State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 136

Second Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice re 59 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byCommonwealth of Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Virginia, Dana Nessel, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Wisconsin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 54 & 55)(Related document(s) 59 ) (Zahradka, James) (Filed on 5/10/2019) Modified on 5/13/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 54

Stephanie Garcia Richard
COMMISSIONER

State of New Mexico
Commissioner of Public Lands

COMMISSIONER’S
OFFICE
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.nmstatelands.org

310 OLD SANTA FE TRAIL
P.O. BOX 1148
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87504-1148

May 8, 2019
Via email and first-class mail
Paul Enriquez, Real Estate and
Environment Director
Border Wall Program Management Office
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20229-1100

Dear Mr. Enriquez:
This letter responds to your correspondence dated April 8, 2019 requesting input
concerning the stated plans of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to build bollard walls
along two sections of the U.S.-Mexico border in Luna and Doña Ana Counties in New Mexico.
New Mexico State Land Office
The New Mexico State Land Office is an independent state agency responsible for
administering nine million acres of surface and 13 million acres of subsurface estate for the
beneficiaries of the state land trust, which include public schools, universities, hospitals and other
important public institutions. New Mexico acquired much of its state trust land under the
Ferguson Act of 1898 and the Enabling Act of 1910, with additional lands obtained through
subsequent conveyances and exchanges.
As New Mexico’s Commissioner of Public Lands, it is my duty to optimize revenue for
New Mexico schoolchildren and other beneficiaries while protecting the health of state trust lands
for future generations. By leasing state trust lands for a wide array of uses, the State Land Office
generates hundreds of millions of dollars each year to support the trust beneficiaries.
The State Land Office manages over a dozen tracts of land on or immediately adjacent to
the U.S.-Mexico border, including over 29,000 acres presently leased for ranching within CBP’s

Paul Enriquez
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Page 2

project footprint. As the public official responsible for the wise and sustainable management of
these lands, I have serious concerns about the federal government’s decision to ignore numerous
environmental and cultural resource protection laws to speed construction activity along the
border. I also write to urge CBP to act with greater transparency and commitment to public
accountability by providing the important and so-far-unexplained details of how it will oversee its
construction project along the border. In the absence of any environmental planning document or
even a meaningful construction proposal, all available information indicates that CBP’s plans will
cause unnecessary and lasting harm to rangeland, economic development and the environment in
the borderlands of Luna and Doña Ana Counties.
Encroachment on State Trust Lands During Construction
CBP has stated its plans to construct two non-contiguous segments of “vehicle barrier
replacement” along the border, “El Paso Project 1” and “El Paso Project 2.” According to the
Department of Homeland Security, “El Paso Project 1” includes 46 miles of barrier construction
“beginning 17.5 miles west of the Columbus Port of Entry continuing east in non-contiguous
segments to approximately 35 miles east of the Columbus Port of Entry,” in Luna and Doña Ana
Counties. “El Paso Project 2” includes 23.5 miles of barrier construction in three non-contiguous
segments in Hidalgo and Luna Counties. February 25, 2019 memorandum from Department of
Homeland Security to Department of Defense, “Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §
284,” at 9.
In your April 8, 2019 letter, you indicate that “[m]ore detailed information about the
proposed border barrier project location and design is enclosed.” That “more detailed
information,” however, is limited to a two-page attachment with a graphic indicating the
approximate mileage of border wall construction in each of our two affected counties, and a
schematic map with no scale and very few features depicted. CBP has not informed the public
about the duration of CBP’s planned construction, the number of personnel that will occupy border
areas, the siting of power lines and lighting, location of staging areas, points of ingress and egress,
and other details critical to any reasoned assessment of the impact of this construction project on
the environment and on property owners along the border. I urge you to quickly correct this
troubling lack of information.
In the absence of tangible information about “El Paso Project 1,” the State Land Office and
other stakeholders, including border communities, must examine the details of CBP’s past ventures
along the U.S.-Mexico border. CBP’s plan for a different section of border wall construction (in
Dona Ana County near the port of Santa Teresa, east of “El Paso Project 1”) stated that the agency
would construct “six staging areas totaling approximately 24.6 acres outside the Roosevelt
Reservation … to facilitate operation of equipment, staging of materials, and construction, and
three existing access roads totaling approximately 6.5 miles will be used to access the project
corridor.” Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Environmental

Paul Enriquez
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Page 3

Stewardship Plan for Replacement, Operation and Maintenance of Tactical Infrastructure (March
2018) (“ESP”) at CS-1. Notably, the 1907 proclamation that President Roosevelt issued reserving
to the United States a sixty-foot strip along the border (commonly called the “Roosevelt
Reservation”) provides that the reserved land is “set apart as a public reservation …. [and] may be
used for public highways but for no other purpose whatsoever.” See Proclamation 758, Setting
Apart as Public Lands a Strip of Land on the Mexican Frontier (1907). CBP’s imminent
construction of a 46-mile border wall, presumably with ancillary infrastructure, is not consistent
with the sole lawful purpose permitted by the very proclamation upon which CBP relies to assert
control over lands along most of the border in Luna and Doña Ana Counties.
With respect to “El Paso Project 1,” CBP has not revealed the locations of its staging areas,
or for road access to its 46-mile long construction site. CBP has not obtained any easement for use
of state trust lands for staging areas, for the construction of new roads, or for the siting of power
lines or other infrastructure, and since I began my service as Commissioner of Public Lands your
agency has not contacted me or my staff for such permission. CBP’s unauthorized use of state trust
lands for these purposes would be a serious and actionable violation of law. I urge CBP to
communicate openly with the State Land Office regarding its operational plans and the impact that
its construction activities will have on state trust lands.
Long-Term Impacts to State Trust Lands
Even if CBP’s wall-building does not directly trespass on state trust lands – a determination
that cannot accurately be made at this point in time, since CBP has released so little information
about its plans – the intended wall project will have lasting and negative implications for state trust
lands that are close as sixty feet to the construction site.
Removal of current sections of fencing, and installation of the new wall material, will
require digging, excavating, and trenching, destroying forage and eroding soils. CBP has not
explained the intensity of vehicle traffic that will be required to accomplish its stated objectives,
but the scope of the intended project would require the use of heavy earthmoving equipment for
an extended period of time along the border, which we expect to have a negative impact on air
quality as well as surface resources. Pile driving, welding, and cutting will create metal shavings
and other waste that may contaminate soil and water in the area. Although CBP does not elaborate
on any road building or upgrading it plans to conduct in support of its wall-building, any
construction of a new road will likely result in additional surface disturbance and generate
pollutants. In addition, new roadways will likely increase storm water runoff and therefore may
pose a threat to water quality in the project area. CBP has not disclosed its plans for power lines
or other infrastructure that may create additional surface disturbance, air pollution, and habitat
disruption.
The two-page attachment to your April 8, 2019 letter states that the new bollard wall will

Paul Enriquez
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Page 4

also include LED lighting and unspecified “detection technology,” and states that CBP “will work
with the appropriate stakeholders to develop solutions to avoid excess lighting beyond the existing
patrol road.” To date, the State Land Office has not received any information from CBP about
your agency’s plans for mitigating light pollution along the approximately 46 miles of new
construction. Without any description of the specific light sources, frequency or intensity that
CBP intends to use, it is impossible to make any precise analysis of the severity of this trespass on
immediately adjacent state trust lands.
Lasting Damage to Habitat and Threatened Species
CBP has agreed that it “will be responsible for any applicable environmental planning and
compliance to include stakeholder outreach and consultation associated with the [border wall
construction].” February 25, 2019 Memorandum from Department of Homeland Security to
Department of Defense, “Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284,” at 2. To date, CBP
has not engaged in any outreach and consultation with the State Land Office, or to my knowledge
with other communities or organizations in New Mexico that will be affected by this massive
construction project. There is no publicly available evidence that CBP has engaged in any
environmental planning for its imminent wall-building project.
Although CBP has presented no evaluative study on the environmental impacts of “El Paso
Project 1,” a number of scientists, advocates and community members have done so. An analysis
co-authored by Stanford University biologists Paul Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo concluded that
border wall construction is “reducing the area, quality, and connectivity of plant and animal
habitats and [is] compromising more than a century of binational investment in conservation
….The border wall threatens some populations by degrading landscape connectivity. Physical
barriers prevent or discourage animals from accessing food, water, mates, and other critical
resources by disrupting annual or seasonal migration and dispersal routes.” See Robert Peters et
al., “Nature Divided, Scientists United: US-Mexico Border Wall Threatens Biodiversity and
Binational Conservation,” BioScience, Vol. 68, No. 10 (Oct. 2018) at 740. Aggressive border wall
construction will likely harm endangered or threatened species in New Mexico including the
Mexican gray wolf. Id. at 741. New Mexico State University professor Gary Roemer, who has
conducted extensive fieldwork in the New Mexico borderlands, confirms that “border walls sever
wildlife connectivity.”
Although local advocacy organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity and
Southwest Environmental Center have undertaken thoughtful analysis of the dangers that border
wall construction poses to wildlife, your fellow federal agencies also have sounded the alarm. As
you are likely aware, a September 2017 draft letter addressed to you from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Southwest Regional Office warned that “the Service recommends considering
technology, additional border patrols agents and other mechanisms, instead of installation of levee
or bollard walls” due to reduction of habitat connectivity.

Paul Enriquez
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Page 5

The environmental harms that CBP’s bollard wall threatens are not limited to habitat
fragmentation. The sparse information CBP has shared with New Mexicans indicates that your
agency plans to flood the border wall with high-intensity lighting. In 1999, New Mexico enacted
the Night Sky Protection Act “to preserve and enhance the state’s dark sky while promoting safety,
conserving energy and preserving the environment for astronomy.” NMSA 1978, § 74-12-2. The
prospect of constant and intensive illumination along 46 miles of border will impair this carefully
crafted balance. As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded, “[i]ncreased lighting at night,
along the wall, will likely have negative impacts on ocelot, jaguarondi and other nocturnal
species,” and urged CBP to more carefully analyze the effects of lighting to nocturnal wildlife.
CBP does not appear to have accepted this professional assessment.
Perhaps most troubling, while your April 8, 2019 letter states CBP’s desire to consider
environmental impacts and conduct environmental site assessments, the Department of Homeland
Security has exempted itself (including its operational components like CBP) from all
environmental and cultural resource protection laws in the planning and construction of border
wall in Luna and Doña Ana Counties. It is difficult to understand how the Department of Homeland
Security and its components can act in an environmentally responsible manner when the
Department has authorized itself to ignore landmark protections like the Endangered Species Act,
the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Act,
and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act without any apparent consequences.
These environmental risks are a serious concern to me because my responsibility is not only to
maximize revenue for the trust beneficiaries but to do so sustainably. The State Land Office
must continue to honor its duty to the trust and it can only do so if it protects the integrity and
value of its lands for future generations. Responsible land stewardship requires, at a minimum,
extensive and careful evaluation of the numerous risks posed by CBP’s border wall plans before
ground is broken.
Sincerely,

Stephanie Garcia Richard
Commissioner of Public Lands

EXHIBIT 5

Department of the Treasury
Treasury Executive Office of
Asset Forfeiture

Congressional Budget
Justification and Annual
Performance Report and Plan

FY 2020

Table of Contents
Section I – Purpose........................................................................................................................ 3
A – Mission Statement................................................................................................................ 3
B – Summary of the Request ...................................................................................................... 3
1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table............................................................................................... 7
1.2 – Obligation Detail Table...................................................................................................... 8
1.3 – Operating Levels Table...................................................................................................... 8
E – Legislative Proposals............................................................................................................ 8
Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report................................................................... 9
A – Strategic Alignment ............................................................................................................. 9
B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity ...................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Treasury Forfeiture Fund Resources and Measures........................................................... 9

TEOAF - 2

Section I – Purpose
A – Mission Statement
To affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic use of asset forfeiture by law enforcement
bureaus that participate in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (the Fund) to disrupt and dismantle
criminal enterprises.
B – Summary of the Request
The Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) administers the Fund, which is the
receipt account for deposit of non-tax forfeitures made pursuant to laws enforced or administered
by participating Treasury and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bureaus. Principal
revenue-producing bureaus include U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S.
Secret Service (USSS), the U.S. Coast Guards (USCG), and Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau (TTB), among others. The Fund is a special fund, defined as a Federal fund account for
receipts earmarked for specific purposes and the expenditure of those receipts. The law (31
U.S.C. 9705) allows TEOAF to use the funds for payment of all proper expenses of seizure or
the proceedings of forfeiture and sale.
Revenues deposited in the Fund can be allocated and used as the result of a permanent indefinite
appropriation provided by Congress. A forfeiture process begins once currency or property is
seized. Seized currency is deposited into a suspense account (holding account) until forfeited. At
that time, the forfeited amount is transferred (deposited) to the Fund as revenue. Forfeited
properties are usually sold, and the proceeds are also deposited into the Fund as revenue. This
revenue represents budget authority for meeting obligations and expenses of the program.
Expenses of the Fund are set in a relative priority so that operating costs are met first and may
not exceed revenues.
Mandatory expenses represent operating costs of the Fund, including storing and
maintaining seized and forfeited assets, valid liens and mortgages, investigative expenses
incurred in pursuing a seizure, information and inventory systems, remissions, victim
restoration, and certain costs of local police agencies incurred in joint law enforcement
operations. Following seizure, equitable shares may be paid to state and local law
enforcement agencies that contributed to the seizure activity at a level proportionate to their
involvement.
Secretary’s Enforcement Fund (SEF) expenses are funded from revenue from equitable
shares received from Department of Justice (DOJ) or U.S. Postal Service (USPS) forfeitures.
These shares are proportionate to Treasury’s participation in the overall investigative effort
that led to a DOJ or USPS forfeiture. SEF revenue is available for federal law enforcementrelated purposes of any bureau participating in the Fund.
Strategic Support authority, established by Congress in 31 U.S.C. 9705(g)(4)(B), allows
TEOAF to fund priority federal law enforcement initiatives with remaining unobligated
balances at the close of the fiscal year, after an amount is reserved for the next fiscal year’s
operations.

TEOAF - 3

FY 2018 Case Highlights: The following case highlights are intended to provide examples of
the types of investigative cases worked by the Fund’s law enforcement bureaus during FY 2018
that resulted in the seizure and forfeiture of assets. Such cases as those profiled below are
consistent with the strategic mission and vision of the Fund, which is to use high-impact asset
forfeiture in investigative cases to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises.
Rabobank Forfeits $318,701,259 as Part of Guilty Plea
Rabobank National Association (Rabobank) pleaded guilty to a felony conspiracy charge for
impairing, impeding and obstructing its primary regulator, the Department of the Treasury’s
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the OCC) by concealing deficiencies in its anti-money
laundering (AML) program and for obstructing the OCC’s examination of Rabobank. The
investigation was conducted by ICE Homeland Security Initiative (HSI), IRS Criminal
Investigation (CI), and the Financial Investigations and Border Crimes Task Force, a multiagency
Task Force based in San Diego and Imperial County. The investigation was funded by the
TEOAF and occurred parallel to regulatory investigations by the OCC, IRS’ Office of General
Counsel, and FinCEN’s Enforcement Division.
New York Man Sentenced to 87 Months and Forfeits $1,624,172 for Multi-State
Biodiesel Fraud Scheme
Andre Bernard, of Mount Kisco, New York, pleaded guilty for his participation in a multistate scheme to defraud biodiesel buyers and U.S. taxpayers by fraudulently selling biodiesel
credits and fraudulently claiming tax credits. The IRS-CI was joined in this case by the USSS
and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigation Division.
Minnesota Man who defrauded Hmong Community is Sentenced to 87 Months in
Prison, Forfeits $1,612,451
The St. Paul Police Department contacted the USSS Minneapolis Field Office requesting
assistance regarding the investigation of a large scale nationwide wire fraud scheme targeting
a Southeast Asian ethnic group known as the Hmong people living in approximately 18
known states in the U.S. Seng Xiong promoted his scheme in the Hmong language to solicit
elderly members of the Hmong community to invest money in monthly payments to bank
accounts in the name of Seng Xiong. Seng Xiong was convicted of wire fraud and mail fraud.
The final order of forfeiture for $1,612,451 will be used for victim restitution.
Coast Guard Cutter Offloads Over 41.5 Tons of Cocaine
In San Diego on January 25, 2018, the USGC Cutter Stratton offloaded more than 47,000
pounds of cocaine worth over $721 million. U.S. and Canadian forces operating in
international waters off the coast of Central and South America seized the cocaine in 23
separate interdictions in the eastern Pacific Ocean. On March 20, 2018, the USCG offloaded
approximately 36,000 pounds of cocaine, with an estimated value of $500 million. The
seized narcotics were the result of 17 interdictions of suspected smuggling vessels off the
coasts of Central and South America between early February and early March of 2018.
Priorities: In FY 2020, TEOAF will continue to support the investigations and activities of the
participating law enforcement bureaus. The bulk of TEOAF expenses include supporting
seizures and forfeitures to protect the health and safety of U.S. citizens and the commercial
interests of U.S. businesses from pernicious criminal activity. Funds are expended for seizure,
storage, maintenance, disposition, and destruction and all costs associated with those activities.

TEOAF - 4

TEOAF focuses on supporting cases and investigations that meet the mission of disrupting and
dismantling criminal enterprises. To this end, TEOAF prioritizes major case 1 initiatives when
allocating funding to member agencies, including the purchase of evidence and information, joint
operations expenses, investigative expenses leading to seizure, and asset identification and
removal teams. Major case initiatives are aligned directly to the National Money Laundering and
Southwest Border strategies.
TEOAF support for complex financial investigations initiated by the participating agencies
reveals assets available for forfeiture. Many of these assets are the proceeds and result of
fraudulent criminal enterprises that have victims. Significant resources are required to obtain a
successful prosecution and forfeiture with the resulting revenue used to compensate the victims
of the criminal activity.
Participating agencies also combat emerging patterns and practices that threaten our Nation’s
financial stability. Funds are used to support anti-money laundering/combating financing of
terrorism (AML/CFT) investigations and activities. To be effective, analysis of large data caches
and cryptocurrency-related crime requires large investments in advanced information technology
hardware, software, training, and other capabilities. These investments buttress the AML/CFT
strategy of the Departments of Homeland Security and the Treasury.
Challenges: Recently-enacted large rescissions have had a severe negative impact on the
participating member agencies’ investigations. Insufficient and inconsistent funding support,
uncertainty about future funding, investigations disrupted by cash flow problems, and inability to
obtain necessary technology/infrastructure all undermine both current and future financial
investigations and forfeitures. The Fund relies on base revenue (revenue from non-major
forfeitures) to cover basic mandatory costs of the forfeiture program. Total FY 2018 base
revenue was $364 million, as compared to $349 million in FY 2017, $419 million in FY 2016,
$387 million in FY 2015, and $410 million in FY 2014.
The table below reflects forfeiture revenue from all sources including revenue, reverse asset
sharing, and interest earned.

1

A major case refers to a case where the forfeiture results in a deposit greater than $5 million, or a case that disrupts,
dismantles, or interrupts money laundering networks or other financial activities that threaten the financial stability,
financial system, or financial interests of the United States.

TEOAF - 5

$2,000

FORFEITURE REVENUE FROM ALL SOURCES
$1,715

$1,500

$1,279

Millions

$1,143
$931

$1,000

$785
$579

$556

FY 2008

FY 2009

$795

$884

$524

$516

$500
$0
FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014 FY 2015* FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

*FY 2015 data does not include the BNP Paribas S.A. forfeiture in the amount of $3,839 million. Of that amount, $3,800 million was
permanently rescinded and transferred to the newly-created U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (USVSST) as directed by Congress
under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Pub. L. 114-113, Div. O, Tit. IV, §404(e) and §405(b). The remainder has been returned to
the General Fund in FY 2018.

Participating agencies are seeing reluctance in the field to undertake complex major
investigations due to the lack of assurance that their efforts would receive continuous support.
Strategic Support funding is especially critical as a strategic investment in the agencies’
operational capabilities and infrastructure supporting major cases. It provides law enforcement
much-needed flexibility to respond in real time to unanticipated critical needs, such as those
driven by technology advancements or emerging criminal threats. It often serves as seed funding
for innovations that need to be tested and refined prior to full-scale implementation.
It is precisely the most important, high-impact 2 financial investigations that TEOAF must
continue to support due to resource needs and ultimate disposition of the forfeited assets.
Undermining these major financial investigations will directly impact the ability of Treasury and
DHS to respond to priority threats and to protect the integrity of the U.S. financial system.
In addition, TEOAF tracks future remission payments to third parties as contingent liabilities.
However, these amounts are not recorded as obligations from the Fund until the Department of
Justice grants the petition for remission. The third parties are predominantly victims of crimes
that triggered the forfeiture (e.g., Ponzi scheme or kleptocracy victims). Amounts recorded are
significant because remission payments from multiple years are recorded and carried forward.
The amounts change constantly as payments are made and amounts for new remission cases are
added. TEOAF considers the amounts recorded as contingent liabilities as unavailable and
believes that consideration of contingent liabilities provides a more accurate representation of the
financial position of the Fund.

2

A high-impact case refers to a case resulting in a cash forfeiture deposit equal to or greater than $100,000.

TEOAF - 6

1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table
Dollars in Thousands
Treasury Forfeiture Fund

FY 2018

FY 2019

Actual

Budgetary Resources
FTE

Estim ated

AMOUNT FTE

FY 2020
1

FY 2019 to FY 2020

Estim ated

AMOUNT FTE

$ Change

AMOUNT FTE

% Change

AMOUNT

FTE AMOUNT

Revenue/Offsetting Collections
Interest

0

$47,560

0

$31,000

0

$31,309

0

$309

NA

1%

Restored Prior Year Rescission

0

$988,000

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

NA

NA

Restored Prior Year Sequestration Reduction

0

$35,606

0

$84,405

0

$32,742

0

($51,663)

NA

-61%

Restored Prior Year Sequestration of Restored
Rescission

0

$60,444

0

$65,208

0

$0

0

($65,208)

NA

-100%

Forfeited Revenue

0

$1,231,301

0

$497,096

0

$507,038

0

$9,942

NA

2%

0

Recovery from Prior Years

0

$16,933

0

$18,000

0

$18,000

$0

NA

0%

Unobligated Balances from Prior Years

0

$668,529

0

$825,172

0

$134,460

0 ($690,712)

NA

-84%

$723,549

0 ($797,331)

NA

-52%

$10,555 0.00%

2%

$3,048,373

Total Revenue/Offsetting Collections

$1,520,881

Expenses/Obligations
Mandatory Obligations 2

26

$919,464

27

$527,772

27

$538,327

0

Secretary's Enfrocement

0

$38,383

0

$22,316

0

$22,762

0

Strategic Support

0

$49,579

0

$601,000

0

First Tranche 3

0

$0

0

$242,000

0

Second Tranche 3

0

$0

0

$359,000

0

$0

0

26

Sequestration Reduction 4

0

Permanent Cancellation

FY 2018 Strategic Support obligated in FY 2019
Total Expenses/Obligations

$446

NA

2%

$0

0 ($601,000)

NA

-100%

$0

0

$0

NA

NA

0

$0

0

$0

NA

NA

$2,590

0

$0

0

($2,590)

NA

-100%

$1,007,426

27 $1,153,678

27

$561,090

0 ($592,589) 0.00%

-51%

($149,613)

($32,742)

TBD

NA

NA

NA

0 ($1,066,162)

($200,000)

$0

$200,000

NA

-100%

($1,215,775)

($232,742)

$0

$200,000

NA

-100%

$825,172

$134,460

$162,459

($204,743)

NA

21%

$407,460

$400,000

$400,000

$0

NA

0%

Rescissions/Cancellations

Total Rescission/Cancellations
Net Results

Contingent Liabilities
1

FY 2019 estimates are based on approved financial plan and exclude additional anticipated forfeitures of $359 million that may come in FY
2019.
2
The Treasury Forfeiture Fund is staffed by Departmental Offices employees and positions are funded via reimbursable agreement. The FTE are
shown here for clarity, but are also reflected in the Departmental Offices chapter in the reimbursable FTE total.
3
In February 2019, Treasury submitted a strategic support plan to the committees including two tranches. The first tranche of up to $242 million
will be available for obligation 15 days after Treasury's plan was submitted. The second tranche of $359 million will be available for obligation
after that date subject to the receipt of additional anticipated forfeitures.
4
The FY 2019 sequestration would increase by $22 million if the additional anticipated forfeitures of $359 million are finalized in FY 2019.
Treasury will compute the FY 2020 sequestration reduction once the OMB Report to Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal
Year 2020 is released.

TEOAF - 7

1.2 – Obligations Detail Table
Dollars in Thousands
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
Obligations

FY 2018
Actual

FY 2019
Estim ated

FY 2020
Estim ated

1

% Change
FY 2019 to
FY 2020

Mandatory
CBP
$64,161
$41,622
$42,454
2%
ICE
$105,323
$199,988
$203,987
2%
IRS 2
$620,107
$150,485
$153,495
2%
USSS
$31,796
$31,893
$32,531
2%
USCG
$1,400
$1,400
$1,428
2%
TEOAF
$79,251
$82,277
$83,923
2%
TTB
$588
$600
$612
2%
DOJ
$16,837
$19,506
$19,896
2%
Total Mandatory
$919,464
$527,771
$538,327
2%
SEF
CBP
$5,422
$4,000
$4,080
2%
ICE
$14,963
$7,185
$7,329
2%
IRS
$12,821
$7,050
$7,191
2%
USSS
$5,177
$4,081
$4,163
2%
Total SEF
$38,383
$22,316
$22,762
2%
Strategic Support
CBP
$9,925
$601,000
TBD
NA
ICE
$16,321
$0
TBD
NA
IRS 3
$13,410
$2,590
TBD
NA
USSS
$6,500
$0
TBD
NA
USCG
$2,423
$0
TBD
NA
TTB
$1,000
$0
TBD
NA
Total Strategic Support
$49,579
$603,590
TBD
NA
Total Expenses/Obligations
$1,007,426
$1,153,678 $
561,090
-51%
1
Funding availability is based on actual receipts. TEOAF will reassess the funding availability in late FY 2019.
2
IRS’ FY 2018 Mandatory obligations included a large victim refund of $453 million.
3
This represents IRS’ FY 2018 Strategic Support funding obligated in FY 2019

1.3 – Operating Levels Table
Dollars in Thousands

Treasury Forfeiture Fund

FY 2018

Object Classification

Actual

25.2 - Other services
25.3 - Other purchases of goods & serv frm Govt accounts
26.0 - Supplies and materials
41.0 - Grants, subsidies, and contributions
43.0 - Interest and dividends
44.0 - Refunds
94.0 - Financial Transfers
Total Non-Personnel
New Budgetary Resources

FY 2019

FY 2020

Estimated Estimated

58,598

60,496

61,000

177,215

730,496

132,000

15

138

25

161,025

167,492

170,000

56

59

65

522,556

103,499

105,000

87,961

91,498

93,000

1,007,426

1,153,678

561,090

$1,007,426 $1,153,678 $561,090

Budget Activities:
Asset Forfeiture Fund
FTE

$1,007,426 $1,153,678 $561,090
26

E – Legislative Proposals
TEOAF has no legislative proposals.
TEOAF - 8

27

27

Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report
A – Strategic Alignment
The purpose of the Fund is to ensure resources are managed to cover the costs of an effective
asset seizure and forfeiture program, including the costs of seizure or the proceedings of
forfeiture and sale, including the expenses of detention, inventory, security, maintenance,
advertisement, or disposal of the property. Additionally, the Fund is used to support law
enforcement priorities, financial investigative capabilities, and the seizure of physical and
financial resources to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises. TEOAF supports the following
Department of the Treasury strategic goal and associated objectives:
Goal 3: Enhance National Security:
o 3.1 Strategic Threat Disruption
o 3.2 AML/CFT Framework
B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity
2.1.1 Treasury Forfeiture Fund Resources and Measures
Dollars in Thousands
Resource Level

FY 2014
Actual

FY 2015
Actual

FY 2016
Actual

FY 2017
Actual

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Actual Estim ated Estim ated

Expenses/Obligations

$787,849

$4,323,908

$508,746

$526,228

$1,007,426

$1,153,678

$561,090

Budget Activity Total

$787,849

$4,323,908

$508,746

$526,228

$1,007,426

$1,153,678

$561,090

25

25

25

25

26

27

27

FTE

Measure

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

Actual
Percent of Forfeited Cash Proceeds
Resulting from High-Impact Cases

FY 2014

Actual

Actual

Actual

Actual

Target

Target

98.25

89.09

81.79

80.00

94.19

80.00

80.00

Treasury Forfeiture Fund Budget and Performance
($561,090,000 in obligations from revenue/offsetting collections):
The Fund continues to measure the performance of the participating law enforcement bureaus
through the “percent of forfeited cash proceeds resulting from high-impact cases, “which are
cases that yield a cash forfeiture deposit equal to or greater than $100,000.
Focusing on strategic cases and investigations that result in high-impact forfeitures will help to
impede criminal organizations while accomplishing the ultimate objective, which is to disrupt
and dismantle criminal enterprises. Member law enforcement bureaus participating in the Fund
have met or exceeded the performance target since FY 2014. However; the performance declined
to 81.79 percent in FY 2017 due to the inability of TEOAF to offer support for high-impact cases
in prior years. The performance increased to 94.19 percent in FY 2018 because one major case
resulted in $453 million which was used to compensate victims entirely. For FY 2019 and
FY 2020, the target will remain at 80 percent. The Fund maintains a target of 80 percent because
some cases may be important to pursue, even if they are not high-impact cases and result in
deposits of less than $100,000.

TEOAF - 9