CPO’s 2025 Year in Review- Repatriation on Demand Continues as Law of the Land

 The past year was another challenging one for collectors, the trade and museums.  Despite the Trump Administration’s “America First” rhetoric, repatriation on demand as a “soft power” measure pitched as a means to address “past wrongs” remains the default position of the US State Department, law enforcement, and increasingly US Museums. 

US Import Restrictions under the Cultural Property Implementation Act

The Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) authorizes the executive branch to enter into cultural property agreements or CPAs with foreign governments conditioned on specific findings.  In all but emergency situations, these must be specific findings that the cultural heritage of a specific country is in danger, that the country has engaged in “self-help” measures, that any action is being taken in concert with other market nations, that there are no less drastic remedies available, and that the any action is consistent with the interchange of cultural property for scientific and educational purposes.  19 U.S.C. § 2602 (a) (1).  In “emergency” situations, these requirements are relaxed, but the material to be restricted must either be a “newly discovered type” of “importance,” site specific, or there is a "crisis" threatening the record of a particular culture that can be addressed temporarily by import restrictions. Id.  § 2603.  Once a CPA is signed, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) prepares “designated lists” of objects subject to repatriation that are published in the Federal Register.   Id.  § 2604.

Over time, however, the required findings designed to place significant substantive and procedural constraints on executive authority have devolved into a “check the box” exercise, and mission creep has repurposed and vastly expanded the program.  What thus started as a forward looking, focused effort to protect archaeological sites and artifacts of cultural significance abroad has now morphed into a comprehensive program to “claw back” and repatriate most archaeological and ethnological objects made or found in a given country from prehistory to the early 20^th century.   While the number of seizures under the CPIA are impossible to determine because CBP has consistently stonewalled FOIA requests, they probably number in the thousands of objects with far more to come as AI is increasingly used to sift through shipments.

Most significantly for the sheer number of American citizens impacted, restrictions now typically extend to common items like historical coins.  Generally speaking, such coins circulated regionally and internationally as items of commerce in the past and are widely collected today.   Yet, under current enforcement guidelines, CBP  can “assume” that any coins of a type that appears on multiple, overlapping designated lists are subject to detention, seizure and forfeiture.

In contrast, a fair reading of the CPIA instead suggests that there must at least probable cause that “designated material” was “first discovered within and is subject to export control by, the State Party”  and that it was exported after the effective date of any governing regulations before it can be seized, forfeited and repatriated.  Id.  §§ 2601, 2606.  However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an effort at judicial review, holding instead that the issue was a “foreign policy” matter beyond full judicial review.

As a result, import restrictions under the CPIA are not applied solely to illegal exports made after the effective date of regulations under § 2606, but rather are now enforced far more broadly against any import into the US made after the effective date of regulations, i.e., as an embargo, not targeted, prospective import restrictions.  Such enforcement damages legitimate trade, particularly with Europe, because many common artifacts like coins simply lack the documentation necessary to take advantage of a limited “safe harbor” provision for artifacts proven to be outside the country with a CPA before the effective date of any implementing regulations.

Despite significant “disruption” elsewhere, the “soft power” status quo remains alive and well at the Trump State Department when it comes to CPAs and import restrictions on cultural goods. Just in 2025, the Trump II administration implemented Biden era requests for import restrictions on virtually all archaeological and ethnological objects  for India, war-torn Lebanon, and Uzbekistan with renewals being considered for  Taliban Afghanistan, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Italy, Morocco, and Turkey, and new CPAs being considered for Cameroon and Communist Vietnam.

Of particular concern for coin collectors is the expansion of import restrictions to widely collected Roman Imperial coins.  Despite the tiny percentages of such coins found in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Ukraine, the Biden Administration added Roman Imperial coins to “designated lists” for such countries. Moreover, in 2025, the State Department held CPAC hearings to consider renewals of current CPAs with Italy and Turkey, which could be an excuse to expand current import restrictions to include such coins.  

In mid-December, the State Department again renewed its current CPA with Italy, but without any of the past fanfare.  That renewal means that another 5 years of import restrictions must be announced on or before the current ones expire on January 19, 2026.  That makes it likely that the Trump II Administration will at least extend current Obama era import restrictions on ancient Greek, Punic and early Roman Republican era coins as part of the renewal.  What remains uncertain is whether the Trump Administration will continue the Biden Administration’s efforts to place new restrictions on widely collected Roman Imperial coins.  During a State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee hearing in May, CPO and other representatives of collectors and the trade opposed any such move, citing scholarly evidence proving that such coins circulated in quantity from Britain to Sri Lanka, with  less than 6% of the total number of validated Roman Imperial coin hoards comprising almost 7 million coins being found in Italy,  Under the circumstances, it should be impossible for CBP to assume that any  particular Roman Imperial coin was found in and illicitly exported from Italy as of the effective date of any regulations, but it remains to be seen if undisputed scholarly evidence matters  more than “soft power.”

More evidence that the status quo has not changed can be seen in the lack of turnover in the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) and continued State Department funding of archaeological advocacy groups, notably the American Society of Overseas Research (ASOR).    CPAC is an advisory committee that makes recommendations to the Executive Branch about entering into and renewing CPAs.  Its current membership, which is to represent the separate interests of the public, the trade, archaeology and anthropology, and museums, remains completely comprised of Biden appointees. Not surprisingly, based on their interactions with representatives of collectors and the trade at CPAC meetings, most, if not all these Biden political appointees seem to share the Biden State Department’s views that prioritized CPAs and “soft power” over protecting American  collectors and fostering legitimate trade.

State Department funding of ASOR and related archaeological groups is largely directed at conservation programs within countries with CPAs, but part of that funding has also been used to draft reports to help justify more controversial CPAs, like the one with one of the armed factions running Libya.  There is a built-in conflict of interest here because these groups represent archaeologists who can only excavate in these countries with the permission of their governments.  As a result, these groups are reluctant to criticize local corruption and mismanagement or laws that declare state ownership and/or control of most anything “old.”  Nor does the State Department have any incentive to rein in such practices.  The selective “evidence” these groups provide at CPAC hearings helps the State Department bureaucracy “check the box” on the CPIA’s statutory requirements and hence justify further “soft power” CPAs.  

In the past under Biden,  this “collaboration” went so far as to bypass CPAC review and public comment for the renewal of a CPA with a Saudi supported faction in Yemen.  Instead, the new CPA was signed at an “invitation only” event sponsored by the Antiquities Coalition, another advocacy group that has received substantial past State Department funding.  

With the Trump II Administration going into its second year, there remains only a fleeting hope that there will be a major “rethink” of the State Departments prioritizing “soft power” over the private property and due process rights of American collectors. no matter how damaging current import restrictions are to American collectors and lawful cultural exchange, primarily with Europe. 

Threats of Criminal Liability to Force Repatriations

Even more concerning than ever more expansive CPAs are the hard ball tactics of Alvin Bragg’s Manhattan District Attorney’s office (the same office that prosecuted President Trump for falsifying business records).   Matthew Bogdanos, an assistant DA in that office, has gained notoriety by utilizing threats of criminal prosecutions under New York law to “encourage” museums and collectors into “voluntarily” repatriating objects to countries as diverse as Communist China, Italy, Greece, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Libya, and Turkey.   As far as Bragg and Bogdanos are concerned, any object claimed by a foreign country under its own laws will also be treated as “stolen” under New York law even if it left that country decades ago.  The object need not be located in New York today as long as the artifact itself or any transaction related to that artifact, passed through New York at some point in the past.  Furthermore, limitations periods do not apply because each new day of possession a “stolen” object starts the statute of limitations running over again.

Forced repatriations of bronze statues traced to a Roman Imperial era sanctuary in Boubon, Turkey, illustrate some of these issues.  The statues in question apparently were illegally excavated by townspeople and smuggled from Turkey in the 1960s before the 1970 UNESCO Convention provided a legal basis for repatriation.  These statues were openly sold and displayed for decades until archaeological activists gained Bogdanos’ ear after which he demanded that the Cleveland Museum of Art repatriate one of them prominently displayed in its collection.  The Museum initially contested the claim but reconsidered once scholarly evidence suggested that the statue was indeed from Turkey. 

Since then, Bogdanos, with the help of archaeological activists, has been tracking down other statues from the same group.  Most recently, Bogdanos made a claim for another statue from a collector in California.  That collector initially fought the claim by bringing his own case in federal court only to dismiss it and capitulate after being indicted by the Manhattan DA’s office.  Obviously, any rational collector would give up whatever the merit of their own legal arguments given the threat of jail time. 

Once again, the narrative planted in the press only told part of the story.  While the collector apparently capitulated after evidence was disclosed that he knew it was smuggled from Turkey, important questions about the Manhattan DA’s jurisdiction over the object that had been in California for decades remained.  Another important issue here is that while Turkey’s authoritarian government likes to paint itself as a historic “victim,” reality is quite different.  Ottoman Turkey was an Imperial Power that enriched its own palaces with cultural goods taken from its oppressed, foreign subjects.  Moreover, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey of today has similar Imperialist pretentions.  The Turkish government has encouraged looting and destruction of cultural heritage abroad in places like Cyprus and Syria.  It has converted historic churches like Hagia Sophia into mosques.  It has also encouraged treasure hunting in former Christian and Jewish areas.  This should raise a basic question.  Should Turkey really benefit from repatriations of objects removed decades ago and openly displayed since when it has such “unclean hands” today?

Voluntary Repatriations from Museums

The past year was also another banner year for voluntary repatriation from museums.  While such voluntary repatriations may make sense in given circumstances (particularly when they relate to indigenous communities or individual victims), the problem is that returns made on “ethical considerations” to nation states or other governmental powers are all too often based on a selective review of the facts.

Museums are public institutions and Museum Trustees have a duty to retain and preserve the objects in their collections for the public.  After all, most objects in museum collections were donated by private citizens with the expectation that they would be displayed for the American public, not repatriated abroad.

Some years ago, activists with the the Archaeological Institute of America helped convince the Association of Art Museum Directors to adopt new acquisition guidelines.  These state that member museums should not acquire an object unless provenance research substantiates that the work was outside its country of probable modern discovery before 1970 or was legally exported from its probable country of modern discovery after 1970.  At the time, this 1970 date was pitched as a safe harbor for current and future acquisitions.  However, as we have seen,  all that has gone down the Orwellian memory hole as far as the Manhattan DA is concerned.  Moreover, despite the Trump Administration’s “war on woke” at museums, the 1970 Rule has increasingly been replaced with a much more subjective one calling for “ethical returns."  Such ethical considerations are increasingly being applied, particularly where it is alleged that the object in question is the product of “colonial exploitation.” 

Ethics are fine but “provenance research” must tell the whole story, not simply half-truths designed to justify repatriation.  Recent repatriations from the Smithsonian and other Institutions such as the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, of Benin “bronzes” come to mind.  The return of these objects to the Oba, a traditional ruler in Nigeria, has been justified as righting the colonialist wrongs perpetrated during a punitive British colonial military expedition that took the bronzes as war prizes.  What is all too often left unsaid, however, is that the Oba’s own wealth derived from the slave trade and that the bronzes themselves are made up of melted “manilla” currency used to buy and sell slaves.   Shouldn’t that be relevant to repatriation decisions, particularly when it deprives Americans who descended from slaves taken by the Oba of tangible evidence of their own undeniable victimization?

Legislative Initiatives

It is not all gloom and doom, at least for coin collectors.  Last term, Congresswoman Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) introduced a technical correction to the CPIA, H.R. 7865, towards the end of the 118^th Congress in April 2024.  This same bill was reintroduced in the 119^th Congress on January 21, 2025, as H.R. 595. The bill currently has fourteen cosponsors, including ten Republicans and four Democrats, making it bipartisan. 

The legislation’s “safe harbor” language allows for the import of coin types on “designated lists” with evidence the numismatic material was acquired lawfully, is of a known type, and is not the direct product of illicit excavations within a UNESCO State Party after the effective date of any import restrictions on coins. The hope is that the bill will be attached to a larger trade bill that is typically passed each Congress.  However, there is some concern that given the month-long government shutdown, there will be no such legislation this year, and it will be necessary to try to get H.R. 595 reintroduced again next term. 

While H.R. 595 would help protect the legitimate trade in collector’s coins, far more ambitious legislation also is necessary to rein in the State Department and Manhattan DA’s office and protect the due process and private property rights of collectors. 

For Further Reading

For coverage of 2025 CPAs, CPAC hearings and import restrictions Under the CPIA, see the Cultural Property Observer Blog, Blog Archive 2025, available at   https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/ (last visited January 2, 2026).

For a discussion of the ACCG’s past effort to seek judicial review of the decision to impose import restrictions on coins, see An Epic Battle: U.S. v. 3 Knife-Shaped Coins, Cultural Property News (October 15, 2018), available at https://culturalpropertynews.org/an-epic-battle-u-s-v-3-knife-shaped-coins/ (last visited January 2, 2026).

For a discussion of State Department funding of archaeological advocacy groups, see Peter K. Tompa, Careful Collector No. 22-Your Tax Dollars at Work, Cultural Property News (December 28, 2023), available at https://culturalpropertynews.org/careful-collector-no-22-your-tax-dollars-at-work/ (last visited January 2, 2026).

For a FOIA release related to the “invitation only event” to sign a CPA with a Yemeni faction, see The ACCG has secured important evidence about the extent of cooperation between the State Department and archaeological advocacy groups, most notably, the mysteriously well-funded Antiquities Coalition, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild Website, News, available at https://www.accguild.org/news/13420183 (last visited January 2, 2026).

For more on the Manhattan DA’s repatriation of a statue to Turkey, see Tom Mashberg and Grahm Bowley, Collector Surrenders ‘Nude Emperor’ Statue Identified as Looted, The New York Times (December 8, 2025), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/arts/design/nude-emperor-statue-met-marble-head-turkey.html#:~:text=But%20the%20Manhattan%20district%20attorney's,it%20too%20had%20been%20looted. (last visited January 2, 2026).

For more about the 1970 Rule, see 2013 Guidelines on the Acquisition of Archaeological Material and Ancient Art, Association of Art Museum Directors Website, Standards and Practices (January 29, 2013), available at https://aamd.org/standards-and-practices (last visited January 2, 2026).

For more about the Smithsonian’s ethical returns policy, see Shared Stewardship and Ethical Returns Policy, see Smithsonian National Museum of Asian Art, available at https://asia.si.edu/explore-art-culture/collections/collections-policies/shared-stewardship-and-ethical-returns-policy/ (last visited January 2, 2026).

For more about the legal complexities of the return of the Benin bronzes based on “ethical considerations,” see Channa M. Norman, Benin Bronzes Highlight Complexity of Repatriation Decisions, Shook, Hardy and Bacon Website, available at https://www.shb.com/intelligence/publications/2025/q4/norman-benin-bronzes (last visited January 2, 2026).

For more about H.R. 595, see HR 7865, a Bill to Facilitate the Lawful Trade in Collectors' Coins, Reintroduced as HR 595, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild Website, News, available at https://www.accguild.org/news/13463512 (last visited January 2, 2026).

For more about the legislative reform needed, see Peter K. Tompa, Opinion: It’s Time to Make Collecting Great Again!  Cultural Property News (April 3, 2025), available at https://culturalpropertynews.org/time-to-make-collecting-great-again/ (last visited January 2, 2026).

Another Dubious Seizure of an Artifact Long on Display

NY Prosecutors Vance and Bogdanos have seized a fragment of a relief said to be from Persepolis from a London dealer who set up at a New York City Art Fair.  The relief in question had been put on display at a Canadian museum back in the 1950’s.  The seizure raises serious legal questions about whether the Iranian statute used as the basis for the seizure really vests title of the artifact in Iran, whether at the time such artifacts were given to excavators so they may not, in fact, be “stolen,” and whether laches would apply to defeat such a stale claim.  There is also the obvious question whether Vance and Bogdanos should be using New York taxpayer’s money to take private property to award it to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism whose top officials at times have threatened to bulldoze pre-Islamic sites like Persepolis and the tomb of Cyrus the Great.  But the real question is whether the dealer will fight the seizure, particularly given the costs and potential criminal liability involved.  

Cyprus Turns its Back on the Common Law Tradition

By advocating for an international convention that would reverse the burden of proof and place it on auction houses selling antiquities, Cyprus has turned further away from its past Common Law traditions as part of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Auction Houses can and should be more transparent about what is known about an object's provenance, but proposals that call for a reversal of the burden of proof are more appropriate for Middle Eastern dictatorships than for democracies like Cyprus.

And as one of the comments to the linked Cyprus Mail article mentions, in any event perhaps it's not the best time for Cyprus to make such demands given that ongoing matter in Paphos

They Shoot Looters, Don't They?

While the general public probably views looting as no worse than a traffic violation, incredibly they are actually debating in the archaeological blogosphere whether execution is an appropriate sanction for disturbing archaeological context for personal gain.   To be fair, the author is opposed to it and even has sympathy for subsistence diggers, but the fact that some in the archaeological lobby have supported the ultimate sanction in the past should give everyone pause.  The death penalty was imposed selectively in Saddam's Iraq; while those associated with the regime apparently looted with the Dictator's blessing, others without connections forfeited their lives if caught.  The same kind of selective  prosecution also  apparently lives on in today's Iraq, but at least no one is getting executed for looting in areas under government control.  And isn't that a good thing?

Dinosaur 13

Dinosaur 13 chronicles how an ambitious prosecutor, federal cultural bureaucrats, the FBI, jealous academics, a lying rancher, a greedy Native American tribe, a hard-ass judge, McDonald's, Disney and a big auction house conspired to steal "Sue," a virtually complete T-Rex, from an intrepid band of  commercial paleontologists and a small South Dakota town, all to take her to the big city, Chicago.

Sound implausible?   See it and you will believe.  At a minimum, any thinking person should be troubled about how the federal government handled the matter-- using tactics that have been replicated over and over again against collectors, dealers and museums in order to "get" artifacts in their possession.

US Taxpayer to Pay SLAM's Attorney's Fees?

The US taxpayer has already paid dearly to pursue a stale claim to the Ka Nefer Nefer Mummy Mask at the behest of now disgraced (but perhaps to be rehabilitated) Zahi Hawass and the Egyptian Military Dictatorship.  Now, pursuant to a statute meant to reimburse claimants who successfully defend their interests in seized property, the US taxpayer is likely to also be stuck for a bill for the Saint Louis Art Museum's attorney's fees.  This is as it should be, but hopefully the government will be more discriminating in what cases it pursues in the future.  Too often, the decision seems to be made on little more than pressure from the archaeological lobby and the State Department, whose primary interest seems to be to bend over backwards for nationalistic foreign potentates.

Washington, D.C. Roundtable on Cultural Policy Reform

The Committee on Cultural Policy has uploaded an executive summary of its recent Washington, D.C. Roundtable on cultural policy reform onto its website.

37% Fear the Federal Government, 17% Unsure

According to a new poll that should give government decision makers serious pause, 37% of likely voters fear the Federal Government and 17% are unsure.  One can only wonder what the percentage is amongst collectors and owners of the small businesses of the numismatic trade, but it would not surprise CPO if these numbers were considerably higher.  And why not, what with recent news of a pre-judged MOU with a Middle Eastern military dictatorship, a heavy-handed raid on the home of a 91 year old war veteran and missionary, and a bureaucracy made ban on the transport and interstate sale of antique ivory of the sort that has been held in families for generations.

FBI Believes Antiquities Laws Apply Retroactively?

The FBI's actions in descending on the home of a 91 year old war veteran and missionary who has collected artifacts all his life has become even more troubling.  According to a spokesman for the Bureau, some of the treaties and laws that provided a basis for the seizure are "retroactive."

But then what of the US Constitution's strict prohibition on ex post facto or retroactive criminal laws?  Does the FBI believe such constitutional protections no longer apply to collectors?  And, if so, who will tell them otherwise?

Panel Discussion on Federal Power and the Repatriation of Cultural Artifacts

On April 3, 2014, the New York City Bar Association hosted a panel on federal power and the repatriation of cultural artifacts.   Alexander Wilson (US Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York), Evan Barr (Steptoe), Michael McCullough (Pearlstein &  McCullough LLP), and James McAndrew (Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman &  Klestadt LLP) served as panelists.  Peter Tompa (Bailey & Ehrenberg, PLLC) served as moderator.  There were approximately sixty (60) individuals in the audience, which included lawyers, government and museum officials, the press, and members of the general public.

Peter Tompa (PT) provided an overview of the relevant issues.  Forfeiture laws have a long history going back to the early days of the Republic, but their application to cultural goods imported into the US is of a relatively recent vintage.  These laws allow the forfeiture of artifacts: (1) that have been introduced into the US based on fraudulent misrepresentations on customs forms; or (2) that are considered stolen under foreign laws that declare them to be state property; or (3) that are subject to import restrictions promulgated by the State Department and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). Controversies include: (1) country of origin and valuation issues related to alleged misrepresentations on customs forms; (2) the existence of open markets for the exact same sorts of artifacts in countries claiming them to be state property; and (3) whether State and CBP can designate artifacts for import restrictions without regard for their findspot.   MLATs are Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties.  They have provided a basis for information requests that can trigger criminal investigations and forfeiture actions.  There have been questions whether these requests are little more than fishing expeditions.

Alexander Wilson (AW) discussed the statutory bases for forfeiture claims.  The major ones are the anti-smuggling statutes, the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), and the CPIA.  An innocent owner defense is possible for NSPA claims, but not for Title 19 anti-smuggling statute or CPIA claims.  Because the procedures are somewhat cumbersome, MLATs rarely come into play in a cultural property context.    AW then discussed some of his office's successful seizures.  These include the repatriation of a wall panel from a Chinese tomb, a gold phiale, a Mongolian dinosaur fossil and a Khmer statute.   State Department input varies.  It is actively involved if a foreign request for forfeiture comes through State.  State has also provided technical assistance about foreign cultural patrimony laws.

Evan Barr (EB) now represents white collar criminal defendants.   He previously worked as a prosecutor.   His cases as a prosecutor included the forfeiture of a gold phiale found on private land in Italy.  EB wonders if forfeiture claims are now being overused.  He attributes this trend to the government seeking to benefit from a lower burden of proof in forfeiture actions as compared to criminal actions.  EB also indicated that claimants face an up-hill battle due to the strength of the government's resources, the fact that one's reputation is frequently damaged in the press if a forfeiture complaint is filed, and the cost of litigation-- which invariably exceeds the value of an item that is seized.

Those who want to mount a defense typically file an attack on the allegations in the complaint in the context of  motion to dismiss.  This has only worked to date in the Ka Nefer Nefer case, though that dismissal is on appeal and EB thinks the Court will likely reverse and allow the government to amend its forfeiture complaint.  There, the issue was whether an inference of theft provided sufficient basis for a claim that a mummy case was stolen under an Egyptian patrimony law.  Other defenses that can be raised to a forfeiture complaint include inadequate notice that foreign law vests title in the state, a claim that export of the artifact predated a patrimony law, and statute of limitations.  EB believes the Department of Justice should publish prosecutorial guidelines that will preclude forfeiture claims being made where these defenses are clear.  EB also mentioned that some have argued that the CPIA should be the exclusive remedy for foreign states, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected this argument.  EB expressed concerns about how the government handled the Mongolian dinosaur case.  Bringing a criminal action after the dinosaur's owner asserted a civil claim is troubling because it may suggest he was being punished for asserting his civil rights.  However, EB assumes the government would say there always was a parallel criminal investigation.

Michael McCullough (MM) abandoned his prepared text in the interests of saving time for questions. Instead, he made several observations.   First, he maintains that "cultural property" is a misnomer as cultural goods are collected as art.  Their art historical value is what gives them monetary value.  Second, he quoted a Cambodian cultural official who indicated that the repatriation of a Khmer statue satisfied the souls of Cambodians ancestors.   MM contrasted this government official's view with our own strong tradition of secular governance.  MM indicated that it is difficult to negotiate anything with any government official who maintained such a world-view. MM also noted that the prevalence of such a world-view in certain source countries has had the effect of shutting-out reasonable people from the negotiation process.  Finally, MM criticized the courts in the Mongolian dinosaur and Khmer statue cases because they deferred rulings on whether foreign law clearly vested title in the foreign state until the discovery process is complete.  This effectively means this issue will not be addressed because of the expense of taking a matter to trial is cost prohibitive.

Jim McAndrew (JA) drew on his long experience as a top customs official for his talk.  JA indicated the burden of proof  in forfeiture cases effectively allows the government to bring weak cases, confident in the knowledge that most will not be contested.  JA estimates approximately 95% of the time during the period he was active as a Customs agent focusing on such issues (1999-2010) foreign countries could not support their own claims.   When JA was in charge, he made sure that CBP would only seize artifacts if there was some indicia that US law was broken.  Now, however, it appears that artifacts are being detained and seized based on vague allegations of illegal conduct.  Provenance is not a legal requirement, but CBP agents demand it as if it is.  JA realizes many artifacts have no provenance attached to them.   JA joked the demands are like asking someone if he still has the paperwork for a business suit.

If an artifact is seized, JA advocates avoiding the administrative process and instead opting for a court to determine the matter.  This will require a US attorney to look at the seizure and they are far more likely to drop dubious cases.  JA disagrees with AW about the use and potential abuse of MLATs as information gathering devices.

JA also expressed frustration that CBP regularly ignores statutory time limits relating to when an item must be seized or released. JA has had situations where CBP has held artifacts for some eighteen  (18) months with nothing other than the statement that "the matter is under investigation" provided in response to inquiries.   JA has filed FOIA requests, but this usually does not provide useful information.

JA believes that the State Department views its mission as promulgating MOUs.  The interests of US small businesses and collectors don't really matter.   JA has also been frustrated because forfeiture actions are filed ignoring statutes of limitations in foreign countries as well as private ownership of antiquities in these countries.   When JA was head agent, JA sent around a five (5) point check list through INTERPOL  It was his practice to only act if at least three (3) of the five (5) points were satisfied.  JA is concerned that CBP agents may now be confusing their roles.  They are US Customs, not Chinese, Italian or Egyptian agents.

The panel next answered some questions from the floor.  Barbara Hoffman, an art law practitioner, wondered what could be done about the problems that were raised during the presentation.   PT indicated that there would be more discussion of this topic during an April 10th seminar.  MM suggested that the law could be changed to require determinations if a forfeiture was supported by a valid foreign patrimony law at the outset.  Another questioner wondered if investors could be protected by an innocent owner defense.  Both AW and PT indicated that was possible for a Title 18 stolen property claim, but not for a smuggling or CPIA claim under Title 19 of the US Code.  Another speaker contested MM's view that antiquities only have value as art.  She indicated some artifacts, like the Khmer statue mentioned, had religious significance for those within source countries.  She also indicated that the religious value of the Khmer artifact was seriously damaged when the statue lost its hands, possibly when it was looted.  A speaker from the State Department wanted to know how Holocaust art was treated.  EB indicated that Holocaust art is considered stolen property under traditional views of what is stolen.  He also indicated that provenance research is much easier for Holocaust era art because good records were often kept of its original owners.

Cuture Cops Descend on 91 Year Old Veteran

One hundred FBI agents have descended upon the Indiana home of a 91 year old WW II veteran who collected the objects over an 80 year period as a missionary abroad.

The veteran evidently held the items in a home museum that was open to local school groups.

Some reports suggest the collector had actually contacted the FBI himself wanting to repatriate some of the items.   If so, the collector apparently got far more than he bargained for.  Shame on the FBI for treating an elderly collector in such a way just to "polish a few resumes" with a big "antiquities bust."

Couldn't the matter been handled far more discretely?

Panel on U.S. Federal Power and the Repatriation of Cultural Artifacts

The  New York City Bar Association, 42 W. 44th Street, NY, NY, will be hosting a panel on the repatriation of cultural artifacts today @ 2 PM.  It's free, and despite the suggestion otherwise on the NY City Bar's website, it's not really necessary to pre-register on-line.

If you read this blog, you will be interested in what experts have to say about this topic.  More details are available here.   Please note due to a last minute family issue, Sharon Levin will not be able to attend, but the US Government will be ably represented by one of her colleagues, Alexander Wilson, who was her co-counsel in the recent forfeiture case involving Sotheby's and a Khmer statue.

Save the Date: U.S. Federal Power and the Repatriation of Cultural Artifacts

When:  April 3, 2014 @ 2-4PM

Where:  New York City Bar Association, 42 W 44th St, New York, NY 10036

Cost:  Open to the Public Free of Charge

The use of civil and criminal forfeiture actions, as well as broad  informational demands by foreign governments pursuant to mutual legal assistance treaties (MLAT), have impacted the ability of collectors, museums and antiquities and paleontological dealers to acquire objects.  The panel will discuss the use of these prosecutorial instruments and the questions they raise about how U.S. policy is being made and applied to effectuate the repatriation of cultural artifacts to their countries of origins. 

Speakers: Peter K. Tompa (Program Co-Chair and Moderator, Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC); Michael McCullough (Program Co-Chair, Michael McCullough LLC, art law practitioner); Sharon Levin (Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of SDNY Forfeiture Section); Evan Barr (Steptoe &  Johnson LLP, white collar crime practitioner); James McAndrew (Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP; Former Senior Special Agent, US Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations).

For the NY City Bar Association's Announcement, see here.

Law Students Take on Issues First Raised in ACCG Test Case

This year's "National Cultural Heritage Law Moot Court Competition" obviously borrowed heavily from issues first raised in the ACCG's test case.

Perhaps, those issues are far more significant than some less sophisticated commentators in the archaeological blogosphere have suggested.

CPO wonders what issues next year's competition will address.  Dinosaur forfeitures?  Why not?

They Are Out to Get You

Or, so it would seem from this report about a confab of cultural bureaucrats, academics and cops that took place back in September in the Hague.  There is nothing wrong with States seeking to protect their own archaeological sites and items of cultural significance.  But that should not be confused with draconian measures aimed at controlling everything old or targeting foreigners for dealing in the exact same cultural goods that are openly available at home.  Unfortunately, that's just what the "activists" commended in the report advocate.  Why not instead adopt a balanced but fair approach like that found in the United Kingdom?  CPO would rather have the UK seen as a model rather than the favorites of these activists, countries like Cyprus, Greece and Italy.

Weed in; Collecting Out?

Things like collecting ancient coins and arrowheads used to be viewed as harmless and indeed educational pursuits.  CPO seems to recall kids could even be awarded a badge by the Boy Scouts for putting together collections of such artifacts.  Now though, collecting equates with looting and criminal activity, at least in some parts of academia, the press, the State Department and U.S. Law Enforcement.  Meanwhile, all of the sudden smoking dope seems not only to be legal, but all the rage, not only in places like Colorado, but even in the seat of our national government.   And with the Obama Administration signalling it will not enforce our nation's drug laws relating to the sale and distribution of marijuana,  perhaps all of those underemployed law enforcement types will be redirected to a further clamp down on collecting any artifacts claimed to be the property of foreign governments under their own laws (even where they make little, if any, effort to enforce those laws at home).  The Boy Scouts should be horrified.  But come to think of it,  they are "out" too, aren't they?

Another Bataar Skull to Be Repatriated, but Was it "Stolen?"

The Feds have made another fossil dealer an offer he could not refuse--  give us your Tyrannosaurs Bataar Skull, plead guilty to smuggling, pay a fine and almost all will be forgiven.  The problem with all of this is that serious questions remain about claims that such fossils are "stolen" from Mongolia, i.e., does Mongolia have a law that vests absolute title of all such fossils in the Mongolian state that is actively enforced at home?

Florida Arrowhead Sting

The Tampa Bay Times has published an extensive article about a sting carried out by Florida Fish and Wildlife Authorities against arrowhead hunters.  Government overreach that ruins lives or the protection of archaeological resources on State Land?  Or, perhaps, a bit of both.

Save the Date- Pearlstein White Paper to Be Subject of Symposium at Cardozo School of Law

The Committee for Cultural Policy and the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal (AELJ) will be hosting a symposium at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City on April 10, 2014 at 2 pm. Tentatively titled, Reform of U.S. Cultural Property Policy: Accountability, Transparency, and Legal Certainty, the event is a response to the  forthcoming publication by William Pearlstein, A Proposal to Reform U.S. Law and Policy Relating to the International Exchange of Cultural Property, being published in AELJ’s Volume 32, Issue 2.

To continue to receive updates on the event and the final publication or have further questions, please email info@cardozoaelj.com.

Prominent Israeli Antiquities Dealer Sues IAA

A prominent Israeli antiquities dealer has filed suit against the Israeli Antiquities Authority.   He alleges that the IAA damaged his reputation in prosecuting a lawsuit charging him with forgery of ancient artifacts.  The IAA's lawsuit subsequently fell apart in spectacular fashion before an Israeli court.  The antiquities dealer, Robert Deutsch, says he is entitled to some $3 million in damages.   American collectors, Museums and dealers may find some of the allegations on how he was treated sound familiar.  It will be interesting to see how this matter progresses in court.