Options
Feds say family has no rightful claim to 1933 double eagles
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
PHILADELPHIA -- A family that asked the U.S. Mint to authenticate 10 extremely rare coins cannot prove they were obtained legally and has no right to them, government lawyers argue in court papers.
The gold coins, 1933 "double eagles" that were never circulated, could be worth millions of dollars apiece. A comparable one sold for $7.59 million in 2002 -- the highest price ever paid for a coin.
Plaintiffs Joan S. Langbord and her two sons say they discovered the cache in 2003 in a safety deposit box belonging to her late father, Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt.
They approached the Mint the next year and agreed to turn them over to be authenticated, the Langbords say. But the Mint -- after vouching for them -- refuses to return them on grounds they were stolen U.S. property.
"Plaintiffs fail ... to plead any fact to support their implication that Switt legally obtained the 1933 Double Eagles," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joel M. Sweet wrote in the brief filed Friday. "(That) supports a reasonable inference that Switt obtained the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1933 Double Eagles knowing that they were stolen property."
Langbord, 76, still works at her father's store on Jeweler's Row, a few blocks from the Mint. She was out of the country Tuesday and could not be reached for comment, a business partner said.
In her December 2006 suit, she and sons Roy Langbord of New York City and David Langbord of Virginia Beach, Va., ask for the return of the coins or a settlement of up to $40 million.
At a minimum, they say, they deserve a trial over the alleged seizure.
Prosecutors argue there was no forfeiture involved because the Langbords never had rightful ownership in the first place.
"A thief cannot convey good title to stolen property," Sweet wrote.
More than 445,000 of the gold double eagles were minted in 1933, but they were melted into gold bars after President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard.
In 1944, the Secret Service traced 10 separate double eagle coins that had surfaced to Switt. He acknowledged selling nine of the coins but said he did not recall how he had gotten them.
"Every single one of the 1933 Double Eagles traced back to Israel Switt," prosecutors said.
Switt was not prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out. However, he was convicted of violating the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 in a separate case, and had his license to deal scrap gold -- which involved him with the Mint on occasion -- revoked.
Prosecutors also argue in their brief that someone other than Switt stashed the coins in the bank deposit box. The Wachovia Bank box was rented in 1996, six years after Switt died, they said.
And the family did not list the coins or pay taxes on them when his will was executed, they said.
Roy Langbord, an entertainment lawyer in New York, referred questions to the family's lawyer. His brother did not immediately return messages.
"We strongly disagree with the government's positions, and we're looking forward to making our arguments to the court," said family lawyer Eric Tirschwell.
Double eagles, first struck in 1850, are so named because they had a face value of $20, twice the amount of gold coins known as eagles.
Two of the 1933 coins, which feature a flying eagle on one side and a figure representing liberty on the other, were permitted to be spared from the melting pot and are at the Smithsonian Institution, but a handful of others also mysteriously survived.
The coins at the center of the lawsuit were briefly displayed last year for an American Numismatic Association's convention in Denver. They have been secured at the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Ky.
The gold coins, 1933 "double eagles" that were never circulated, could be worth millions of dollars apiece. A comparable one sold for $7.59 million in 2002 -- the highest price ever paid for a coin.
Plaintiffs Joan S. Langbord and her two sons say they discovered the cache in 2003 in a safety deposit box belonging to her late father, Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt.
They approached the Mint the next year and agreed to turn them over to be authenticated, the Langbords say. But the Mint -- after vouching for them -- refuses to return them on grounds they were stolen U.S. property.
"Plaintiffs fail ... to plead any fact to support their implication that Switt legally obtained the 1933 Double Eagles," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joel M. Sweet wrote in the brief filed Friday. "(That) supports a reasonable inference that Switt obtained the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1933 Double Eagles knowing that they were stolen property."
Langbord, 76, still works at her father's store on Jeweler's Row, a few blocks from the Mint. She was out of the country Tuesday and could not be reached for comment, a business partner said.
In her December 2006 suit, she and sons Roy Langbord of New York City and David Langbord of Virginia Beach, Va., ask for the return of the coins or a settlement of up to $40 million.
At a minimum, they say, they deserve a trial over the alleged seizure.
Prosecutors argue there was no forfeiture involved because the Langbords never had rightful ownership in the first place.
"A thief cannot convey good title to stolen property," Sweet wrote.
More than 445,000 of the gold double eagles were minted in 1933, but they were melted into gold bars after President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard.
In 1944, the Secret Service traced 10 separate double eagle coins that had surfaced to Switt. He acknowledged selling nine of the coins but said he did not recall how he had gotten them.
"Every single one of the 1933 Double Eagles traced back to Israel Switt," prosecutors said.
Switt was not prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out. However, he was convicted of violating the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 in a separate case, and had his license to deal scrap gold -- which involved him with the Mint on occasion -- revoked.
Prosecutors also argue in their brief that someone other than Switt stashed the coins in the bank deposit box. The Wachovia Bank box was rented in 1996, six years after Switt died, they said.
And the family did not list the coins or pay taxes on them when his will was executed, they said.
Roy Langbord, an entertainment lawyer in New York, referred questions to the family's lawyer. His brother did not immediately return messages.
"We strongly disagree with the government's positions, and we're looking forward to making our arguments to the court," said family lawyer Eric Tirschwell.
Double eagles, first struck in 1850, are so named because they had a face value of $20, twice the amount of gold coins known as eagles.
Two of the 1933 coins, which feature a flying eagle on one side and a figure representing liberty on the other, were permitted to be spared from the melting pot and are at the Smithsonian Institution, but a handful of others also mysteriously survived.
The coins at the center of the lawsuit were briefly displayed last year for an American Numismatic Association's convention in Denver. They have been secured at the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Ky.
0
Comments
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Link? Or how about at least attribution so you're not violating copyright - again.
Russ, NCNE >>
OK, I admit, I made the whole news story up.
<< <i>"Plaintiffs fail ... to plead any fact to support their implication that Switt legally obtained the 1933 Double Eagles," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joel M. Sweet wrote in the brief filed Friday. "(That) supports a reasonable inference that Switt obtained the 1933 Double Eagles knowing that they were stolen property." >>
So the burden of proof is on the plaintiff? Guilty until proven innocent...cool concept.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
<< <i>"Plaintiffs fail ... to plead any fact to support their implication that Switt legally obtained the 1933 Double Eagles," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joel M. Sweet wrote in the brief filed Friday. "(That) supports a reasonable inference that Switt obtained the 1933 Double Eagles knowing that they were stolen property." >>
So the burden of proof is on the plaintiff? Guilty until proven innocent...cool concept. >>
Nothing new here!
i couldnt agree more
<< <i>I would think the government would have to prove that there is no way that the coins could have left the mint other than by theft. We all know that the mint can't control much of what they do. How could the family ever prove rightful ownership? I can't provide rightful ownership of the coins in my pocket. Doesn't mean they aren't mine. >>
The coins in your pocket were released from the mint and thus are legal to own. Those 1933s were never released. They just "somehow" showed up and nobody knows how they got there.
At least thats the way I understand it.
<< <i>The way I see it, the Langbord families don't have much of a case. They need to show some type of proof of ownership other than possession. >>
The burden of proof is on the defendant?
im thinking at least 1,933 times..
<< <i>"A thief cannot convey good title to stolen property," >>
And the passage of time changes nothing about their stolen status.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Link? Or how about at least attribution so you're not violating copyright - again.
Russ, NCNE >>
Stubborn about that, isn't he? But he's OUR stubborn, arrogant little copyright violator
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
The unlawful owners made the right choice in turning them over as it is clear they are or never were intended to be released to the public. Sadly, someone paid 7.9 million for a coin that apparently is illegal to own and the Secret Service ought to be knocking on that door, too. The LAW is the the law.
Says the Feds.
<< <i>I would think the government would have to prove that there is no way that the coins could have left the mint other than by theft. >>
Bingo.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
<< <i>I would think the government would have to prove that there is no way that the coins could have left the mint other than by theft. We all know that the mint can't control much of what they do. How could the family ever prove rightful ownership? I can't provide rightful ownership of the coins in my pocket. Doesn't mean they aren't mine. >>
The coins in your pocket were released from the mint and thus are legal to own. Those 1933s were never released. They just "somehow" showed up and nobody knows how they got there.
At least thats the way I understand it. >>
The coins were obviously minted. Who's to say they didn't get out before they were "recalled"? On top of that, they've agreed that at least one coin was legal to own. If one is legal, why can't others be legal? You can't say it was ok for one coin to get out, but no others without some documentation from 1933 that only one coin was released.
he wasn't charged with stealing then, how can the coins suddenly turn into stolen property?
<< <i>
<< <i>The way I see it, the Langbord families don't have much of a case. They need to show some type of proof of ownership other than possession. >>
The burden of proof is on the defendant? >>
Actually, they're the plaintiff in this case Ziggy, but my original point still stands. The government says these are illegal to own. As I recall, there was a time window through which these coins could possibly have legally left the mint. It seems to me that the burden of proof would be on the government to prove they were stolen, not the other way around.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would think the government would have to prove that there is no way that the coins could have left the mint other than by theft. We all know that the mint can't control much of what they do. How could the family ever prove rightful ownership? I can't provide rightful ownership of the coins in my pocket. Doesn't mean they aren't mine. >>
The coins in your pocket were released from the mint and thus are legal to own. Those 1933s were never released. They just "somehow" showed up and nobody knows how they got there.
At least thats the way I understand it. >>
The coins were obviously minted. Who's to say they didn't get out before they were "recalled"? On top of that, they've agreed that at least one coin was legal to own. If one is legal, why can't others be legal? You can't say it was ok for one coin to get out, but no others without some documentation from 1933 that only one coin was released. >>
AMEN !
<< <i>They just happen to have in their possession something that the gov't. says and (I think) can prove belongs to the citizens of the USA. >>
If the government can prove it, great. And if they prove it, confiscate the coins.
I think what some of us find a little unsettling is that the government is attempting a "because we said so" argument as to why to coins are stolen property without providing any evidence in a court of law. If the government can prove it conclusively, they have nothing to fear by taking it to court and proving it, right?
This is different than a stolen car which can be reported stolen and identified uniquely by a VIN. Unless the government can prove that every single 1933 Saint left the Mint illegally, no single piece can be positively identified as stolen property. It's not like they put unique serial numbers on the coins and "registered" them to the new owners when people plunked $20 on the counter for a new gold double eagle.
<< <i>Sadly, someone paid 7.9 million for a coin that apparently is illegal to own and the Secret Service ought to be knocking on that door, too. The LAW is the the law.
Says the Feds. >>
The government bestowed clear title to that coin for a kickback.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>The fed would have a better case if they had prosecuted Switt for the coins he sold. Since
he wasn't charged with stealing then, how can the coins suddenly turn into stolen property? >>
How could they? 7 years had past, so they could not prosecute anyone for theft. That would leave selling stolen goods which would be tough to prove he knew they were stolen (since no one did until the things started in the 40's)
<< <i>The fed would have a better case if they had prosecuted Switt for the coins he sold. Since
he wasn't charged with stealing then, how can the coins suddenly turn into stolen property? >>
The fact that the statute of limitations for pressing criminal charges for theft may have passed doesn't negate the alleged stolen status of the property.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would think the government would have to prove that there is no way that the coins could have left the mint other than by theft. We all know that the mint can't control much of what they do. How could the family ever prove rightful ownership? I can't provide rightful ownership of the coins in my pocket. Doesn't mean they aren't mine. >>
The coins in your pocket were released from the mint and thus are legal to own. Those 1933s were never released. They just "somehow" showed up and nobody knows how they got there.
At least thats the way I understand it. >>
The coins were obviously minted. Who's to say they didn't get out before they were "recalled"? On top of that, they've agreed that at least one coin was legal to own. If one is legal, why can't others be legal? You can't say it was ok for one coin to get out, but no others without some documentation from 1933 that only one coin was released. >>
OK...This is it for me on this subject. They were never released and were declared illegal to own. I don't have the article in front of me, but I believe the one coin you are thinking of was legally monetised. I believe it had something to do with king Farouk.
<< <i>
<< <i>Link? Or how about at least attribution so you're not violating copyright - again.
Russ, NCNE >>
OK, I admit, I made the whole news story up.
Michigan isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. I wonder if ignorance can be used for breaking copyright law?
<< <i>
<< <i>Sadly, someone paid 7.9 million for a coin that apparently is illegal to own and the Secret Service ought to be knocking on that door, too. The LAW is the the law.
Says the Feds. >>
The government bestowed clear title to that coin for a kickback. >>
That's the biggest sham of all. Let's make one "coin" legal and make some 3 million bucks and deem the rest illegal tender. It's gov't de jour, for the people and by the people, I think not.
Ren
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would think the government would have to prove that there is no way that the coins could have left the mint other than by theft. We all know that the mint can't control much of what they do. How could the family ever prove rightful ownership? I can't provide rightful ownership of the coins in my pocket. Doesn't mean they aren't mine. >>
The coins in your pocket were released from the mint and thus are legal to own. Those 1933s were never released. They just "somehow" showed up and nobody knows how they got there.
At least thats the way I understand it. >>
The coins were obviously minted. Who's to say they didn't get out before they were "recalled"? On top of that, they've agreed that at least one coin was legal to own. If one is legal, why can't others be legal? You can't say it was ok for one coin to get out, but no others without some documentation from 1933 that only one coin was released. >>
OK...This is it for me on this subject. They were never released and were declared illegal to own. I don't have the article in front of me, but I believe the one coin you are thinking of was legally monetised. I believe it had something to do with king Farouk. >>
I think you are right with King Farouk. My point is that if this one coin was able to be released, why not others? Yes, that one was officially monetized, but did was it legally released? I do not think there was any proof that these could not have left the mint prior to the recall. This would be like the mint recalling all 2007 GW Dollars and calling them illegal to own. Some are out in circulation! The mint has made one of these legal to own. You can own it. I can own it. Who's to say that the guy next door doesn't have one. How does the government know who owns the "legal" one and then which one IS the legal one?
BTW, the $7.6M coin was indeed monetized and is perfectly legit. OTOH, why in hell the Switt heirs gave ten non-monetized coins back to the Mint is quite baffling -- I wonder what the story is behind that handover.
"lost" in a car wreck in North Carolina?????
I still don't understand the selection process the gov't uses to determine which fantasy coins are illegal and which are OK. There are PLENTY of coins in collections that appeared under suspicious cicumstances, 1913 nickels being the most famous.
<< <i>I still don't understand the selection process the gov't uses to determine which fantasy coins are illegal and which are OK. There are PLENTY of coins in collections that appeared under suspicious cicumstances, 1913 nickels being the most famous. >>
The argument used by some is that the 1913 nickel and clandestine pieces before them were struck before the Federal Reserve specifically monetized coinage and currency, and thus are subject to different standards. Not sure I buy it, but that's how some justify the double standard.
<< <i>
<< <i>I still don't understand the selection process the gov't uses to determine which fantasy coins are illegal and which are OK. There are PLENTY of coins in collections that appeared under suspicious cicumstances, 1913 nickels being the most famous. >>
The argument used by some is that the 1913 nickel and clandestine pieces before them were struck before the Federal Reserve specifically monetized coinage and currency, and thus are subject to different standards. Not sure I buy it, but that's how some justify the double standard. >>
What is the double standard? There is nothing in the Government's claim regarding the 1933 Saints that apply to a 1913 Nickel.
<< <i>
<< <i>Link? Or how about at least attribution so you're not violating copyright - again.
Russ, NCNE >>
OK, I admit, I made the whole news story up.
Russ is correct Michigan, you really need to link news stories. It's quote annoying, because you could fiddle with them, and we have no way of proving otherwise. This, the copyright issue.
Free Trial
<< <i>What is the double standard? There is nothing in the Government's claim regarding the 1933 Saints that apply to a 1913 Nickel. >>
Using the government's "stolen property" argument and the reasoning behind it, you could certainly make an argument that it could also apply to the 1913 nickel, 1884/85 Trade Dollars, and any number of patterns and "transitional" pieces struck before 1913.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Sadly, someone paid 7.9 million for a coin that apparently is illegal to own and the Secret Service ought to be knocking on that door, too. The LAW is the the law.
Says the Feds. >>
The government bestowed clear title to that coin for a kickback. >>
That's the biggest sham of all. Let's make one "coin" legal and make some 3 million bucks and deem the rest illegal tender. It's gov't de jour, for the people and by the people, I think not.
Ren >>
The one coin was legal because it was proven the government allowed it to be exported.
Free Trial
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Sadly, someone paid 7.9 million for a coin that apparently is illegal to own and the Secret Service ought to be knocking on that door, too. The LAW is the the law.
Says the Feds. >>
The government bestowed clear title to that coin for a kickback. >>
That's the biggest sham of all. Let's make one "coin" legal and make some 3 million bucks and deem the rest illegal tender. It's gov't de jour, for the people and by the people, I think not.
Ren >>
The one coin was legal because it was proven the government allowed it to be exported. >>
If one could escape the mint, so could others.
The article said there was only one that was legal to own in public hands.
The few that were released were either melted or were in top museums like the Smithsonian.
I don't recall seeing it the last 3 times I was there.
1804 dollars, the unique 1849 DE gold, I think an 1894-S dime, etc.
I took slides of all of them and at least have them to look at now.
I don't remember if more than one was ever released to public ownership.
If it was only one, I think it went to a foreign ruler.
That may be the one that sold in 2002.
Sorry I can't be more specific. This is just all I can remember of the top of my head.
Too bad they took all 10 to the feds. I'd have taken one and let them keep it.
The story would have made the others more valuable.
I collect all 20th century series except gold including those series that ended there.
<< <i>1804 dollars, the unique 1849 DE gold, I think an 1894-S dime, etc. >>
The 1894-S dimes were legitimately struck by authority of the Mint. It was rather curious circumstances to strike only 24 of them, and one can question the motive, but they were authorized and listed in the mintage figures.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Sadly, someone paid 7.9 million for a coin that apparently is illegal to own and the Secret Service ought to be knocking on that door, too. The LAW is the the law.
Says the Feds. >>
The government bestowed clear title to that coin for a kickback. >>
That's the biggest sham of all. Let's make one "coin" legal and make some 3 million bucks and deem the rest illegal tender. It's gov't de jour, for the people and by the people, I think not.
Ren >>
The one coin was legal because it was proven the government allowed it to be exported. >>
Correction: The government allowed A coin to be exported. I do not believe that it was ever established that the coin sold several years ago was, in incontrovertible fact, the Farouk coin.
TD
<< <i>If you must send them in send one, not all ten. they tossed $70 Million away, tossed it. >>
If you put ten of them on the market and they somehow became legal to own, they wouldn't be worth $7M a piece any more.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Sadly, someone paid 7.9 million for a coin that apparently is illegal to own and the Secret Service ought to be knocking on that door, too. The LAW is the the law.
Says the Feds. >>
The government bestowed clear title to that coin for a kickback. >>
That's the biggest sham of all. Let's make one "coin" legal and make some 3 million bucks and deem the rest illegal tender. It's gov't de jour, for the people and by the people, I think not.
Ren >>
The one coin was legal because it was proven the government allowed it to be exported. >>
If one could escape the mint, so could others. >>
It left the mint the same way the others did. The difference is someone wrote up an export license for it before they realized none had been legally released.
Swit was selling 1932's with the 1933's. These were very likely stolen as well, but since a few were legally released there is no way to prove which were of the legal kind and which were not. This was not the case of the 33's as none were legally released.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Sadly, someone paid 7.9 million for a coin that apparently is illegal to own and the Secret Service ought to be knocking on that door, too. The LAW is the the law.
Says the Feds. >>
The government bestowed clear title to that coin for a kickback. >>
That's the biggest sham of all. Let's make one "coin" legal and make some 3 million bucks and deem the rest illegal tender. It's gov't de jour, for the people and by the people, I think not.
Ren >>
The one coin was legal because it was proven the government allowed it to be exported. >>
Correction: The government allowed A coin to be exported. I do not believe that it was ever established that the coin sold several years ago was, in incontrovertible fact, the Farouk coin.
TD >>
Furthermore, the exportation of a single Double Eagle occurred in 1944, some time after the event(s) when the 1933-minted "coins" left the mint's possession. The "kickback," btw, was a whopping $20 presented in public ceremony at the time of the single coin's auction in 2002.
<< <i>The "kickback," btw, was a whopping $20 presented in public ceremony at the time of the single coin's auction in 2002. >>
Are you not aware of the deal that was cut?