Posted on: Sunday, December 19, 2004

Audit critical of use of criminal-forfeiture fund

By Gordon Y.K. Pang
Advertiser Capitol Bureau

Whether those who pay into the state's criminal-forfeiture revolving fund get a benefit from how their money is being used continues to be a source of disagreement between the attorney general's office and state Auditor Marion Higa.

The fund was one of 92 revolving funds, trust funds and trust accounts under the purview of the attorney general's office, the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, and the University of Hawai'i that were scrutinized by Higa's office this past year.

The Legislature requires the auditor to review all state revolving and trust funds every five years, in large part because the revenues and expenses tied to such funds are not subject to legislative control like general fund monies.

The criminal-forfeiture revolving fund account, which has taken in an average of just less than $900,000 annually in the past five years, gets its revenues from forfeitures imposed on criminals convicted of serious crimes including murder, kidnapping, gambling and drug-related charges.

Proceeds derived from the forfeitures are used in part to pay for a variety of public safety-related expenses incurred by both the state and counties.

Higa, as she did in a 1999 audit of the same fund, said she sees "a lack of linkage" between those who pay the forfeitures and how the money is eventually spent. To meet the criteria of a revolving fund, she said, those who pay into the fund must benefit from it.

Attorney General Mark Bennett, in a response dated Dec. 7, said he believes there is a clear linkage between crime reduction and deterrence and the forfeited property.

Lawmakers, in creating the fund in 1998, found that forfeitures serve as "an immediate deterrent" against future illegal activity involving the forfeited assets.

"The beneficiary of this program is the society at large, and that society includes criminals whose properties have been forfeited," Bennett wrote.

Higa remains skeptical. "It serves the larger purpose of law enforcement, but it's somewhat of a tenuous relationship — it's like two steps removed."

She acknowledged, however, that the disagreement with state attorneys over the fund has predated Bennett's time in office.

"This fund has always been a bone of contention between our office and that of the attorney general," she said.

Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com or at 525-8070.