She was undercover at one point. No question about that. That is not an ambiguous point.
If she was (there actually is some question about it), it was years before---approximately ten years---well outside the time limit on the law in question.
And before you start up with "she would have had assets still!", you'd have to explain why others who worked undercover at the same time speak out about their experience publicly, thereby showing that there does come a time when the information is no longer going to pose harm to any "assets".