DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: PROGRESS ON ASSET FORFEITURE

UNCLAS SANTO DOMINGO 001060

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR INL, WHA/CAR WARD, RYAN, L, L/LEI FOR TORRES
AND MUELLER
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR OIA FARRAR AND KRANTZ, ASSET
FORFEITURE SECTION WELD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL KJUS KCRM SNAR DR
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: PROGRESS ON ASSET FORFEITURE


1. (U) Summary. On June 13, a representative of the
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Asset Forfeiture-Money
Laundering Unit, accompanied by Assistant U.S. Attorneys
(AUSAs) from the Districts of Puerto Rico and the Southern
District of Florida and a Mexico City-based representative of
the Internal Revenue Service, completed a two-day series of
meetings with Dominican officials to discuss the particulars
of six specific cases involving the seized assets of
individuals convicted in the United States; the assets seized
in the Dominican Republic were either instruments of or the
fruits of the crimes for which the subjects were charged or
convicted. This group, accompanied by poloff and
Embassy-based members of the DEA, DHS, and FBI who had been
working these cases, attempted to determine the best manner
to trigger the forfeiture of the seized properties and the
sharing of assets and, in return, heard a number of concrete
suggestions and a unanimous call by Dominican officials to
develop a bilateral asset forfeiture sharing agreement with
the United States. End Summary.

--------------
BACKGROUND
--------------


2. (U) Assets are ordered seized in the Dominican Republic
in a number of ways, but most relevant to the discussion at
hand are the seizures of assets of individuals sought for
extradition and the seizures of identified assets of those
otherwise charged with or convicted of crimes in the United
States.


3. (SBU) In the case of extraditions, U.S. extradition
requests typically ask Dominican authorities to seize all
assets with evidentiary value or in the possession of the
fugitive at the time of his arrest. In actuality, because
these assets are not defined by U.S. authorities at this
stage of the process, Dominican authorities seize the widest
possible range of assets at the time of arrest. Should the
fugitive be declared "not guilty" following extradition and
trial in the United States (a rare occurrence),the seized
assets are simply returned. Much more common is the scenario
whre the extradited fugitive is found guilty at trial but
none of the trial documents, including the inal court order,
identify properties that were efinitively tied to the crime
in question and, wth some exceptions, none of the court
documents rder the forfeiture of said assets. This creates
a legal limbo, where assets remain in the custody f the
Dominican government (i.e., seized and detriorating),but
are not forfeited to the Dominicn government for use by law
enforcement agencies shared with the U.S. government or any
specific victim, or, in the majority of cases, released back
to the defendant. Dominican officials noted that, on
occasion, failure to identify assets in the U.S. documents
has resulted in the return of those assets to convicted
individuals.


4. (SBU) In several cases, AUSAs have worked to identify
specific assets in the Dominican Republic and have had these
assets clearly identified in certified court documents, but
the court documents fail to declare the assets subject to
forfeiture. Dominican authorities have interpreted the lack
of a final U.S. forfeiture order as an impediment to local
forfeitures.


5. (U) In a few notable exceptions, assets were forfeited
and proceeds shared among U.S. and Dominican authorities, but
this was the result of lengthy ad hoc negotiations between
Dominican and U.S. prosecutors and, because of the length and
complexity of negotiations necessary, these arrangements are
far from the norm.

--------------
PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR FORFEITURE
--------------


6. (SBU) Considering the above background, Dominican
officials meeting the group made a series of suggestions
concerning practical steps to speed the forfeiture of seized
goods in the Dominican Republic.

Octavio Lister (Chief, Attorney General's Anti-Corruption
Unit),Daniel Miranda Villalona (Lead Prosecutor, Attorney
General's Money Laundering/Financial Crimes sub-unit),Jose
Hernandez Peguero (National District Prosecutor
(DA-equivalent)),Mabel Feliz (President, National Council on
Drugs (ONDCP-equivalent)),and Francisco Antonio Ovalle
Pichardo (Administrative Director, National Council for Drug
Control (DEA-equivalent)) all suggested that:

--U.S. prosecutors be sensitized to the need to identify
assets in the Dominican Republic in extradition requests,
pleadings, charging documents, and other official documents,
so that they might be properly attached. A number of
officials suggested that, in order to do so effectively, U.S.
prosecutors should initiate contact directly with their
Dominican counterparts (the latter group being better
situated to search for assets hidden locally). These same
officials suggested that Embassy-based law enforcement
personnel might best judge which local prosecutors would be
suitable for contacting.

--U.S. final court orders should clearly state what assets
are subject to forfeiture (while not ordering Dominican
courts to actually forfeit, as there is no extraterritorial
reach).

--U.S. prosecutors should present certified copies of final
court documents identifying assets and confirming U.S.
convictions to their Dominican counterparts, who will then
present them to local judges who, according to Treaty and
international practice, must incorporate and execute them.

--------------
DESIRE FOR CONSISTENCY
--------------


7. (U) The above officials, joined by Attorney General
Radhames Jimenez Pena and Assistant Attorney General for
Extraditions and International Affairs, suggested that, in
addition to the above steps, that the Dominican Republic
would welcome negotiations as to a formalized bilateral asset
sharing agreement. A formalized agreement would introduce a
note of consistency into the practice of forfeiture, with
likely results being increased forfeitures and, accordingly,
increased assets flowing to the benefit of Dominican law
enforcement entities. While the details of the possible
agreement were not specifically addressed, Dominican
officials signaled a general willingness to return assets to
U.S.-based victims (minus expenses),with the understanding
that the vast bulk of assets from "victimless crimes" (e.g.,
drug trafficking) would be transferred to and/or remain in
the Dominican Republic.

--------------
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
--------------


8. (U) After Dominican interlocutors suggested that a lack
of a universal tracking system makes it difficult to easily
identify, preserve, and protect seized assets, DOJ suggested
that it would be willing to supply and train Dominicans on a
Thai-based CD-ROM tracking system (MCATS) with which it has
had success in the past. While DOJ would supply the
materials and training, the Dominican government would be
expected to supply meals and lodging to the cadre of
trainers. Attorney General Jimenez, in particular, appeared
supportive of this initiative, but suggested that he would
look to the United States to defray or eliminate the meal and
lodging expenses entailed.

--------------
CONCLUSION
--------------


9. (U) Embassy understands that DOJ Asset Forfeiture Section
will immediately begin to work with AUSAs to carry out the
"practical suggestions" detailed and suggests that the
Department take necessary steps, in combination with DOJ, to
approve an initial round of formal negotiations with the
Dominican Public Ministry with a goal to establishing a
formal asset forfeiture and sharing mechanism. Embassy also
suggest that Department investigate the possibility of
partnering with DOJ on the provision of the MCATS program, so
that it may be provided cost-free to the Dominican
government. Undertaking these steps will ultimately benefit
U.S. counternarcotics efforts, as Dominican law enforcement
entities can use forfeited assets to build capacity.

FANNIN