Due Diligence: INTERPOL's "Most Wanted" Stolen Tapestry Found in Auction Catalog, Seized by Feds

Increasingly commoditized and always discreet, today's art market perilously tempts the black market. Reforms are needed to shine a light on the trade. For now, the marketplace must remain vigilant against money launderers, terrorist financiers, and fences who peddle hot art in the cool stream of legitimate commerce.

Steering clear of stolen art requires due diligence. That means that dealers, auction houses, collectors, and associated parties actually must do the investigative diligence required so that they are not directly or indirectly aiding criminal activity. Because the art market is opaque, diligence is needed to discover an object's true chain of custody, transfer, and ownership.

The latest court case demonstrating the need for due diligence is United States v. The Tapestry Known as "The Ambassadors of Rome Offering the Throne to Numa Pomplio."

Before the tapestry surfaced last year in Bonhams' Fine American and European Furniture, Silver Folk and Decorative Arts and Clocks auction, it debuted in 2007 on INTERPOL's "Most Wanted Works of  Art" list. The auction house apparently did not discover this information before it published the piece in its sales catalog.


Bonhams richly characterized the silk and wool textile as "[a]n important Flemish historical tapestry," and suggested that it was part of the "[t]he complete set of the Life of Numa Pompilius," which can be "attributed with certainty to the painter Abraham van Diepenbeeck (1596-1675)." Auction house writers were less descriptive about the ownership history, enigmatically chronicling the chain of title with the nondescript phrase, "Property of various owners."

Prosecutors in the southern district of New York articulated a more complete description of ownership. In a forfeiture complaint filed with the federal district court in Manhattan in May, they declared that it had been stolen--along with a second tapestry--from the home of an identified man in Satiago in October 2006. Chilean investigators reported the theft to INTERPOL, and the international police agency posted the tapestry to its Stolen Works of Art Database under registration number 2007/2882-1.1. 

The United States Attorney in Manhattan wanted the stolen tapestry back to return it to the owner, so his office commenced a civil action to seize the tapestry and forfeit its title to the U.S. government. The legal pleading, verified by the FBI agent working on the case, provided sharp details surrounding the consignment and offer for sale of the tapestry, known formally as the Defendant in Rem:

On or about September 27, 2013, a private art dealer (the "Dealer"), a resident of Santiago, Chile, contacted Bonhams New York Gallery located at 580 Madison Avenue, New York, New York ("Bonhams") via email and inquired into selling the Defendant in Rem at Bonhams.  The email included a color photograph of the Defendant in Rem. 

On or about October 3, 2013, a representative from Bonhams replied to the Dealer's email and advised that Bonhams would be willing to sell the Defendant in Rem at auction with an estimated appraised value between $30,000 to $50,000. 

On or about October 7, 2013, the Dealer agreed to consign the Defendant in Rem to Bonhams in order to be sold at auction on January 23, 2014. 

On or about October 10, 2013, the Dealer mailed the, Defendant in Rem from Santiago, Chile to Bonhams' New York Gallery via DHL Express. On a DHL commercial invoice, the Dealer declared that he was exporting a "carpet" with an approximate value of "$700." 

On or about January 2, 2014, the Dealer executed a consignment agreement with Bonhams under which the Dealer consigned the Defendant in Rem to Bonhams for sale at auction. The Defendant in Rem was included as Lot 1201 in the auction catalogue (the "Catalogue") .... 

On or about January 10, 2014, Bonhams' representative emailed the Dealer advising him that they had received a request for information as to the Defendant in Rem's provenance. 

On or about January 13, 2014, the Dealer responded to Bonhams' January 10, 2014, email stating, in sum and substance, that he purchased the Defendant in Rem from an art dealer in Santiago, Chile in approximately March 2002. 

On or about February 19, 2014, agents of INTERPOL questioned the Dealer in Santiago, Chile regarding his ownership and provenance of the Defendant in Rem. In response to these inquiries the Dealer stated, in substance and in part, and in contravention of his email to Bonhams, that he had purchased the Defendant in Rem in late 2006 or early 2007 from two individuals in Santiago, Chile. The Dealer claimed that he could not state the names of either individual and that he no longer had any documentation regarding these individuals or this transaction in his possession.

The U.S. Attorney's Office accused the dealer of having "knowingly imported the Defendant in Rem into the United States knowing that it had been stolen, converted, or taken by fraud, and facilitated the transportation, concealment, or sale of the Defendant in Rem, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law."

The forfeiture pleading alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 545 (fraudulent importation of merchandise into the United States), § 2314 (interstate and foreign transport of stolen merchandise), § 2315 (concealment, storage, and sale of stolen property), and/or 19 U.S.C. § 1595a (introduction of merchandise contrary to law).

With the assent of prosecutors, the district court on September 8 ordered the release of the tapestry to the true owner. Today the case serves as another reminder of why conducting a meaningful due diligence investigation into an artwork offered for sale is vital.

Photo credit: Verified complaint, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York

Text copyrighted 2015 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, cultural heritage policy, art law, antiquities trafficking, and museum risk management. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of any blog post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL is a project of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

Federal Judge Denies ACCG's Motion to Reconsider

Judge Catherine Blake has once again said no to the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild in the case of U.S. v. Three Knife-Shaped Coins Et al.

In a short ruling issued Tuesday, the federal court judge for the district of Maryland wrote:

I have considered the motion for reconsideration ... filed by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (“the Guild”), together with the government’s opposition and the Guild’s reply. As I continue to believe that my opinion issued June 3, 2014 correctly interprets the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 698 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2012), the motion for reconsideration is Denied.

Earlier court actions pursued by the Guild have resulted in losses in the federal district court, the court of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Text copyrighted 2015 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL is a project of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

Hat tip: Gary Nurkin

Photo credit: Jason Morrison

Dinosaur Skull Forfeited by Federal Judge in Eastern District of NY

Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch wrapped up another cultural property case yesterday. The matter of U.S. v. One Alioramus Dinosaur Skull came to a conclusion after a federal district court judge in Brooklyn ordered the dinosaur head's forfeiture.

No claimants appeared in court to oppose the civil forfeiture, even though French dealer Gefossiles, Inc. once tried to convince American authorities that all was proper with the company's dinosaur shipment. U.S. Customs seized the dinosaur skull in Newark, New Jersey in 2004.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York alleged in its forfeiture complaint filed in September that the head had been illegally imported into the U.S., and it was stolen property originating from Mongolia. A full description of the prosecution's allegations can be found here.

"Smugglers will falsify documents and lie about the origin and value of a cultural artifact just to get it across our borders to sell to the highest bidder," remarked James Hayes, Jr., Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent-in-Charge in New York. His team investigated the case. No arrests were made.

Now that the district court has forfeited the skull, it is expected to be sent back to Mongolia. Foreign officials first must file a petition for remission to have the object repatriated.

Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

The Cultural Property Cases of AG Nominee Loretta Lynch

U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch

It is not every day that an attorney general nominee actually has a record of handling cultural property forfeitures and prosecutions. But that is the case with Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Lynch is President Barack Obama's choice to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder.

Lynch's office has handled a few heritage trafficking cases, including...

1. U.S. v. One Alioramus Dinosaur Skull

Lynch's office filed a civil forfeiture complaint last month to forfeit a 65 million year old dinosaur skull. Prosecutors alleged that a fossil dealer unlawfully attempted to import an Alioramus head by failing to declare that it was real, that it originated from Mongolia, and that it had a value of $250,000.

2. U.S. v. One Ancient Roman Sarcophagus Lid with Sculpture of Reclining Woman
Litigation over a sculptured coffin cover came to a successful conclusion in September when Lynch's office finalized an agreement to forfeit the object from a collector so that it could be returned to Italy. The Roman sarcophagus lid was featured as an illicit antiquity in the Becchina archive.

3. U.S. v Victor Gordon
After a federal district court sentenced an ivory smuggler in June to a sentence of 30 months in prison, two years supervised release, a $7500 fine, and the forfeiture of $150,000 plus one ton of elephant ivory, Lynch remarked that “preventing the flow of illegal ivory through and within our borders” is an important American commitment. “This prosecution–which resulted in the seizure and forfeiture of one of the largest known caches of illegal elephant ivory in the United States and the imprisonment of the person who acquired and attempted to profit from it – is emblematic of that commitment.”

4. U.S. v. Khouli et al.
An antiquities trafficking case that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement billed in 2011 as "a ground breaking case for Homeland Security Investigations" ended with mixed results for Lynch's office. Only two out of four men were convicted. One case netted a sentence of house arrest for a New York gallery owner. Another saw a felony charge dropped to a misdemeanor; the defendant paid a fine. Prosecutors later dropped a third man's case after he satisfied a deferred prosecution agreement. And authorities later gave up looking for a fourth man, a fugitive from justice, after litigation came to an abrupt halt in 2013.

Lynch posted a vibrant press statement at the start of the prosecution when her office charged the defendants with conspiring to smuggle ancient artifacts, engaging in money laundering, and making false statements to carry out their crime. She said, "Antiquities dealers and collectors are on notice that the smuggling of cultural patrimony will not be tolerated." But her office's only other press release, issued the following year, was muted and devoid of any direct quotes from the U.S. Attorney.

The objects involved in the case included Egyptian sarcophagi, Iraqi glass vessels and clay relief plaques, and Iranian (Luristani) bronzes.

Photo source: U.S. Department of Justice

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

Stipulation Puts a Lid on Litigation Over Roman Sarcophagus Cover Featured in the Becchina Archive

The Roman sarcophagus lid. ICE

A marble Roman sarcophagus lid is expected to be forfeited and returned to Italy after federal prosecutors and the potential claimant signed a stipulation last week.

Litigation over the sculptured coffin cover--the so-called Defendant in rem--was avoided when the parties finalized their September 14 agreement over the stolen cultural object, which features in the Becchina archive.

The stipulation filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recites in part:

WHEREAS, Mr. [Noriyoshi] Horiuchi [of Tokyo, Japan] states that, by and through agents, officers and employees of Art & Archaeology Inc. ("A&A"), an entity owned by Mr. Horiuchi, A&A obtained ownership of the Defendant inrem sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s, after the Defendant inrem had been publicly exhibited in a Swiss museum in 1982 and 1983, and its exhibition had been published in an accompanying catalogue; 

WHEREAS, Mr. Horiuchi states that he relied in good faith on the representations made by the seller of the Defendant in rem and the fact that it had been publicly exhibited and presented in a publication during its exhibition in the Swiss museum in 1982 and 1983, to conclude that the Defendant in rem was not stolen; 

WHEREAS, Mr. Horiuchi, by and through his attorneys, agents, officers and employees, properly declared the Defendant in rem to the United States Customs Service upon the importation of the Defendant in rem into the United States in February 2001; 

WHEREAS, Mr. Horiuchi states that he believed in good faith that the Italian Government did not claim ownership to the Defendant in rem because, as Mr. Horiuchi further states, he previously had disclosed his acquisition and possession of the Defendant inrem to the Italian Government; 

WHEREAS, Mr. Horiuchi states that the Defendant in rem was transferred to him by A&A and that in approximately 2012 A&A was dissolved; 

WHEREAS, Mr. Horiuchi, upon his receipt of notice of the Defendant in rem's seizure in the United States and the claim of ownership by the Italian Government, cooperated with the United States Attorney's Office in the above-captioned forfeiture action; and 

WHEREAS, all parties now agree that the Defendant in rem should be forfeited with the intent that it be returned to Italy....

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn filed its forfeiture complaint on February 27, a case captioned as U.S. v. One Ancient Roman Marble Sarcophagus Lid With Sculpture of Reclining Woman.

Prosecutors wrote that the sculpted cover was in the possession of Gianfranco Becchina and his Basel, Switzerland gallery. A Manhattan gallery later displayed the $4 million lid in May 2013 before transferring it to a storage unit in Long Island City, NY in October that same year. Homeland Security Investigations uncovered the lid in its crate at the storage facility in February 2014.

Federal attorneys built their case around 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c)(1)(A), the statute that prohibits stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely imported goods from being introduced into the U.S.

The district court in Brooklyn is expected to approve the stipulation.

In July, a federal district court in Albany, NY forfeited two other antiquities appearing in the Becchina archive in the unrelated case of United States v. One Attic Red-Figure Skyphos and One Apulian Red-Figure Bell Krater.

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

Conservator's Records To Be Subpoenaed As Prosecutors Score Triple Victory in Peruvian Artifacts Forfeiture Cases

Federal prosecutors recently scored three court victories in two forfeiture actions and one subpoena case involving allegedly contraband Peruvian artifacts.

A federal magistrate in New Mexico recommended that a conservator, who may have handled contraband objects, turn over his business records to prosecutors under subpoena, a decision that certainly will attract attention among conservation professionals since they are rarely the subject of cultural property claims filed by the government.

A federal judge in Miami, meanwhile, ruled that the two cases seeking to forfeit the Peruvian objects could not be halted by a parallel criminal investigation, if one even existed. The court also denied a request to dismiss the forfeiture cases in their entirety.

The Peruvian artifacts forfeiture cases began in 2010 when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized 33 objects from Jean Combe Fritz’s luggage. Authorities suspected Combe Fritz and his father of engaging in a smuggling ring, according to information supplied by court papers. The two made 21 trips to Miami in ten years, returning to Peru after one or two days’ stay, which caught customs officials’ attention.

Prosecutors alleged in court pleadings that “[i]n August 2010, Combe-Fritz attempted to smuggle thirty-two ancient Peruvian artifacts into the United States through the Miami International Airport. Because Customs officers could not confirm the authenticity of the apparently-ancient artifacts without an expert appraisal, Combe was released that day. The U.S. Attorney’s Office Major Crimes section subsequently declined to prosecute the criminal case because Combe had returned to Peru.”

Without the possibility of prosecution, federal attorneys decided to seek title to the objects through civil forfeiture with the intent to return the heritage objects to Peru.

Prosecutors filed a civil action in Miami federal district court on May 10, 2013 to forfeit 29 objects consisting of a Moche bone carving (pictured here), a 12 piece Inca burial bundle, an Early Horizon/Chavin stone carving, and more. They argued that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) forbade their entry into the United States.

Prosecutors filed a second forfeiture complaint on July 18, 2013 seeking to forfeit three more objects, this time arguing that they should be forfeited under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c)(1)(A) because they were stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely introduced into the United States.

While it is rare for a claimant to step forward in a cultural property forfeiture case, Jean Combe Fritz did, and his lawyers have vigorously battled the government ever since.

They have argued that the CPIA does not apply, that the objects seized cannot be shown to be Pre-Columbian or Colonial, that it is not possible to determine whether Peru is the source country, that federal prosecutors violated due process, that federal attorneys brought the case to the wrong court, and that the items seized by CBP weren't even banned cultural property.

The case stalled for one year after federal attorneys attempted to depose Combe Fritz, an effort resisted by the claimant’s lawyers on grounds that the government cannot go searching for criminal evidence by using the civil court process. Prosecutors countered by accusing the claimant of delay.

Combe Fritz’s lawyers filed a motion to stay the civil forfeiture proceedings until federal authorities concluded their criminal investigation. But prosecutors objected, writing on July 10, 2014 that there was no criminal investigation and no possibility of prosecution. “The Government disclosed this fact to counsel early in the litigation,” they explained.

Notwithstanding this representation by the government, one day earlier, on July 9, federal prosecutors in New Mexico targeted the conservator who allegedly handled pre-Columbian artifacts brought to the U.S. by Combe Fritz. Prosecutors told the court that the conservator was not implicated in any wrongdoing, but that they wanted information from him to find out who was running Peruvian artifacts between Miami and New Mexico.

The claimant’s lawyers tried to convince the Miami federal court that the existence of the New Mexico case clearly revealed that a criminal investigation was underway. But the judge in Miami would not stop the forfeiture cases. The court even denied the claimant’s motion to dismiss the matters outright, not just delay them.

The federal magistrate in New Mexico, meanwhile, authorized a subpoena to be issued to the conservator for information relating to the Miami forfeiture cases despite his objections.

The conservator objected to turning over specific information to the government, stating that the information sought was irrelevant to the forfeiture cases in Miami; insisting that he had not received any material from Combe Fritz; protesting that the disclosure of business records would violate the confidentiality necessary to conduct conservation work for his clients; and complaining that retrieving company's records would be too burdensome.

The magistrate noted that the conservator was “willing to provide some information and submit to deposition questioning about certain matters,” but that the conservator says “he does not know Combe Fritz, was never contacted concerning any of the 32 items at issue in the Florida cases, and has no reason to believe that any of his clients has anything to do with Combe Fritz or the 32 items.”

The magistrate sided with the government, nevertheless, reasoning in his recommended disposition of August 29,

I agree with the United States that the information sought is relevant to its claims …. It is beside the point whether the government already has some evidence to prove its claims. There is no limit on the quantum of evidence that the government may amass—within the rules—to make its case as strong as possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). I find that [the conservator’s] records and knowledge are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that is admissible and relevant to the elements that the government must prove …. 

The United States … argues that the information sought pursuant to the subpoena is relevant to the elements that it must prove…. The government's aim is not merely to identify the intermediary. Rather, the government's aim is to identify the intermediary and, more importantly, to secure his/her testimony as an "eyewitness[] to acts of the conspiracy and the persons involved in it, as would be the person who was to transport the textile from Miami to New Mexico[;] that information could be critical to the government's case." [Doc. 9] at 4.

The magistrate carefully reframed the government’s original subpoena to restrict overbroad language and to confine the document disclosures to narrowly tailored information about pre-Columbian textiles. Indeed, the conservator’s lawyer informed the district court that his client worked in textiles alone and not with other types of artifacts.

Approximately three weeks before the magistrate's recommendation to issue the subpoena, the federal district court in Miami ruled that the forfeiture cases would push forward despite the claimant’s request that the court process stop temporarily . The court wrote,

Claimant argues that "by engaging in discovery and offering evidence in support of his interest in the seized objects, he will be forced to incriminate himself in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights." (D.E. 74 at 2). The Government has not indicted Claimant and further states that no actual prosecution or criminal investigation is in progress.  

....

The mere existence of parallel criminal and civil proceedings does not compel a stay of the civil proceeding. 

Under the circumstances presented here, the Court finds that a stay is not warranted. Claimant has submitted no evidence that his invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination would compel an adverse judgment against him. . . . If "special circumstances" arise that Claimant believes warrants a stay during the course of litigation, then Claimant may re-file his motion.

The claimant’s attorneys raised “special circumstances” in their motion to reconsider dated August 16. They claimed that “new facts clearly reveal that the Government is using civil discovery in this case to further its criminal inquiry,” asserting that “new evidence will show that the criminal inquiry is active and ongoing, despite the Government’s unsubstantiated protestations to the contrary.”

The claimant’s lawyers said federal prosecutors’ efforts to compel the conservator to turn over documents “strongly supports Claimant’s position that the Government is improperly using civil discovery to supplement its ongoing criminal inquiry or as an improper substitute for an open and outright criminal investigation. Indeed, the non-party witnesses in New Mexico have corroborated this position and presented compelling, independent evidence in support of the same …[demonstrating] that the Government’s purported civil discovery demands were in fact issued in order to generate evidence of a criminal smuggling ring.”

The court rejected such claims and ruled on September 9 that "[e]ven if the Government is engaged in an active and ongoing criminal inquiry, the mere existence of parallel criminal and civil proceedings does not compel a stay of these civil proceedings.”

The court soon thereafter ruled against the Claimant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Denial of Due Process of Law, and Failure to State a Cause of Action, a pleading that had been pending for one year. Judge Joan Lenard weighed both the claimant’s argumentsand the government’s objection, which included the government’s position that “…smuggling protected cultural property is not ‘commercial trade’: it is criminal[] activity.”

In its ruling against the motion to dismiss, the Miami federal district court first determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. “Because this action involves the forfeiture of property and does not involve the recovery of civil penalties, the recovery of a bond, or the recovery of customs duties, the Court has jurisdiction….,” the court wrote. The case was not required to be heard by the Court of International Trade as the claimant’s lawyers argued.

Second, the district court concluded that prosecutors sufficiently stated their claims in both the CPIA forfeiture complaint and the 15 U.S.C. § 1595a forfeiture complaint.

Citing in part Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs, Judge Lenard ruled that the CPIA forfeiture complaint “demonstrated that the artifacts in this action consist of Pre-Columbian perishable remains, lithics, metal objects, and textiles. (First Compl. ¶ 16). Such items are listed on a designated list within the meaning of the CPIA. See 19 C.F.R. 12.104g; Archaeological and Ethnological Material From Peru, 62 Fed. Reg. 31712-01 (June 11, 1997). Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the artifacts are legally importable by providing a State Party issued certification or any other documentation certifying that the artifacts may be legally imported into the United States.”

The § 1595a forfeiture complaint was also sufficient, the court explained:

Here, the artifacts were stashed in Claimant’s luggage. CBP officers located the artifacts in Claimant’s luggage only after conducting a secondary examination. When questioned about the artifacts, Claimant made false statements regarding how he came to possess the artifacts, his purpose for bringing the artifacts into the United States, and the individuals to whom he intended to deliver the artifacts. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that the introduction of the artifacts into the United States was a violation of Peruvian law. Based on these facts set forth in the Second Complaint, the Court finds that there is probable cause to believe that Claimant clandestinely introduced the artifacts into the United States contrary to law.

The forfeiture cases have been captioned as U.S. v. Twenty-Nine Pre-Columbian and Colonial Artifacts from Peru and U.S. v. Three Artifacts Constituting Cultural Property of Peru.

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

Allegations of False Declarations and Altered Trade Papers: Forfeiture Complaint Says $250,000 Dinosaur Skull Isn't from France and Isn't a Cheap Replica

In a civil forfeiture complaint published today and filed last Friday, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York told a federal district court that a fossilized dinosaur skull over 65 million years old isn’t a cheap replica and isn’t from France.

Prosecutors alleged in their complaint that a French fossil dealer attempted to unlawfully import the Alioramus dinosaur head into the United States by failing to disclose that it was real, that it originated from Mongolia, or that it was valued at a quarter million dollars.

This latest case appears to be part of a trend by U.S. and Mongolian authorities to focus attention on illegal imports of dinosaur fossils. The smuggling convictions U.S. v. Rolater and U.S. v. Prokopi are examples of recent criminal prosecutions. No criminal prosecution has been announced in the present case, which is an in rem action against the object that is captioned as U.S. v. One Alioramus Dinosaur Skull.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Karin Orenstein wrote in the verified civil complaint that the dinosaur skull must be forfeited under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a because the skull is considered stolen property according to the terms of the National Stolen Property Act 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The prosecutor also asserted that the head was smuggled into the U.S. in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542 and/or § 545.

The AUSA recited the following allegations in support of the lawsuit to take title to the fossil and repatriate it to Mongolia:

In January 2014, Geofossiles shipped an Alioramus dinosaur skull via UPS from France to Newark, New Jersey. U.S. Customs intercepted and detained the shipment. “Attached to the customsdeclaration was an invoice dated January 9, 2014 for ‘fossil cast dinosaur bones from France’with a sales price of 2,500 Euros plus fees. Atthe time, 2,500 Euros could be exchangedfor approximately $3,400.”

Geofossiles petitioned Customs to reclaim the dinosaur head but provided conflicting paperwork that declared that the head was actually of Mongolian origin. Geofossiles attached to its petition "a different invoice, dated March 18, 2014, describing the Defendant in rem as 'Fossil dinosaur bones 70% and 30% cast' with a purchase price of $250,000, indicating that the shipment containeda genuine fossil.”

The prosecutor’s complaint outlined how Mongolian authorities uncovered allegedly altered information during an examination of export paperwork:

Geofossiles attachedto the Petition documents whichpurported to show that the Defendantin rem was reported to the Mongolian government and allowedto leave Mongoliain 2006. 

....

The documents supplied by Geofossiles were reviewed by Mongolian authorities who located their original counterparts in their records. The Mongolian authorities determined that the copies provided by Geofossiles were altered versionsof records pertainingto the export of four Mongolian  “ger” sets in 2006. A ger is a moveable,circular dwelling that is a traditional residential structure in Mongolia. 

The original MongolianCertificate of Originlists only the gers. By comparison,the copy of the MongolianCertificate of Originsupplied by Geofossiles lists the same gers, but has been altered to add, in a different font, four paleontological terms, including “tarbo[]saurus.”

The French dealer, or any other valid party that chooses to assert title to the Alioramus skull, will have an opportunity to challenge the allegations made by the U.S. Attorney’s office.

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

Another Due Diligence Lesson as Becchina Archive Produces U.S. Court Forfeiture of Antiquities from Italy

Yesterday’s order of forfeiture in the case of United States v. One Attic Red-Figure Skyphos and One Apulian Red-Figure Bell Krater provides another example of why dealers and collectors must exercise stringent due diligence when acquiring antiquities.

The case involved the seizure and forfeiture of the two archaeological objects that were alleged to have been the fruits of the Gianfranco Becchina antiquities trafficking ring. The forfeiture order issued by the federal district court in northern New York resulted from a stipulation between American and Italian authorities to turn over the archaeological material to the Italian people

The U.S. Attorney in Albany filed a seizure and forfeiture complaint this past April when information from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the Italian Carabinieri Command for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (TPC) revealed that the two antiquities, valued at $55,000 in total, entered America’s border illegally. They were bound from Canada to Christie’s auction house in New York City.

American officials seized the objects from Walter M. Banko Enterprises, Ltd. Of Montreal on grounds that they were stolen, smuggled, and clandestinely imported merchandise brought into the U.S. contrary to law pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c)(1)(A). They were first seized in 2011 after the TPC notified HSI that the objects had been taken unlawfully from Italy.

Federal prosecutors alleged in their complaint for forfeiture that false statements were used to illegally import the antiquities into New York.  They also contended that the artifacts were stolen from Italy and referenced Italian statutes asserting title to the pieces, specifically Italian Law number 364 of 1909 governing the ownership and export of any “unmovable or movable items that have a historic, archaeological, paleontological or artistic interest” and Italian Law number 1089 of 1939 covering “moveable and immoveable property with artistic, historic, archeological or ethnographic value.”

Banko made no legal claim to the items in federal district court for the Northern District of New York. Italy did, however, so that the nation could reclaim the looted artifacts.

The prosecutors claimed that convicted antiquities trafficker Becchinahad possession of the skyphos and krater. The lawyers wrote in court papers, “Banko falsely claims on the documentation provided at the time of importation to the United States that the Skyphos was acquired from the Swiss collection of Dr. Elie Borowski in Basel in 1968, adding “Becchina’s warehouse and gallery contained images of the Skyphos and documents referencing the Skyphos dated from 1982….”

Prosecutors further argued in their court complaint that the krater appeared in the Becchina archive, a dossier retrieved in 2001 by Swiss law enforcement officials containing thousands of records and Polaroids cataloging looted antiquities.

The wine vessel was not from any authorized Italian archaeological excavation, the federal lawyers wrote. “In the documents provided by Banko to HSI, Banko indicated that the Krater was acquired in the 1960s from the personal collection of Andre Matton. [Yet] Becchina’s warehouse and gallery contained images of the Krater and documents referencing the Krater dated from 1992….” The attorneys added in some detail,

Documents recovered from the search of Becchina’s gallery and warehouse reveal the occurrence of the following events: in February of 1992, Becchina purchased the Krater, in fragments, from Raffaele Monticelli. On or about October 24, 1992, Becchina delivered the Krater to Ettore Bruno who was to restore the Krater. On or about July 15, 1993, Ettore Bruno sent a photograph of the restored Krater to Becchina. On or about August 10, 1993, Robert Guy answered Becchina regarding the Krater’s attribution and the scientific study of the Krater. Ettore Bruno returned the Krater to Becchina in March of 1994. Becchina paid 8,490 Swiss francs for the restoration of the Krater. On May 1, 1994, Bechina noted that the Krater was then located in his warehouse at Porto Franco di Basilea (Switzerland). 

An export certificate issued by the Ministry of French Culture accompanied the Krater during its exportation from France into Canada on March 10, 2011. The certificate makes no reference to the origin of the Krater and does not provide documentation supporting the Krater’s origins. 

Nowhere on Banko’s shipping documents does Banko say that either of the two defendant properties was acquired from or ever owned by Becchina.

Dealers and collectors should continue to be on the lookout for any other objects linked to the Becchina archive by getting meaningful answers to two basic due diligence questions:

Where did this object come from?

How and when did it get to the United States?

Photo credit: Jason Morrison.

Hat tip: Gary Nurkin

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2010-2014 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

SLAM Dunks Declaratory Judgment Action, Leaving Feds With No Forum to Claim That Ka Nefer Nefer is Stolen

Judge James Loken hinted during oral arguments in January that the federal government's effort to forfeit the Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask still might have life even if the Eighth Circuit Court denied the government’s appeal. But now the federal government's case is truly dead.

Two weeks ago the court of appeals ruled against federal lawyers, halting their effort to forfeit the mummy mask on procedural grounds. And now district court Judge Henry Autrey has signed off on the St. Louis Art Museum’s (SLAM) notice to dismiss the museum’s separate declaratory judgment action.

Readers will recall that the declaratory judgment case was the initial SLAM mummy mask case, whereby the museum petitioned to establish exclusive title to the artifact. Before the U.S. government filed a forfeiture complaint in March 2011, SLAM started its own civil action for declaratory relief in federal district court, seeking to quiet the title of the 19th Dynasty Egyptian mask. The museum's February 2011 petition stated that the

Museum respectfully seeks declaratory relief to declare the respective rights of the parties with regard to the Mask, specifically that (1) the right of the United States to seek seizure and/or forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Tariff Act”) is foreclosed by the applicable statute of limitations set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1621, and (2) the provisions of Egyptian Law No. 215 [on the Protection of Antiquities] do not establish the Mask is Egypt's property, nor can the Defendants establish reasonable cause to believe the Mask was 'stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely imported or introduced' into the United States pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1595a.

During oral arguments about the forfeiture case, the Eighth Circuit suggested that the government could still argue the forfeiture claim as a defense in the declaratory judgment action. But with SLAM’s voluntarily withdrawal of the declaratory judgment suit last week, federal authorities are now left with no forum to argue their claim that the mask is stolen property that cannot be owned by SLAM.

Federal attorneys told the court of appeals earlier this year, "It was the museum that precipitated a judicial intervention by filing the declaratory judgment, explaining ""Our preference was to reach a mediated solution to this dispute ...."  But SLAM has now beaten the forfeiture case and, predictably, the institution has no interest arguing title.

What’s next? Perhaps nothing. Statutes of limitations may close the door on several legal alternatives. It is difficult to know what federal, state, legal, mediated, or political options are being discussed at this time, if any. But if such discussions are taking place, one would expect that SLAM’s governing structureis being probed as a possible requisite for action by private parties or public authorities (e.g., the Missouri attorney general). The museum is funded by property tax dollars, governed by a politically appointed board, and receives financial assistance from a supporting nonprofit organization. For now, however, the Ka Nefer Nefer case will stay in the afterlife.

By Rick St. Hilaire

Text copyrighted 2010-2014 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Maryland District Court Rejects ACCG's Attempt to Relitigate Matters Already Decided in Ancient Coins Case

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland has said no to the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s (ACCG) request to challenge issues previously argued in the case of Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Judge Catherine Blake, writing a June 3 memorandum opinion in the matter of U.S. v. Three Knife-Shaped Coins Et al., rejected the ACCG’s plea to relitigate a challenge to the validity of import regulations authorized by the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). Her decision also halts a repeat of arguments concerning the decision made by U.S. authorities to enact import protections covering ancient Chinese and Cypriot coin artifacts in jeopardy of pillage, saying this matter had already been addressed.

In fact, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2012 that the federal government properly identified Chinese and Cypriot coins subject to U.S. import restrictions under the CPIA and that the detention of the coins by customs officials was proper. The appeals court pointed out that, under these circumstances, the burden shifted to the ACCG to prove that the import of the coins was lawful.

Judge Blake’s two page opinion declared that “it is abundantly clear that the claimant, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (“the Guild”) seeks to expand the scope of this [federal district court] forfeiture action well beyond the limits set by the Fourth Circuit …. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion forecloses any further challenge to the validity of the regulations.” The judge added:

As the government notes in its motion to strike the initial answer, much of the [ACCG’s] answer and most if not all of the affirmative defenses seek to relitigate issues concerning the validity of the regulations and the government’s decision to impose import restrictions on certain Cypriot and Chinese coins. For example, in its Surreply opposing the motion to strike, the Guild suggests that the government will be required to establish that the coins were “first discovered within” and  “subject to the export control” of either Cyprus or China. (Surreply, ECF No. 18, at 1-2.) The Guild is not correct. This argument also is foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit’s opinion. Ancient Coin Collectors, 698 F.3d at 181-82.

The ACCG has responded by filing a motion to reconsider. In court papers filed this week, the Guild has contended that the “first discovered” argument is central to due process and must be litigated:

Due process afforded under the U.S. Constitution, the governing statute, and general principles of forfeiture law, all place the burden on the government to establish a factual basis for its contention that the coins at issue were “first  discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of either Cyprus or China.

The ACCG’s “first discovered” claim maintains that the U.S. State Department and CBP acted outside their authority by placing CPIA import restrictions on coins of certain types without initially showing that they were "first discovered" within their countries of origin. The Fourth Circuit has already struck down this claim, saying “We are not persuaded,” explaining that "State and CBP are under no obligation to list restricted items with more specificity than the [CPIA] statute commands, and they are certainly not required to impose restrictions on a coin-by-coin basis. Such a requirement would make the statutory scheme utterly unworkable in practice.”

The battle of U.S. v. Three Knife-Shaped Coins traces its roots to 2009 when the Guild transported ancient coins from London to Baltimore to start a test case. The ACCG declared to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the coins were from China and Cyprus but failed to offer information about any known provenance. CBP took custody of the coins, and the Guild started litigation to challenge the validity of the CPIA’s cultural heritage import protections. After the ACCG lost, the U.S. Attorney in Maryland filed a forfeiture complaint in May 2013 to retain the coins. The ACCG filed a response soon thereafter.

The Maryland federal court is expected to rule on the ACCG’s motion to reconsider once a reply is offered by the government. The court will also set a discovery schedule as the case proceeds to trial.

Meanwhile, the ancient coin lobby has raised the possibility of a "coin looter's exemption" being proposed by Congress while the present district court action continues. Such an exemption to the CPIA could potentially affect the current litigation. The Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation and the Archaeological Institute of America have issued calls to action in response.

A copy of the court's decision and the ACCG's motion to reconsider may be found on the Guild's web page here.

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2010-2014 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com