Posted on 08/25/2005 9:52:28 AM PDT by LibWhacker
PHILADELPHIA - The U.S. Mint seized 10 Double Eagle gold coins from 1933, among the rarest and most valuable coins in the world, that were turned in by a jeweler seeking to determine their authenticity.
Joan S. Langbord plans a federal court lawsuit to try to recover them, her attorney, Barry H. Berke, said Wednesday. Langbord found the coins among the possessions of her father, longtime Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt, who had acknowledged having sold some of the coins decades ago. She now operates her father's business.
David Lebryk, acting director of the Mint, had announced in a news release that the rare coins, which were never put in circulation, had been taken from the Mint "in an unlawful manner" in the mid-1930's and now were "recovered."
The coins, which are so rare that their value is almost beyond calculation, are public property, he said.
But Berke said Mint officials couldn't prove the coins had been stolen, or were subject to forfeiture.
In 2002, Sotheby's and numismatic firm Stack's auctioned off a 1933 Double Eagle coin for $7.59 million, the highest price ever paid for a coin. That Double Eagle, which is believed to have been part of a collection belonging to King Farouk of Egypt, surfaced when a coin dealer tried selling it to undercover Secret Service agents.
After a legal battle, the dealer was permitted to sell the coin at auction on the condition he split the proceeds with the Mint.
In its statement, the Mint said officials were still deciding what they would do with the seized coins, which are being held at Fort Knox. They said they had no plans to auction them but would consider saving "these historical artifacts" for public exhibits. Other double eagle coins seized in the past were melted down.
Double Eagles were first minted in 1850 with a face value of $20. The 445,500 coins minted in 1933 were never put into circulation because the nation went off the gold standard. All the coins were ordered melted down, but a handful are believed to have survived, including two handed over to the Smithsonian Institution.
Langbord declined to discuss how the coins might have come into the possession of her father, who operated an antiques and jewelry shop for 70 years and died in 1990 at 95.
The Mint contends Switt obtained a cache of the gold coins from his connections at the Mint just before they were to be reduced to bullion in 1937.
Switt admitted in 1944 that he had sold nine Double Eagle coins, but he was not charged in connection with those transactions, according to the Mint.
The family attorney said the coins were found recently, and Langbord and her son, Roy, notified the Mint of the discovery in September. Mint officials asked to authenticate the coins, then confiscated them after doing so, Berke said.
He contended Langbord and her son never relinquished their right to the coins.
Perhaps the 'owners' of these uncirculated coins should have incorporated as a church.
If a cop lets you off with a warning, he is under no legal obligation to give you one again.
I hope she wins in court, and it is pathetic that she has to sue to get HER property back from the thieves who stole it.
Yes, it was a theft . . . by this woman's father and some Mint employee in the '30s. And the Mint did get their (our) property back from the thieves who stole it.
But in the case of the NFA War Trophy we at least have the possible means to secure some justice, if we can pass H.R. 2088!
Details available on Thomas.org and http://www.nfaoa.org
75 million
This is a little different than a traffic ticket.
I don't know if this woman and her son were aware of the deal struck with King Farouk, (I would presume on something like this they would do some level of research before saying, "Look what I found.") But the disparity between splitting proceeds with him and seizing coins from them is astounding. Also, they were clearly aware that their father sold some of the coins without charges being filed.
That's a lot.
These coins were never put into circulation. That means they are stolen property.
They weren't the legal property of the family.
Confiscate means to sieze private property for the government. These coins were never private property.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the information.
So if the courts decide that the government is the rightful owner of the coins I assume they will do the right thing and dutifully melt them into bullion!?! Yeah, right.
Like the fact that the U.S. Mint likely never had Farouk's coin in its possession? Like the fact that the settlement was a result of a legal battle?
As for the father selling some previously . . . totally irrelevant, from a legal point of view.
Yes. I do recall reading many years ago about speculation as to how many 1933 double eagles were "out there". I don't recall that any specific number of coins was known to have been stolen. This article implies there are more. So this incident ought to provide a good lesson to anyone holding one or more of these things. I am sure that if one ever comes up for sale again no one will hear of it but the buyer, seller and maybe one or two middle-men.
This woman's father was guilty of receiving stolen goods and the mint was correct in its action.
Actually, it's unclear whether the king or the coin dealer was in possession of that single coin. (Not that it matters.)
What's the difference now?
The government has not relinquished its rights to these 10 coins (there hasn't yet been a "legal battle" such as the one that resulted in that sale). If Langbord can hire the right lawyers, she might have a chance.
Again, if these 10 were originally obtained illegally, I'm thinking seizure is justified. If your lawyers can negotiate a deal, more power to you (and money to them, obviously).
Shouldn't the government have to prove in a court of law that the coins were obtained illegally?
Supposedly... but the burden of proof is on the Government here. They've already admitted that they can't prove it.
That should be the end of the story. Assuming we all still want to pretend that we live in a country ruled by Law.
Jack-booted government thugs bump.
Yeah, but it's still a good sentiment.
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.