Repatriation of Late Roman Imperial Coins Raises Serious Questions about the Cultural Property Agreement with Turkey and the Private Property Rights of American Citizens

 Nazlan Ertan, writing for Al-Monitor, reports on the repatriation of 83 Late Roman Imperial coins struck at Anatolian Mints, under a 2021 Cultural Property Agreement (CPA)  between the United States and Turkey.  See Nazlan Ertan, Turkey boasts of antiquities' return, but faces scrutiny at home, Al Monitor (October 4, 2025), available at https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2025/10/turkey-boasts-antiquities-return-faces-scrutiny-home (last visited October 16, 2025).

Ertan quotes Deputy Culture and Tourism Minister Gokhan Yazgi as stating, “The process was swift, transparent and efficient.”  The article then goes onto to portray the authoritarian government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as using “repatriation victories to project cultural authority abroad, an arena in which Turkey currently leads.”     

While the article also criticizes government mismanagement and the influence of short term political and commercial interests, Ertan completely ignores the serious critique of both Erdogan’s policies and the CPA levelled by  representatives of the trade, collectors and minority religious and ethnic groups at a recent U.S. State Department Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting convened to discuss the CPA’s renewal. 

Indeed, the news of the repatriation of these Roman Imperial coins highlights these problems, at least for coin collectors.  First, it is unclear how the 2021 CPA and its implementing regulations can retroactively justify a seizure that took place in 2015, some six years earlier.  Second, it is highly questionable that the Roman Imperial coins that were seized are even subject to the import restrictions that implement the CPA.  Those regulations apply to Roman provincial coins, but not to Roman Imperial coins, which circulated well beyond the confines of modern-day Turkey as far as England in the West and Sri Lanka to the East.  Certainly, one cannot assume that such coins were found in Turkey, a prerequisite for them to be restricted under the governing statute, the Cultural Property Implementation Act. 

As it is, this looks like yet another case where the U.S. State Department and U.S. law enforcement have prioritized “cultural diplomacy” over due process rights for American citizens. As such, this seizure represents yet another reason for Congress to pass HR 595, a bill to protect coin collectors, as well as far more ambitious reform legislation to protect the private property rights of American citizens. 

Should American Collectors Get at Least the Same "Due Process Rights" as Illegal Aliens Who Are Alleged to be MS-13 Gang Members?

No, at least according to the the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson, the 4th Circuit Judge, who mainstream media is lauding for his recent take down of the Trump Administration for refusing to give an illegal alien alleged to also be a MS-13 gang member "due process" before "repatriating" him to his own country of El Salvador, where he was thrown in prison.  The Trump Administration had predicated its decision-making on the President's foreign policy powers and the Alien and Sedition Acts, which go back to the John Adams Administration.  

In stark contrast, when Wilkinson wrote the majority opinion in the ACCG case, he held that the President's "foreign policy" powers precluded both judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the controversial decision to impose import restrictions on coins as well as any meaningful defense of a resulting forfeiture action.  Indeed, at oral argument, Wilkinson lectured CPO about how the President's power was not subject to anything but the most superficial judicial review, regardless of the ACCG's allegations that State Department officials had ignored governing law, misled Congress and the public in official government reports about the decision, and had engaged in cronyism with archaeological advocacy groups.  

So what gives?  Sadly, Wilkinson's result-oriented decision making is par for the course.  These days the federal judiciary is dominated by former government attorneys like Wilkinson.  Their rulings have been essential to the expansion of government bureaucratic power and the erosion of our rights, including that to our private property.  While such judges are generally all too happy to expand that bureaucratic power further, they balk at Trump's own exercise of his powers, particularly where Team Trump has sought to tear down the status quo and its protections for favored interest groups. Sadly, collectors don't fall in that category.  

So is there any solution?  Yes, Congress must limit bureaucratic and prosecutorial discretion by federalizing all foreign claims to "cultural property," by ensuring that the burden of proof is on the government before that "cultural property" is seized and forfeited, and by making the creation of any import restrictions on "cultural property" subject to the limitations found in the Administrative Procedure Act.  But that will take collector engagement to make it all happen.  

ACCG Requests Supreme Court to Hear Forfeiture Case

On December 12, 2018, the ACCG asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its forfeiture case.  Specifically, the Guild has requested the Supreme Court to consider the following questions for review:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

            This case arises from the civil forfeiture of ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”), 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. The coins are of types that appear on “designated lists” subject to import restrictions.  Congress limited the reach of such import restrictions to archaeological objects “first discovered within” and “subject to export control by” a specific State Party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and further placed the burden of proof on the Government to establish that such designated material was listed in accordance with these criteria.  19 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2604, 2610. Congress also ensured such import restrictions are entirely prospective.  They only apply to designated archaeological material illicitly exported from the State Party after the effective date of the implementing regulations.  Id. § 2606.  The questions presented are:

1.         Did the courts below violate the Guild’s 5th Amendment Due Process Rights when they authorized the forfeiture of the Guild’s private property without any showing that the Guild’s coins were illicitly exported from Cyprus or China after the effective date of import restrictions?

2.         In a civil forfeiture action implicating the Guild’s 5th Amendment Due Process Rights, did a prior decision upholding import restrictions under a highly deferential ultra vires standard of review “foreclose” consideration of legislative history, judicial admissions, and other  information relevant to the Government’s burden of proof?

The Guild's Petition for Certiorari in its entirety can be found here. 

ACCG Seeks Rehearing

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has sought rehearing of the 4th Circuit's affirmance of the District Court's decision to forfeit the Guild's ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins originally imported for purposes of its test case.  In making its request, the Guild has stated,

"The Panel’s decision collapses any meaningful distinctions among detentions, seizures and forfeitures and between ultra vires and constitutional review.  Furthermore, it has effectively rewritten prospective, targeted CPIA import restrictions into embargoes on all archaeological objects of types found on designated lists.  Amicus support attests to the public importance of these issues.  Rehearing is warranted.... This Court should not sanction assuming away important elements of the Government’s prima facie case.  Nor should the Court close its eyes to relevant information, including Government admissions, or further a demonstrably false narrative about how import restrictions on coins were promulgated to justify its decision."

Update (10/26/18)-  The 4th Circuit has denied the Guild's request for rehearing so the Guild will now seek certiorari from the Supreme Court.  Cultural Property News has written a good story about this case.  See https://culturalpropertynews.org/an-epic-battle-u-s-v-3-knife-shaped-coins/ 

Oral Argument in ACCG Forfeiture Case

Last Thursday, I partipated in an oral argument before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond on behalf of the ACCG in its long running forfeiture case.  As was confirmed by the tenor of the Court’s questions, it remains an uphill battle against the government whose actions too often are afforded great deference.  We will see what happens!

Ancient Coin Collectors Guild Files a Reply Brief

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has filed a reply brief in the long running forfeiture action related to the coins the Guild imported for purposes of a test case.  Due process requires the government to make out each element of its case before private property may be forfeited.  Simple, no?  For more, see here.

ACCG Gets Amicus Support

Six collector and trade groups have supported the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild's appeal seeking to ensure that the due process rights of collectors are protected.  The Guild has asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn an order forfeiting fifteen (15) of its coins.  

The Guild has argued that the district court could not assume away important elements of the government’s case merely because its coins were of types subject to import restrictions.  Under the Convention for Cultural Property Implementation Act, the government may only seize and forfeit archaeological and ethnological objects “first discovered within” and “subject to export control by” specific countries.  And even then, the government must make some showing that the articles left that country after the effective date of those regulations.  Here, at most, all the government showed was that the coins were of types on the “designated lists” for Cyprus and China.

The briefs of the Guild and amici can be accessed here. 

District Court Rules in Government's Favor in Long Running Forfeiture Action

The ACCG will likely appeal Judge Blake's ruling largely favoring the government in the long running forfeiture case.  It's important to defend the principle that the government must make out every element of its prima facie case before it can take private property.  More here.

Third Circuit Awards Valuable 1933 Gold Coins to Government

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has awarded valuable 1933 $20 Gold coins to the Government.  A panel of the same court had previously reversed a jury decision for the government because of delays in bringing the matter before a court.  Steve Roach's article about the decision can be found here.  The Court's opinion can be found here.

US Government Loses Gold Coin Forfeiture Case

A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ordered the the federal government to return valuable 1933 $20 gold coins to their owners, the family of a Philadelphia jeweler who held the coins.

The Government convinced a jury that the Mint never realeased the coins into circulation so they must have been goverment property.

The successful appeal turned on the government's seizure of the coins in question without promptly giving the claimants an opportunity to contest the seizure in court.

Sound familar?

The CPIA's Burden of Proof: How it is Supposed to Work...

Here is how Mark Feldman, the State Department's Deputy Legal Adviser, explained how what became the CPIA's burden of proof was supposed to work:

Now, if I may pass for a moment to the question of procedures and burdens of proof, which is the area of one of the great improvements in the bill.   I do want to clarify a matter which involves a difference of interpretation between the art dealers and the State Department. One of the major changes made in the legislation was to alter the presumption normally applied in customs cases putting the burden of proof on the Government in most particulars. One issue where the burden of proof is placed on the Government is to demonstrate that the object fits within the proscribed list.  The Government must show both that it fits in the proscribed category and that it comes from the country making the agreement.  So the burden of proof of provenance is on the Government, a burden which I don’t think has been appreciated by all the critics of this legislation.  This means in a significant number of cases it will not be possible to require an object’s return.   Now this is a policy judgment.   The burden of proof on provenance could have been placed on the importer, which would preclude importation where provenance could not be established.  We have not gone that far; it may be that Congress, when it focuses on this issue, may decide otherwise.  To put the burden of proof of provenance on the importer may be the only truly effective way of avoiding importation of objects illegally removed from their country of origin.  But we in the State Department have not promoted that solution, recognizing that where the facts are obscure, U.S. collectors should not be precluded from competing for the material. . . . .

The only country that would have the right to claim such an object under the bill is the country where it was first discovered.  It would have to be established that the object was removed from the country of origin after the date of the regulation. 

.

Proceedings of the Panel on the U.S. Enabling Legislation of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 4 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 97 1976-1977 at 129-130. 

As Feldman explains, questions of burden of proof -- particularly where they relate to forfeitures of private property rights--are for Congress to determine, not cultural bureaucrats, DOJ attorneys or even the Courts.   Yet, there seems to be an assumption by some bloggers associated with the archaeological lobby that advocating for one's rights to due process is somehow misguided or even the work of "idiot" "cowboys."  But due process is what is supposed to separate this country from dictatorships.  So, perhaps the ACCG should be commended not condemned for continuing to assert its rights to due process on its own behalf and on behalf of collectors everywhere in ongoing litigation and, if necessary, on appeal.

Civil Forfeiture Under Fire

Government overreach in the forfeiture field has now attracted the attention of the New York Times.  If anything, forfeitures based on foreign cultural patrimony laws that effectively declare anything "old" "state property" are possibly subject to even more abuse, particularly where the needs of "public diplomacy" or "cooperation with foreign law enforcement" are allowed to take precedence over concepts of fairness and due process.

So, when will the New York Times and other mainstream media take notice?

Forfeiture Funnies

Comedian John Oliver has given civil forfeiture laws quite a send-up.  One may rightly ask: Are forfeitures of cultural goods on behalf of foreign governments-- some of which are outright dictatorial or authoritarian regimes-- any less prone to abuse?

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.

As the Archaeological Blogosphere Celebrates the Latest Repatriation, Serious Questions Are Being Raised About Government Tactics

As the archaeological blogosphere is celebrating the latest repatriation to Italy, the Los Angeles Times has raised serious questions about the government's hardball tactics used to crack down on collecting Native American artifacts from federal land.

Moreover, John Yoder and Brad Cates, two former chiefs of the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture office, have concluded the whole civil asset forfeiture program is so prone to abuse that it should be scrapped.

They conclude:

Civil asset forfeiture and money-laundering laws are gross perversions of the status of government amid a free citizenry. The individual is the font of sovereignty in our constitutional republic, and it is unacceptable that a citizen should have to “prove” anything to the government. If the government has probable cause of a violation of law, then let a warrant be issued. And if the government has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, let that guilt be proclaimed by 12 peers.

While Yoder and Cates do not address civil and criminal forfeitures relating to so-called "cultural property," CPO submits the opportunities for abuse arising from the application of confiscatory foreign patrimony laws as the basis for a National Stolen Property Act violation, may, if anything, be considerably worse.

It's long past time for far greater public scrutiny of government action in this area.  But, who in the media will dig beyond the easy "morality tale" derived from a government press release for the real story?

ACCG Files Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration

The ACCG has filed a reply brief in support for its motion for reconsideration of the Court's order striking its amended answer in the ongoing forfeiture case.   It discusses new Supreme Court case law and old legislative history that should be dispositive in favor of the Guild’s position that the government bears the initial burden of proof on where historical coins subject to forfeiture were “first discovered.”

More information may be accessed here.

ACCG Seeks Reconsideration

The ACCG has requested reconsideration of a ruling that seems to suggest there is no defense to forfeiture of the Guild's coins other than to provide documentation to prove legal import. The ACCG's memorandum argues such a ruling is contrary to the plain meaning of the governing statute and inconsistent with the government's prior representations to the Court that helped justify dismissal of the ACCG's declaratory judgment action seeking to modify or strike down applicable regulations.  The Court's ruling and the ACCG's memorandum can be accessed here.

SLAMMED AGAIN

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed a decision dismissing the government's forfeiture complaint against the Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask.  The ruling was made on procedural grounds relating a government motion to amend its forfeiture complaint following a dismissal order, but a win is a win for SLAM, the Saint Louis Art Museum.