Statistical Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation
Function’s Enforcement Activities From Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year
2003
June 2004
Reference
Number: 2004-10-115
This report has cleared the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and
information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted
from this document.
June
29, 2004
MEMORANDUM FOR
CHIEF, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
FROM: Gordon C. Milbourn III /s/ Gordon C.
Milbourn III
Acting Deputy Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report - Statistical
Portrayal of the Criminal Investigation Function’s Enforcement Activities From
Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2003 (Audit # 200410016)
This
report presents the results of our review of statistical information that
reflects activities of the Criminal Investigation (CI) function from Fiscal
Years (FY) 1999 through 2003. The
overall objective of this review was to provide statistical information and
trend analyses of the CI function statistics since the issuance of the Webster
Report in April 1999. The audit was
conducted as part of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s FY
2004 Annual Audit Plan.
Beginning
in FY 2002, the CI function began to turn around the negative trends from
earlier years. Specifically, the number
of subject investigations initiated increased, more time was spent directly on
subject investigations, and fewer days were expended to discontinue a subject
investigation. These indicators
continued to show improvement in FY 2003; however, the number of subjects
convicted and sentenced continued to fall.
We are optimistic that the improvements in the indicators will continue
under the current Commissioner’s efforts to increase productivity and if
planned increases in special agent staffing materialize.
A
major objective of the CI function’s strategy the last several years has been
increased support of compliance efforts through the increased application of
resources on tax administration investigations. This emphasis is reflected by the significant increases from FYs
2001 to 2002 in the number of subject investigations initiated in the Legal
Source Tax Crimes Program (52 percent) and those with tax-related violations
(33 percent). However, the number of
legal source tax investigations initiated decreased slightly in FY 2003, while
the number of initiated nontax-related illegal source financial crimes and
narcotics‑related subject investigations increased slightly. Also, the number of subject investigations
initiated with tax-related violations remained virtually unchanged in FY
2003.
Members
of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) believe the CI function can and should do
more to investigate legal source tax crimes.
Members of the SFC have expressed concern that the local United States
Attorneys’ offices are influencing the CI function’s caseload away from legal
source tax investigations and toward nontax‑related investigations. We are currently conducting a review to
evaluate the effectiveness of the CI function’s efforts to increase legal
source tax investigations and will be addressing how the CI function
categorizes its investigations within its Compliance Strategy.
CI function special agents
have a reputation of being the best financial investigators in the Federal
Government. As a result, they are often
asked to participate in investigations with other organizations. Further, the CI function participates in the
President’s various enforcement initiatives, such as the war on terrorism. These initiatives are important in
protecting our nation, but they may not always result in legal source tax or
tax-related investigations. Given these
other priorities and the challenge of sustaining increased staffing, we believe
the CI function will be continually challenged to significantly increase legal
source tax investigations while providing the necessary support to other
critically important Federal Government initiatives. CI function management must remain vigilant to ensure the
progress made in FY 2002 in increasing legal source tax and tax-related
investigations continues in future years.
We
made no recommendations in this report.
However, key CI function management officials reviewed the report and
provided comments that were considered prior to its issuance.
Copies of this report
are also being sent to the Internal Revenue Service managers affected by the
report. Please contact me at (202)
622-6510 if you have questions or Daniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General
for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt Organizations Programs), at (202)
622-8500.
Some of the
Negative Trends From Earlier Years Started Improving in Fiscal Years 2002 and
2003
Appendix
I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix
II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix
III – Report Distribution List
Appendix IV
– Glossary of Terms
Appendix V –
Detailed Charts of Statistical Information
In recent years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has made tremendous efforts to improve customer service and make it easier for taxpayers to comply with their tax obligations. The IRS also has a variety of criminal and civil sanctions available that can be employed when taxpayers refuse to comply or attempt to evade their tax obligations. The vigorous enforcement of criminal statutes within the Criminal Investigation (CI) function’s jurisdiction is an integral component of the IRS’ comprehensive efforts to enhance voluntary compliance and foster confidence in the fairness and integrity of the tax system.
The CI function is the only law enforcement organization with the authority to investigate criminal tax violations. Over the last few decades, the Congress and the Department of the Treasury have expanded the CI function’s jurisdiction to also cover offenses under money laundering and currency reporting statutes. Accordingly, the CI function has been involved with both legal and illegal source income investigations, including those involving organized crime and narcotics.
In general, legal source investigations involve legal occupations or industries and legally earned income in which the primary motive is the violation of tax statutes. Illegal source investigations involve illegally earned income such as crimes involving money laundering and currency reporting violations. They also involve investigations of violations of the Internal Revenue Code in which other law enforcement agencies participate.
In April 1999, Judge William Webster issued a report of his review of the CI function’s operations that had been requested by the Commissioner of the IRS. Judge Webster concluded the CI function had drifted away from its primary mission of investigating criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, likely as a result of its expanded investigative authorities and demands to participate in narcotics investigations placed on it by other law enforcement entities. Judge Webster recommended the CI function refocus on its primary mission of investigating criminal violations of the internal revenue laws.
We initiated this review as part of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s (TIGTA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Annual Audit Plan to provide statistical information pertaining to the CI function’s enforcement activities from FY 1999 through FY 2003 and trend analyses of that information. While our trend analyses covered all these periods, our report concentrates on providing a perspective for the 2 most current fiscal years. Our data analyses were done in the TIGTA Chicago, Illinois, office during February and March 2004 using data accumulated by the IRS. The audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. However, we relied on information accumulated by the IRS and did not verify its accuracy. Detailed information on our audit objective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II. A glossary of terms is included in Appendix IV. Detailed charts and tables referred to in the body of the report are included in Appendix V.
Beginning in FY 2002, the CI
function began to turn around the negative trends in the number of subject
investigations initiated, the number of subject investigations referred for
prosecution, the percentage of direct investigative time, and the average
number of days expended on discontinued subject investigations and on subject
investigations referred for prosecution.
These indicators continued to show improvement in FY 2003, yet the number of subjects convicted and sentenced continued to fall. Although declines in convictions and sentences can be caused by a variety of factors, including the quality of investigations and the Department of Justice workload and priorities, we believe these downward trends reflect a timing issue. Actions on criminal investigations may span more than 1 year, so the more recent declines in convictions and sentences are more likely to be a function of the decline in the number of subject investigations initiated in previous years. If the CI function continues to expand its numbers of subject investigations and special agents, we would expect the effect on sentences and convictions to improve accordingly.
Resources
applied to criminal enforcement activity
Special agent staffing levels increased 6 percent from FYs 2000 to 2002, with over 600 new special agents
entering on duty. However, due to
attrition, the net increase was only 161 special agents. In addition, the number of special agents working
in field offices continued to decrease until FY 2002, as newly hired agents had
not yet been assigned to specific field offices.
The CI function expects to
substantially increase special agent staffing by approximately 575 in FYs 2004
and 2005. As of the midpoint in FY
2004, 73 new special agents had entered on duty. However, the CI function is losing special agents due to
attrition faster than it is replacing them.
Despite new hires, the overall number of special agents decreased in FY
2003 and again in the first half of FY 2004, to 2,780.
Sustaining increased staffing in
the enforcement areas of the IRS, in general, remains a challenge. Although the CI function expects to increase
staffing, the General Accounting Office recently issued testimony concluding
that priorities other than enforcement, including unbudgeted expenses, have
consumed IRS budget increases and savings over the last several years.
We are concerned that this pattern
threatens the continued growth in criminal investigations and related
improvements in convictions and sentences.
Criminal enforcement
activities improved
Almost all enforcement indicators
showed negative trends in FYs 1999 to 2001.
In early FY 2001, the CI function’s Planning and Strategy section in the
Headquarters office conducted focus interviews with one‑third of the
Special Agents in Charge (SAC) to determine the cause(s) of declines in
enforcement indicators. Analyses
of data from the Criminal Investigation Management Information System were also
done. No
single factor was identified for the cause of the decline in productivity.
Criminal enforcement indicators
showed improvements in FYs 2002 and 2003.
For example,
·
The
number of subject investigations initiated was 22 percent higher in FY 2003
compared to FY 2001.
·
The
number of days expended on discontinued subject investigations started to
decline from an average of 506 days in FY 2001 to 428 days in FY 2003.
·
The
percentage of direct investigative time reported in FY 2003 was higher than
that in FY 1999.
·
The
number of open subject investigations per nonsupervisory special agent remained
relatively constant at about 1.7 investigations per agent, until increasing to
1.9 per agent in FY 2002. In FY 2003,
this figure was 2 investigations per agent.
·
In FY 2003,
the total number of subject investigations referred for prosecution started to
increase.
These
measures indicate the CI function is becoming more efficient in carrying out
its duties. We believe this is
attributable to CI management’s and the current Commissioner’s emphasis on
improving productivity.
One of the recommendations in the Webster Report was for
the CI function to refocus on its primary mission of investigating criminal
violations of the internal revenue laws.
The CI function subsequently created a new mission statement to better
reflect its primary mission of investigating potential violations of the
internal revenue laws. It also
developed a compliance strategy to reinforce its primary mission. The strategy is currently comprised of three
interdependent programs (Legal Source Tax Crimes, Illegal Source Financial
Crimes, and Narcotics‑Related Financial Crimes) and explains the CI
function’s role in the overall compliance efforts of the IRS.
In addition to differentiating between legal and illegal source investigations (as previously discussed in the Background section), the CI function also categorizes investigations as tax-related and nontax-related. A tax‑related investigation addresses violations of Title 26 United States Code (U.S.C.) (the Internal Revenue Code) and select sections of Title 18 U.S.C.
A
major objective of this strategy for the past several years has been increased
support of IRS compliance efforts through the increased application of resources
on tax administration investigations.
There was also a goal to reduce time spent on narcotics-related
investigations to be more in line with reimbursements. This emphasis is reflected by the
substantial increase from FYs 2001 to 2002 in the number of subject
investigations initiated in the Legal Source Tax Crimes Program (52 percent)
and with tax-related violations (33 percent).
However, the number of legal source tax investigations
initiated decreased slightly in FY 2003, while the number of nontax-related
illegal source financial crimes and narcotics-related subject investigations
initiated increased slightly. Also, the
number of subject investigations initiated with tax‑related violations
remained virtually unchanged in FY 2003, while the number of nontax-related
subject investigations initiated increased.
The changes in nontax-related illegal source and narcotics‑related
investigations, though modest, indicate the CI function must aggressively
continue its efforts to further increase legal source and tax-related
investigations to fully achieve the expectations of the Webster Report and to
build on the progress made in FY 2002.
Congressional interest in criminal investigation
activities
Members
of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) believe the CI function can and should do
more to investigate legal source tax crimes.
Members of the SFC expressed concern that the local
United States Attorneys’ (USA) offices are influencing the CI function’s
caseload away from legal source tax crimes and toward nontax-related
investigations. Our analysis of data
shows that the USAs’ offices generated approximately one-fifth of the subject
investigations initiated in FYs 2002 and 2003; 19 and 21 percent, respectively,
with approximately one‑half of the investigations involving tax-related
violations.
In
addition, the number of subject investigations initiated from liaison with
other government agencies accounted for about one-third of the total subject
investigations initiated in FYs 2002 and 2003; 32 and 33 percent, respectively,
with a majority of these investigations involving nontax-related violations.
In
contrast, the number of subject investigations initiated in which the IRS or
the public was the source of the information accounted for about one-third of
the investigations initiated in FYs 2002 and 2003; 35 and 34 percent,
respectively, and also representing approximately one‑half of those with
tax-related violations.
Initiating
more cases from sources external to the IRS concerns us. The IRS Commissioner has emphasized the
urgency of improving enforcement of tax laws at the IRS as a defining element
of tax compliance. Together with the
refocused mission emphasized by the Webster Report, we would have expected the
CI function to initiate more cases for investigation from IRS examiners and
other internally evaluated sources. The
static pattern of initiating investigations from these sources in FYs 2002 and
2003 poses a risk to the CI function in increasing the contributions from a
vigorous fraud referral program when front-line IRS examiners suspect tax fraud
and, ultimately, of achieving the Commissioner’s bold vision to energize
enforcement at the IRS.
We are currently conducting a review to evaluate the effectiveness
of the CI function’s efforts to increase legal source tax investigations and
will be addressing how the CI function categorizes its investigations within
its Compliance Strategy.
Reviews of Lead Development Centers and the
tax fraud hotline
We
recently raised concerns that the 12 Lead Development Centers (LDC) the CI
function established in FYs 2001 and 2002 as a means for increasing legal
source tax investigations were not achieving this primary mission. We stated that the LDCs could not influence
the growth of legal source tax investigations because they were responding to
incoming referrals provided by the CI function’s field offices. The
Chief, CI, agreed with the recommendations in the report, and a redesign and
realignment of the LDC organizational structure was implemented to establish investigative
responsibilities for 5 of the 12 LDCs based on the CI function’s major
strategies and investigative priorities.
In
another recent report, we determined the LDCs
rarely assigned referrals from the toll-free tax fraud hotline to the field offices
for evaluation, even though its review indicated these referrals could reveal
significant fraud allegations and thus should be given consideration. The Chief, CI, believed the hotline call
sites provided only a limited number of informant communications that met
criminal prosecution potential, but agreed the CI function had a shared
responsibility to provide instructions and guidance on potential informant
communications to the Wage and Investment Division, the business owner of the
hotline call site function.
While
we believe the proposed corrective actions in the
two TIGTA reports will assist the CI function in its efforts to increase legal
source tax investigations, competing priorities with other initiatives will
place limitations on the CI function’s ability to significantly increase legal
source and tax-related investigations.
CI function special agents have a reputation of being the best financial
investigators in the Federal Government workforce. As a result, they are often asked to participate in
investigations with other organizations.
Further, the CI function participates in the President’s various
enforcement initiatives, such as the war on terrorism. These initiatives are important in
protecting our nation but may not result in legal source tax or tax-related
investigations.
Given
these competing priorities, we believe the CI function will be faced with the
continuous challenge to increase legal source tax investigations while
providing the necessary support to other critically important Federal
Government initiatives. CI function
management must remain vigilant to ensure the progress made in FY 2002 in
increasing legal source tax and tax‑related investigations continues in
future years.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective, Scope,
and Methodology
The overall objective of this review was to provide
statistical information and trend analyses of the Criminal Investigation (CI)
function statistics since the issuance of the Webster Report in April 1999 and
the subsequent reorganization of the CI function in July 2000.
To accomplish our objective, we reviewed Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) data publications and the CI function’s management information to
analyze data and identify trends. We
relied on information accumulated by the IRS and the CI function in established
reports and the CI function’s management information system and did not verify
its accuracy. The major issues we
focused on included:
·
Special Agent Staffing.
·
Investigation Initiations.
·
Open Investigations.
·
Investigation Closures.
·
Investigations Referred for
Prosecution.
·
Subsequent Legal Actions.
·
Compliance Strategy Programs.
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Daniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General
for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt Organizations Programs)
John R. Wright, Director
Thomas J. Brunetto, Acting Director
Diana
M. Tengesdal, Audit Manager
Donald L. McDonald, Senior Auditor
Niurka M. Thomas, Auditor
Appendix III
Commissioner C
Office of
the Commissioner – Attn: Chief of
Staff C
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE
Chief Counsel CC
National
Taxpayer Advocate TA
Director, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA
Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk
Analysis RAS:O
Office of Management Controls OS:CFO:AR:M
Audit Liaison:
Chief, Criminal Investigation
SE:CI:S:PS
Appendix IV
Compliance Strategy –
The Criminal Investigation (CI) function strategy comprised of three
interdependent program areas: Legal Source
Tax Crimes, Illegal Source Financial Crimes, and Narcotics-Related Financial
Crimes.
Criminal Investigation Management Information System (CIMIS) – A database that tracks the status and progress of criminal investigations and the time expended by special agents.
Direct Investigative Time – Time spent by special agents conducting investigations and other law enforcement activities.
Discontinued Investigation – A subject investigation that resulted in a determination there was no prosecution potential.
Elapsed Days – The number of days between the initiation of a subject investigation to another date such as the date discontinued or date referred for prosecution.
Field Special Agent – A special agent in 1 of the CI function’s 35 field offices.
Fraud Detection Center – A CI function organization responsible for identifying and detecting refund fraud, preventing the issuance of false refunds, and providing support for the CI function field offices.
Grand Jury Investigation – Investigation conducted through the use of a Federal grand
jury to determine if a subject should be charged with a crime. The use of the Federal grand jury to
investigate the potential crime(s) may be initiated by the CI function or by an
attorney for the Federal Government.
Illegal Source Financial Crimes – Those crimes involving illegally earned income. They include crimes involving money
laundering, 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections (§§) 1956 and 1957,
sections of U.S.C. Title 31, Money and Finance, and U.S.C. Title 26 violations
investigated in conjunction with other agencies.
Inventory/Agent – The
number of open subject investigations divided by the number of field special
agents whose salary grade level is 13 or below and having various position
descriptions including those of coordinator and reviewer.
Legal Source Tax Crimes – Those crimes involving legal industries and occupations and
legally earned income.
Narcotics-Related Financial Crimes – Those crimes involving tax and money laundering that are
related to narcotics and drug trafficking.
Primary Investigation – An evaluation of an allegation that an individual
or entity is in noncompliance with the internal revenue laws and related
financial crimes.
Referred for Prosecution – A subject investigation that resulted in the determination of prosecution potential referred to the Department of Justice.
Special Agent – CI function law enforcement employee who investigates potential criminal violations of the internal revenue laws and related financial crimes.
Subject
Investigation – An investigation of an individual or entity alleged to be
in noncompliance with the laws enforced by the Internal Revenue Service and having prosecution potential.
Subject Seizure
Investigation – An investigation to locate
and seize assets that are subject to seizure or forfeiture under various U.S.C.
titles and sections such as 26 U.S.C. § 7302 or 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, or
984.
Tax-Related Violation –
A violation involving a Title 26 section or one of the following Title 18
sections: § 286, § 287, or § 371
associated with a Title 26 violation, or § 371 associated with a Title 26 and a
Title 31 violation.
Title 18 – U.S.C. Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Various sections of Title 18 apply to violations that are within the jurisdiction of the CI function. Examples include § 286, Conspiracy to Defraud the Government with Respect to Claims; § 287, False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Claims; § 371, Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States; and §§ 1956 and 1957, Laundering of Monetary Instruments and Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity. The most common section investigated under this statute is money laundering.
Title 26 – U.S.C. Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Title 31 – U.S.C. Title 31, Money and Finance. Several sections of Title 31 apply to violations that are within the jurisdiction of the CI function. Examples include § 5322, Criminal Penalties (for willful violations of Title 31 sections), and § 5324, Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirement Prohibited.
Appendix V
Figure 1 – Special Agent Staffing at the End of Each
Fiscal Year
Figure 2 – Field
Special Agent Staffing at the End of Each Fiscal Year
Figure 3 –
Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year
Figure 4 – Field Special Agent Staffing at the End of
Each Fiscal Year and the Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal
Year
Figure 5 – Special Agent Staffing at the End of Each
Fiscal Year and the Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal
Year: 10-Year Trend
Figure 6 – Special Agent Direct Investigative Time
Expended Each Fiscal Year
Figure 7 – Number of Subject Investigations Initiated
Each Fiscal Year for a Tax-Related or Nontax-Related Violation
Figure 8 – Number of Subject Investigations Initiated
Each Fiscal Year by Principle United States Code Title
Figure 9 – Number of Subject Investigations Initiated
Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy Program
Figure 10 – Number of
Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year by Source of the Allegation
or Information
Figure 11 – Number of
Open Subject Investigations at the End of Each Fiscal Year by Type of
Investigation: Grand Jury or Nongrand
Jury Investigation
Figure 12 – Number of
Open Subject Investigations at the End of Each Fiscal Year and the Number per
Nonsupervisory Special Agent in Field Offices
Figure 13 – Number of
Subject Investigations Discontinued Each Fiscal Year
Figure 14 – Average
Elapsed Days of Subject Investigations Discontinued Each Fiscal Year
Figure 15 – Number of
Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year
Figure 16 – Number of
Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year for
a Tax-Related or Nontax-Related Violation
Figure 17 – Number of
Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year by Principle United
States Code Title
Figure 18 – Number of Subject
Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy
Program
Figure 19 – Number of
Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year by Type of
Investigation: Grand Jury or Nongrand
Jury Investigation
Figure 20 – Average
Elapsed Days of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal
Year
Figure 21 – Number of
Subjects Convicted of a Crime Each Fiscal Year
Figure 22 – Number of
Subjects Convicted of a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy Program
Figure 23 – Number of
Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year
Figure 24 – Number of Subjects
Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year for a Tax-Related or Nontax-Related
Violation
Figure 25 – Number of Subjects
Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Principle United States Code Title
Figure 26 – Number of Subjects
Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy Program
Figure 1:
Special Agent Staffing at the End of Each Fiscal Year.
Figure 1 was
removed due to its size. To see Figure
1, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web
Page.
Figure
2: Field Special Agent Staffing at the
End of Each Fiscal Year.
Figure 2 was
removed due to its size. To see Figure 2,
please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 3:
Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year.
Figure 3 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 3, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
4: Field Special Agent Staffing at the
End of Each Fiscal Year and the Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each
Fiscal Year.
Figure 4 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 4, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 5:
Special Agent Staffing at the End of Each Fiscal Year and the Number of
Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year: 10‑Year Trend.
Figure 5 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 5, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 6: Special Agent Direct Investigative Time
Expended Each Fiscal Year.
Figure 6 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 6, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 7:
Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year for a
Tax-Related or Nontax-Related Violation.
Figure 7 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 7, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 8:
Number of Subject Investigations Initiated Each Fiscal Year by Principle
United States Code Title.
Figure 8 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 8, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
9: Number of Subject Investigations
Initiated Each Fiscal Year by Compliance Strategy Program.
Figure 9 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 9, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
10: Number of Subject Investigations
Initiated Each Fiscal Year by Source of the Allegation or Information.
Figure 10 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 10, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 11: Number of
Open Subject Investigations at the End of Each Fiscal Year by Type of
Investigation: Grand Jury or Nongrand
Jury Investigation.
Figure 11 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 11, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
12: Number of Open Subject
Investigations at the End of Each Fiscal Year and the Number per
Nonsupervisory Special Agent in Field Offices.
Special agents may have other investigations
assigned concurrently with open subject investigations such as primary
investigations, subject seizure investigations, and subject investigations that
have been referred for prosecution.
Figure 12 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 12, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
13: Number of Subject Investigations
Discontinued Each Fiscal Year.
Figure 13 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 13, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 14:
Average Elapsed Days of Subject Investigations Discontinued Each Fiscal
Year.
Figure 14 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 14, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 15:
Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal
Year.
Figure 15 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 15, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
16: Number of Subject Investigations
Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year for a Tax-Related or Nontax-Related
Violation.
Figure 16 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 16, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
17: Number of Subject Investigations
Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year by Principle United States Code
Title.
Figure 17 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 17, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 18:
Number of Subject Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal
Year by Compliance Strategy Program. The numbers of Illegal Source Financial Crimes and
Legal Source Tax Crimes were not published for Fiscal Year 1999. In Fiscal Year 1999, the statistics
published consisted of the Fraud and Narcotics Programs. The number of Fraud Program subject
investigations referred for prosecution in Fiscal Year 1999 was 1,959.
Figure 18 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 18, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
19: Number of Subject Investigations
Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year by Type of Investigation: Grand Jury or Nongrand Jury Investigation.
Figure 19 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 19, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
20: Average Elapsed Days of Subject
Investigations Referred for Prosecution Each Fiscal Year.
Figure 20 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 20, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure
21: Number of Subjects Convicted of a
Crime Each Fiscal Year.
Figure 21 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 21, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 22:
Number of Subjects Convicted of a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Compliance
Strategy Program. The numbers of Illegal Source Financial Crimes and
Legal Source Tax Crimes were not published separately for Fiscal Year
1999. In Fiscal Year 1999, the
statistics published consisted of the Fraud and Narcotics Programs. The number of Fraud Program subjects
convicted of a crime in Fiscal Year 1999 was 1,679.
Figure 22 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 22, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 23:
Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year.
Figure 23 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 23, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 24:
Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year for a
Tax-Related or
Nontax-Related Violation.
Figure 24 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 24, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 25: Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Principle United States Code Title.
Figure 25 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 25, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 26:
Number of Subjects Sentenced for a Crime Each Fiscal Year by Compliance
Strategy Program. The numbers of Illegal Source Financial Crimes and
Legal Source Tax Crimes were not published separately for Fiscal Year
1999. In Fiscal Year 1999, the
statistics published consisted of the Fraud and Narcotics Programs. The number of Fraud Program subjects
sentenced for a crime in Fiscal Year 1999 was 1,691.
Figure 26 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 26, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.