Lawmakers question forfeiture fund uses and reporting after billing concerns

A state legislative oversight committee reviewed the statutory limits and reporting requirements for asset forfeiture funds amid questions about contractor billing and possible commingling of funds.

Gary Bergman, a 35-year employee of the Prosecuting Attorney's Council who helped draft the 2015 Uniform Civil Forfeiture Procedure Act, told the panel the statute (cited in the hearing as 9-16-19) enumerates permissible uses of forfeiture proceeds—"trials, appeals, forensic services, investigations, victim witness" support among them. He told lawmakers the state requires DAs to report receipts and expenditures to PAC and the state auditor, including the cash-on-hand balance at year-end.

"The statute requires that you report what they received during the calendar year," Bergman said, describing how forfeiture receipts and outlays must be itemized on annual reports and how agencies should report purchases (for example, a vehicle's make, model and cost). He described federal equitable-sharing receipts and said the state requires reporting if DAs receive such federal funds.

Committee members raised a specific concern about contractor billing in a Fulton County matter: several contractors' invoices were described by members as "block billing" (large blocks of hours with little detail) and some entries showed high hourly rates. Senator Dolezal and others questioned whether paying contractors from forfeiture funds at rates substantially above the state-pay scale could violate the statute. Bergman said contractors paid from forfeiture funds must be compensated on the state pay schedule and that, "in my opinion, yes," using forfeiture funds to pay such contractors at higher rates would violate the act.

Bergman explained enforcement paths: PAC aggregates reports, the state auditor reviews them and can return findings to a DA; unresolved problems can be referred to the attorney general for possible civil or criminal action. He also said reports are public and open to inspection.

The committee asked whether the law should be clarified to prohibit commingling of federal and state forfeiture receipts and to require more granular billing detail to allow auditors to detect misuse; Bergman said the statute currently requires seized funds to be held in separate accounts but is less specific about forfeited funds and he recommended good accounting practices. He offered to provide a 2021 memo on use of forfeited funds to pay salaries and a Best Practices Guidebook used by DAs.

Next steps: Bergman will send committee materials the panel requested; members signaled they may propose statutory clarifications around commingling, contractor pay, reporting specificity and allowable uses.