Replies

In 2011, a federal jury in Philadelphia sided with the government, allowing the Mint to keep the coins. The government had argued that the coins were products of a crime—either stolen or otherwise concealed after they left the Mint illegally. A judge upheld the verdict in 2012. But the appeals court overturned the lower court, ruling that the government missed a 90-day filing deadline set up under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.

A question for the attorneys out there. Doesn't the first ruling establish that the U. S. Mint is the rightful owner of the coins? Did the appeal overturn this adjudicated fact?

The second ruling seems to be a technical ruling which bars the government from using the Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act as a basis for the return of the coins. That wouldn't bar the use of the other statutes to force the return of the coins. Right? Alternatively, couldn't the federal government just wait until the coins were sold to another party, then sue the other party under CAFRA (this time doing the paperwork right)? I would think that an investor would think long and hard before buying the coins with such a clouded title - at a minimum, it looks like years of litigation with a real possibility of seizure.

I'm not as sympathetic to these people as I was to those who found the coins in California. It looks like these people had possession of $80 million of coins that didn't belong to them. In the former case, the previous ownership of the coins couldn't be established, here it sounds like it was.

Great questions. I would also like to know if it matters that the jeweler had an expert knowledge in rare coins and probably knew they were stolen and intended to fence them off a later date as opposed to a layperson person who may have accidentally found them or inherited them as in this case.

It looks like these people had possession of $80 million of coins that didn't belong to them.

It looks like these people had possession of about 10 ounces troy of gold that didn't belong to them.

There is NO guarantee that if the ten 1933 double eagles had been in the custody of the government, that they wouldn't have been melted down for bullion.

If the gruberment was entirely fair, it would have offered the Langbord woman some significant amount of "consideration" for the maintenance of these pieces in a safe place, in pristine condition.

Instead, the gruberment tried to steal them back. It's kind of like the property tax on a home that you've completely paid for.

You pay the insurance, you pay for maintenance and upkeep, you pay for the utilities to keep the place warm/cool/mold free, and liveable, you own the place free and clear, and the gruberment is standing there waiting for you to fail to pay a couple hundred bucks of the King's Rent, so it can sell "its property" and get its 200 bucks - be damned to you.