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