What the report examined:
Included in our review were statistics that reflected on the performance of EOUSA’s terrorism-related efforts, such as statistics relating to the number of terrorism-related cases filed, the number of defendants convicted at trial or by guilty plea, and the number of defendants sentenced to prison.
What it found:
Specifically, we found that EOUSA inaccurately reported all 11 statistics we reviewed during this follow-up audit. Most of these 11 statistics were inaccurately reported by significant margins.
DOJ's budget increases for terrorism cases:
Department resources devoted to preventing terrorism and promoting the nation’s security have increased from approximately $737 million in fiscal year (FY) 2001 to approximately $5.26 billion in FY 2012, an increase of 614 percent.
Among the statistics reported by the EOUSA (Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys):
- number of criminal appeals filed,
- number of criminal cases in U.S. District Court terminated,
- number of criminal cases in U.S. District Court pending,
- number of defendants in U.S. District Court in criminal cases filed,
- number of defendants in U.S. District Court in criminal cases terminated,
- number of dispositions in U.S. District Court guilty, and
- number of defendants sentenced to prison.
OIJ identified "39 unique terrorism-related statistics that EOUSA reported 72 times in budget submissions or in its Annual Statistical Report for FYs 2009 through 2012."
For this report, it examined the first 11 statistics. It found all were misreported, 8 by significant margins. A few examples:
In one case, the defendant was convicted of animal fighting, but the USAO coded the case as Domestic Terrorism. In the second case, the defendant was convicted of bank robbery by force or violence, but the USAO coded the case as Terrorism Related Hoaxes. While these two cases were initially investigated as terrorism cases, the resulting indictments did not result in terrorism charges.
...In one case, the defendant was charged with conspiracy and intent to distribute over 50 kilograms of marijuana and was involved in the importation and delivery of approximately 200 pounds of marijuana. According to an USAO official, this case should have been coded as an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force case instead of an Export Enforcement Terrorism-Related case.
...[in another case]the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine. This case was reported as an International Terrorism Incident Which Impacts U.S. case, but an USAO official told us this case was an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force case.
....In one case, the defendant was convicted of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. This case was reported as a Domestic Terrorism case but an USAO official told us that this case should have been recoded as an Immigration case.
In [another] case, the defendant was convicted of using an access device with intent to defraud. This case was reported as a Terrorism/National Security Critical Infrastructure case, but an USAO official told us that this case should have been coded as a White Collar Crime/Fraud case.
...In [one] case, the defendant was convicted of redemption of illegally received food stamps and an USAO official told us the case was miscoded[as a Terrorist financing case.]
Among the findings:
We therefore concluded that EOUSA overstated by 45, or 15 percent, the reported number of defendants in terminated cases in program category Terrorism/National Security Critical Infrastructure during FY 2010. We consider this amount of deviation to be significant.
In other statistical categories:
EOUSA overstated by 24, or 27 percent, the number of tested dispositions reported as guilty based on all occurrences in FY 2010. We consider this amount of deviation to be significant.
Examples from this category:
In one case, the defendant was convicted of immigration and passport fraud and reported as a Terrorism/National Security Critical infrastructure case, but an USAO official told us the case was miscoded. In the second case, the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana and reported as a Terrorism/National Security Critical Infrastructure case, but an USAO official told us the case was not a terrorism case.
In the third case, the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to introduce into interstate commerce counterfeit and misbranded pharmaceutical products. The case was reported as an Export Enforcement Terrorism-Related case, but an USAO official told us the case was miscoded and has been recoded to an Export Enforcement Non-Terrorism case. In the fourth case, the defendant’s case was related to transactional money laundering but was misreported as an International Terrorism Incidents Which Impact U.S. case.
The offices with the most misreporting:
District of Arizona, Central District of California, Eastern District of Michigan, Northern District of California, Southern District of Florida, Southern District of New York, District of Columbia, Western District of Texas
The EOUSA responds to the report at the end. It agrees with the recommendations made and says:
The LIONS system is 16 years old and its usage and limitations help explain the context of the OIG's recommendations.
As to the misreporting of categories, the EOUSA seems to have blinders on:
OIG's primary finding was that USAOs were slow to enter thc LIONS data. [footnote] The OIG report did note a few instances where a case was labeled under one code but should have been changed to a different code based on later changes to the investigation.
