Perhaps some would like to think stolen property is no longer stolen property if it passes through enough hands and/or outlasts some statute of limitations. Or, maybe it's because these coins are rare and therefore worth a lot. Maybe it's because they originally belonged to the (evil) government.
Very strange.
March 29, 1944
Secret Service interview Ira Reed and James Mcallister in which Mcallister stated he bought 5 coins from Israel Switt (Gold dealer with history of violations of 1934 Gold Reserve Act)
March 30, 1944
Secret Service interview Israel Switt who admitted a one time possession of 9 - 1933 Double Eagles. 5 sold to Mccallister, 2 to Ira Reed and 2 to Abe Kosoff. Switt professed no recollection of his source for the coins but admitted to being a frequent visitor of the Philadelphia Mint.
So we have to give back Manhattan Island?
(The last history I read on the "sale" of Manhattan Island said that the tribe that "sold" the island for a bucket of beads ripped off the colonists -- some *other* tribe actually had possession of the island.)
Or, maybe it's because these coins are rare and therefore worth a lot. Maybe it's because they originally belonged to the (evil) government.
Maybe it's because some sharp lawyer could make a case that since the Mint planned to destroy the coins anyway, someone taking the coins was functionally equivalent to "dumpster diving" (scavenging stuff from someone's trash), which is legal -- the Mint had publicly served notice that, basically, "we don't care to keep possession of these coins anymore". At most, the coins' current owners would owe the Mint a few ounces of melted gold as compensation for the salvage value of the coins. The defendants' position would be, "the Mint wanted raw gold instead of the coins, we're willing to fulfill that exchange for them."
I think the reactions you're seeing on this thread siding with the current holders of the coins is based on the fact that the Mint didn't *want* to keep the coins in the first place. So if someone else who does want them gets them, it's not really a "loss" for the Mint. *Now* the Mint suddenly decides that they'd love to have them...
The analogy is not exact, but it is similar to the case where someone throws out an item, someone else takes it home, then later the original owner tries to reclaim it. That aspect of this case makes it very different from one where the Mint always intended to retain possession of the coins (as coins), and then someone deprived the Mint of possession via robbery. In that latter case, there would be more sympathy for the Mint, and less for the current holders of the coins.
Several people have made comparisons to the Nazi loot, but wouldn't it be a very different case if the Nazis had instead taken confiscated art which the original owners were on the verge of intentionally destroying? The details matter.