07/17/1990 15:50 FROM OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL

TO

92249682 P.04

3.

fraud upon the agency unless investigating
such conduct by an external party is within
the investigative jurisdiction of an agency
compliance or other investigative unit as
part of its programs and operations.

"Federal benefit" includes pecuniary benefits
but also such nonpecuniary benefits as
licenses and permits.

In addition to the above, in oversight reviews of program office compliance or enforcement efforts, each IG may conduct spot check investigations of external parties in the following circumstances:

4.

a.

b.

C.

To assess the method, propriety, scope, or
objectivity of program monitoring by the
program compliance or enforcement office;
and/or

To assess whether the program compliance or
enforcement office is fulfilling its
statutory or regulatory duties; and/or

To determine the validity of allegations that
employees of the agency are failing to
report, or are attempting to cover up,
regulatory violations, or are otherwise
guilty of criminal misconduct.

NOTE: Spot checks thus do not have as their objective
the investigation of external parties per se, although
the results when appropriate may be reported to the
Attorney General for prosecutive consideration.
Rather, spot checks are intended to assist in the
assessment of the structure and management of agency
programs, so that the IG may report on them fully to
the agency head and the Congress.

Neither this statement nor the opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel on March 9, 1989, addresses in any way the authority of an Inspector General to conduct audits.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Ирвал

William P. Barr

Acting Deputy Attorney General

3

This letter responds to your inquiry about whether the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS-IG") has the authority to investigate alleged misuse of social security numbers, including forgery of social security cards, where the alleged misuse has not been aimed at fraudulently obtaining benefits from the agency. We believe that the HHS-IG has authority to investigate such allegations under the "grandfather" provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978.

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, transferred to the office of the HHS-IG the existing "Office of Inspector General (as established by title II of Public Law 94-505).” 5 U.S.C. App. § 9(a) (1) (F) . Section 206 in title II of Public Law No. 94-505 had transferred to this earlier Office of Inspector General "the functions, powers, and duties of . . . the office of the Department referred to as the 'office of Investigations.'" 90 Stat. 2433. Under a Reorganization Order issued by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, this office of Investigations included, from December 10, 1975, the "Investigations Branch. of the office of Administrative Appraisal and Planning, Social Security Administration." 40 Fed. Reg. 58489 (Dec. 17, 1975). That component had broad authority to investigate "criminal violations" and "irregularities" relating to the social security system. See 33 Fed. Reg. 10292 (July 18, 1968) (outlining authority of Division of Appraisal and Planning). Therefore, in our view, the written record of reorganizations and delegations establishes that the Office of Investigations had the responsibility for investigating misuse of social security numbers when its authority was transferred to the original HHS-IG under Public Law No. 94-505. Because the HHS-IG

1

1

We know of no other component in HHS that had authority to investigate such alleged misuse of social security card numbers.

now has the authority previously exercised by the Office of Investigations, his power extends to the investigation of alleged misuse of social security nurbers, even when that misuse is not aimed at fraudulently obtaining benefits from the agency.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Ирвин

William P. Barr

Acting Deputy Attorney General

On July 18, 1990, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Keeney of the Criminal Division testified before the Committee on Governmental Affairs on the subject of deputation of inspectors general. In his oral comments, Mr. Keeney apparently indicated that only two special deputation requests were pending in Criminal Division on the day of his testimony. Actually, the two pending requests were among the 113 requests received between June 1, 1989 and June 1, 1990, which are discussed on pages 7 and 8 of Mr. Keeney's prepared statement. There were additional pending requests, which were received between June 1 and July 18, 1990.

We regret any confusion that may have been created by the

above.

Sincerely,

Brie e. Navand

Bruce C. Navarro

Deputy Assistant Attorney General