Fund Audit, and the Clinton Foundation, have one of those conjugal collaboratives going on.

Improvements Needed in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting

In fiscal year (FY) 2017, deficiencies continued to exist in the Assets Forfeiture Fund/Seized Asset Deposit Fund’s (AFF/SADF) internal controls over financial reporting. Specifically, we noted that management did not have sufficient policies and procedures or effective controls in place to ensure that:

• Supporting judicial information was obtained timely and properly evaluated so that revenue was recognized in the appropriate accounting period, and federal agencies participating in the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP) updated the Consolidated Asset Tracking System (CATS) timely. 
• Manual journal entries properly represented the underlying accounting events. 
• Budgetary information reported in the financial statements was properly reconciled and presented.

There were lots of deficiencies in this findings report.

Is this connected to TARP?

Stay tuned.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©