The US currency laws are baroque and strange in places; there is legal and historical precedent for certain types of currency that the public cannot legally own (gold notes, as an example).

This reminds me so much of the idiocy surrounding attempts at recovery of WWII airplanes...

There's been several instances of people finding planes in good condition - usually sunk ones - but deciding not to raise and restore what would then be priceless museum pieces because the US Air Force stated it would seize any such planes since they were its property.

Face value, of course. Legaly, coins are worth face value, nothing more and nothing less.

The trick is, of course, to not let the government know. That was Ms. Langbord's mistake. The Man can take what The Man doesn't know about.

Unfortunatly, few salvage operations have sufficently skilled shadow accountants to pull that kind of deception off. Considering the whole Enron deal, it really shoulnd't be hard to find an out of work CPA who is willing and able to cook the books.

You're missing the point. Since the coins were never in issued into circulation to begin with, they are not and never were legal tender. A few thousand were struck in the early 1930s (33 or 34, if I recall correctly), and then American was moved off the gold standard and onto fiat in an attempt to stave off some of the trade problems during the depression. As a result, the gold double eagle coins were supposed to have been melted down, and most were— except, of course, for the ones now in question. Had they been issued, the mint would have no (legal) avenue for seizing the coins, but as they were never issued, they are arguing that the coins were taken illegally and are US government property.

Of course, they're arguing after seizing the coins without charges and without a warrant, so you can see this has some people a little worried. Expect a court case soon.

Perfect, at least that way we know there won't be any meaningful resistance.

That's how the government works. Seize first, sort out the details later. The IRS is particularly good at it.

~J

As far as I know, it wouldn't apply in this case. The woman isn't being charged with theft; there are no criminal charges, and so no statute of limitations.

It's also almost certainly not illegal seizure in the sense of the Fourth Amendment. The Mint asked to see them to authenticate them, and the woman agreed. In other words, she willingly surrendered possession (if not ownership) of the coins. Judges have ruled on many occasions that tricking someone into surrendering evidence is a legal way for law enforcement to get its hands on evidence; I'm sure this will be considered just a logical extension of that doctrine.

What she's going to have to do in the end is show that she has legal title to the coins, which is not an easy thing to do given that the coins were clearly obtained illegally at some point in the chain of possession. More than likely, she'll end up having to split the proceeds with the Mint like the last guy.

The correct way for this woman to have handled the situation would have been to export the coins to a third party country like perhaps Switzerland that has a stable government and would have been highly unlikely to honor a US demand to return the coins.

This is going to be a stealth mission so we'll need assualt cannons.

It is theft by fraud plain and simple. She was under the impression that they would be returned to her. The mint had no intention of returning them. If I was the DA in the county where this incident took place I would file criminal charges agaisnt the Secretary of the Treasury and all officers involved with the incident.

It's not theft if you're "stealing" back your own property, which is the Mint's position.

The question here is how many years after property is stolen can the receiver of the property consider it (legally) their own?

If you steal my grandmother's diamond ring today, can you claim it as your own legal property 75 years down the road? What about the person you sold it to? What about the grandchild of that person?

Keep in mind that a lot of this is going to depend upon whether the Mint took appropriate and regular actions to recover the stolen goods, and whether the owner knew the good was stolen. It's hard for me to address the first, as I don't know all the things they've done, but one of the clear questions used by the courts is whether they publicized the thefts. They did.

And in the second case, the current owner had to know the coin was stolen -- or had to know as soon as she discovered its value. EVERYONE who might be able to assess the value of this coin knows that they're stolen property. It is *only* because they were stolen that they are available.

The case, either way, is very dangerous for both sides. On the one hand, the Mint is going to have a hard time showing that for 70+ years, they've taken appropriate actions to recover the coins. On the other, there's no contest as to whether or not the owner knew the coin was stolen. She's in the business, and her father (who she inherited it from) was in the business. There's no way they can reasonably argue that they didn't know that the coins were stolen. It's their business to know.

Expect to see a settlement. Both are in a bad position. On the one hand, if the Mint loses, they can forget about any other outstanding coins. If the Mint wins, then the current "owner" doesn't see a dime. They'll split the difference like they did in the last case.

(Oh, and for what it's worth, after doing some research, it doesn't appear as if the time limit on the statute of limitations starts ticking until the location of the object is identified -- so it probably has *not* expired.)

In most jurisdictions it is theft to illegaly recover stolen property. There are procedures that one has to go through and paperwork that one has to file. If the treasury agents responisble for the seizure did not do this then they are criminals.

Of course, requiring federal law enforcement to follow state regulations is akin to requring federal banks to pay state taxes and the charges will probably be dismissed on these grounds. It does make for good publicity anyway.

If a law enforcement agency asks to see something, you voluntarily hand it over, then says, "That's stolen property. I'll be returning it to the rightful owner." Is that legal? Before you answer that, keep in mind that the US Mint is (in part) a law enforcement agency.

(I think it's pretty well settled that such an action is completely legal.)

It depends on the jurisdiction. Some require that the "owner" of stolen goods compensate the current possessor so long as that possessor had not commited a crime in recieving them.

I never said that the charges would stick. That would stop a half-decent DA from getting an indictiment and making the press. As a wise person once said, a half-decent DA can indict a sandwitch.

Cmon. Receiving stolen and/or illegal goods is definately a crime. In the case of her father, he dealt in coins on a regular basis, and so professionally had to know that they were stolen goods. Even if he didn't, from March/April 1933-1974, possession of any gold coin was illegal -- and he was convicted of it on at least one occassion. He knew.

As to the daughter, she's in the trade. She runs the same jewelry shop her father ran. Again, professionally she had to know. Just about everyone in the industry knows, and *anyone* seeking to evaluate its value would find out in the process.

Both of them received stolen goods and knew (or should have known, which is just as important with respect to the civil side of things, which will determine ownership if the criminal side doesn't).

Not since "The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878"...technically....anyway... there has been some erosion of that act in the past 20 years...

Dont forget victory cabbage and liberty fries.

Hey, I'll bash the French as much as I damn well please, but the fried potato sticks are French fries.

Cause Big Brother is watching. Damm voyeurs...