Source: http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2012/12/
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 15:47:00
Document Index: 103979235

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1484', '§ 1485', 'art 145', '§ 145', '§ 1018', '§ 1484']

2012 comes to a close, a case concluded in the Central District of California this year is important to
highlight. It is the federal district
court matter of United States v. Perez
(07-CR-499 C.D.Ca. 2007), prosecuted by U.S. Attorney André Birotte, Jr.'s office.
The case confirms that
the federal anti-smuggling statute, 18 U.S.C. 545, can punish cultural property
smugglers who illegally import archaeological or ethnological material in violation of the Convention on Cultural
Property Implementation Act (CPIA).
has been suggested over the years that a person who violates the CPIA’s cultural property
import restrictions faces the civil remedy of seizure of the cultural object but not
criminal prosecution. So if a person
smuggles an archaeological object into the United States from Cyprus, for
example—a country that has a bilateral agreement with the U.S. under the CPIA—the smuggler
cannot be indicted or go to prison, according to this argument. Only
the smuggled artifact can be taken away. I believe that this interpretation of law is incorrect.
a paper presented to the International Council of Museums Conservation
Committee in 2007 and referenced by Patty Gerstenblith, “Controlling the International Market in Antiquities: Reducing the Harm, Preserving the Past,” 8Chicago Journal of International Law169 (2007), I stated that the CPIA’s “civil remedy of forfeiting an unlawfully
imported object is arguably complemented by the smuggling statute’s
criminal remedy of prosecuting the perpetrator. That is because the federal
anti-smuggling law declares that a person is subject to criminal prosecution
when he fraudulently or knowingly imports an item ‘contrary to law.’” This argument, that an individual can face conviction for smuggling as a result of violating the CPIA's import restrictions is supported by the conviction
in the Perez case.
In that case, federal officials discovered that Robert Perez was selling pre-Columbian and pre-Hispanic pots imported illegally into the United States
from El Salvador. The U.S. has import restrictions on cultural property from El Salvador as a result of a bilateral agreement with that nation, authorized by the CPIA. The grand jury indicted Perez on one count
of smuggling under 18 U.S.C. 545, charging the following:
“On or about December 11, 2002, in Orange County, within the Central District of California, defendant ROBERT PEREZ did
fraudulently and knowingly sell merchandise, namely,
one melon-shaped, pre-Hispanic ceramic bowl, after the merchandise's importation
into the United States, knowing said merchandise had been imported into the United States contrary to law.
Specifically, on said date, defendant PEREZ knowingly
sold said ceramic bowl knowing that it was a
pre-Hispanic archeological material that had
been imported into the United States from El Salvador contrary to law, namely, without first obtaining a
valid export certificate from the country of
El Salvador, in violation of [the CPIA] Title 19, United States Code, Section
2606(a).”
The case concluded with a
plea agreement in January 2012, supporting the opinion that the CPIA's import restrictions on cultural property may be enforced by federal criminal statutes.
Earlier this week, Holyland
Numismatics coin dealer Salem Alshdaifat signaled his intention to plead guilty
to one charge of accessory after the fact in the case of U.S. v. Khouli et al. The reduced offense is a class
B misdemeanor under 18 USC 1018, subject to a maximum punishment of six months
incarceration and a fine of $5000.
District of New York originally indicted Alshdaifat in May 2011 with conspiracy
to smuggle. The indictment alleged that
he directed Mousa Khouli to wire $20,000 to Ayman Ramadan’s bank account. It also alleged that Alshdaifat received an airway bill from Ramadan
incorrectly showing that “wooden panels” were shipped by Ramadan’s company in
the United Arab Emirates to JFK airport in New York. Alshdaifat was also
charged with money laundering conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United
States, and fraudulent importation and transportation of goods. The
indictment described the goods as an Egyptian inner coffin, Egyptian funerary
boats and limestone figures, and a portion of an outer lid of a nesting
Egyptian coffin set. A grand jury indictment
is simply a mechanism that initiates a criminal case; it is not a finding of
In a December 19 letter sent to the
federal district court in Brooklyn, which describes today's expected plea of guilty
to the substituted misdemeanor charge, Alshdaifat's attorney writes:
specific conduct to which Mr. Alshdaifat is charged in the misdemeanor information,
and is expected to allocute to in court on Friday [December 21, 2012], involves the importing, on
or about May
7, 2009, of certain Egyptian artifacts, including limestone funerary objects, from
the United Arab Emirates to the United States by other co-defendants in the case.
The airwaybill for this shipment was required by United States Customs law and regulations
to include "such information as is necessary to enable the Customs Service
to determine whether the merchandise may be released from customs custody."
19 U.S.C. § 1484(a)(l)(A)(i). This information includes, inter alia, the value of the goods being imported.
19 U.S.C. § 1485(a).
In this case, the importer of record, Mousa Khouli, intentionally misled Customs
by placing merchandise in international mail that exceeded the value authorized to be entered
into the United States by informal entry through the post. 19 C.F.R. Part 145, subp.
B, § 145.12(a)(2). On the airwaybill, he intentionally omitted the value and
country of origin of the merchandise included in the mail package. This certification made to the United States Customs
Service was knowingly false in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1018 and 19 U.S.C. §§ 1484-85. "After
the international mail shipment arrived in the United States and was received by
Mr. Khouli, he asked Mr. Alshdaifat, the seller on consignment of this merchandise,
not to require him to make a direct payment of $40,000 for these items. Instead, the two agreed to credit their accounts
on other business. By doing this, Mr. Khouli was able to avoid creating
evidence that he knew that the value of the objects he imported was more than $2,000
and that he made intentionally false statements to Customs. After the importation had been completed, Mr. Alshdaifat
agreed to this financial arrangement knowing that it was intended to avoid creating
evidence of Mr. Khouli's earlier violation of the U.S. Customs laws."
month the federal district court sentenced Khouli to house arrest after he pleaded guilty on April
18 to smuggling Egyptian cultural property into the United States and making a
false statement to law enforcement. Prosecutors were unable to obtain the prison term
Alshdaifat too seeks the court's leniency. His
lawyer writes, "The offense to which Mr. Alshdaifat is pleading guilty is substantially less serious and his conduct much less culpable than that of Mr. Khouli." Counsel for the defendant adds: ICE: Artifacts seized in US v. Khouli et al.
Mr. Alshdaifat had only an accessory-after-the-fact role in Mr. Khouli's scheme
to make false statements to U.S. Customs, and because he otherwise has a commendable
personal history, no prior criminal history, and sympathetic family circumstances,
he respectfully requests that the Court not impose a term of imprisonment or probation
as part of his sentence for this conduct. Also, because Mr. Alshdaifat already has suffered
substantial economic harm from the fact that this case was brought against him,
in both the form of lost business and from the government's improper seizure of
his entire inventory of ancient coins for several months after raiding his home
at the time of his arrest, we respectfully ask the Court not to impose a significant
The court imposed a penalty of $1000 plus $10 special assessment. This post is researched, written,
UNESCO Convention (1970),
Cracking Down on Antiquities Trafficking by Changing Homeland Security's "Seize and Send" Policy Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
down on the illegal antiquities trade by regularly prosecuting criminal
offenders and dismantling their infrastructure must be a leadership priority for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE). The Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) directorate of ICE currently pursues a "seize and send" policy focused on recovering and repatriating antiquities rather
than investigating and indicting criminals. That policy must change in
order to effectively combat a crime that permanently destroys the
archaeological record and injures both history and culture.
ICE's seize and send policy is
illustrated by many of the agency's press
releases. It was restated last week during a Chasing
with James T. Hayes, Jr., Special Agent-in-Charge of HSI New York. Hayes defended the
seize and send policy:
"The focus is
always to return stolen property to its rightful owners," Hayes acknowledged,
saying making criminal cases was desirable but challenging. "You have to have
a legal basis to prove those items, and you have to prove certain things and
that proves very difficult. We’re dealing with laws around the world, in
foreign courts and different jurisdictions."
HSI's chief added,
"At the end of the day, our primary responsibility is to get
stolen property back to its rightful owners." Returning
stolen property to owners is a regular goal of many law enforcement
agencies. But there is little indication that simply recovering and
repatriating cultural property puts smuggling networks out of business. Criminals engaged in the illegal antiquities trade surely realize that they
face little or no risk of legal accountability for their actions. They must
also be aware that the occasional confiscations by police of portions of their
inventories do not actually take down their supply, transportation,
conservation, distribution, marketing, and sales infrastructures. That is
why prosecutions, coupled with forfeitures of infrastructure assets
(instrumentalities forfeitures), should be made part of law enforcement's
The decision not to pursue
prosecutions and instrumentalities forfeitures on a regular basis produces
several negative outcomes:
First, because antiquities
traffickers go unindicted, the risk of offenders facing the consequences of prosecution--jail,
fines, probation, and/or a criminal record--is eliminated. Naturally, there is
neither general nor specific deterrence against the commission of antiquities trafficking when there is no fear of
getting caught. Second, court sentences will
continue to be light in those rare circumstances when antiquities smuggling
prosecutions are actually brought forward. That is because the judiciary,
not seeing many cases on their dockets, will believe that this criminal
activity is insignificant in scope or impact.
Third, the infrastructures used to
facilitate antiquities trafficking remain intact. Seizures of
ancient pots or Egyptian sarcophagi may remove the fruits of an antiquities
trafficker's crime, but their confiscation by authorities likely represents a
only portion of the trafficker's illegal inventory at any given moment. Such limited seizures cannot be expected to shut down expansive global networks
operating continuously. Seizures of the instrumentalities used to commit
antiquities trafficking, by contrast, could help dismantle large swaths of
trafficking infrastructures. Just as asset forfeitures in drug cases
confiscate the automobiles, boats, planes, homes, etc. used in unlawful
narcotics manufacturing and distribution networks, seizures of the
instrumentalities used to traffic illegal antiquities could disrupt or shut down
antiquities trafficking chains.
Finally, prosecutors and police
will continue to confront both a learning curve and inefficiency so long as there is no change in enforcement policy. Routine antiquities trafficking prosecutions
and enforcement, by contrast, would prompt prosecuting attorneys and detectives
to meticulously learn how the crime operates, what evidence is commonly
found in such cases, and what legal defenses typically arise. The experiences gained
would foster more efficient criminal investigations in the field and more
effective legal cases in the courtroom.
HSI's chief is correct to
observe that antiquities trafficking cases can be complex. But law
enforcement authorities over the decades have discovered ways to unravel
complex transnational transactions. If complicated international money
laundering, commodities smuggling, and drug trafficking cases can be solved and
prosecuted, so too can antiquities trafficking cases. Indeed, criminal
organizations have little incentive to cease trafficking operations if law enforcement concede that their activities are too hard to prosecute.
When criminal investigations become
too complex to warrant effective action under one set of laws, one enforcement
tactic is to separate the overall crime into component parts, examining the
parts under different statutes. So instead of building an antiquities
trafficking case broadly around the National Stolen Property Act, for
example--which relies on an review of foreign ownership laws to determine if a
trafficking suspect has knowingly received stolen antiquities in violation of
the statute--authorities might shift their focus to build a case on the basis
of false statements. Put another way, one method of not "dealing with laws around the world, in foreign courts
and different jurisdictions" is to focus on the cover-up rather than
is widely known that criminals rarely act in the open, committing fraud and
deceit to conceal their activities. That is why criminal cultural
property importers oftentimes falsify customs paperwork, classifying looted
antiquities as something else on import forms. Making a false statement
on an official customs form is a crime
under 18 U.S.C. 542, and prosecutions under this statute do not require
reliance on anything except evidence of criminal falsification. Juries
simply need to be shown that an ancient antiquity found in a cargo crate is not
a "garden table set" or some other false description written down on
a customs form. Criminal knowledge of the false statement, meanwhile, can be
demonstrated by additional positive evidence and/or by circumstantial
evidence--which counts in a criminal case--showing that the criminal defendant
was “without reasonable cause to believe
the truth of such statement.” This example demonstrates that there may be
other, potentially simpler, legal and investigative options available to
"What one has, one ought to use: and whatever
he does he should do with all his might." HSI agents are seasoned
investigators who should be given the green light to use their skills with all
their might in an effort to expose the illegal antiquities trade and take down
its networks. Partnering with prosecutors, HSI should systematically
apply the National Stolen Property Act, the false statements law, and many
other federal laws to successfully combat antiquities trafficking. Referring cases for state prosecution should also be a routine consideration
rather than an occasional one. Coupled with the seizure of assets used to
facilitate antiquities trafficking, regular prosecutions in the courts would
dismantle or disrupt these criminal networks more effectively than the current
seize and send policy.
This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural
Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com.