Equitable Sharing Program
Section summaryEquitable sharing is the federal mechanism for distributing a share of forfeiture proceeds to state and local agencies that contributed to a federal investigation. The program covers civil and criminal forfeitures under most federal forfeiture statutes.
Program structure:
- Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program — covers DOJ-investigated forfeitures.
- Treasury Forfeiture Fund — covers Treasury-investigated forfeitures including IRS Criminal Investigation, Secret Service, and HSI.
- Sharing eligibility: agency must have provided direct contribution to the investigation.
- Sharing percentage: based on level of contribution, capped by federal regulation.
- Form: DAG-71 (DOJ) or equivalent for Treasury.
The program reflects a longstanding federal policy of incentivizing state and local cooperation in federal investigations. The shared funds are restricted to law enforcement purposes and may not be deposited into a general fund or used to supplant existing appropriations.
DOJ AFP Mechanics
Section summaryThe Asset Forfeiture Program processes seized and forfeited property through a structured pipeline from seizure to disposition. Sharing requests are submitted on the DAG-71 form and processed by the U.S. Attorney's Office handling the case.
Pipeline overview:
- Seizure — federal agency, with or without state and local participation.
- Administrative or judicial forfeiture — depending on type and value.
- Asset management — through United States Marshals Service or Treasury agents.
- Liquidation and proceeds to Asset Forfeiture Fund.
- Sharing decision on the contribution submission.
- Distribution to participating state and local agencies.
Sharing decisions are based on the percentage of investigative work contributed by the state or local agency. Joint Task Force participation generally produces higher sharing percentages than isolated tips. The Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section at Main Justice provides policy guidance and oversees uniform application of the program.
State Opt-In and Participation
Section summaryState and local agencies are not automatically eligible. Each agency must adopt federal-compliant policies, submit annual certification, and demonstrate compliance with use restrictions and audit requirements.
Participation requirements:
- Written agency policy adopted by the governing body.
- Annual certification submitted to the federal program.
- Designated point of contact for program administration.
- Compliance with use restrictions including the supplant-not-supplement rule.
- Compliance with audit and reporting requirements.
Some states have enacted statutes restricting participation in equitable sharing or imposing additional state-law requirements. The interaction of state restrictions with the federal program can be complex; agencies in jurisdictions with state restrictions may need to coordinate with state authorities before pursuing federal sharing. Texas does not impose significant state restrictions on participation, so Texas agencies have generally robust access to the federal program.
Texas Allocation
Section summaryTexas state and local agencies routinely participate in federal equitable sharing. Allocations to Texas agencies reflect the high volume of federal investigations conducted in the state, particularly along the southern border and in major metropolitan areas.
Texas allocation considerations:
- Major participating agencies: Texas DPS, Houston Police Department, Dallas Police Department, Harris County Sheriff, and many local agencies along the border.
- Joint Task Force participation: DEA, ATF, FBI, HSI, and IRS-CI task forces in major Texas cities and along the border.
- Allocation pattern: large border and metropolitan-area cases produce substantial annual allocations to Texas agencies.
- State parallel: Texas CCP Chapter 59 separately distributes state forfeiture proceeds to Texas agencies; the two streams are distinct.
Agencies that participate in both federal and state forfeiture programs typically maintain separate accounting for each stream. The federal funds carry their own restrictions and reporting requirements; the state funds carry CCP Chapter 59 requirements. Co-mingling the two creates audit and compliance risk.
Audit and Accountability
Section summaryEquitable sharing funds are subject to federal audit requirements administered through the Office of the Inspector General and the program's own oversight units. Texas agencies are also subject to state audit including review by the Texas State Auditor's Office.
Audit and accountability structure:
- Federal Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification — annual filing.
- Single Audit Act application for larger agencies.
- OIG-led audits of selected agencies.
- DOJ recovery of misused funds.
- Suspension and debarment for non-compliance.
- Texas state-level audit for Texas agencies.
Common audit findings include unreported expenditures, supplantation of existing budgets, expenditures outside permitted categories, and inadequate documentation. Findings can result in repayment requirements and program suspension. Agencies that take program compliance seriously and maintain rigorous documentation generally avoid significant findings.
Public-Records Access
Section summaryFederal equitable sharing records held by Texas agencies are subject to the Texas Public Information Act and to federal information-access policies. Aggregate program statistics are published by DOJ and Treasury.
Public-records considerations:
- Texas Public Information Act applies to records held by Texas state and local agencies, including their equitable sharing records.
- Federal program publishes annual reports with aggregate statistics on sharing payments.
- DAG-71 forms and case-specific records may be subject to disclosure with exceptions for ongoing investigations and confidential informants.
- FOIA applies to records held by the federal program.
Journalists, researchers, and litigants regularly use public-records access to study equitable sharing patterns. Major reporting projects have analyzed sharing distributions by agency, identified concentration patterns, and highlighted accountability concerns. The records produced through these requests have shaped public debate about civil forfeiture policy and have informed reform proposals at both federal and state levels.
Need defense counsel?
L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Asset Forfeiture Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.
Call (972) 370-5060 →The Department of Justice asset forfeiture fund framework
Federal forfeiture proceeds are deposited into the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund under 28 U.S.C. Section 524(c) and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund under 31 U.S.C. Section 9703 depending on the seizing agency. The funds support law enforcement activities including the costs of forfeiture proceedings, equitable sharing payments to state and local agencies, and statutory beneficiary payments to victims and others entitled to recovery.
The allotment framework specifies how forfeiture proceeds are allocated among competing claims. The first priority is typically the costs of the forfeiture proceeding itself, including the costs of seizure, storage, maintenance, and disposition. The second priority is satisfaction of any third-party interests including innocent owner claims, bona fide purchaser claims, and lienholder claims established in ancillary proceedings. The remaining proceeds are then allocated among the participating law enforcement agencies, victims of the underlying offense entitled to restitution, and any other statutory beneficiaries.
The equitable sharing payments to state and local agencies typically represent the largest single allocation from federal forfeiture proceeds. The shares can reach 80 percent of the net proceeds for agencies that conducted substantial work on the case, with smaller shares for agencies with limited involvement. The agency shares are paid through the Department of Justice equitable sharing program after the federal forfeiture is complete and all priority claims have been satisfied.
The victim restitution priority and the petition process
Victims of the underlying offense have a priority claim to forfeiture proceeds under multiple federal statutes including the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) at 18 U.S.C. Section 3663A and the petition for remission or mitigation framework at 28 C.F.R. Part 9. The MVRA framework converts forfeiture proceeds into restitution payments to victims, which can substantially reduce the amount available for law enforcement allocation.
The petition for remission or mitigation is the administrative mechanism through which victims and other interested parties seek a share of forfeiture proceeds. The petition is filed with the seizing agency or the Department of Justice asset forfeiture office and must establish the petitioner identity, the petitioner interest in the forfeited property, and the basis for the requested relief. Petitions can be filed by victims of the underlying offense, by innocent owners who did not contest the forfeiture, by bona fide purchasers, and by other parties with legitimate claims.
The defense practice in cases involving victim restitution potential should consider how the forfeiture proceeds will be allocated. A defendant who is also facing restitution obligations may have an interest in maximizing the amount of forfeiture proceeds that flow to victim restitution because the restitution obligation may be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the forfeiture allocation. The interplay between forfeiture and restitution can substantially affect the defendant overall financial exposure and should be addressed in the plea negotiations.
The statutory beneficiary framework and the special transfer authorities
Several statutes authorize special transfers of forfeiture proceeds to particular beneficiaries. The Department of Justice Crime Victims Fund under 42 U.S.C. Section 10601 receives certain criminal fines, penalty assessments, and forfeiture proceeds. The fund supports state crime victim compensation programs and victim assistance services. The transfer from forfeiture proceeds to the Crime Victims Fund is governed by the Crime Victims Fund authorizing statute and Department of Justice implementing regulations.
The Department of the Treasury can authorize special transfers of Treasury Forfeiture Fund balances to certain federal programs and to state and local programs through various statutory authorities. The transfers are typically governed by appropriations legislation that specifies the amounts and the recipient programs. The transfers can support drug abuse treatment programs, victim services, and other public-interest programs that may benefit the broader community affected by the underlying criminal activity.
The international forfeiture framework includes the United Nations Convention against Corruption and various bilateral treaties that provide for the transfer of forfeited assets to source countries. The Department of Justice International Affairs Office coordinates international forfeiture transfers, which can substantially affect cases involving cross-border financial activity. The defense should evaluate whether international forfeiture issues affect the specific case and should engage with international forfeiture practitioners where the case has significant international elements.
Defense strategic considerations and the allocation negotiations
The allocation framework affects the strategic posture of the defense in several ways. The defense can sometimes negotiate allocation arrangements that direct proceeds to specific beneficiaries, particularly victims or restoration programs, in exchange for reduced contested litigation. The negotiated allocation can produce outcomes that are more acceptable to all parties than a fully litigated forfeiture.
The defense in cases involving substantial third-party interests should coordinate with the third-party representatives to develop unified positions on the allocation. A defense that supports a third-party innocent owner claim can produce a settlement structure in which the third-party recovers a substantial portion of the property, the government receives a defined share, and the defendant avoids the most punitive aspects of the forfeiture. The unified approach can be substantially more productive than fragmented litigation with competing interests.
The Office of Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section at the Department of Justice is the central administrative authority for federal forfeiture matters and can provide guidance on allocation questions in specific cases. The defense should consider whether to engage directly with the asset forfeiture office on policy and allocation questions where the case presents unusual features. The engagement can produce administrative guidance that helps shape the disposition of the case in ways that benefit the defense position.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does Texas receive from equitable sharing each year?
Can a small police department participate?
What can equitable sharing funds be used for?
Are equitable sharing payments public information?
Does equitable sharing affect a forfeiture defendant's case?
Read the full Texas Asset Forfeiture Defense Guide
This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Asset Forfeiture Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.
Read the Pillar Guide →Next Steps
If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.
- Call (972) 370-5060
- Email info@landllawgroup.com
Cite this guide
Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, Federal Equitable Sharing Allotments, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/forfeiture-allotments-federal/.
APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). Federal Equitable Sharing Allotments. L&L Law Group.