Seized Conveyances

In response to a congressional request, GAO compared the Department of Justice's (DOJ) use of the Marshals Service to manage seized properties with the Customs Service's use of a private contractor to determine which of the agencies had made progress in solving management problems.

GAO found that: (1) Customs made greater progress than DOJ in consolidating its seized conveyance custodial functions; (2) as of May 1986, the contractor had assumed full custody of all property Customs seized and was responsible for the sale of all forfeited properties; and (3) Customs and the contractor instituted an automated system to process, control, and manage all seized property, including property Customs or other agencies put into official use or transferred to state or local law enforcement officials. GAO also found that: (1) as of September 1987, DOJ had not fully transferred its seized properties to the Marshals Service; (2) because of weaknesses in its information system, the Service awarded a contract for the development and installation of a new automated system; (3) the Service's assumption of the custody of properties the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency, and Immigration and Naturalization Service seized impeded its consolidation program; and (4) the Services' National Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Program expedited filling of personnel vacancies and authorized use of overtime and compensatory time to assist the program in managing its work load.