Auditor Finds Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses By DAs, LEOs

caf3

District Attorney Civil Asset Forfeiture Audit Discrepancy List

Since Gary Jones was elected auditor and inspector in 2010, his office has worked to perform audits that were overdue. Some of those overdue audits included entities processing and holding civil asset forfeiture items.

http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/07/15/law-enforcement-seizures-misspent-missing/

In the research of recent civil asset forfeiture accounts available audits online, 59 total cases showed discrepancies; the 32 major ones are listed here. The audits had one recurring  discrepancy. That discrepancy was that the District Attorney’s office has one employee who prepares deposit slips, takes the deposit slip to the County Treasurer, and reconciles the annual report to Treasurer’s official depository balance. These conditions could result in unrecorded transactions, misstated financial reports, undetected errors, or misappropriation of funds.

District 1: (A) JAMES M.
BORING, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 01 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2009
The state auditor found claims that were for “repair of a house.”
On October 26, 2004 a house that had been raided by the drug unit was forfeited to the District Attorney’s office. There were two claims totaling $544.86 for plumbing, one claim of $414.00 for the water well, and ten payments totaling $2,844.62 for electricity bills. The total fees taken from the District Attorney Supervision Fee Account totaled $3,803.48. The current statute says that the house shall be sold and the money from the house deposited into the Drug Forfeiture Fund. Instead, the Assistant District Attorney had been living in the home since July 1, 2005. The District Attorney did not have a formal written
agreement with the Assistant District Attorney and the District Attorney did not include the cost associated with the residence as part of the Assistant District Attorney’s compensation on W-2’s. The District Attorney did not have records of receiving rental payments from the Assistant District Attorney. The state auditor says in his effect section that this resulted in the court ordered judgement to sell the house not being followed; funds were misused, and caused tax liabilities between the employer and employee.

• District Attorney
District 01 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2008
The state auditor found in his investigation that 6 of 16 tested expenditures did not have a supporting invoice attached, 7 of the 16 expenditures did not have a claim with approval for the expenditure, and 6 of the 16 did not have verification that goods or services were received. His effect section of his report states that absent or inaccurate
documentation could result in misappropriation of funds.

• District Attorney
District 01 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2007
The state auditor found in his investigation that 7 out of 16 expenditures tested did not have a supporting invoice attached, 16 out of 16 expenditures did not have a claim with approval for the expenditure, and 10 out of 16 did not have any indication that the goods were received. He also states that 5 purchases from Harper County District
Attorney’s Office revealed that 0 of the 5 purchases had a claim for approval, 3
of the 5 purchases did not have indication that the goods/services were
received, and 1 purchase did not have an invoice or other supporting
documentation. The state auditor also found that the District Attorney had
entered into a construction contract with Jake’s Construction to build a Law
Enforcement Center. The Public Competitive Bidding Act of 1974 states that
public construction contracts less than $50,000 shall be let and awarded to the
lowest responsible bidder by receipts of written bids, and they can only start
working if they have a written contract and have exchanged insurance. The
District Attorney’s office never submitted any bids and the contract allowed for
more than $50,000 to be spent. The auditor put in his report that the contract
exceeded state statute limits and was recorded at $97,358.29 spent on the Law
Enforcement Center.

District 2: (B) DENNIS SMITH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 02 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2007
The state auditor reported that two errors and an omission were found in
the District Attorney’s ledger for the Narcotics Control Assist Fund. A
$1,605.00 credit was added in error, a $454.50 warrant was not added, and a
$4.88 entry was entered twice. He found the annual report was incorrect. The
auditor also found that an error of $100.00 was found in the amount of income
reported on the annual report. The ending balance reflected on the
annual report is $12,735.14, while the treasurer’s balance is $11, 234.14. This
means that there is a missing $1,501.00.

• District Attorney District 02 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2008
The state auditor states in his report that when reconciling the annual income and the expenditures for the year there was a difference of $51,557.98. The balance on the annual report is $2,156.68 while the Treasurer’s balance is $53, 713.96. The auditor also found that 6 vehicles forfeited by that district were sold at auction but no receipts were ever written for the proceeds of those vehicles, and two older cases hadn’t been
receipted but deposited on the same date as the 6 vehicles, January 10, 2008.
The state auditor reported that these instances can lead to misappropriation of
funds.

District 3: (C) JOHN WAMPLER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney
District 03 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2009
The state auditor found in his report of the district that there were three instances where expenditures were used for retirement plaques and a retirement party. This is against state statute 63 O.S. Section 2-506.L.3.
• District Attorney District 03 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2003
The state auditor found that in case number CV-2002-475, there was $1,300.92 seized in relation to the Oklahoma Uniformed Controlled and Dangerous Substance Act. The Jackson County Sheriff’s Department held the cash, but when the money was court ordered to be forfeited and transferred to the District Attorney’s Revolving Drug Fund, the money could not be located. In the state auditor’s report he also has a copy of a letter that the District Attorney sent to him saying they now have policies in place to fix this but were unable to find out where the money was and who was responsible.

District 4: (D) CATHY STOCKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 04 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2007
The state auditor wrote in his report that the seizing agency is responsible for depositing the seized funds into the county treasurer’s office. He found that there is no review process once the order is issued so there is no way of knowing whether the funds get deposited or if the correct amount is deposited. The state auditor found 2
cases where this occurred. CS-2006-52: Funds were forfeited for the sale of a
1999 Honda at the Sheriff Sale for $3,050.00 to be deposited in the District
Attorney’s Revolving Drug Account. The funds were actually deposited into the
Sheriff’s Service Fee Account. CV-2006-256: Funds in the amount of $6,749.00
were ordered forfeited. $89 more, or $6,838.00, was deposited. The state auditor
also found that in case CS-2007-103 it took the Garfield County agency that
seized $205.00 272 days to deposit the cash into the County Office.

District 6: (F) BRET T. BURNS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 06 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2007
The state auditor wrote in his report that he found discrepancies in Caddo County. Two vouchers for drug buy money did not have any documentation attached and one was not supported by an approved claim. One voucher to the Ft. Cobb Police Department for forfeiture holdings did not have any documentation attached and was not supported by an approved claim. One voucher to Sam’s Club for an Olympic Weight Set and Home Gym was not supported by an approved claim. The items were later returned but why were they bought in the first place? One voucher to Wal-Mart for cameras, memory cards, cases, and batteries was not supported by an approved claim.

District 10: (J) LARRY STUART, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 10 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2009
The state auditor wrote in his report that the Drug Asset Forfeiture Annual Reports had discrepancies. For the reporting period of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, total expenditures were reported as $126,132.33. The recalculated total expenditures are $126,524.30, which results in an overstatement of cash by $391.97. For July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, the ending balance reported on the annual report reflects $21,032.90. After recalculation the ending balance should be $6,461.01, which results in the ending cash balance being overstated by $14,571.89. Where did the extra cash come from?

District 11: (K) FREDERICK ESSER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 11 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2009
The state auditor wrote in his report that four out of five days selected, the District Attorney’s office did not issue receipts for all funds paid to their office during the
period of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. The state auditor wrote in his
effect section that this condition increases the risk of unrecorded
transactions, undetected errors, and misappropriation of funds. The state
auditor also found that during the period of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2009,
the District Attorney’s office did not maintain an inventory of seized items.
The state auditor also found that the District Attorney’s office didn’t make a
yearly accounting to the Board of County Commissioners of the property
forfeiture revolving fund through that same time period. The auditor wrote that
this is violation of state statutes.

District 13: (M) THOMAS H. MAY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 13 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2002
The state auditor found that all claims, invoices, and receiving
reports were missing for fiscal year 2002, therefore, the state auditors were
unable to determine that expenditures were supported by an approved claim,
original invoice and verification of goods received due to missing documents.
Furthermore, the auditors were unable to determine that property forfeiture fund
expenditures were used for enforcement of controlled dangerous substance laws,
drug abuse prevention and education. The state auditor then wrote I his effect
section that this could result in noncompliance with state statutes and could
result in misappropriation of funds. The state auditor then makes another
finding that no annual reports were found for the Property Forfeiture Revolving
Account, once again noncompliance with state statutes. The state auditor then
makes another finding saying that records of seized property are not maintained
by the District Attorney’s office, also noncompliant with state statutes. The
state auditor also found that cash ($1,243) forfeited and ordered by the court
to be deposited into the District Attorney Drug Enforcement A8 Account, was
never deposited. Lastly, the state auditor found that forfeited property was
sold at a public auction by the District Attorney without a court order,
petition, notice, publication, or hearing. Furthermore, forfeited property was
donated without a court order to agencies other than those set forth in Title 63
2001, Section 2-506.I.

District 15: (O) JOHN DAVID LUTON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 15 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2004
The state auditor wrote in his report that there was property sold without
an order, property forfeited with no notice to the record owners, seized
property was converted to District use without a court order and there was not a
complete inventory of the seized items. He also found that the District
Attorney’s office does not always follow its procedures. One deposit dated June
9, 2004, included funds from six forfeiture cases. The forfeiture cases had been
filed during the years 2000 and 2001. However the funds were neither receipted
no deposited until June 9, 2004.

• District Attorney District 15 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2002
The state auditor found that the notice of seizure was
not filed for all items seized and sold by the District Attorney. Seized
property was not sold nor recorded on the District Attorney’s inventory record.
Seized property was returned to “rightful owners” without any court action or
record of the “rightful owners” claim to the property. Seized property was
converted to district use without a court order. Lastly, seized property
converted to district use was not on inventory records.

• District Attorney District 15 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2003
The state auditor found that there was property sold without an order, property forfeited with no notice to the record owners, seized property was converted to District use without a court order and there was not a complete inventory of seized items.

District 16: (P) JEFF SMITH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 16 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2007
The state auditor found that there were 4 cases out of the ones they tested with discrepancies. Case CV-06-420 for $300.00. The state auditor wasn’t able to verify the cash. Case CV-06-152 for $2,610.00. This case was forfeited November 11, 2007, but as of the date of the audit the funds have not been deposited or dispersed. Case CV-07-331 for $3,000.00. This case was forfeited February 8, 2008, but as of the date of the audit the funds have not been deposited or dispersed. Case CV-07-414 for $250.00. This case was forfeited September 17, 2007, but as of the date of the audit the funds have not been deposited or dispersed.

District 17: (Q) LAURA ROSS WALLIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
(2008) and VIRGINIA SANDERS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY (2006)
• District Attorney District 17 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2008
The state auditor found in his investigation that of the 12 tested property forfeiture claims that the claims did not reflect independent confirmation of goods and services received. The effect of this is misappropriation of funds. He also found that the District
Attorney’s office did not have an inventory list documenting all items seized.
Case CV-2008-8: An order of default judgement was awarded on 9/24/2008. “As of
fieldwork on 3/30/09, we could not visually verify $1,031 in forfeited funds
because they were located in a personal safe at a Drug Task Force officer’s
house.” Case CV-2007-63: The court order reflected $703.08 forfeited. The case
file reflected cash of $670.27 and a money order for $50 for a total of $720.27.
The forfeited funds reported in the case files were incorrect and $17.27 had to
be returned to the defendant.

• District Attorney District 17 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2006
The state auditor found that a miscellaneous receipt issued in Pushmataha County for monies related to Case CV-05-20 reflected $50 less money deposited than was reflected on the original petition filed in this property forfeiture case. He also found while testing the Pushmataha County District Attorney’s Property Forfeiture Program expenditures that 8 expenditures were not supported by a properly approved claim, 2 had no documentation attached, and Voucher #7 issued for $370 to be used as “drug buy” money was not supported with any documentation or record of activity. No portion of these funds was returned. The audit report also found that the McCurtain County Property Forfeiture Annual Report didn’t match the Treasurer’s general ledger
and had a variance $1,366.36 between the District Attorney’s ending balance and
the Treasurer’s records.

District 18: (R) JIM BOB MILLER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 18 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2007
The state auditor found two discrepancies with cases. Case C-07-395 for $13,464.00,
this case is pending. The original court records state that $13,464.00 was
seized but only $12,464.00 was deposited in the case; this resulted in a
variance of $1,000.00. Case C-06-1190 for $6,393.00 and a 410 shotgun. The
original court record stated that $6,393.00 was seized but $6,493.00 was
deposited in the case. This resulted in a variance of $100. The case was
dismissed and $6,493.00 was returned to the defendant, but there was no
documentation to verify the defendant received the shotgun. The 410 shotgun was
visually verified at the District Attorney’s Task Force Office.

• District Attorney District 18 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2006
The state auditor found 5 cases with major discrepancies. Case C-02-20 for $350.00. This case was dismissed and the money was to be applied to CF-01-131. The money was never applied to the referenced case and we were unable to determine the disposition of the funds. Case C-02-27 for $1,009.00. This case is pending and an officer stated that these funds were returned to the defendant. The auditor was unable
to determine the disposition of the funds. Case C-02-29 for $999.00. This case
is pending and an officer stated that the funds were returned to the defendant
but the auditor was unable to determine this. Case C-02-232 for $190,150.00.
This case is pending. The original court records state that $190,150.00 was
seized, but when the auditor counted the money he could only account for
$185,150.00, a variance of $5,000. Case C-03-91 for $214.00, Colt 410/45 serial
#NP307826, and Colt 38 serial #577426. This case is pending and an officer
stated that these items were returned to the defendant’s attorney. “We were
unable to determine the disposition of the funds or guns.”

District 19: (S)
EMILY REDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 19 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2009
The state auditor found that Bryan, Coal, and Atoka County District Attorney’s office did not have an inventory list documenting all items seized and their disposition. He also found that the District Attorney does not have written policies and procedures or implemented internal controls for the safeguarding and reporting of program funds. They found discrepancies because of this. Bryan County: one claim for the payment of a motel bill was not supported by documentation, and the Property Forfeiture Annual Report did not reconcile with the County Treasurer’s balance at June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009. The variances are $5,454.72 and $141.01. Coal County: Generic receipts are maintained which do not reflect the program or office that monies are derived, a property forfeiture account ledger is not maintained,; therefore, a monthly
reconciliation to the County Treasurer is not performed to ensure accuracy of
account balances, and the sole property forfeiture expenditure was for the
repair of an Oklahoma Highway Patrol radar unit, which does not comply with
statute. Atoka County: 2 purchase orders tested did not have a receiving report
attached to verify if the goods/services had been received, and property
forfeiture ledger balances are not reconciled to the County Treasurer on a
monthly basis.

District 20: (T) CRAIG LADD, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 20 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2008
The state audit report found 2 discrepancy due to their noncompliance with state statutes. Love County CS-2006-169 for the amount of $308.05, ordered forfeited by the court July 3, 2007 and until August 13, 2008, was held in the former Drug Task Force office in Carter County. On August 13, 2008, the money was verified, then receipted and deposited by the District Attorney’s office. Love County CS-2006-168 for the amount of $2,405.18 ordered forfeited by the court on July 3, 2007, and is currently held by Citizens Bank & Trust Company of Ardmore.

District 21: (U) GREG MASHBURN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 21 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2008
The state auditor found 3 major discrepancies. CV-07-462: $370.00 seized was
forfeited on 11/20/2007. This currency is still in the custody of the McClain
County Sheriff’s Office and should be deposited in the District Attorney’s Drug
Fund. CV-07-667: $1,462.92 seized was forfeited on 2/14/2008. This currency was
in the custody of the Blanchard Police Department and is missing. It is
currently being investigated by the OSBI. CV-07-694: $697.00 seized was
forfeited on 3/05/2009. This currency was in the custody of the Blanchard Police
Department and is missing. It is currently being investigated by the OSBI.

• District Attorney District 21 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2010
The state auditor found that of the nine expenditures tested in Garvin County, one
did not have approval for payment of invoice and one did not have a claim. Of
the three expenditures tested in McClain County, two expenditures did not have a
claim and one claim amount ($280.00) did not agree to the voucher amount
($520.00). Of the twenty-five expenditures tested in Cleveland County, one did
not have a properly approved claim and one did not have an invoice. Of the four
expenditures tested in Garvin County, two did not have supporting documentation
and one did not have approval for the purchase or approval for payment of
invoice. Of the fourteen expenditures tested in McClain County, one did not have
a claim, seven did not have approval for payment of the invoice, and two did not
have approval for purchase. The state auditor also found that the District
Attorney’s office For Cleveland, Garvin, and McClain Counties are not presenting
the Property Forfeiture Annual Reports to the Board of County Commissioners,
which is not in compliance with state statutes. The state auditor also found in
Cleveland, McClain, and Garvin Counties that the District Attorney’s offices in
these counties don’t keep documentation from the seizing agency when seized
property is returned to the defendant. The state auditor writes in the report
that in Cleveland County a tow company sold a forfeited vehicle to pay for a
company’s tow/storage fees. The court did not give an order that allowed this
sale to happen. In McClain County the state auditor found one seized item was
returned to the rightful owner, but the property release was not signed by the
owner. In Garvin County the state auditor found that two forfeited items were
traded for ammo, but supporting documentation could not be located. Lastly, the
state auditor found that agencies within District 21 appear to have maintained
custody of seized property until a court order was received. Property should
have been kept at the District Attorney’s office in the county that the property
was seized in. This is not in compliance with state statutes.

District 25: (Y) THOMAS GIULIOLI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 25 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2008
The state auditor found major discrepancies when recalculating the Drug
Asset Forfeiture Annual Reports. For the reporting period of July 1, 2005
through June 30, 2006, total income was reported as $481,403.75. Total receipts
per the County Treasurer were $540,068.17, which results in receipts being
understated by $58,664.42. For the same period, total expenditures and
distributions were reported as $371,574.29. Total disbursements per the County
Treasurer were $400,759.38, which results in expenditures and disbursements
being understated by $29,185.09. For the reporting period of July 1, 2006
through June 30, 2007, total income was reported as $675,290.87. Total receipts
per the County Treasurer were $891,131.04, which results in receipts being
understated by $215,840.17. For the same period, total expenditures and
distributions were reported as $626,136.47. Total disbursements per the County
Treasurer were $890,766.62, which results in expenditures and disbursements
being understated by $264,630.15. For the reporting period of July 1, 2007
through June 30, 2008, total income was reported as $1,137,799.34. Total
receipts per the County Treasurer were $977,327.23, which results in receipts
being understated by $160,472.11. For the same period, total expenditures and
distributions were reported as $822,108.69. Total disbursements per the County
Treasurer were $772,815.13, which results in expenditures and disbursements
being understated by $49,293.56.

District 26: (Z) HOLLIS THORP, DISTRICT ATTORNEY (2007 and 2008) and RAY DON JACKSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY (2005 and 2006)
• District Attorney District 26 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2008
The state auditor found after a District Attorney investigator passed away another
investigator discovered, in a safe, an envelope with an attached receipt
indicating the envelope contained $2,900.00 in confidential funds. When the
investigator opened the envelope he found it contained only $1,900.00, which was
subsequently deposited into a District Attorney account. The auditors are
unable, due to a lack of records, to determine if the $1,000.00 was subsequently
used in other undercover narcotics investigations.

• District Attorney
District 26 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2005
The state auditor filed in his report that disbursement vouchers were issued from the District Attorney’s Revolving Drug Account to an employee of the District Attorney. These disbursements were made to the employee for the reimbursement of guns,
ammunition, and miscellaneous items, the discrepancies are listed: invoices used
as documentation to reimburse the employee did not have a description of the
items purchased, gasoline was reimbursed to the employee but was not properly
documented on a travel claim, the employee appears to have made purchases with
cash in the amounts of $100 or $50 dollar bills, cashier’s check, or money
orders, invoices or statements from a local vendor were marked “paid cash” or
“paid on account” and provided no information as to the item(s) purchased,
several items were purchased by the employee via the internet using a personal
credit card with insufficient documentation of the purchase, the employee was
reimbursed for internet service to his home for several months, amounts
reimbursed to the employee were not the total amounts documented by vendor
receipts, local and state sales tax was charged to the employee and reimbursed
from the Property Forfeiture Revolving Account, the employee received
reimbursement and was also one of the cosigners on the voucher in some
instances, and an invoice for a “workbench” was submitted twice and reimbursed
twice from the Property Forfeiture Revolving Account.

• District Attorney
District 26 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2006
This state audit report matches the District Attorney District 26 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2005.

• District Attorney District 26 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2007
This state audit report states that for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, there were proceeds received from eight property forfeiture cases by the District 26 Property
Forfeiture Fund. The auditors audited each case to determine that the funds
received were receipted and deposited intact in a timely manner. The report
lists two instances where discrepancies were found. On November 21, 2006, the
District Court ordered the forfeiture of $1,108.00. Nearly three months later,
on February 14, 2007, the funds were deposited. On June 26, 2007, the District
court ordered the forfeiture of $1,482.89. These funds were not deposited until
April 1, 2008, ten months later. The state auditor reported that this shows that
the District Attorney has not been adequately safeguarding the assets. The state
auditor also finalized his two reports from FY 2005 and FY 2006 District 26. The
state auditor filed in his report that disbursement vouchers were issued from
the District Attorney’s Revolving Drug Accounts (105 and 107) to an employee of
the District Attorney. These disbursements were made to the employee for the
reimbursement of guns, ammunition, and miscellaneous items, the discrepancies
are listed:
1. Invoices used as documentation to reimburse the employee did not
have a description of the items purchased. The former employee was reimbursed
$1,201.64 by voucher 1139 dated 9/26/2006. Although the voucher documentation
reflects the purchase was for a winch, the supporting receipt appears to
indicate some kind of quote was given. While the receipt reflects a serial
number, it does not reflect what was purchased. The former employee was
reimbursed $47.57 by voucher 1127 on 7/8/2006. The voucher documentation
reflects “FLOOR MATS”. Two receipts were used to support the purchase, including
a receipt from a department store that is not itemized. The former employee was
reimbursed $250.73 by voucher 2130 on 7/13/2006. The total amount was supported
by numerous receipts, including a partial phone bill, conference registrations,
and fuel tickets. One of the fuel tickets was a $53.60 non-itemized credit card
charge slip. The former employee was reimbursed $106.24 by voucher 2176 on
8/30/2006. Included in support of this reimbursement was a non-itemized credit
card charge slip in the amount of $32.00.
2. Gasoline purchases were reimbursed to the employee but not supported by a travel claim. The former employee was reimbursed $44.25 and $52.85 for fuel (voucher 2130). Included in the documentation, supporting the purchase, was a conference registration for an A-One conference August 1 – 4, 2006. The fuel purchases occurred on July 7 and 9, 2006, with no indication as to the purpose of the fuel or the trip. On July 16, 2006, fuel in the amount of $15.50 was purchased. Included on the receipt
was a deli item for $0.99 and tax in the amount of $0.08. There was no
indication as to the purpose of the purchased items. On 9/8/2006 the former
employee was issued a voucher in the amount of $109.85 supported by two fuel
purchases in the amounts of $78.85 and $31.00. There was no indication of the
purpose of the fuel purchases.
3. The former employee was reimbursed for
Internet service at his residence. Voucher 2130, in the amount of $250.73,
included a $49.95 Internet service charge. The documentation supporting the
claim included a partial bill reflecting a telephone number. Using the Internet
service Whitepages.com, this phone number is shown to belong to the former
employee. It appears this reimbursement was for Internet service at the
residence. Similar reimbursements for $49.95 Internet service occurred in
September, October and December, 2006.
4. Local and state sales tax was
charged to the former employee and reimbursed from the District Task Force (105)
account. Purchases made by means of cash sales included sales tax. These
purchases were submitted for and were reimbursed to the employee. For example,
on September 11, 2006, a reimbursement voucher was issued to the former employee
in the amount of $64.88. The supporting documentation for the reimbursement
included cash receipts from local auto parts dealers including $4.92 in sales tax.
5. The former employee was a cosigner on some of the reimbursement checks
being paid to himself (previous audit finding). Some of the reimbursement
vouchers, from both accounts, were payable to and signed by the employee being
reimbursed. The following are exceptions from account 105 (District Task Force)
Voucher 2142, 7/26/2006, $26.76. Voucher 2176, 8/30/2006, $106.24. Voucher 2190,
9/11/2006, $64.88. Voucher 2191, 9/12/2006, $53.70. Voucher 2198, 9/22/2006,
$19.40. Voucher 2216, 10/10/2006, $240.93. Voucher 2220, 10/21/2006, $49.95.
Voucher 2225, 10/26/2006, $89.05. The following are exceptions are from account
107 (Revolving Drug Account): Voucher 1139, 9/26/2006, $1,201.64. Voucher 1127,
7/7/2006, $47.57.
6. There is lack of independence in purchases and payments.
In addition to the reimbursement payments issued to the former employee, the
auditors also noted payments wherein the former employee appears to have made
purchases, signed receipts and was a cosigner on the voucher payment to the
vendor. Exceptions include: Voucher 2209, cosigned and receipt signed by the
former employee. Voucher 2228, cosigned and receipt signed by the former
employee. Voucher 2246, cosigned and receipt signed by the former employee
Voucher 3102, cosigned and receipt signed by the former employee
7. The office
did not use a voucher claim or an independent receiving report. Purchases
included on monthly cellular statements. Walk-in purchases were made on the
Pioneer cellular telephone account. These walk-in purchases were paid based on a
line item entry on the monthly statement. No documentation was provided to
indicate who purchased the items or what the items were.
In the state auditor’s effect section he says the lack of a claim form and lack of a receiving process that includes independent verification of items received creates a significant potential for abuse. The lack of segregation within the functions of purchasing and receiving goods and services does not provide adequate safeguards over disbursements. The reimbursement of funds to a former employee does not provide adequate control over purchasing and does not provide adequate documentation of items purchased.

District 27: (AA) RICHARD GRAY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
• District Attorney District 27 Property Forfeiture Fund FY 2005
The state auditor reviewed all files related to property forfeiture cases for the
District from January 1, 2002 through October 1, 2005. The auditor compared the
amount of cash forfeited per court order to the amount of cash deposited or on
hand and recorded the variances in a table in the state audit report. The table
list 20 instances that all have variances and many of them none of the money is
even deposited and is all missing. The table has the case numbers for all of the
forfeitures. The auditor’s report has a letter from the District Attorney of
District 27 that attempts to explain the table and the variances but in almost
all of his explanations he doesn’t know what happened to the money and claims it
never made it to the District Attorney’s office and in one of his explanations
he says the OSBI is now investigating the missing money.


Print pagePDF pageEmail page
  1. Norma, 17 July, 2015

    So this report reflects that these discrepancies have been going on for over a decade but this is the first we the citizens have been made aware of it! Shame-shame-shame. Thanks to Senator Loveless maybe this gravy train is going to come to an end in Oklahoma!

*

Copyright © The McCarville Report