Opinion ID: 782410
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of the NSPA to Cases Involving Patrimony Laws

Text: 20 In order to preserve its cultural heritage, Egypt in 1983 enacted a patrimony law which declares all antiquities discovered after the enactment of the statute to be the property of the Egyptian government. The law provides for all antiquities privately owned prior to 1983 to be registered and recorded, and prohibits the removal of registered items from Egypt. The law makes private ownership or possession of antiquities found after 1983 illegal. Schultz's primary argument is that the NSPA does not apply to cases in which an object was stolen only in the sense that it was possessed or disposed of by an individual in violation of a national patrimony law, as opposed to stolen in the commonly used sense of the word, for instance, where an object is taken from a museum or a private collection. The government contends that the plain language of the NSPA indicates that the NSPA applies to any stolen property, regardless of the source of the true owner's title in the property. The question, in other words, is whether an object is stolen within the meaning of the NSPA if it is an antiquity which was found in Egypt after 1983 and retained by an individual (and, in this case, removed from Egypt) without the Egyptian government's consent. 21 The NSPA reads, in pertinent part, as follows: 22 Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any goods, wares, or merchandise, securities, or money of the value of $5,000 or more... which have crossed a State or United States boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken ... [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 23 18 U.S.C. § 2315 (2000). 24 This statute is unambiguous. It applies to goods that are stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken. Id. Goods that belong to a person or entity and are taken from that person or entity without its consent are stolen in every sense of that word. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary 989-90 (6th ed. abr.1991) (defining stolen as [a]cquired or possessed, as a result of some wrongful or dishonest act or taking, whereby a person willfully obtains or retains possession of property which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given, and with the intent to deprive the owner of the benefit of ownership (or possession) permanently); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2248 (1971) (defining stolen as obtained or accomplished by theft, stealth, or craft). Accordingly, Schultz's actions violated the NSPA if the antiquities he conspired to receive in the United States belonged to someone who did not give consent for Schultz (or his agent) to take them. That someone is the nation of Egypt. 25 In 1983, Egypt enacted Law 117. The law, which is entitled The Law on the Protection of Antiquities, reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Article 1 26 An Antiquity is any movable or immovable property that is a product of any of the various civilizations or any of the arts, sciences, humanities and religions of the successive historical periods extending from prehistoric times down to a point one hundred years before the present, so long as it has either a value or importance archaeologically or historically that symbolizes one of the various civilizations that have been established in the land of Egypt or that has a historical relation to it, as well as human and animal remains from any such period. 27 . . . Article 6 28 All antiquities are considered to be public property — except for charitable and religious endowments.... It is impermissible to own, possess or dispose of antiquities except pursuant to the conditions set forth in this law and its implementing regulations. Article 7 29 As of [1983], it is prohibited to trade in antiquities. 30 . . . Article 8 31 With the exception of antiquities whose ownership or possession was already established [in 1983] or is established pursuant to [this law's] provisions, the possession of antiquities shall be prohibited as from [1983]. 32 Law 117 includes a chapter entitled Sanctions and Penalties detailing the criminal penalties to be imposed on persons found to have violated the law. This section provides, inter alia, that a person who unlawfully smuggles an antiquity outside the Republic or participates in such an act shall be liable to a prison term with hard labor and a fine of not less than 5,000 and not more than 50,000 pounds. A person who steals or conceals a state-owned antiquity faces a prison term of three to five years and a minimum fine of 3,000 pounds. A person who removes or detaches an antiquity from its place, counterfeits an antiquity, or unlawfully disposes of an antiquity faces a prison term of one to two years and a minimum fine of 100 pounds. A person who writes on, posts notices on, or accidentally defaces an antiquity faces a prison term of three to twelve months and/or a fine of 100 to 500 pounds. 33 Schultz moved in the district court to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Law 117 did not vest true ownership rights in the Egyptian government, and, accordingly, the items he conspired to smuggle out of Egypt were not stolen within the meaning of the NSPA. In response to Schultz's motion, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding Law 117 pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.1. 2 At that hearing, two Egyptian officials testified as fact witnesses for the government: Dr. Gaballa Ali Gaballa and General Ali El Sobky. 34 Dr. Gaballa is Secretary General of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, which is a part of the Ministry of Culture. The Supreme Council employs more than 20,000 people. Dr. Gaballa was asked: Who owns all newly discovered antiquities? He responded: The Egyptian government, of course. Dr. Gaballa clarified that people who owned antiquities prior to the adoption of Law 117 in 1983 are permitted to continue to possess the antiquities, but they may not transfer, dispose of, or relocate the antiquities without notifying the Egyptian government. Dr. Gaballa testified that pursuant to Law 117, when the Egyptian government learns that an antiquity has been discovered, agents of the government immediately take possession of the item. The item is then registered and given a number. 35 In response to questioning by the court, Dr. Gaballa asserted that there are no circumstances under which a person who finds an antiquity in Egypt may keep the antiquity legally. The person who found the antiquity is not compensated for the item, because it never belonged to the finder. The only time compensation is paid is when a person owns a plot of land on which an immovable structure is located, and the government takes possession of the entire plot of land in order to possess the structure; in such a case, only the value of the land itself, and not the value of the structure, is taken into account in determining the amount of payment. 36 The court also asked Dr. Gaballa whether Law 117 had been used to bring legal actions against persons in Egypt who did not comply with the law, but did not attempt to remove an antiquity from Egypt. Dr. Gaballa responded that he was aware of cases in which Law 117 had been applied to persons whose violations of the law took place entirely inside Egypt. 37 The government's second witness, General El Sobky, is the Director of Criminal Investigations for the Egyptian Antiquities Police. General El Sobky testified that his department, which employs more than 400 officers, regularly investigates and prosecutes people for violating Law 117. General El Sobky testified that most of the Law 117 investigations and prosecutions conducted by his department are of people who are trafficking in antiquities within Egypt, as opposed to exporting them out of Egypt. Furthermore, General El Sobky testified, even when a person is acquitted in such a prosecution, if the person is found to possess an antiquity, that antiquity is seized and retained by the government. 38 Schultz called one expert witness at the hearing, Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern law at the University of California — Los Angeles (UCLA) Law School. Professor Abou El Fadl opined that Law 117 was at times ambiguous and confusing. He further testified that the language of Law 117 did not make it clear whether the law intended to keep the antiquities inside of Egypt or actually was asserting governmental ownership over the antiquities. Professor Abou El Fadl asserted that nothing in Law 117 prevents the Antiquities Authority from leaving physical possession of even an antiquity discovered after 1983 in the hands of a private finder, so long as the private finder promptly notifies the Authority of his find. 39 On cross-examination, Professor Abou El Fadl stated that he had never practiced law in Egypt, nor was he licensed to practice law in Egypt. He testified that he had never read Law 117 prior to being requested to do so by Schultz's counsel, and that he had been unable to locate any treatises discussing Law 117. 40 Schultz contends that in spite of its plain language, Law 117 is not a real ownership law, and that Egypt does not truly claim ownership over all antiquities, but merely seeks to restrict their export. The district court disagreed, finding, based substantially on the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, that the plain language of Law 117 accurately reflects its purpose and effect: to vest absolute and true ownership of all antiquities found in Egypt after 1983 in the Egyptian government. See Schultz, 178 F.Supp.2d at 448. 41 Issues of foreign law are questions of law, Fed.R.Crim.P. 26.1 (2003), and accordingly we review the district court's findings regarding Law 117 de novo. See Curley v. AMR Corp., 153 F.3d 5, 11 (2d Cir.1998) ([A] court's determination of foreign law is treated as a question of law, which is subject to de novo review. (citing parallel rule Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.1)). 42 Schultz failed to present any evidence at the hearing or at trial that Law 117 is not what its plain language indicates it is, that is, an ownership law. Professor Abou El Fadl's opinion that the law is ambiguous cannot overcome the combination of (1) the plain text of the statute, and (2) the testimony of two Egyptian government officials to the effect that the statute is a true ownership law and is enforced as such. Although Professor Abou El Fadl testified that he believed it would be possible for Egyptian authorities to leave antiquities in the possession of private individuals who discovered them, Schultz offered no evidence that the authorities ever actually had permitted an individual to retain an antiquity found after 1983. The Egyptian government officials testified that there was no legal way for a private individual to retain possession of an antiquity discovered after 1983, and that all such antiquities are seized by the government. 43 Law 117 defines antiquity and prescribes the procedure to be followed by persons in possession of antiquities at the time the Law takes effect, and by persons who discover antiquities thereafter. It sets forth serious criminal penalties for the violation of its provisions. It provides for licensure of certain foreign archaeological missions, and for circumstances under which antiquities may be donated by the government to foreign museums in appreciation of those missions' work. The Law's provisions are directed at activities within Egypt as well as export of antiquities out of Egypt. Law 117 makes it clear that the Egyptian government claims ownership of all antiquities found in Egypt after 1983, and the government's active enforcement of its ownership rights confirms the intent of the Law. Accordingly, we conclude that Law 117 is clear and unambiguous, and that the antiquities that were the subject of the conspiracy in this case were owned by the Egyptian government. 44 The question thus becomes whether Schultz's actions in conspiring to take antiquities owned by the Egyptian government pursuant to Law 117 out of Egypt violate the NSPA. Schultz argues that even if Law 117 does intend to vest true ownership of all antiquities with the Egyptian government, that sort of ownership should not be recognized by the United States for purposes of prosecution under the NSPA. 45 Schultz urges us to adopt a narrow reading of the NSPA. However, the Supreme Court and this Court have acknowledged that the NSPA has a broad purpose, McElroy v. United States, 455 U.S. 642, 655, 102 S.Ct. 1332, 71 L.Ed.2d 522 (1982), and that the statute should be broadly construed. United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 469 (2d Cir.1991) (citing Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 113, 111 S.Ct. 461, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990)). We have held that the language of the NSPA is broad enough to justify the federal courts in applying the statute whenever they determine that the [property was] stolen in another country. United States v. Greco, 298 F.2d 247, 251 (2d Cir.1962); see also United States v. Parness, 503 F.2d 430, 440 n. 14 (2d Cir.1974) (citing Greco with approval). Accordingly, there can be no doubt that if the antiquities involved in the conspiracy were stolen in Egypt and then shipped to the United States, the NSPA would be violated. 46 Just as the property need not be stolen in the United States to bring the NSPA into play, the fact that the rightful owner of the stolen property is foreign has no impact on a prosecution under the NSPA. See United States v. Frazier, 584 F.2d 790, 794 (6th Cir.1978) (The court ruled that even if it were conceded that the defendants would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a foreign company, the NSPA would still apply. This was clearly a correct interpretation of the statute.). Furthermore, this Court has held that the NSPA applies to stolen property even where the person from whom the property was stolen may not have been the true owner of the property, and that the validity of the victim's title in the property is sometimes irrelevant. United States v. Benson, 548 F.2d 42, 46 (2d Cir.1977). 3 Accordingly, it does not matter that the antiquities at issue here were stolen in a foreign country, or that their putative owner is a foreign entity. 47 Notwithstanding all of the above, Schultz insists that the antiquities are not stolen within the meaning of the NSPA because they were never truly owned by the Egyptian government. The leading opinion addressing this question was issued by the Fifth Circuit, over 25 years ago, in United States v. McClain, 545 F.2d 988 (5th Cir.1977). The parties frame the question on appeal as whether the Second Circuit should adopt the reasoning set forth by the Fifth Circuit in McClain. 48 Schultz asserts that we should reject the holding in McClain based on existing Second Circuit precedent, which he reads as being hostile to McClain. Schultz then raises several additional arguments in support of his position, namely: (1) that McClain 's approach conflicts with United States policy, (2) that the enactment of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2613 (CPIA), confirms that Congress never intended [the] NSPA to reach ownership claims based upon national vesting laws when the property has not been reduced to the possession of the foreign state, and (3) that the common law definition of stolen would not reach the property at issue here. We address each of these arguments in turn.
49 The McClain defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the NSPA by importing artifacts from Mexico that were covered by a Mexican law declaring all such artifacts to be owned by the Mexican government. See id. at 992. The defendants claimed, as Schultz does here, that the NSPA did not apply to stolen objects that were taken in violation of patrimony laws. See id. at 994. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the NSPA did apply to such objects. 4 See id. at 996-97. 50 The McClain Court cited precedent according an expansive meaning to the term stolen in the NSPA, including United States v. Handler, 142 F.2d 351, 353 (2d Cir.1944), which held that embezzled property is stolen within the meaning of the NSPA. See McClain, 545 F.2d at 995 (citing cases). The McClain Court also cited United States v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389, 393-94 (2d Cir.1966). In Bottone, the defendants photocopied documents detailing secret manufacturing processes, and transported the photocopies across state lines. See Bottone, 365 F.2d at 391. The original documents were taken from the rightful owner only briefly for copying, and were never transported in interstate or foreign commerce. See id. at 393. The Court found that the transport of the photocopies violated the NSPA, and the fact that the photocopies were never possessed by the original owner should be deemed immaterial. Id. at 393-94. 51 The McClain Court also distinguished between mere unlawful export and actual theft, holding that a declaration of national ownership is necessary before illegal exportation of an article can be considered theft, and the exported article considered `stolen,' within the meaning of the [NSPA]. McClain, 545 F.2d at 1000-01. The court engaged in a close study of the Mexican patrimony law, including its language, history and purpose, and concluded that the Mexican government had made a declaration of national ownership satisfying this standard. See id. at 997-1000. As discussed above, Egypt has made a clear declaration of national ownership through Law 117, and has enforced that law accordingly. 52 Summarizing its decision in McClain, the Fifth Circuit stated: 53 This conclusion is a result of our attempt to reconcile the doctrine of strict construction of criminal statutes with the broad significance attached to the word stolen in the NSPA. Were the word to be so narrowly construed as to exclude coverage, for example, with respect to pre-Columbian artifacts illegally exported from Mexico after the effective date of the 1972 [patrimony] law, the Mexican government would be denied protection of the [NSPA] after it had done all it reasonably could do [to vest] itself with ownership to protect its interest in the artifacts. This would violate the apparent objective of Congress: the protection of owners of stolen property. If, on the other hand, an object were considered stolen merely because it was illegally exported, the meaning of the term stolen would be stretched beyond its conventional meaning. Although stealing is not a term of art, it is also not a word bereft of meaning. It should not be expanded at the government's will beyond the connotation depriving an owner of its rights in property conventionally called to mind. 54 McClain, 545 F.2d at 1001-02 (footnotes omitted). We agree that the Fifth Circuit reached the proper balance between these competing concerns in McClain. 55
56 Although McClain is often described as the only federal appeals court case to have considered the application of the NSPA to property deemed stolen under a foreign patrimony law, the issue was actually first encountered by the Ninth Circuit three years before McClain in United States v. Hollinshead, 495 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir.1974). The facts of Hollinshead are very similar to those in the case at hand. Hollinshead, a dealer in pre-Columbian artifacts, arranged with one Alamilla, a co-conspirator, to procure such artifacts in Central America, and to finance Alamilla in doing so. Id. at 1155. Once the artifacts were obtained, they were shipped to Hollinshead in the United States. See id. 57 Hollinshead was convicted of conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. See id. The trial centered on a particular artifact that had been found in a Mayan ruin in the jungle of Guatemala and eventually shipped to Hollinshead. See id. The artifact was stolen as defined by the NSPA because under Guatemalan law all such artifacts are the property of the Republic, and may not be removed without permission of the government. Id. As occurred in this case, the district court had received testimony regarding the law of Guatemala as applied to such artifacts. See id. 58 The Ninth Circuit was not presented in Hollinshead with a direct attack on the application of the NSPA to cases involving patrimony laws; that was not the basis of the defendant's appeal. However, the Ninth Circuit's discussion indicates its acceptance of the prosecution's theory in Hollinshead: that an object is stolen within the meaning of the NSPA if it is taken in violation of a patrimony law. See id. at 1156. We are aware of no other federal appeals court that has reached this issue. 59 The Second Circuit has rarely addressed McClain, and has never decided whether the holding of McClain is the law in this Circuit. See United States v. Long Cove Seafood, 582 F.2d 159, 163, 165 (2d Cir.1978) ( Long Cove ); United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.1999) ( Steinhardt ). 5 Although Schultz asserts that these cases support his position, we disagree with his interpretation of these precedents. 60
61 The defendants in Long Cove were charged with violating the NSPA by taking undersized clams from Long Island Sound and selling them to area restaurants. See Long Cove, 582 F.2d at 161, 162. There was no dispute that the practice of harvesting and selling undersized clams violated various environmental laws; the question was whether the transport of these clams across state lines constituted the interstate transport of stolen goods under the NSPA. See id. at 162-63. The government argued that the clams were stolen from the State of New York because of a New York law that provides: 62 The State of New York owns all fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crustacea and protected insects in the state, except those legally acquired and held in private ownership. Any person who kills, takes or possesses such fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crustacea or protected insects thereby consents that title thereto shall remain in the state for the purpose of regulating and controlling their use and disposition. 63 Id. at 164 (quoting N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 11-0105). 64 The Court stated that the key question was whether New York has asserted a true ownership interest in wildlife such as the Fifth Circuit, in [ McClain ], held that Mexico has done since 1972 with respect to pre-Columbian artifacts. We think not. Id. at 165. The Court emphasized that the New York statute stated that the purpose of asserting ownership was only to regulate and control the use and disposition of wildlife, not to actually take possession of it. See id. The Court further noted that while New York claimed to own the wildlife, it was not liable for an attack by any wild animal, as a private owner of such an animal would be. See id. 65 The distinctions between the facts of the Long Cove case and the facts of the case at hand are clear and require a different outcome here. First, as the testimony before the district court made clear, Egypt does assert a possessory interest in antiquities pursuant to Law 117. While the State of New York has never attempted to seize all wildlife found within its borders, Dr. Gaballa testified that the Egyptian government actively pursues any person found to have obtained an antiquity and takes immediate possession of all antiquities of which it becomes aware. 66 Second, both Dr. Gaballa and General El Sobky confirmed that the purpose of Law 117 is to bring all newly discovered antiquities within the direct possession and control of the Egyptian government in order to ensure that they are properly preserved and documented. Hundreds of antiquities police are employed by the Egyptian government solely to effectuate this purpose. To the contrary, the purpose of the New York law is simply to control the use and disposition of wildlife. See Long Cove, 582 F.2d at 164-65. 67 Third, the New York law explicitly excepts those wildlife legally acquired and held in private ownership. Id. at 164. Law 117 provides for no exceptions for private ownership of antiquities discovered after the effective date of the law. 6 It is legal under certain circumstances for a private person to obtain and dispose of wildlife in New York, for instance, by obtaining a hunting, fishing or trapping license. See, e.g., N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 11-0701(4) (McKinney 2003) (A fishing license entitles the holder to take fish by angling, spearing, hooking, longbow and tipups, to take frogs by spearing, catching with the hands or by use of a club or hook, and to take bait fish for personal use.). When a licensed hunter or fisherman catches wildlife in New York, it is his to keep and dispose of as he chooses. 68 In Egypt, on the other hand, it is impossible for a private party to get a license to obtain, possess or dispose of antiquities. Law 117 does provide in Article 34 for foreign missions to receive archaeological exploration and excavation licenses. However, Article 35 states that [a]ll antiquities discovered by foreign archaeological excavation missions shall be state owned. If the Antiquities Authority determines that the foreign mission is outstanding, and has performed important excavation and restoration work, the Authority may reward the mission by donating certain antiquities which are expendable by reason of their similarity to other items excavated from the same location. Even then, the donated antiquities must be thoroughly examined and fully recorded, and may only be donated to a museum, not to the excavators themselves. 69 We also note that in Long Cove we were not called upon to rule directly on the application of the NSPA to property owned pursuant to a patrimony law, and we did not question the correctness of McClain. Long Cove cited McClain more than once, in a positive light, which is significant in light of the considerable publicity the Fifth Circuit's controversial holding in McClain had generated at the time. See Long Cove, 582 F.2d at 163, 165. These citations give no indication that the Court disapproved of the outcome or analysis of McClain. 70
71 Schultz also contends that our decision in Steinhardt indicates that we have rejected the holding of McClain. In Steinhardt, the district court had found that an Italian antiquity should be forfeited by Steinhardt, who had imported it into the United States, because (1) Steinhardt had made material misrepresentations on a customs form or, (2) in the alternative, the antiquity was properly owned by the Italian government pursuant to a patrimony law and was therefore stolen property within the meaning of the NSPA and subject to forfeiture. See Steinhardt, 184 F.3d at 134. On appeal, we concluded that Steinhardt had made a material misstatement on a customs form when he represented that the antiquity was from Switzerland, not Italy. See id. at 137. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the antiquity was subject to forfeiture. 7 See id. at 138. The Court declined to reach the alternative ground relied on below, stating: We need not ... address whether the NSPA incorporates concepts of property such as those contained in the Italian patrimony laws. Id. at 134. 72 It is irrelevant that we previously reviewed a case in which it was not necessary to reach the question now before us. It is not at all uncommon for us to decline to reach an issue when the case before us can be resolved on other grounds. See, e.g., Wexner v. First Manhattan Co., 902 F.2d 169, 174 (2d Cir.1990) ([I]n light of our determination that the district court should be affirmed on other grounds, we find it neither necessary nor appropriate to reach this issue today.). Our failure to address a question that is not necessary to the outcome of a case is simply a wise exercise of our discretion. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 402, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in part) (Deliberate dicta, I had supposed, should be deliberately avoided. Especially should we avoid passing gratuitously on an important issue of public law where due consideration of it has been crowded out by complicated and elaborate issues that have to be decided.). 8 We find Schultz's reliance on Steinhardt unpersuasive.
73 Schultz contends that it is United States policy not to enforce the export restrictions of foreign nations. Schultz offers no evidence in support of this assertion, but even if his assessment of United States policy is accurate, the outcome of this case is unaffected. We have already concluded, based on the plain language of Law 117 and the evidence in the record, that Law 117 is an ownership law, not an export-restriction law. Two Egyptian officials testified under oath that the law is used in Egypt to prosecute people for trafficking in antiquities within Egypt's borders. Law 117 provides for a minimum five-year prison term and a fine of 3,000 pounds for persons convicted of [t]heft or concealment of a state owned antiquity. Persons convicted of smuggling an antiquity out of Egypt face a prison term with hard labor and a fine of not less than 5,000 and not more than 50,000 pounds. Clearly, theft or concealment of an antiquity within Egypt is a different offense than smuggling an antiquity out of Egypt, and both are prohibited by Law 117. Accordingly, even if Schultz's interpretation of American policy is accurate, it is not relevant here. While Law 117 does restrict exportation of cultural objects, its scope is not limited to export restrictions. Law 117 is more than an export regulation — it is a true ownership law.
74 Schultz contends that the adoption of the CPIA shows that Congress did not intend the NSPA to apply to objects such as the ones he conspired to bring to the United States. The CPIA implements a United Nations convention that was ratified by the United States in 1982, the purpose of which was to achieve greater international cooperation towards preserving cultural treasures that not only are of importance to the nations whence they originate, but also to greater international understanding of our common heritage. S.Rep. No. 97-564, at 21 (1982). 75 The CPIA provides a mechanism for the American government to establish import restrictions on cultural property at the request of another signatory nation and after a determination by the President that (1) the cultural patrimony of [the requesting nation] is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of [that nation], (2) the requesting nation has taken measures ... to protect its cultural patrimony, (3) the import restrictions are necessary and would be effective in dealing with the problem, and (4) the restrictions are in the general interest of the international community. 19 U.S.C. § 2602(a)(1)(A)-(D) (2003). 76 Schultz argues that the CPIA was intended to be the only mechanism by which the United States government would deal with antiquities and other cultural property imported into the United States. However, nothing in the language of the CPIA supports that interpretation, and the legislative history shows that exactly the converse is true. As the district court correctly noted, Schultz, 178 F.Supp.2d at 449, the Senate Report on the CPIA expressly states that the CPIA neither preempts state law in any way, nor modifies any Federal or State remedies that may pertain to articles to which [the CPIA's] provisions ... apply. S.Rep. No. 97-564, at 22 (1982). Furthermore, the Senate Report states that the CPIA affects neither existing remedies available in state or federal courts nor laws prohibiting the theft and the knowing receipt and transportation of stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce ( e.g., National Stolen Property Act, Title 18, U.S.C. Sections 2314-15). Id. at 33 (emphasis added). 77 The CPIA also bars the importation of items that have been stolen from a museum or other cultural institution in a foreign signatory nation. See 19 U.S.C. § 2607. Schultz argues that because only those items that are stolen from specified places are covered by the CPIA, Congress never intended in any way to limit the import of items stolen only in the sense that they were taken in violation of patrimony laws. This argument is unpersuasive. The CPIA does not state that importing objects stolen from somewhere other than a museum is legal. If, for instance, an artifact covered by the CPIA were stolen from a private home in a signatory nation and imported into the United States, the CPIA would not be violated, but surely the thief could be prosecuted for transporting stolen goods in violation of the NSPA. 78 The CPIA is an import law, not a criminal law; it is not codified in Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), with the NSPA, but in Title 19 (Customs Duties). It may be true that there are cases in which a person will be violating both the CPIA and the NSPA when he imports an object into the United States. But it is not inappropriate for the same conduct to result in a person being subject to both civil penalties and criminal prosecution, and the potential overlap between the CPIA and the NSPA is no reason to limit the reach of the NSPA. See, e.g., Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 98-99, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997) (holding that a person may be subjected to civil and criminal penalties for the same conduct without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause). 79 For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the passage of the CPIA does not limit the NSPA's application to antiquities stolen in foreign nations. 9 80
81 Schultz argues that the Court must look to the common law definition of stolen to determine whether the antiquities at issue are covered by the NSPA. 10 Schultz cites United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430 (1957), in which the Supreme Court considered the meaning of the term stolen in the context of the statute that served as the precursor and model for the NSPA. See id. at 410-11, 77 S.Ct. 397. The Supreme Court stated: We recognize that where a federal criminal statute uses a common-law term of established meaning without otherwise defining it, the general practice is to give that term its common-law meaning. Id. at 411, 77 S.Ct. 397. Schultz contends that interpreting the NSPA to apply to items that are stolen in the sense that they are possessed by a defendant in violation of a foreign patrimony law would be in derogation of the common law. However, in Turley, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that `stolen' (or `stealing') has no accepted common-law meaning. Id. If stolen has no common law meaning, we cannot look to the common law to assist us in interpreting that term. 82 The Supreme Court also stated in Turley that the term stolen included all felonious takings ... regardless of whether or not the theft constitutes common-law larceny. Id. at 417, 77 S.Ct. 397. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, the precursor to the NSPA — and by extension the NSPA — covers a broader class of crimes than those contemplated by the common law. Accordingly, we find this argument unpersuasive.
83 In light of our own precedents and the plain language of the NSPA, we conclude that the NSPA applies to property that is stolen in violation of a foreign patrimony law. The CPIA is not the exclusive means of dealing with stolen artifacts and antiquities, and reading the NSPA to extend to such property does not conflict with United States policy. We believe that, when necessary, our courts are capable of evaluating foreign patrimony laws to determine whether their language and enforcement indicate that they are intended to assert true ownership of certain property, or merely to restrict the export of that property. In this case, the district court carefully evaluated the language of Law 117. The court also heard testimony from one academic expert and two Egyptian government officials. This evidence was sufficient to inform the court of the nature of Egypt's interest in the antiquities that were the subject of the conspiracy. 84 Although we recognize the concerns raised by Schultz and the amici about the risks that this holding poses to dealers in foreign antiquities, we cannot imagine that it creates an insurmountable barrier to the lawful importation of cultural property into the United States. Our holding does assuredly create a barrier to the importation of cultural property owned by a foreign government. We see no reason that property stolen from a foreign sovereign should be treated any differently from property stolen from a foreign museum or private home. The mens rea requirement of the NSPA will protect innocent art dealers who unwittingly receive stolen goods, while our appropriately broad reading of the NSPA will protect the property of sovereign nations.