FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CRM

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 (202) 514-2008

STATEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION

REGARDING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT ON THE BICYCLE CLUB

Although the Criminal Division has not had an opportunity to

review the Inspector General's final Audit Report of the "Bicycle
Club," we believe an earlier draft we did review was flawed in
several ways.

In comments to the Inspector General, the Criminal Division

pointed out numerous errors of fact and interpretation in the
draft report. Despite those comments the Inspector General's
press release suggests that many of the errors identified by the
Criminal Division remain in the final Report.

For example, although the Criminal Division explained, in a

point-by-point rebuttal of the draft report, that the preseizure
planning, though minimal, was adequate in the circumstances of
the case and certainly had not resulted in any later problems,
the press release repeats the draft report's inaccurate
conclusion that a lack of preseizure planning led to other
(unspecified) problems. Similarly, while the draft report and
the press release criticize the Department for not appointing a
single, high-level decision-maker to control the sale of the

government's interest, there is no evidence that such an

appointment would have had any effect upon the disposal of the
government's interest.

Importantly, in its critique of the draft report, the

Criminal Division did agree with most of the report's
recommendations, noting that, in fact, most of those
recommendations had indeed been the course followed in the
"Bicycle Club" case. However, the Criminal Division critique
specifically warned that "blindly following some of the
recommendations will, in some cases, prove injurious." An
examination of the text of our critique, which we understand from
the press release is attached to the final report, details those
areas in which the Criminal Division disagreed with the Inspector
General's draft.

The draft report contained numerous errors of fact and drew,

in our view, mistaken conclusions concerning the Department's
preseizure planning and disposal efforts in this matter. The
authors' incomplete "chronology of significant actions and
events," set in the context of a case of complex facts and law,
regrettably appears to have led to a report containing factual
errors, discovering erroneous "lessons learned" and, in some
cases, proposing inflexible rules, which, if followed in all
cases, would inappropriately impair the effectiveness of the
asset forfeiture program.

###

96-066