@RogerB said:
ALL counterfeit coins are illegal as are the tools, materials and equipment used to make them. There are no exceptions in U.S. law, other than compliance with the Hobby Protection Act. [Must be an echo in here....]
This is very simple, very clear stuff.
You are confusing production with possession. The relevant criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. 485 and 18 U.S.C. 490 unambiguously and explicitly state that a criminal offense results when possession occurs "with an intent to defraud...". The civil Hobby Protection Act does not speak to possession but to manufacturing, importation, sale, or other distribution in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. 2101.
Nope. Check case law and interpretation of Federal & State statutes. Mere creation of anything in the "likeness or similitude" of a coin is a priori intent to defraud.
There are no exceptions.
Rather than continuing all the ignorant bluster, hire an experienced criminal lawyer or prosecutor with expertise in counterfeiting cases. Ask he or she your questions.
@RogerB said:
Nope. Check case law and interpretation of Federal & State statutes. Mere creation of anything in the "likeness or similitude" of a coin is a priori intent to defraud.
There are no exceptions.
I have, and the case law is uniform. Making a counterfeit or possessing the dies and other equipment is criminal regardless of intent. Yes. That’s what you are referencing. Simple possession of a counterfeit coin, without fraudulent intent, is not illegal. Remember that SCOTUS has already held that there can be no federal common law crimes and that federal crimes must be explicitly codified by Congress. In the absence of a statute specifically making simple possession illegal, no crime has been committed.
Here is what the statute says:
18 U.S.C. 485
"Whoever...possesses... any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with the intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person... [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned...."
(18 U.S.C. 490 applies to minor coinage and has the same language). Courts cannot and will not ignore the language in bold.
As for the civil statutes (e.g. HPA), none of them that I can find address simple possession.
Application:
Someone makes a counterfeit coin. Irrespective of intent, the person has committed a federal crime.
Johnny B inherits a counterfeit from his grandmother’s collection and decides to keep it. Johnny isn’t a felon and isn’t going to Leavenworth.
@RogerB said:
Nope. Check case law and interpretation of Federal & State statutes. Mere creation of anything in the "likeness or similitude" of a coin is a priori intent to defraud.
There are no exceptions.
Rather than continuing all the ignorant bluster, hire an experienced criminal lawyer or prosecutor with expertise in counterfeiting cases. Ask he or she your questions.
@RogerB said:
Nope. Check case law and interpretation of Federal & State statutes. Mere creation of anything in the "likeness or similitude" of a coin is a priori intent to defraud.
There are no exceptions.
Rather than continuing all the ignorant bluster, hire an experienced criminal lawyer or prosecutor with expertise in counterfeiting cases. Ask he or she your questions.
So this includes Henning 1944 Nickels?
Francis Leroy Henning went to jail for counterfeiting for creating the Henning nickels....
I have had additional discussions with the Counterfeit Task Force and it appears they have now gained the attention of the Secret Service in regards to the growing issue of counterfeit "coins", so there may well be more clarification coming.
@burfle23 said:
I have had additional discussions with the Counterfeit Task Force and it appears they have now gained the attention of the Secret Service in regards to the growing issue of counterfeit "coins", so there may well be more clarification coming.
Hopefully the SS will not get too zealous.
PS Every time I see you posting I am hopeful to see a new c/f you've found.
I don't think he is a cop....Even @Acop is NOT a cop I think......
However....what exactly the "wink wink" counterfeit coins you are referring to? Just say it please....
Are those from DC the "wink wink" are about?
@Gluggo said:
" Why is it legal to own counterfeit U.S. coins? "
Are you a cop?
Who knows what coins you own to begin with?
How can it be Illegal if people have NO idea what coins you do own? Especially here on this board, why would you even admit to owning an " Illegal " anything online. After all what you type is a permanent record that can and could be used against you in a court of law or coin board.
My first question is are you a cop? Just saying don't take this post personal just saying thats all.
@burfle23 said:
I have had additional discussions with the Counterfeit Task Force and it appears they have now gained the attention of the Secret Service in regards to the growing issue of counterfeit "coins", so there may well be more clarification coming.
Hopefully the SS will not get too zealous.
Not sure; apparently the CTF has driven it up the food chain within the Secret Service and they are now attentive. Previously if you tried to make contact about coins the standard response was that the focus was paper money, not coinage.
Had the opportunity to discuss the Law with a Secret Service Agent in DC on Monday and he was very clear; owning counterfeit US coins is against the Law in the eyes of the Secret Service, period; their charge is oversight on securing the US financial system. But, there has to be without a doubt proof of CRIMINAL INTENT to prosecute, and using them to show and educate "wanders outside of the scope" and “there is no criminal intent with education”.
@burfle23 said:
Had the opportunity to discuss the Law with a Secret Service Agent in DC on Monday and he was very clear; owning counterfeit US coins is against the Law in the eyes of the Secret Service, period; their charge is oversight on securing the US financial system. But, there has to be without a doubt proof of CRIMINAL INTENT to prosecute, and using them to show and educate "wanders outside of the scope" and “there is no criminal intent with education”.
This is one of the most important posts I have read in along time!
@burfle23 said:
Had the opportunity to discuss the Law with a Secret Service Agent in DC on Monday and he was very clear; owning counterfeit US coins is against the Law in the eyes of the Secret Service, period; their charge is oversight on securing the US financial system. But, there has to be without a doubt proof of CRIMINAL INTENT to prosecute, and using them to show and educate "wanders outside of the scope" and “there is no criminal intent with education”.
This is one of the most important posts I have read in along time!
I agree. @burfle23 has done all of us a service. LOL...here it comes...But....
Let me remind everyone that we are dealing with the government. Ever hear of all the IRS opinions on the same question or ask a policeman about a driving question and get different answers. this is the opinion of one Agent. Hopefully it is the "Official" government opinion at this time. AFAIK, this situation has not changed in decades as the SS had real problems with counterfeit paper money. Collector's coins were on the back burner except in a few rare cases. However, we should agree how fast things can change if the "wrong" folks decide to change the policy.
I don't disagree, BUT it is illegal to own them; the "discussion" becomes whether the SS would prosecute an individual caught with them, and prosecution requires proving criminal intent (as well as proving the coin is counterfeit- that created another discussion!). By the way, the Secret Service has a number of open coin cases in process, so they are looking beyond paper currency.
The Counterfeit Task Force is actually trying to get language changes in the law to accommodate owning with the intent to educate, with the Secret Service Agent agreeing education of the hobby, law enforcement and CBP is the best approach to help stop the issue of counterfeits in our marketplace.
All good points. I agree that none of this is legal advice, and that the enforcement situation could turn on a dime due to an overzealous prosecutor, etc. etc.
But, I see this information as part of the complex tapestry, which is still being woven.
The Counterfeit Task Force is actually trying to get language changes in the law to accommodate owning with the intent to educate, with the Secret Service Agent agreeing education of the hobby, law enforcement and CBP is the best approach to help stop the issue of counterfeits in our marketplace.
So, the title of this thread in my opinion should read It is Illegal to own Counterfeit US Coins...
This doesn't make sense. What is there to change exactly? The criminal statutes do not speak to simple possession without the requisite intent to defraud. The Hobby Protection Act says nothing about simple possession. There is nothing legally forcing the Secret Service to seize an educational display (assuming you accept his premise to begin with). Law enforcement, prosecutors, and other executive officers are given enormous discretion in execution of these laws anyway.
@Insider2 said:
Hopefully it is the "Official" government opinion at this time. AFAIK, this situation has not changed in decades as the SS had real problems with counterfeit paper money. Collector's coins were on the back burner except in a few rare cases. However, we should agree how fast things can change if the "wrong" folks decide to change the policy.
The statements of a single secret service agent do not constitute an official government opinion in the absence of binding case law, statute, administrative regulations, or executive guidance (e.g. US Attorney Manual, etc.). With that said, I find his statements interesting.
@Insider2 said:
Hopefully it is the "Official" government opinion at this time. AFAIK, this situation has not changed in decades as the SS had real problems with counterfeit paper money. Collector's coins were on the back burner except in a few rare cases. However, we should agree how fast things can change if the "wrong" folks decide to change the policy.
The statements of a single secret service agent do not constitute an official government opinion in the absence of binding case law, statute, administrative regulations, or executive guidance (e.g. US Attorney Manual, etc.). With that said, I find his statements interesting and could only wish that the government would adopt such an expansive view of federal counterfeiting and forfeiture law. There are far too many entities that have tried to play cute games with the law (unsuccessfully) that deserve to be investigated if not outright prosecuted in my opinion. And of course this goes beyond possession but the manufacturing of contraband and dissemination into interstate commerce. Let's hope @burfle23 sent this agent a few links of some of the threads here and on other coin forums. I like this agent's spunk and zeal.
Hopefully, this is all under the radar so let's hope he did not!!!
I think the issue with the code as written is the opportunity to have a collection seized regardless of the “intent” and then being forced to defend yourself. The “enormous discretion in execution of these laws” you speak of likely does result in inconsistencies in application from one official/ case, and who would want to take that risk?
The agent we met with in DC made it clear he did not want to be forced to act as a result of being shown a counterfeit example and we agreed none of us wanted to be put in that position.
That's the EXACT attitude I remember. A while back I related that the Director of the ANACS in DC left the office to examine a 1964 peace dollar so as not to jeopardize the organization. I'm fairly certain he examined a 1974 Aluminum cent in the same way. Perks of his position. I never got to see either coin. Best I could do was to keep an Extremely High Relief on my person for most of the day while I visited a consultant. The submitter had no idea what he had. The lady (a relative of a Mint official) showed him several HR coins to buy. He chose the EXHR knowing that the thing was either something special or it was a counterfeit because he didn't know what it was. I had never seen one before either.
Well, as I said, stir the pot and this is the result! THANKS to all for your efforts!
Technically, the government could confiscate the entire ANA teaching set and don't tell me it can't hap[pen. My advice to all those involved in trying to protect the ignorant and greedy from crude fakes (the reason the Hobby Protection Act was passed by the "do-gooders" in the first place), is to drop out of any further discussion and to only seek a legislative remedy through the Numismatists in the Congress. When the time comes to promote a vote on legislation the entire numismatic community should shut down the phone lines on Capitol Hill!
The reason the Authentication Service was established in the first place was to take care of this problem and at that time there was extremely little government interference.
@burfle23 said:
One last comment about TPG's and counterfeits- ICG actually offers a service to encapsulate counterfeits in their new "Not Genuine" holders; these are useful in counterfeit detection classes where examples are passed around through many hands.
I think counterfeits are important for this very reason, education. Examples of what NOT to buy are just as important as examples of what you should buy.
Having a use for a machine gun doesn't make it legal to possess. So, I think it is moot that you find them useful. It would be useful and education for me to have my chemistry students test samples of cocaine to analyze them for composition and impurities, but that argument won't hold up in court when I'm arrested with possession.
ANA has a waiver for their reference collection making them legal. That waiver does not apply to every individual in the country.
So, the question remains: legal or illegal?
IMO, you may wish to confine your examples to something you claim to know about. In this case, chemistry rather than the ability to lawfully own a machine gun. The example of testing the quality of cocaine is good. Perhaps one of your students may end up in a crime lab.
I'm interested in the ANA waiver you mention. Please tell us more about it! When did they get this waiver? Perhaps the Secret Service was unaware of it or the ANA got the waiver after an altered coin was confiscated from ANACS in the early 70's.
Back around 2003 or so, while at the ANA, I was told the ANA had 'permission' to own their counterfeit coins. However, nobody could find any documentation and as a result, we just figured it was another ANA myth. Since we wanted the counterfeit coins to travel for educational purposes, I organized a meeting with the Secret Service at ANA headquarters for them to review the counterfeit collection and provide us documentation that 'authorized' the ANA to take the counterfeits across state lines [yes, that's what the Secret Service would authorize, they would not 'authorize' ownership]. There was no talk of a 'waiver' or 'permission' to own the coins, but rather that they would not be confiscated if 'caught' by a government representative during interstate transport.
When the two agents visited, they approached the meeting as if the ANA had counterfeits that may be used in commerce. Their tone quickly changed when they saw the 'rare coin' counterfeits and not a collecting of counterfeit notes or 'modern coins' that were circulating. It turned out to be a fun meeting of exchanging stories and educating the agents.
What should have been a fairly easy authorization letter, got bogged down in bureaucracy and from supervisory people in the Secret Service changing positions and having to restart the process several times. For months I would ask the Executive Director to follow up with the Service, but nothing seemed to be moving forward. I do not know if such a letter was ever received by the ANA. However, when I traveled with the counterfeit collection, I also had the business cards of three Secret Service agents who would vouch for ANA being allowed to travel with the counterfeit collection. I was never questioned about the coins, so it was never an issue.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Nice to know. Up until the ANA left DC, we traveled all over with fakes visited Secret Service, had agents visit us for help in cases because we authenticated the coins immediately rather than SS waiting for months to get the results from Treasury authenticators. At the time both agencies were jealous of each other and did not play well together.
We were told how much help we were and reduced the authentication backlog at both places. We immediately notified Mint authenticators of all the new fakes we detected and we were told in all the years in DC there was not one disagreement with our findings.
"The Secret Service takes the position that it is illegal for anyone to knowingly... have possession of counterfeit coins."
I would ask them what statute they would charge any would be defendant under. As written above, it is not an accurate statement of law. Simple possession, without intent to defraud, is not included as an offense under 18 U.S.C. 485 or the other statutes in the same chapter.
On the other hand, it is nice to know that law enforcement is finally taking these statutes seriously and interpreting them aggressively. I hope they aggressively prosecute all defendants that can be reached, both foreign and domestic. I hope they continue to target those importing pieces from China.
Liberty Dollars produced and distributed by Bernard Von Nothaus were seized by the Secret Service from Nothaus and numerous individuals that had them on deposit. Von Nothaus was subsequently convicted of "counterfeiting" in regards to the production and distribution of Liberty Dollars.
However, the judge in the original Liberty Dollars case later ruled that the coins themselves were NOT "contraband" and they should be returned to their owners.
So although the court verdict deemed the Liberty Dollars to be "counterfeits", the Secret Service went to the significant effort to track and return the "counterfeit" coins to their numerous owners.
@RogerB said:
ALL counterfeit coins are illegal as are the tools, materials and equipment used to make them. There are no exceptions in U.S. law, other than compliance with the Hobby Protection Act. [Must be an echo in here....]
This is very simple, very clear stuff.
So if it's Prince Albert in my meerschaum, the pipe is not drug paraphernalia, but ...….
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@burfle23 said:
It is clear in my mind and in the Law as I read it that knowingly selling counterfeits of denominations higher than five cents of actual legal tender coins (not ones demonetized) with intent to defraud is illegal; unfortunately there is grey in the wording which is where lawyers play, but certainly not me.
Section 490 deals with "minor coins" (one to five cents), but again focuses on "with intent to defraud any person".
In addition, the Hobby Protection Act concerns "replicas" manufactured after it was instituted in 1973, apparently making many contemporary counterfeits and electrotypes OK without the word "COPY" prominently inscribed. Unfortunately there are many Gallery Mint examples with the word removed and the surfaces "weathered" and sold as genuine, which is clearly illegal in my humble opinion...
I recently discoved an aucion websire that seems to feature a strange number of old cool looking pitted 1793 Chain Cents. These Coins are raw and they sell for good money. You got to wonder about this type of enterprise. Wouldn't think of bidding....... ever.
@derryb said:
No court in the U.S. has ever ruled that possession of counterfeits of collectable coins is illegal. What's more, at least two circuit courts have ruled that possession of counterfeit coins without intent to defraud doesn't violate the section of the U.S. Code on counterfeiting U.S. coins. See United States v. Cardillo, 708 F.2d 29 [1983], and United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 169 [1972.
My guess is that if there were a law against owning a counterfeit, it would have been mentioned here.
And we all know that if there’s no law against something, it’s legal, right?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Comments
To answer the question:
Because no US statute outlaws the possession of counterfeit coin, so long as there is no intent to defraud.
You are confusing production with possession. The relevant criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. 485 and 18 U.S.C. 490 unambiguously and explicitly state that a criminal offense results when possession occurs "with an intent to defraud...". The civil Hobby Protection Act does not speak to possession but to manufacturing, importation, sale, or other distribution in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. 2101.
Nope. Check case law and interpretation of Federal & State statutes. Mere creation of anything in the "likeness or similitude" of a coin is a priori intent to defraud.
There are no exceptions.
Rather than continuing all the ignorant bluster, hire an experienced criminal lawyer or prosecutor with expertise in counterfeiting cases. Ask he or she your questions.
I have, and the case law is uniform. Making a counterfeit or possessing the dies and other equipment is criminal regardless of intent. Yes. That’s what you are referencing. Simple possession of a counterfeit coin, without fraudulent intent, is not illegal. Remember that SCOTUS has already held that there can be no federal common law crimes and that federal crimes must be explicitly codified by Congress. In the absence of a statute specifically making simple possession illegal, no crime has been committed.
Here is what the statute says:
18 U.S.C. 485
"Whoever...possesses... any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with the intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person... [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned...."
(18 U.S.C. 490 applies to minor coinage and has the same language). Courts cannot and will not ignore the language in bold.
As for the civil statutes (e.g. HPA), none of them that I can find address simple possession.
Application:
Someone makes a counterfeit coin. Irrespective of intent, the person has committed a federal crime.
Johnny B inherits a counterfeit from his grandmother’s collection and decides to keep it. Johnny isn’t a felon and isn’t going to Leavenworth.
So this includes Henning 1944 Nickels?
Francis Leroy Henning went to jail for counterfeiting for creating the Henning nickels....
I don't think there is any a priori intent to defraud with these Smithsonian-sponsored issues:
I hate it when someone proves a point with examples.
I have had additional discussions with the Counterfeit Task Force and it appears they have now gained the attention of the Secret Service in regards to the growing issue of counterfeit "coins", so there may well be more clarification coming.
Hopefully the SS will not get too zealous.
PS Every time I see you posting I am hopeful to see a new c/f you've found.
I don't think he is a cop....Even @Acop is NOT a cop I think......
However....what exactly the "wink wink" counterfeit coins you are referring to? Just say it please....
Are those from DC the "wink wink" are about?
Im not a police officer no.
Clearly, you're an Air Conditioner operator.
We prefer the term operateur...OR maybe I am an Amateur Classical Opera Protagonist
Not sure; apparently the CTF has driven it up the food chain within the Secret Service and they are now attentive. Previously if you tried to make contact about coins the standard response was that the focus was paper money, not coinage.
Had the opportunity to discuss the Law with a Secret Service Agent in DC on Monday and he was very clear; owning counterfeit US coins is against the Law in the eyes of the Secret Service, period; their charge is oversight on securing the US financial system. But, there has to be without a doubt proof of CRIMINAL INTENT to prosecute, and using them to show and educate "wanders outside of the scope" and “there is no criminal intent with education”.
This is one of the most important posts I have read in along time!
I agree. @burfle23 has done all of us a service. LOL...here it comes...But....
Let me remind everyone that we are dealing with the government. Ever hear of all the IRS opinions on the same question or ask a policeman about a driving question and get different answers. this is the opinion of one Agent. Hopefully it is the "Official" government opinion at this time. AFAIK, this situation has not changed in decades as the SS had real problems with counterfeit paper money. Collector's coins were on the back burner except in a few rare cases. However, we should agree how fast things can change if the "wrong" folks decide to change the policy.
I don't disagree, BUT it is illegal to own them; the "discussion" becomes whether the SS would prosecute an individual caught with them, and prosecution requires proving criminal intent (as well as proving the coin is counterfeit- that created another discussion!). By the way, the Secret Service has a number of open coin cases in process, so they are looking beyond paper currency.
The Counterfeit Task Force is actually trying to get language changes in the law to accommodate owning with the intent to educate, with the Secret Service Agent agreeing education of the hobby, law enforcement and CBP is the best approach to help stop the issue of counterfeits in our marketplace.
One would hope that, beyond "educational" purposes, there would be an opening for "historically significant".
I know....that would be difficult to define and interpret. SOMEONE will claim that Chinese counterfeits form 2016 are significant.
But some counterfeits are just interesting from a historical perspective, as long as they are TREATED as counterfeits by the market and collectors.
All good points. I agree that none of this is legal advice, and that the enforcement situation could turn on a dime due to an overzealous prosecutor, etc. etc.
But, I see this information as part of the complex tapestry, which is still being woven.
This doesn't make sense. What is there to change exactly? The criminal statutes do not speak to simple possession without the requisite intent to defraud. The Hobby Protection Act says nothing about simple possession. There is nothing legally forcing the Secret Service to seize an educational display (assuming you accept his premise to begin with). Law enforcement, prosecutors, and other executive officers are given enormous discretion in execution of these laws anyway.
The statements of a single secret service agent do not constitute an official government opinion in the absence of binding case law, statute, administrative regulations, or executive guidance (e.g. US Attorney Manual, etc.). With that said, I find his statements interesting.
Edited to keep this on topic.
Hopefully, this is all under the radar so let's hope he did not!!!
I think the issue with the code as written is the opportunity to have a collection seized regardless of the “intent” and then being forced to defend yourself. The “enormous discretion in execution of these laws” you speak of likely does result in inconsistencies in application from one official/ case, and who would want to take that risk?
The agent we met with in DC made it clear he did not want to be forced to act as a result of being shown a counterfeit example and we agreed none of us wanted to be put in that position.
That's the EXACT attitude I remember. A while back I related that the Director of the ANACS in DC left the office to examine a 1964 peace dollar so as not to jeopardize the organization. I'm fairly certain he examined a 1974 Aluminum cent in the same way. Perks of his position. I never got to see either coin.
Best I could do was to keep an Extremely High Relief on my person for most of the day while I visited a consultant. The submitter had no idea what he had. The lady (a relative of a Mint official) showed him several HR coins to buy. He chose the EXHR knowing that the thing was either something special or it was a counterfeit because he didn't know what it was. I had never seen one before either.
Posted notes from the ACTF meeting:
Well, as I said, stir the pot and this is the result! THANKS to all for your efforts!
Technically, the government could confiscate the entire ANA teaching set and don't tell me it can't hap[pen. My advice to all those involved in trying to protect the ignorant and greedy from crude fakes (the reason the Hobby Protection Act was passed by the "do-gooders" in the first place), is to drop out of any further discussion and to only seek a legislative remedy through the Numismatists in the Congress. When the time comes to promote a vote on legislation the entire numismatic community should shut down the phone lines on Capitol Hill!
The reason the Authentication Service was established in the first place was to take care of this problem and at that time there was extremely little government interference.
Back around 2003 or so, while at the ANA, I was told the ANA had 'permission' to own their counterfeit coins. However, nobody could find any documentation and as a result, we just figured it was another ANA myth. Since we wanted the counterfeit coins to travel for educational purposes, I organized a meeting with the Secret Service at ANA headquarters for them to review the counterfeit collection and provide us documentation that 'authorized' the ANA to take the counterfeits across state lines [yes, that's what the Secret Service would authorize, they would not 'authorize' ownership]. There was no talk of a 'waiver' or 'permission' to own the coins, but rather that they would not be confiscated if 'caught' by a government representative during interstate transport.
When the two agents visited, they approached the meeting as if the ANA had counterfeits that may be used in commerce. Their tone quickly changed when they saw the 'rare coin' counterfeits and not a collecting of counterfeit notes or 'modern coins' that were circulating. It turned out to be a fun meeting of exchanging stories and educating the agents.
What should have been a fairly easy authorization letter, got bogged down in bureaucracy and from supervisory people in the Secret Service changing positions and having to restart the process several times. For months I would ask the Executive Director to follow up with the Service, but nothing seemed to be moving forward. I do not know if such a letter was ever received by the ANA. However, when I traveled with the counterfeit collection, I also had the business cards of three Secret Service agents who would vouch for ANA being allowed to travel with the counterfeit collection. I was never questioned about the coins, so it was never an issue.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Nice to know. Up until the ANA left DC, we traveled all over with fakes visited Secret Service, had agents visit us for help in cases because we authenticated the coins immediately rather than SS waiting for months to get the results from Treasury authenticators. At the time both agencies were jealous of each other and did not play well together.
We were told how much help we were and reduced the authentication backlog at both places. We immediately notified Mint authenticators of all the new fakes we detected and we were told in all the years in DC there was not one disagreement with our findings.
"The Secret Service takes the position that it is illegal for anyone to knowingly... have possession of counterfeit coins."
I would ask them what statute they would charge any would be defendant under. As written above, it is not an accurate statement of law. Simple possession, without intent to defraud, is not included as an offense under 18 U.S.C. 485 or the other statutes in the same chapter.
On the other hand, it is nice to know that law enforcement is finally taking these statutes seriously and interpreting them aggressively. I hope they aggressively prosecute all defendants that can be reached, both foreign and domestic. I hope they continue to target those importing pieces from China.
You are welcome.
Talked at length with a Texas CBP Agent on Friday- they are taking the issue of distribution within the US seriously as well.
It's only legal for ebay to fence them.
Liberty Dollars produced and distributed by Bernard Von Nothaus were seized by the Secret Service from Nothaus and numerous individuals that had them on deposit. Von Nothaus was subsequently convicted of "counterfeiting" in regards to the production and distribution of Liberty Dollars.
However, the judge in the original Liberty Dollars case later ruled that the coins themselves were NOT "contraband" and they should be returned to their owners.
So although the court verdict deemed the Liberty Dollars to be "counterfeits", the Secret Service went to the significant effort to track and return the "counterfeit" coins to their numerous owners.
So if it's Prince Albert in my meerschaum, the pipe is not drug paraphernalia, but ...….
I recently discoved an aucion websire that seems to feature a strange number of old cool looking pitted 1793 Chain Cents. These Coins are raw and they sell for good money. You got to wonder about this type of enterprise. Wouldn't think of bidding....... ever.
My guess is that if there were a law against owning a counterfeit, it would have been mentioned here.
And we all know that if there’s no law against something, it’s legal, right?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Yes, by definition (in the United States, anyway).
No victim, no crime?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry