Contrary to proponents’ claims, forfeiture revenue does not play a significant role in supporting community programs or compensating crime victims. In the prior edition of Policing for Profit, IJ examined expenditures from 15 states with available data and found that no more than 12% of forfeiture proceeds went to community programs and no more than 2% went to victim compensation. ¹  More recently, another study using federal forfeiture data found evidence to suggest that forfeiture overall has little to do with victim restitution—because most forfeitures are tied to underlying crimes with no obvious or identifiable victims. Specifically, the study found that the plurality of seized assets were alleged to be connected to drug crimes, and less than 1% of seized assets led to victim restitution. ²  Forfeiture revenue typically only went to support victims in major fraud cases. ³

Perversely, forfeiture can be used to rob victims of restitution. In a particularly egregious case, North Carolina police seized nearly $70,000 from a man who sexually abused a child. According to the victim, who is now an adult, law enforcement suggested the money, which her abuser purportedly won in the lottery, would be available so that she could file a lawsuit and receive it. Yet when the victim sought restitution, there was none to be found because police had transferred the money to the federal government for equitable sharing. And they had done so based not on the sexual abuse charges but on minor drug crimes for which the man was not even charged: During their investigation into the abuse, police had found suspected marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The federal government subsequently forfeited the funds and gave most of the proceeds to the seizing police department. In defense of these actions, the official who approved the transfer said, “We did not treat this any differently than we do any other seizure where there is a basis for transfer to federal jurisdiction. I believe that all of the boxes were checked and that this was above board.” ⁴