He noted that cash seizures of $5,000 or more by the Customs Service and the Department of Justice (DOJ) required DOJ headquarters approval to be held as evidence. He also indicated that the Customs Service and DOJ strengthened controls over the use of forfeited property because previous procedures did not assure such property was used appropriately. Further, he reported that surplus funds in DOJ's Forfeiture Fund during fiscal year 1988 were congressionally authorized for prison construction. Despite the establishment of new Customs Service and DOJ policies to minimize the holding of cash as evidence, the GAO found that the Customs Service and DOJ were holding $75 million as evidence in June 1988, of which only $5 million had been approved by DOJ headquarters. In addition, DOJ had not implemented GAO's prior recommendations to revise economic criteria for seizing real property. The GAO determined that legislative changes are needed to bring Forfeiture Fund accounting into conformance with U.S. Comptroller standards, as required by the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, and that third-party interests in forfeited properties should be protected. Appendixes contain financial data on drug forfeiture programs and a list of GAO reports and testimony on asset seizures and forfeitures.