Roman, Byzantine and Other Conflict Antiquities from Syria

Antiquities from several Syrian cultural eras continue to appear on the art market. Since the last blog post describing this problem, Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International produced the above May 17, 2013 report (not in English). It describes the arrest of one Lebanese and three Syrian nationals by Lebanese General Security for trafficking Byzantine, Roman and Aramaic artifacts stolen from Syrian churches and cemeteries.

Foreign Policy on May 8, 2013 similarly tells how the Syrian civil war has led to a "bull market for antiquities dealers and thieves."

American buyers should remain vigilant about purchases that have no collecting history or have suspicious provenance.

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Government Petitions to Dismiss Charges in Korean Currency Case

Prosecutors in Detroit, Michigan on Friday moved to dismiss the receiving and transporting stolen property charges against Wong Young Youn.  Earlier this year it was reported that the defendant was cooperating with authorities in the Korean currency plate case as officials pursued similar charges against Midwest Auction Galleries owner James Amato. Now U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade (right) seeks to dismiss Youn's case without prejudice.

A defendant is presumed innocent unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Police arrested the pair for their alleged role in the possession and sale of a an 1893 Hojo currency plate, claimed by prosecutors to be stolen from Korea and to be one of only three plates in existence. The government has not yet cited the legal authority that supports Korea's ownership of the plate. Details of the two year investigation can be found in a prior January 2013 blog post.

Prosecutors write in last weeks' court filing that they require additional time to prepare the case in order

(1) to develop and obtain evidence sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;  

(2) to investigate the full extent of the offense(s) in question and identify all other individuals who should be held criminally responsible for the offense(s); or 

(3) to decide whether criminal prosecution of defendant for the offense(s) in question is in the public interest.

The dismissal of Youn's case would leave Amato as the only one charged in the pending in the case. A dismissal without prejudice, nevertheless, would allow the government to reinstate criminal charges against Youn at a future date.

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

U.S. Attorney Files Complaint to Forfeit Peruvian Artifacts Seized at Miami International Airport

Federal prosecutors in Miami on Friday filed a complaint to forfeit ancient artifacts from Peru. The office of U.S. Attorney Wilfredo Ferrer (right) alleges that Peruvian citizen Jean Combe Fritz transported 29 banned heritage objects on a flight to Miami International Airport on August 21, 2010. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detained the items following a secondary examination of Combe's luggage that revealed "ancient indigenous artifacts."

The court pleading cites a violation of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). The CPIA is the federal law that implements the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Under the terms of the CPIA's Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the U.S. and Peru, designated cultural heritage materials from Peru are restricted from America's shores unless authorized.

The U.S. Attorney's verified complaint recites that Dr. Carol Damien Ferrer, Pre-Columbian art expert at Florida International University, concluded that the cultural objects were the kind of archaeological and ethnological material covered by the MoU. Luis Chang, Minister Counselor of the Embassy of Peru, also confirmed that the MoU covered the detained items.

Ferrer's office subsequently filed a forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asserting:

the United States has a reasonable basis to believe: that the defendant artifacts were produced by indigenous tribal people in Peru during the Pre-Columbian period, or in the Colonial period; that they are important to the cultural heritage of the Peruvian people; that they are designated Pre-Columbian and Colonial  textiles, metals, lithics, and perishable remains as listed in 19 C.F.R. 12.104(g) and are thus subject to export control by Peru.

The Defendant Artifacts were imported into the United States without any certification from Peru that the exportation of the artifacts from Peru was lawful under Peruvian law, as required by the CPIA, 19 U.S.C. § 2606(a).

The objects seized by CBP include a Moche bone carving (left), a 12 piece Inca burial bundle, an Early Horizon/Chavin stone carving, a Moche copper and bronze spatula, a Nazca mantle, and a Chimu weave fragment.


This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

"Claimants Deny Knowledge," Affirmative Defenses Raised in Sotheby's Cambodian Sculpture Case

"Claimants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in ... the Verified Complaint." That is the refrain found in 23 paragraphs of answers filed by Sotheby's and Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa in the case of United States of America v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture.

In reply to the government's amended forfeiture complaint--first proposed in November 2012 and filed with the Manhattan federal district court in April 2013--the claimants' May 6 pleading denies knowledge that the Duryodhana statute was stolen. The claimants say that Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa and her husband purchased the statue "in good faith and for a fair price" in 1975, explaining

Sotheby's arranged importation of the Statue from Belgium to the United States and that prior to doing so, Sotheby's obtained documented provenance (in the form of a 1975 invoice from an auction house that speaks for itself and to whose contents Claimants refer the Court) establishing that the Statue had been sold in London in 1975, a time when Cambodia had enacted no clear and unambiguous laws declaring itself the owner of all antiquities in Cambodia.

U.S. authorities seek title to the Duryodhana sculpture in order to repatriate it to Cambodia. Prosecutors allege that the cultural object is from the Prasat Chen temple at Koh Ker, and that it's feet remain in Cambodia. Despite efforts by the claimants to dismiss the case, the court refused their request on March 29.

Several affirmative defenses are raised in the claimants' latest pleading. They include the defenses of failure to state a claim, an innocent owner defense, laches and a second time-based defense, estoppel, Fifth Amendment due process, desuetude (lapse of a law because of lack of enforcement), and adverse possession. Other affirmative defenses raised seek to attack the French Colonial decrees on which the prosecution's current amended complaint relies. The claimants claim that the relevant colonial laws in effect in Cambodia did not provide fair notice of Cambodia's ownership to the statue, were "not drafted with sufficient clarity to survive translation into terms understandable by and binding upon American citizens," are not laws that have not been enforced, and never vested ownership of the statue in Cambodia.

Hat tip: Gary Nurkin

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

It's Time to Talk About Repatriation Options for the Private Collector

Last weeks' decision by the Metropolitan Museum of Art to repatriate two 10th century Khmer statues to Cambodia prompted a thoughtful response from Professor Patty Gerstenblith that focuses on the important matter of private collectors and repatriation.

In an opinion letter published by The New York Times, the director of the Center for Art, Museum and Cultural Heritage Law at DePaul University College of Law writes, "The Met is leading the way, along with other museums ... in deciding that restitution accompanied by cultural property agreements establishes mutually beneficial relationships that allow the world’s cultural heritage to be shared with the American public in ways that ensure the objects’ authenticity and impart knowledge as well as beauty."

Prof. Gerstenblith pointedly adds, "While public institutions can benefit from these agreements, it is less clear that the private collector can do so. The challenge now is to create incentives for private restitution that can produce comparable mutual benefits."

Creating safe and easy repatriation options for private collectors who discover that they are in possession looted, stolen, or smuggled cultural property is an important matter for discussion. No mechanism currently exists that smoothly facilitates the repatriation of contraband cultural heritage without exposing innocent collectors or good faith purchasers to potential legal and financial risks. There is no equivalent "Gun Buy Back Program" or "National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day" for archaeological, paleontological, ethnological or other cultural heritage items. That is why a conversation among policymakers, archaeologists, collectors, dealers, auction houses, and other stakeholders needs to take place.

Photo credit: Gytizzz

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com