Norfolk Division of the Superior Court Department
March 1, 2013 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published March 1, 2013 Audit covers July 1, 2009 – February 28, 2011 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Based on our audit, we have determined that, except for the issues noted in the Audit Findings section of our report, NSC maintained adequate internal controls and complied with applicable laws, rules, and regulations in the areas reviewed.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a State Auditor review of certain financial and control practices at the Norfolk Division of the Superior Court Department.
“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the NSC Clerk of the Courts’ Office and Probation Office for the period July 1, 2009 through February 28, 2011.”
Auditors checked whether the court was properly controlling cash, bail, and revenue, and whether it fixed issues found in an earlier audit.
“Our audit objectives were to (1) assess the adequacy of NSC’s internal controls over cash management, bail funds, and revenues and its compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures in these areas and (2) follow up on the audit findings reported in our prior audit of NSC (No. 2006-1112-3O).”
If court money is not handled promptly and accurately, the state or rightful owners may lose timely access to funds.
“As a result of this noncompliance, the Commonwealth and other parties may have been denied timely access to and use of these funds.”
For residents, the issue is basic accountability: money collected or held by the court should go to the right place, be available to rightful owners, and be recorded correctly.
“As a result, NSC and the Commonwealth cannot be sure that all revenues transmitted by NSC are being credited to the appropriate accounts.”
The main problems were old bail funds not forfeited when defendants defaulted, unclaimed or forfeited funds not sent to the Treasurer, and revenue not reconciled as required.
“Our current audit found that NSC had at least 21 bails, totaling $136,400, that had not been ordered forfeited even though the defendants were in default.”
This was not just paperwork: the court had millions in bail and escrow funds under its control, so weak controls affected substantial public and private money.
“The NSC Clerk of the Courts’ Office was the custodian of approximately 275 cash bails, totaling $2,397,455, as of February 28, 2011.”
Bail is money or other security posted so a defendant can be released while promising to return to court.
“Bail is the security given to the court by defendants or their sureties to obtain release and to ensure appearance in court, at a future date, on criminal matters.”
7 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Partially Assess the adequacy of NSC’s internal controls over cash management, bail funds, and revenues and its compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures in these areas.
- Did not comply Follow up on the audit findings reported in the prior audit of NSC.
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: The Commonwealth may not have received all bail funds to which it was entitled.
Standard: Chapter 276, Section 80, of the General Laws allows forfeiture of bail to the Commonwealth after defendant default. ( Chapter 276, Section 80, of the General Laws )
1 recommendation
- NSC should follow SCD guidance allowing direct bail forfeiture to the Commonwealth without requiring the Norfolk District Attorney to begin forfeiture proceedings, schedule forfeiture hearings at default, and periodically review bail records.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The trial balance is reviewed twice a year to identify cases in which the defendant is defaulted and schedule the forfeiture hearing. . . ."
Auditor: "Our recommendation is limited to those matters in which a defendant has defaulted and no forfeiture determination has been made."
Why it matters: The Commonwealth and other parties may have been denied timely access to and use of these funds.
Standard: Chapter 200A, Section 6, of the General Laws and AOTC Fiscal Systems Manual Sections 9.2 and 9.6. ( Chapter 200A, Section 6, of the General Laws; AOTC Fiscal Systems Manual, Section 9.2; AOTC Fiscal Systems Manual, Section 9.6 )
1 recommendation
- NSC should determine the status of old bails and civil escrow deposits or forfeitures and transmit all appropriate funds to the Office of the State Treasurer.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The office has instituted a procedure in which the bail trial balance is reviewed twice a year to verify that all bail unclaimed is abandoned after the appropriate time."
Why it matters: NSC and the Commonwealth could not ensure that all revenues were properly received and credited to the correct accounts.
Standard: AOTC Fiscal Year 2007 Memorandum No. 6 and AOTC Fiscal Systems Manual Section 8.6. ( AOTC Fiscal Systems Manual, Section 8.6; AOTC’s Fiscal Year 2007 Memorandum No. 6 )
1 recommendation
- NSC should conduct monthly revenue reconciliations to ensure revenues are transmitted and credited to the correct court and proper accounts in MMARS.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "All revenues have been reconciled."
Prior findings revisited
"Our prior audit (No. 2006-1112-3O) of the Norfolk Division of the Superior Court Department (NSC), which covered the period July 1, 2004 to August 18, 2006, revealed that NSC needed to strengthen its internal controls over the forfeiture of bail funds after a defendant does not make his or her required court appearance and the judge issues an order of default."
"THEFT OF $1,550 IN BAIL FUNDS RESOLVED"