An audit into the Victorian Police program meant to distribute proceeds of crime to victims has found a number of operational shortcomings leave it woefully ineffective.

The Victorian Auditor General’s Office has conducted a probe into the running of the state’s Asset Confiscation Scheme. The Scheme is designed to compensate victims of crime through the assets confiscated by police, the value of which has totalled $434 million over the last five years.

The Auditor’s report has condemned many facets of Asset Confiscation Scheme; from the poor level of identification of goods, lack of impact on criminal profitability and ineffective operations overall.

The Scheme may potentially be more effective if the Victorian Police were capable of identifying the millions of dollars worth of goods obtained through the prosecution of crime.

The Auditor’s report said: “Victoria Police plays a critical role in the Scheme as it is responsible for identifying assets for confiscation through its investigative processes. However, it is not maximising opportunities to identify such assets related to profit-motivated, serious and organised crime.”

“Its asset confiscation functions are undermined by a failure to make the most of its investigative tools, by a lack of effective planning, and by capacity and capability weaknesses. Its current focus on victims of crime work does not directly or demonstrably contribute to the Scheme's objectives and diverts it from focusing on profit-motivated crime.”

“While the Scheme has been operating for over 15 years, it has experienced, and continues to experience, governance problems that undermine its effectiveness and efficiency,” the audit said.

According to the report’s conclusions, the Scheme is essentially not working as intended, and has not been for years.

“Significant governance weaknesses within the Scheme limit the ability of the agencies to work together effectively to implement the government's policy objectives... these governance issues have been known since at least 2003, and were further identified in the 2008 and 2009 reviews, and the 2012 evaluation. While efforts have been made to address them, these have not been effective.”

A full copy of the Auditor General's report is available here.