Protecting Cultural Heritage by Revising the Customs Entry Form

Customs Entry Form 6059B

When people become aware of the rampant looting, smuggling, and destruction of cultural property, they show concern about preserving humanity's shared cultural heritage. And when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers are able to identify specific cultural objects imported into America, they are better positioned to interdict at-risk archaeological, ethnological, religious, and other cultural heritage material at the border.

It is for these reasons that the Customs Entry Form should be revised slightly.

Those who have flown back home from a trip overseas undoubtedly have spotted a flight attendant strolling down the aircraft aisle handing out the ubiquitous blue paper known as Form 6059B, the double-sided document used by travelers to declare goods that they are bringing into the United States.

By checking off the simple “Yes” or “No” boxes found at question #11, travelers easily notify CPB upon their arrival whether they have:

• fruits, vegetables, plants, seeds, food, insects;
• meats, animals, animal/wildlife products;
• disease agents, cell cultures, snails;
• soil or have been on a farm/ranch/pasture.

But, surprisingly, the Entry Form does not include an interrogatory that covers regulated cultural heritage goods. There is no “Yes” or “No” box for travelers to check when carrying an ancient Greek vase, Roman coin, Maya wall art, Byzantine mosaic panel, Tellem textile, Khmer statue, Tyrannosaurus bataar fossil, or the like. That is why a new line under #11 should be added on the Customs Entry Form to say:

I am (We are) bringing...

antiquities/antiques, archaeological material/artifacts, ancient coins, tribal objects, fossils
Yes __  No __

This new Q and A would alert travelers about the existence of regulations that govern imported cultural goods. Such laws include the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act; the Pre-Columbian Monumental or Architectural Sculpture or Murals Act; the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act; the National Stolen Property Act; and many more.

A person checking the "Yes" box would prompt CBP officers to inquire further about whether a particular cultural heritage object could be imported legally or whether its entry was subject to restriction. A false "No" response might trigger CBP to contact Homeland Security Investigations to examine if someone was knowingly concealing an illegal import.

In addition to the questions found under #11, the Customs Entry Form currently directs travelers to “[d]eclare all articles on this declaration form and show the value in U.S. dollars.” It cautions them about bringing potentially prohibited objects into America like agricultural and wildlife products, controlled substances, obscene articles, toxic substances, and merchandise that infringes intellectual property rights. "Failure to declare such items ... can result in penalties and the items may be subject to seizure," Form 6059B warns. By adding specific language about legally protected cultural property to this part of the Form, travelers would be alerted further about their duty to declare a variety of protected cultural heritage objects.

Retired customs officer Domenic DiGiovanni, who worked extensively with cultural heritage material when he was with CBP, tweeted that these changes to the Form would be a "great idea" because customs officers would ask follow-up questions in person that "could elicit a behavioral response" from the traveler, which in turn could "lead to more questions."

There is plenty of space remaining on Form 6059B to improve the paperwork, and the small changes would go a long way toward protecting cultural heritage.

Text and original photos copyrighted by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, art law, cultural heritage policy, 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 service of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

Russian Ambassador's Short Letter Makes Big Claims About Looted Syrian Antiquities

A letter from Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Russia's envoy to the United Nations, has named dealers and shippers alleged to have facilitated the trade of looted antiquities from ISIS-controlled territory in Syria. Delivered to the UN Security Council on March 31, 2016 and released to the public today, the communication caught the attention of cultural property watchers, the media, and Turkey because of its blunt and provocative claims.

The two page correspondence identified the Turkish city of Gaziantep (see map below) as the focal point of smuggling "where the stolen goods are sold at illegal auctions and then through a network of antique shops and at the local market, BakırcılarÇarşısi (Eski Saray Street, Şekeroğlu district)." 

Ambassador Churkin announced that "new offices for the purchase of antiquities have opened on the Turkish-Syrian border in the administrative district of Akçakale...." He daringly identified the owner of an antique shop in the town of Kilis as a person "involved in the illicit trade" before proceeding to list individual Turkish transport companies that carried "bulky goods," describing how "[s]muggled artefacts (jewellery, coins, etc.) then arrive in the Turkish cities of Izmir, Mersin and Antalya, where representatives of international criminal groups produce fake documents on the origin of the antiquities."

The ambassador's letter contended that " ISIL has been exploiting the potential of social media more and more frequently so as to cut out the middleman and sell artefacts directly to buyers. Preference is given to cash transactions, while transactions conducted over the Internet involve the same financial institutions as are involved in transactions for the purchase of weapons and ammunition."

While the ambassador professed that "profit derived by the Islamists from the illicit trade in antiquities and archaeological treasures is estimated at US$ 150-200 million per year," he failed to provide details would back the claim. Instead, he offered an overview of the antiquities trafficking pipeline, explaining how ISIS maintains an antiquities division that is "part of the so-called ministry for control of natural resources within the group’s 'government.'" He remarked that "individuals in possession of a written permit stamped by this 'department' are permitted by the Islamists to carry out excavations and to remove and transport excavated items." Such claims match those made by the US government last year.

"The antiquities are ... offered to collectors from various countries," ambassador Churkin commented, "generally through Internet auction sites," several of which he plainly singled out. The wrongdoers, he said, "employ concealment measures, such as IP-address spoofing, which makes it difficult to identify and determine the actual location of the seller."

Ambassador Churkin's statements have not been verified by an independent third party. Nevertheless, collectors of cultural heritage objects should continue to exercise reasonable caution during this time of conflict in Syria by steering clear of archaeological objects that potentially originate from the region.

The map marks the location of Gaziantep, a crossroads of antiquities trafficking according to Ambassador Churkin.

Text copyrighted 2016 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, art law, cultural heritage policy, 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 service of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

Prosecutors, Detector Dogs, and Laws: 6 Law Enforcement Recommendations to Combat Transnational Cultural Heritage Trafficking

Transnational cultural heritage trafficking thrives on an opaque art and antiquities market. Attractive features of this marketplace include discretion surrounding business transactions, easy creation of shell corporations, the high probability that smuggled imports won't be detected, clever mechanisms to move money, infrequent prosecutions of traffickers, and limited regulatory resources.

Police and prosecutors need additional tools to build capacity, spot contraband, and capture the criminals. Here are six recommendations.

#1  Specialized federal prosecutors

At least two federal prosecutors should be assigned to focus exclusively on cultural heritage trafficking. One might be placed in the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington , DC and another in the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the heart of America's art and antiquities marketplace.

Only federal prosecutors have authority to prosecute federal felony crimes like importing goods illegally or falsifying import paperwork, crimes which are typically part of antiquities trafficking.

While there have been several commendable cases where federal authorities have seized contraband antiquities and sent them back to their country of origin--particularly in New York City--few have resulted in criminal convictions. This "seize and send" policy must mature into an "investigate and indict" objective, where authorities hold individuals accountable through convictions and criminal penalties. Otherwise thieves, smugglers, fences, and their accomplices will continue to experience no specific deterrence or general deterrence that the criminal justice system uses to curb criminal conduct.

Already the seizure and forfeiture of cultural property in federal court depends on a U.S. Attorney proving that a criminal statute was violated. So it only makes sense that the individuals who commit the underlying crime should be prosecuted too. Once cultural objects are sent away to their country of origin through the seizure and forfeiture process, there is no case left to prosecute because the primary evidence has been sent away, an outcome that occurred even in a case where investigators suspected terrorist financing.

Without federal prosecutions, U.S. attorneys fail to develop the trial or investigative skills needed to uncover and describe to juries criminal networks and their subtle money trails, clandestine trafficking routes, and shell corporations used to move contraband cultural property into the American marketplace.

Specialized prosecutors would be expected to work together to support Homeland Security Investigations and the FBI, which in turn would sharpen prosecutors' white collar crime skills to help guide investigations, craft search warrants, present cases before grand juries, and try cases in the courtroom. The art and cultural property theft cases successfully handled by the team of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Goldman and former FBI Special Agent Robert Wittman serve as an illustration. Roger Atwood's Stealing History tells some of their stories.

#2  State prosecutions

Matthew Bogdanos, a prosecutor at the New York County District Attorney’s Office, is pioneering efforts to apply state law to cultural property crimes. One example is the conviction he secured in the case of People v. Aaron Freedman. Manager of Subhash Kapoor's Art of the Past gallery in New York City, Freedman pleaded guilty in 2013 to felony conspiracy and five counts of felony criminal possession of stolen property. But we need more state prosecutors focused on these types of crimes.

While federal law has jurisdiction over illegal import cases, state law is best used to prosecute sellers of stolen cultural property. Since 2005, CHL’s author has discussed how district and county attorneys--who generally have lots of experience prosecuting property cases--may rely on state receiving stolen property statutes to target culpable sellers of cultural heritage objects.

Every state has enacted a receiving stolen property statute in some form, and these laws generally prohibit a person from selling, transporting, or receiving stolen property. State receiving stolen property laws are fundamentally similar to the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), the federal statute that outlaws different forms of theft. But many states' laws give distinct advantages to district and county attorneys, allowing them to more easily hold dirty dealers accountable.

For example, over two-thirds of state laws require lower mental states. Where the NSPA requires proof that a criminal defendant had full knowledge that a cultural object was stolen, most state laws only require proof that the offender should know, had reason to know, had reason to believe, or simply believed that the property in a dealer's possession or offered for sale was stolen or probably stolen. A federal prosecutor would need to prove that a dealer actually knew an object was stolen, but a state prosecutor may simply need to prove that a dealer had reason to believe that an artifact had been stolen, which is a much lower legal burden.

More importantly, almost one quarter of the states have a built-in legal assumption that a dealer in goods is presumed to know an object was stolen when (a) the dealer did not reasonably gather information about whether the good was lawfully sold or delivered to the dealer, (b) acquired the good far below reasonable value, or (c) purchased or sold the good outside the regular course of business. New York Penal Law § 165.55(2) is an apt example: "A … person in the business of buying, selling or otherwise dealing in property who possesses stolen property is presumed to know that such property was stolen if he obtained it without having ascertained by reasonable inquiry that the person from whom he obtained it had a legal right to possess it."

In New York, like in other states, it is no defense that somebody else stole the property or that the property was stolen from out of state. And states, for the most part, don't require the stolen property to be valued at $5,000 or more, in contrast to the federal NSPA statute.

All these legal advantages give district and county prosecutors an edge to hold antiquities and other cultural property dealers accountable when a crime has been committed.

#3  Detector dog research

Detector dogs that could sniff out smuggled cultural heritage objects, particularly archaeological artifacts, certainly would help customs agents at U.S. ports of entry.

Huge numbers of commodities pore across America's borders each day. For customs agents to spot illicit art, antiquities, and collectibles arriving by cargo ship or air freight among the countless illegal drugs, guns, bird feathers, mangos, jellyfishes, seeds, counterfeit NFL jerseys, and the like can be overwhelming. Remember too that their highest priority is intercepting radiological, biological, and other explosives before they can cripple the homeland. That is why cultural property detector dogs could prove useful.

Sniffer dogs already have demonstrated their worth to U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents by detecting pests and illegal agricultural goods. That is why research must be undertaken to see if detector dogs can be trained to identify smuggled antiquities and other cultural objects. Preliminary inquiries by Red Arch in consultation with relevant experts suggests that such a research project is worthwhile.

#4  Recordkeeping laws

When a healthy trade becomes a black market temptation for stolen and smuggled cultural heritage, new recordkeeping laws could assist prosecutors and police. These laws would require dealers, galleries, and auction houses to record the identities and transactions of suppliers and buyers of cultural property while upholding legitimate business privacy interests. See the detailed proposal here.

When pawn shops became magnets for stolen property, states overwhelmingly passed recordkeeping laws to help police as well as crime victims. States similarly passed scrap metal recordkeeping rules when stolen copper and aluminum flooded the marketplace. For banks, the USA Patriot Act enacted another kind of recordkeeping rule called Know Your Customer, which helps identify money launderers, terrorist financiers, and foreign corrupt practices within the financial industry. In like manner, law enforcement should have access to business records that would help uncover perpetrators of cultural heritage trafficking.

#5  Enhanced AML/CTF statutes

To zero in on untraceable shell corporations, laundered money, and terror financing associated with cultural heritage trafficking, existing anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws (AML/CTF) need to be enhanced to include the cultural property market.

Current statutes are designed to root out criminal exploitation of highly susceptible commercial and financial industries. Yet the marketplace for art, antiquities, fossils, ancient coins, and other cultural property remain absent from this list.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the seminal inter-governmental organization focused on AML/CTF, specifically identifies illicit trafficking of cultural goods, counterfeiting of antiquities, and the illegal trade of antiquities as facilitators of money laundering and terrorist financing. Moreover, the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Office of Anti-Crime Programs specifically refers to "art dealers" when  discussing AML/CTF  objectives. The Basel Art Trade Guidelines also point out, "Far more serious than shady dealings in a legal gray area, the sector’s shadow economy encompasses issues ranging from looted art, professional counterfeiting and fake certificates to the use of art sales for the purpose of money laundering.

Pawnbrokers, car dealers, dealers in precious metals and jewels, travel agents, and other NBFI's (non-bank financial institutions) are identified by AML/CTF laws as industries where criminals are known to clandestinely move large amounts of money or discreetly convert cash into high value goods. But the art and antiquities marketplace is not included in the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA Patriot Act, and other AML/CTF statutes. This needs to change.

An additional legislative change is needed to expose cultural property smugglers who set up a myriad shell corporations to discreetly hide their business operations. They create untraceable companies that only exist on paper and whose officers remain unknown, or they use layers of shell corporations to transfer cultural contraband through a maze of paper trails to throw off investigators.

One proposal currently wending its way through the U.S. Senate seeks a solution. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (S. 1269 and similar companion bills) calls on the Department of Homeland Security to assign a single registration number to an importers of record. That way importers can't set up multiple import companies to hide their identities or their trade activities.

[Sidebar: Setting up a separate, companion corporation is not per se illegal. But hiding illegal business transactions in a shell corporation is not. Cases involving "Bactrian Global Enterprises" and Nimbus Import Export are two examples where separate corporations were maintained. Were they for legitimate reasons or not?]

#6  Adding the cultural property market to attorneys’ general consumer protection watch lists

Cultural property crimes impact consumers who may pay substantial amounts for ancient Greek vases, Egyptian sculptures, and similar cultural heritage objects. The objects might be looted, stolen, or smuggled, or they might be fakes. Because cultural property markets contain a number of recently surfaced artifacts without documented collecting histories, or with thinly veiled collecting histories, or with entirely false histories, consumers risk purchasing illegal or fake heritage objects. That is why state attorneys general should instruct their consumer protection divisions to be watchful.

Attorneys general typically enforce laws that protect consumers against deceptive, unfair, unconscionable, and/or unlawful business practices, and they are endowed with civil and criminal legal tools to investigate illegal misconduct by a particular company or by an entire industry.

New York General Business Law § 349(a) is one statutory example that proclaims, "Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful." Executive Law § 63(12) gives the Empire State's attorney general power to investigate and issue subpoenas, even in cases where there was no actual intent to deceive. Where representations or omissions may reasonably have misled consumers, the NY attorney general can bring an action on behalf of the affected consumers.

An example of an industry-wide consumer protection investigation is NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's recent probe into abuses found within the concert and sports ticket industry. Other investigations might focus instead on a single business. Oftentimes, state attorneys general will partner each other and/or with federal consumer protection agencies to confront systematic problems that are widespread.

So when the National Association of Attorneys General meets this month, its Consumer Protection Committee should add the cultural property market to its watch list.

Photo credits: Pixabay / David Mark, Freeimages.com / Marc Dorsett, Freeimages.com / Joe Zlomec, Freeimages.com / dgood007, Freeimages.com / Bob Smith, Pixabay / Edward Lich

Text copyrighted 2016 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, art law, cultural heritage policy, 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 service of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

Museum Raids Cases: Rare Antiquities. Rare Convictions for Gallery Owners. Rare Prison Sentence.

In the annals of cultural property law, prosecutions targeting transnational antiquities trafficking networks are rare. Even more rare are felony convictions. Scarcer still are prison sentences.

So what happened this week to a pair of California gallery owners tied in with the "Museum Raids" cases is a momentous achievement, an example of careful and intelligent case development by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, resulting in felony convictions for antiquities traffickers rather than a "seize and send" photo-op that cultural property watchers are accustomed to witnessing.

Jonathan and Carolyn Markell, aged 70 and 68 and owners of Silk Roads Design Gallery, were sentenced on Monday for their role in an elaborate scheme that mixed international heritage trafficking with tax evasion.

Calling the crime "significant," United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson said it was “important to send a message” to art collectors, gallery owners and museums that they should avoid collecting and trading looted antiquities.

The court handed down an 18 month prison term to Jonathan Markell on a felony count of conspiring to import goods using false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy) and 18 U.S.C. § 542 (importing goods using false statements). His wife, Carolyn, received a sentence of probation on a felony charge of conspiracy to commit tax evasion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 371. Jonathan Markell also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit tax evasion.

“Mr. Markell’s greed placed his art gallery’s profits above the culture and heritage of the people of Thailand,” said United States Attorney Eileen M. Decker in a press release.

There were no complaints about the court's 1 1/2 year sentence, even though prosecutors sought a 2 ½ year prison term for Jonathan Markell because, in prosecutors' words, "it is clear that Jonathan Markell has no respect for the law—not this nation's laws, nor those of other nations."

In seeking a prison term, prosecutors, notably among them Assistant U.S. Attorney and Environmental Crimes Chief Joseph Johns, sought both specific deterrence and general deterrence.

The attorneys pointed out the obvious to the court, that "it is rare that law enforcement officials have the opportunity to catch a broker, bulk sellers, or gallery owner that drives the illicit market for archeological resources." That is why, they contended,

Defendant Jonathan Markell’s antiquities smuggling case presents a unique opportunity to send a message and afford adequate deterrence to the 'upper end' of the criminal black market for looted archeological resources, i.e., the brokers and gallery owners who sell their wares to the collectors. If we are able to diminish and disincentivize the market (or demand) for illegal antiquities, then we may have an equal effect on taking the monetary incentives out of the act of looting itself. It is the market, or demand, which drives the looters at the ground level to provide the supply of stolen antiquities to meet that demand. 

Jonathan Markell’s sentence of 18 months behind bars perhaps is the most ordered by a court in a transnational antiquities trafficking case since U.S. v. Schultz, a federal case from 2002 that saw Frederick Schultz, a high profile and successful Manhattan antiquities dealer, sentenced to serve 33 months in prison after a jury found the defendant guilty of the felony of receiving stolen Egyptian antiquities that had been transported in interstate and foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy) and 18 U.S.C. § 2315 (the National Stolen Property Act).

That case failed to serve as a warning to the Markells as the investigation into the husband and wife and their co-conspirators began the following year, in 2003 when a National Park Service (NPS) special agent began to uncover the trafficking network that had been smuggling archaeological material from Southeast Asia.

In January 2008, federal agents from several law enforcement agencies raided a variety of locations, including four museums in California. Police descended on the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Bowers Museum, the Pacific Asia Museum, and the Mingei Museum with search warrants to “seize in place” ancient objects identified as potential evidence. Officials simultaneously seized evidence from the Markell’s home as well as their art gallery.

The museum raids generated three published criminal cases:

• United States v. Robert Olson and Marc Pettibone, et al., which charged a conspiracy to smuggle Southeast Asian artifacts, including from Thailand and Cambodia, into the United States beginning in 2004;

• United States v. Robert Olson and Jonathan Markell, which charged a conspiracy to smuggle Southeast Asian artifacts, including Burmese antiquities obtained in Thailand beginning in 2003; and

• United States v. Jonathan Markell and Carolynn Markell, which charged a conspiracy to commit tax fraud by making false statements when donating smuggled artifacts to museums in an effort to receive tax deductions.

[Sidebar: At least one media report by the Pasedena Patch suggests that legal action against unnamed museums resulted in deferred prosecution agreements. These agreements do not appear in the court system’s public files. It is possible that they are held privately by the U.S. Attorney's Office and not subject to public disclosure]

The Markells pleaded guilty to criminal charges on April 16 after signing a written agreement with federal prosecutors the previous month..

As part of the deal, both defendants conceded that they conspired to knowingly and intentionally defraud the United States for the purpose of impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful government functions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the ascertainment, computation, assessment, and collection of income taxes, by promoting and participating in a false charitable deduction scheme for the purpose of improperly claiming charitable deductions on federal income tax returns.

The Markells agreed to repatriate 337 artifacts by ocean-borne cargo to their countries of origin, specifically China, Thailand, Cambodia, and Burma; to pay the $25,000 estimated shipping cost; and to cooperate with the IRS to calculate back taxes and penalties from 2004 through 2007, estimated to be $39,891.

In a court pleading filed on December 3, attorneys for the government elaborated on the facts of the case:

In short, Jonathan and Carolyn Markell jointly owned and operated the business Markell Imports, Inc., doing business as the Silk Roads Design Gallery ("Silk Roads"). The Markells’ business model consisted of their purchase and importation of art, antiques, and archeological resources from Southeast Asia, and their resale of such merchandise through their Silk Roads art gallery in West Hollywood.

Part of their business model included the intentional use of false declarations and statements in United States Customs entry documents to “smuggle” or introduce the archeological resources “antiquities” into the United States.

The lawyers flagged a contention made by the Markells, one that is often echoed by ethically ambivalent antiquities dealers who complain that filling out customs forms is too burdensome for small business owners:

During [a police interview], Jonathan Markell stated that he and Carolyn Markell falsified the customs documents to disguise what they were importing because the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement classification process is difficult if they actually identify a piece as an "antique." Carolyn Markell agreed with her husband's statement.

The Markells further justified their behavior by claiming that United States Customs forces people to lie on import declarations because of the delay in clearing Customs if they properly identify an object as an antique.

Prosecutors added that the Markells failed to fully disclose their criminal conduct to investigators. “For example, they did not admit that Jonathan Markell had conspired with [a] co-defendant to not only falsely describe Burmese and Khmer antiquities in United States Customs import documents ... but also to falsely declare the import value of those antiquities as 25% of their true purchase price.”

The attorneys said that neither defendant “admitted ... that they knew that it was illegal to export archeological resources/antiquities from the countries of China, Thailand, and Burma—which is most likely the reason that the antiquities were falsely described in United States Customs import documentation.”

Focusing on the pairs’ systematic plan to dodge federal taxes, prosecutors noted that the operation “was heavily dependent upon the ready availability of Southeast Asian antiquities obtained ... through the antiquities smuggling scheme .... The Southeast Asian antiquities smuggled into the United States ... were bundled and sold for approximately $1,500. The[] $1,500 ‘package’ typically included antiquities from Ban Chiang, Thailand, false sales invoices to reflect an earlier sales date, along with a fraudulently inflated $5,000 appraisal that contained a fraudulent expert's signature.”

Prosecutors called the defendants' conduct a “complete contempt for this Nation's rule of law," spotlighting "Carolyn Markell's discussion of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") Burmese sanctions with the undercover agent ('UC') in this case":

During that discussion, she told the UC that she had been extremely worried about the last shipment of antiquities that she and Jonathan Markell had brought into the United States from Thailand in September 2006—which had included 7 Burmese statues. She related to the UC that the President of the United States had prohibited entry of any Burmese items into the country, and that she had lost sleep worrying that their import shipment would be intercepted by United States Customs authorities. She told the UC that she did not care about being dishonest, but that she didn’t want to get caught.

Jonathan Markell, meanwhile, “brought up a Los Angeles Daily News article about an individual that had been prosecuted for a tax evasion scheme involving antiquities and a museum," according to prosecutors. "Jonathan Markell laughed about the article, and then asked the UC if he thought that he (Jonathan Markell) was going to jail (for the tax evasion scheme). Jonathan Markell told the UC that the person who had been caught must have done something pretty stupid, and that the government was not going to look at any donation under $10,000.”

The tax scheme relied on the couples’ assumptions that customs officials would overlook mislabeled illegal shipments and that museums and collectors would fail to conduct the due diligence necessary to verify the archaeological objects’ legitimate collecting histories.

Antiquities mostly from Thailand's Ban Chiang World Heritage site were used to fuel the fraud, according to recitals found in the plea agreement, which described how Jonathan Markell “solicited co-conspirators to buy a 'charitable donation package' that included one or more Ban Chiang antiquities to be donated to a charitable institution.” Then “Silk Roads Design Gallery prepared false appraisals for donations of these antiquities to charitable institutions, such as museums and universities using another person’s name.” Jonathan Markell thereafter “contacted charitable institutions to get them to accept his, defendant Carolyn Markell’s, and his co-conspirators donations.” Specifically, prosecutors alleged:

“On or about December 26, 2003, CAROLYN MARKELL sent an email to a museum representative regarding the provenance of donated items as being a purchase in 1984.
Defendant CAROLYN MARKELL determined that she and defendant JONATHAN MARKELL would purchase items to be donated from a certain co-conspirator. Between an unknown date and January 2008, although defendant JONATHAN MARKELL knew that the seller of a donated item could not appraise the item for tax purposes, he prepared appraisals that falsely inflated the value of donation items he sold as part of a "donation package" he sold to co-conspirators. … In or about April 2007, defendant JONATHAN MARKELL advised an unindicted co-conspirator to change the listed purchase date on a museum donation form because it needed to appear that the co-conspirator had held the item for years, namely, ten years, to take the inflated value as a tax deduction. On or about March 10, 2006, defendant CAROLYN MARKELL contacted a museum curator to discuss the museum's policies and requirements. On or about June 14, 2006, defendant JONATHAN MARKELL solicited a Thailand museum curator's electronic signature which he fraudulently inserted on appraisals of items to be donated that he had prepared. ... On or about March 27, 2007, defendant JONATHAN MARKELL electronically mailed a request to the museum curator in Thailand to sign forms to support co-conspirators' charitable donation tax deductions and to sign six to eight blank forms in blue, to support fraudulently future donations. On or about December 13, 2007, JONATHAN and CAROLYN MARKELL delivered donations to a museum on behalf of a client. Around December 2007, defendant JONATHAN MARKELL donated Ban Chiang antiquities to a museum on behalf of co-conspirators, charging them $3,450 for the items and appraisals to support an $11,425 charitable donation income tax deduction.

Meanwhile, from 2004 through 2007, the Markells regularly donated Ban Chiang artifacts to an unidentified museum(s) and took a charitable tax deduction, “knowing the items had been stolen from the country of Thailand.”

In their steady march toward convictions and incarceration, the U.S. Attorney's Office tapped into its experience with wildlife trafficking cases—an instructive parallel to antiquities trafficking cases. Prosecutors wrote in a sentencing pleading dated Dec 3, 2015:

There are two types of archeological resource looters: (1) the looter that digs up and collects artifacts as a hobby for his or her own personal collection; and (2) the looter that digs up artifacts for the purpose of selling them to brokers or gallery operators. As with the protection of threatened and endangered wildlife species, the key to protecting and conserving archeological resources is to eliminate markets for illicit/looted antiquities. Without the existence of brokers, middlemen, and gallery owners who are willing to knowingly and intentionally profit from sales of parts and products of threatened or endangered wildlife species or looted archeological resources, there is little monetary incentive for wildlife poachers or archeological resource looters to engage in their nefarious trades.

One might be tempted to think that the archeological resource looter squatting in the deep mud and steaming jungle highlands of Ban Chiang, Thailand is primarily to blame for the devastation of pristine archeological sites and the information lost thereby—just as one might be tempted to lay the bulk of the blame for the loss of the last Northern White Rhinoceros at the feet of the poacher who killed it; but that line of thinking is incorrect. It is individuals such as Jonathan Markell ... the importers, the buyers, and the gallery owners who purchase and acquire such archeological resources or wildlife products for profitable resale who are primarily to blame for the underlying devastation. For these are the individuals who create the markets that create the monetary incentives that drive the poachers and looters into the fields.

The government's lawyers thereby laid the groundwork to argue for a prison term, “to reflect that seriousness and to promote respect for the law and to provide just punishment for the offense."

Meanwhile, they made the important point that “[a]rcheological resources are non-renewable. The looting of archeological resources causes widespread destruction of archeological sites and results in the loss of archeological information which would be gleaned from a properly excavated site."

They informed the court as well about the enormous impact of cultural plundering on the Thai people. “Many villages throughout Southeast Asia have been deprived of the opportunity to grow an economy based on archeological tourism because their heritage and archeological resources have been devastated by looting activity to supply to the purveyors of 'stolen time,' such as defendant Jonathan Markell."

Prosecutors poignantly added, "Criminal conduct, like that committed by defendant Jonathan Markell in this case, serves to deprive individuals from other countries of their own distinctive histories and heritages—in essence stealing not just their antiquities, but their 'time and history."

Two witnesses reinforced these arguments when they testified this week at the sentencing hearing. One witness was the NPS agent who investigated the case, and the other was archaeologist Dr. Joyce White, director of the Ban Chiang Project housed at the University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Dr. White analyzed more than 10,000 artifacts, mostly from Thailand, which police obtained through Operation Antiquity, the code name used by NPS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations, and IRS Criminal Investigation for the Museum Raids investigation.

In a court Declaration, Dr. White made clear that antiquities exported from Thailand generally require a permit from the Thai Fine Arts Department. But, remarkably, she only saw one or two samples of antiquities where a permit actually had been obtained despite the thousands of samples examined.

Dr. White also noted that most of the artifacts were found intact, indicating that they had been illegally dug-up. “Intact artifacts are rare in archaeological sites and tend to come from human burials,” which would require “large scale excavations.”

The prison term and felony convictions imposed by Judge Pregerson this week are hoped to decrease the incentive to industrially excavate overseas archaeological sites overseas and to deter smuggling of contraband cultural property into the American marketplace.

More details about the cases can be found on Jason Felch's Chasing Aphrodite blog and at Trafficking Culture.

Photo credits: William Schenold and Kiwiodyse

Text copyrighted 2015 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, art law, cultural heritage policy, 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 service of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

The Museum Raids Cases Revisited: Recalling the Southeast Asian Artifacts Seized and the Dealers Indicted

The recent repatriations of Cambodian cultural objects by Sotheby's, Christie's, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Norton Simon Museum have once again drawn  public attention to at-risk Cambodian heritage. It has also reminded CHL of the ongoing California court cases involving Southeast Asian cultural objects.

Six years ago, dramatic police raids on several museums sparked criminal prosecutions that now quietly crawl through the justice system. The silence in the years following the initial government-generated publicity should be no surprise given that authorities were dealt a blow when one of the arrested suspects, a scholar, died in federal custody in May 2008 after jail officials failed to respond to the inmate's health emergency.

The museum raids occurred on a morning in January 2008 when a troop of officers outfitted with agency alphabet jackets entered the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Bowers Museum, the Pacific Asia Museum, and the Mingei Museum. The goal of the raids was to "seize in place" cultural objects identified in court authorized search warrants. The media covered the event and were permitted access to the contents of the warrant affidavits.

A five-year undercover investigation prompted the law enforcement sweep, but seemingly little happened afterwards, prompting the Los Angeles Times last year to write, "No museum officials or collectors involved in the Southern California probe have been indicted, and no seized objects have been returned to their countries."

Earlier this year, however, a federal district court unsealed the cases of U.S. v. Jonathan Markell and U.S. v. Robert Olson after the U.S. Attorney"s Office for the Central District of California made an ex parte request to the court. The government's legal petition disclosed that a grand jury indicted both defendants on August 15, 2008. The petition explained that the criminal charge should be unsealed "for the purpose of formally initiating the prosecution of this case."

The unsealed indictment reveals that antiquities dealers Markell and Olson were charged with one count of conspiracy to "knowingly enter and introduce into the commerce of the United States imported merchandise, namely, Burmese and  Khmer antiquities, by means of materiallyfalse declarations and statements" and three counts of false statements concerning the entry of goods into the U.S.

It should be recalled that an indictment is simply a formal process that initiates a criminal proceeding. Defendants who are charged are always presumed innocent unless prosecutors prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That should remain the presumption here.

In 2010, a grand jury handed up a seven count indictment against Jonathan Markell and his wife, Carolyn Markell, both owners of an antiquities gallery. The court unsealed the charging document in June 2011 at prosecutors' request. The indictment alleges conspiracy to defraud, subscribing to false income tax return, wire fraud, and aiding and abetting. The most recent court summons schedules the defendants for a hearing in the matter later this month. 

A grand jury in indicted Olson once again in 2013, along with alleged exporter and co-conspirator Marc Pettibone. The indictment alleges conspiracy, aiding and abetting, smuggling, and receiving and transferring stolen property.

Because the 2008 Markell/Olson indictment has now been unsealed, we know its claims. The charging document reads that Markell and Olson allegedly would:

 ... travel to Thailand to purchase Burmese and Khmer antiquities, including marble, wooden, bronze, and lacquer Buddhas and Khmer bronze bells, that were over 100 years old ("the antiquities"). 

... cause the purchased Buddhas to be described on purchase invoices and packing lists as "sitting man" or "reclining man" to conceal their true nature and character.

... cause the purchased Khmer bronze bells to be described on purchase invoices and packing lists as "bell," "bell 12th," "bronze bell," and "stand (bell)" to conceal their true nature and character.  

... cause the antiquities to be listed on purchase invoices at 25% of their true purchase price.  

... provide to a customs broker the purchase invoices and packing lists containing false statements describing the antiquities.  

... cause a customs broker, relying upon the purchase invoices and packing lists containing false statements, to prepare an Entry Summary and associated import documents that also contained similar false statements regarding the antiquities. 

... cause a customs broker to file the Entry Summary and associated invoices, packing lists, and other shipping documents, that falsely described the antiquities, to be filed with the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, at the time of importation.

Meanwhile, the 2010 indictment against Jonathan and Carolyn Markell charge them both with a "donations package" plan whereby "falsely inflated" appraisal values would be secured for cultural objects donated to museums. The indictment reads, in part:

Beginning on a date unknown and continuing to at least in or about January 2008 ... [the] defendants and other unindicted co-conspirators, conspired and agreed with each other to knowingly and intentionally defraudthe United States, for the purpose of  impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful Government functions of the Internal Revenue Service ... by promoting and   participating in  a  false charitable deduction scheme for the purpose of improperly claimingcharitable deductions on Federal incometax returns ....

The 2013 Olson/Pettibone indictment alleges that Pettibone purchased archaeological artifacts looted by diggers in Thailand and Cambodia, bribed Thai customs officials and filled out false paperwork to export the objects, affixed "made in Thailand" stickers to make ancient artifacts appear modern, and shipped both Thai and Cambodian archaeological material to Olson. It is alleged that Olson, in turn, stored the goods in warehouses located in California and then sold the merchandise in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The charging document points to alleged violations of the federal National Stolen Property Act--predicated upon ownership interests maintained by Thai and Cambodian title vesting laws--and to a claimed smuggling conspiracy that allegedly skirted the Cultural Property Implementation Act's import restrictions meant to outlaw endangered Cambodian archaeological material from entering the U.S. marketplace.

One fact sequence contained in the Olson/Pettibone indictment recites allegations focused on artifacts from Cambodia. These assertions, naturally, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution:

On or about November 6, 2005, defendant OLSON sent money to defendant PETTIBONE for the purchase of swords and daggers looted from Cambodia. 

On or about November 10, 2005, defendant OLSON received a shipment from defendant PETTIBONE in Thailand containing six metal swords and two metal daggers.

On or about November 10, 2005, defendant OLSON told the UCA [an undercover federal agent] that he had just received six swords and two daggers from a site in Cambodia. Defendant OLSON described the swords and daggers as being "pre-Khmer" and  dating from 1,000 A.D. Defendant OLSON further told the UCA that he had the swords and daggers classified on United States Customs documents as "metal sticks," and defendant OLSON offered to sell the swords and daggers to the UCA. 

On or about November 16, 2005, defendant OLSON offered to sell the UCA the Cambodian swords and daggers received from defendant PETTIBONE on or about November 10, 2005. Defendant OLSON also told the UCA that an additional shipment of swords had been delayed because the shipper needed to avoid a new team of Thai Customs officials. 

On or about November 17, 2005, defendant OLSON met the UCA at defendant OLSON'S storage lockers in Cerritos, California. During their meeting, defendant OLSON showed the UCA the six swords and two daggers shipped from Thailand by defendant PETTIBONE, and defendant OLSON told the UCA he had purchased the antiques from defendant PETTIBONE.

The indictment indicates that descriptions of "gifts," "metal sticks," and "samples" were allegedly written on customs forms to mask the true contents of the shipments.

Of particular importance to this 2013 indictment is a forfeiture request. The government asks the court to forfeit “any and all property seized by law enforcement officers on or about January 24, 2008." The warrant returns, which are the receipts listing all the objects the police seized, remain unavailable online. But it is known from the original warrant affidavits that many cultural objects were identified for seizure. Twenty-one objects were listed for the Mingei Museum, for example, including Ban Chiang pottery and Khmer objects.

A trial date has been set for January 27, 2015 in the cases of U.S. v. Olson and U.S. v. Pettibone as lawyers continue to pore over volumes of discovery material, including 150 CDs and 19,000 digital files.

The U.S. Attorney's environmental crimes unit is spearheading the prosecution of the case.

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