Federal Reports

From March through September 2020, the Postal Service separated pandemic-related expenses from daily operating expenses to determine the financial impact. These pandemic-related expenses included supplies, services, transportation expenses, and sick and annual leave expenses, among others. Some expenses, such as supplies and services, were directly tracked while others, like transportation expenses, were estimated. Our objective was to assess the impact of the pandemic on Postal Service finances.

We audited rent credits that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received from the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) during fiscal years 2015 through 2018 in exchange for financial contributions for building improvements. We initiated this audit due to concerns we identified while completing a review of HUD’s use of funds approved by Congress for building improvements.[1] Our objective was to determine whether HUD accounted for and managed rent credits, issued by GSA in exchange for HUD’s financial contributions for building improvements, in accordance with applicable requirements.[1] HUD Used Funds for Building Improvements in Accordance With Its Plans and the Approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, Memorandum 2019-PH-0801, issued November 7, 2018HUD did not properly account for and manage reimbursements totaling nearly $7.8 million that it obtained through rent credits issued to it by GSA in 2017 in exchange for improvements that it made to its headquarters building in 2016. HUD’s Office of Administration used these funds for expenses it incurred in 2017 instead of depositing the funds in the U.S. Treasury general account. This condition occurred because Office of Administration staff improperly considered all rent credits received, regardless of type, as a refund to its current appropriation. The Office of Administration also lacked controls to ensure that its staff complied with HUD’s funds control policy. As a result, HUD exceeded its fiscal year 2017 appropriated funding level by nearly $7.8 million and potentially violated the Antideficiency Act.[2] 2 HUD’s Chief Financial Officer has the sole authority to investigate this potential violation and determine whether HUD was required to deposit the value of rent credits into the U.S. Treasury General Funds. HUD OIG can make a referral to the Chief Financial Officer to investigate the potential violation.We recommend that HUD’s Chief Financial Officer investigate the facts surrounding the potential Antideficiency Act violation involving nearly $7.8 million in rent credits. If it is determined that a violation occurred, HUD should develop corrective action plans or internal process improvements, take appropriate disciplinary actions, and report violations to the appropriate oversight authorities, as required.

Hootan Melamed, a pharmacist based in Los Angeles, California, was sentenced in United States District Court, Southern District of California, on March 29, 2021, to six months in prison and three years’ probation for conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Melamed was also ordered to forfeit $1,816,038.82 in cash and personal property.Our investigation found that Melamed paid kickbacks to medical marketers who referred patients to his pharmacy to fill the patients’ prescriptions for compound creams and other pharmaceuticals. Melamed previously pleaded guilty on November 2, 2020, to the conspiracy charges. As a result of the scheme, Amtrak’s insurance providers were fraudulently charged approximately $22,000. Criminal judicial proceedings for other defendants in this case are pending.

The OIG investigated allegations that Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) realty specialists processed and approved 15 land transfer gift deeds from a tribal member to his sister without the proper authority. The complaint also alleged that the deeds contained forged signatures and improperly backdated documents.We confirmed the realty specialists processed the gift deeds for the tribal member, and we found that they did not follow the BIA’s delegation of authority procedures and issued the gift deeds without proper review and approval.The BIA later processed corrections to two of these gift deeds. We established that the tribal member signed the 15 original gift deeds, but we could not determine who signed the corrected documents. We noted significant differences between the signatures on the original documents and the signatures on the corrected documents.We also collected contradictory statements about the corrected documents from the tribal member and the realty specialists involved. In addition, we confirmed that realty specialists improperly backdated the corrections to the gift deeds.The BIA ultimately determined the gift deeds were not properly authorized and voided all the transactions.