Hearing Scheduled in Antiquities Trafficking Case - U.S. v. Khouli et al.

Source: US District Court, Eastern District of New York

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has scheduled an important hearing in the alleged antiquities trafficking case involving Joseph A. Lewis, II and Salem Alshdaifat, known as U.S. v. Khouli et al.

The evidentiary hearing will focus on the admissibility of the Alshdaifat's statements to law enforcement as well as the portions of the defendants' omnibus motions that have not been dismissed already.

A summary of the government's written arguments can be found here.  A summary of the defendants' written arguments can be found here: Part I and Part II.

The hearing will take place before Senior District Judge Edward R. Korman on November 19, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.

Lewis and Alshdaifat were charged by a federal grand jury in 2011.  They are presumed innocent unless the government proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Another defendant in the case, Mousa Khouli, pleaded guilty to charges in April.  A fourth alleged conspirator, Ayman Ramadan, remains a fugitive. 


This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2012 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Cultural Property Cases Roundup - Khouli et al., Sandstone Cambodian Sculpture, Weiss, and ACCG Appeal [UPDATED]

September is a busy month for cultural property law cases.  More activity is expected in the case of United States v. Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer soon, a case that involves the U.S. government's attempt to forfeit a mummy mask from the St. Louis Art Museum and repatriate it to Egypt.   [UPDATE 9/25/12: The 8th circuit has lately granted an order permitting the government to file its brief in the case on October 26 rather than in September].  Thus far there has been activity in four other important cases.

The case of U.S. v. Khouli et al. saw the submission of legal memoranda by defendants Joseph Lewis, II and Salem Alshdaifat urging the court to dismiss the criminal charges against them.  A grand jury alleges that the pair had roles in trafficking antiquities.  Lewis and Alshdaifait vigorously deny the charges.  A third co-defendant, Mousa Khouli pleaded guilty in April 2012.

On September 18, 2012 the eastern federal district court in New York ruled on Lewis' arguments.  Judge Edward R. Korman denied the Motion to Dismiss but the omnibus motions remain.  The court on September 10, meanwhile, granted Alshdaifat's request to travel to England to meet with overseas business partners and to attend the Coinex London 2012 numismatics show.  The prosecution objected to the request.  According to Alshdaifat's lawyer in a September 5 letter to the court, Alshdaifat "has a joint venture with a business in London, called Roma Numismatics."  It appears, however, that the joint venture is actually Athena Numismatics Ltd., which is listed on VCoins.

In the southern district New York federal court, Sotheby's and Ms. Ruspoli di Poggio Suausa filed a reply memorandum on September 17 to bolster their June 5, 2012 motion arguing that the government cannot forfeit a statute in the case of United States Of America v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture, Currently Located at Sotheby's.  The claimants' reply brief was filed in response to the government's pleading submitted last month.

New York state court, meanwhile, scheduled the case against Arnold Peter Weiss for sentencing on September 17.  Weiss pleaded guilty in July to attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.  Terms of his sentence, pursuant to the plea agreement, are outlined here.  As part of the sentence, Weiss published an essay titled "Caveat Emptor: A Guide to Responsible Coin Collecting" in American Numismatic Society Magazine.

In Virginia, oral argument in the fourth circuit court of appeals took place on September 19 before judges J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, Stephanie D. Thacker and Michael F. Urbanski in the case of Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of State; Assistant Secretary of State, Educational and Cultural Affairs.  The ACCG appealed their August 2011 loss in the lower federal district court in Baltimore.  The organization submitted its written arguments in October 2011, and the federal government replied in January 2012.

The attorneys' oral arguments in the ACCG case can be heard in their entirety here.  In sum, Judge Wilkinson appeared unwilling to involve the judiciary in foreign affairs decisions of the executive branch, which can be overseen by the legislative branch. He had apparent trouble finding that  the U.S. State Department acted arbitrarily or capriciously when implementing import controls over ancient coins under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). "Why should we jump into this and make it a tri-cornered mess," asked the court in its apprehension of being drawn into a matter that involves the two other branches of government.

The court appeared to believe that there is a "slight burden" placed on the importer--not on the government--to show where ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins have been in the past few years; the inquiry is not where the coins have traveled in ancient times. And this burden, which is "not a huge hurdle to surmount,"should be placed on importers because importers have the most knowledge.

[Hat tip to Nathan Elkins for highlighting the Weiss article in ANS Magazine].


This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2012 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Objection Filed: Prosecution Outlines Factual Claims in U.S. v. Khouli et al.

Assistant United States Attorneys Karin Orenstein and Claire Kedeshian have filed an 87 page objection in response to motions filed on April 30, 2012 by Joseph Lewis, II and Salem Alshdaifat.  The government objects to the defendants' efforts to scuttle the case of United States v. Khouli et al., and the prosecutors take the opportunity to present the court with their evidence.

Lewis and Alshdaifat were charged by a federal grand jury in 2011 with crimes related to antiquities trafficking.  They are presumed innocent unless the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they had knowledge of the illegality and acted unlawfully. Another defendant in the case, Mousa Khouli, pleaded guilty to charges in April, while a fourth alleged conspirator, Ayman Ramadan, remains a fugitive at large.

In its objection filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the government argues, in part, that

• the warrants authorizing searches of Lewis' home in Virginia and Alshdaifat's home in Michigan and their execution by federal agents were proper;
• the search of the two defendants' emails were reasonable and properly authorized by three valid warrants;
• Alshdaifat did not suffer violations of his right to remain silent or his right to counsel;
• the smuggling statute (18 USC 545) is not unconstitutionally vague;
• the government did not engage in any alleged overreaching or misconduct in the case;
• the venue of the court (eastern district of New York) is proper; and
• the money laundering conspiracy charge is valid.

Source: ICE

To support its legal arguments, and to paint a picture of the alleged smuggling and money laundering conspiracy, the government presents the court with a narrative describing the movements of an allegedly smuggled Greco-Roman coffin, a mummy board, a 3-piece nesting Egyptian coffin set, and Egyptian boats and limestone artifacts.

Federal prosecutors outline how Khouli and Ramadan smuggled the Greco-Roman coffin into JFK Airport in New York by transferring two payments of $10,000 and $3400 and submitting false customs information.  "While Lewis and Alshdaifat are not charged with smuggling the Greco-Roman coffin . . . the facts surrounding this transaction are revealing with regard to Lewis’s mens rea [i.e. criminal knowledge] for his subsequent transactions with Khouli," write the attorneys. The attorneys highlight that the customs papers listed the Greco-Roman coffin's country of origin as United Arab Emirates and not Egypt and described the coffin as "antique wood panel" valued at $3400. Prosecutors also tell how a sales invoice that did not originate from the actual seller, who was Ayman Ramadan/Nefertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading, was attached to the customs papers.

The government's lawyers go on to describe that the first artifact purchased by Lewis from Khouli was a mummy board, eventually seized by federal agents during a July 13, 2011 search of Lewis' Virginia home:

"Khouli sold an Egyptian mummy board to a customer .... A mummy board is a decorated wooden board that fits inside a coffin along with a mummy. On January 9, 2009, before [the customer] took physical possession of the mummy board from Khouli, Lewis purchased it from [the customer] for $60,000.  The bill of sale between Lewis and [the customer] included a photograph of the mummy board and identified its prior owners as Khouli’s company, Windsor Antiquities (“Windsor”), and previously, a private Dutch collection that acquired the item in the 1960s. The mummy board depicted in the bill of sale appears to have a transverse cut across the middle. On January 14, 2009, several days after the sale, Khouli and Lewis were in direct e-mail contact about shipping the mummy board from Khouli to Lewis.

"On February 10, 2009, Khouli advised Lewis by e-mail that he had obtained the mummy board from a restorer and offered to ship it to Lewis. Lewis inquired as to whether the repair at the 'joints' was invisible, referring to where the cut pieces were joined together."

On the same day, February 10, 2009, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent (ICE) agent questioned Khouli about the importation of the Greco-Roman coffin.  The government reports that "[o]n the following day, February 11, 2009, Khouli offered Lewis two Egyptian antiquities: the Greco-Roman coffin and a bronze figure. Khouli advised Lewis by e-mail, 'Let me know what you think about the two Egyptian pieces[;] these are from my dad[’]s collection[;] he passed away about three years ago and my brothers and I want to sell them and split the money.'"  Lewis reportedly purchased the coffin for $32,500, not $65,000 as proposed by Khouli.

Because "[n]o mention was made of any other objects remaining from Khouli’s father’s collection [and because] Lewis’s dealings with Khouli the previous month indicated that Khouli had ... acquired the mummy board from a private Dutch collection, not from his father," federal prosecutors argue that "[t]hese facts belie Lewis’s argument that he had a basis for believing that every item he purchased from Khouli came from Khouli’s father’s collection."

In fact, government attorneys suggest that Khouli signaled to Lewis that the Greco-Roman coffin did not actually come from his father, stating:

"On March 6, 2009, after Khouli and Lewis had agreed to the sale of the Greco-Roman coffin, but months before Lewis took possession of it, Khouli offered Lewis a mummy linen and mask, writing in an e-mail, 'I just got th[e]s[e] items[;] i described them to you last week . . . .' (Gov’t Exh. 1; emphasis added). On the same date, Lewis responded, in sum and substance, that he already had four such items and that they were not very expensive. Khouli replied on the same date, 'It is very interesting[;] it was inside the coffin you bought from me according to the owner but he sold I[t] to me separately son of a gun.' (Id.; emphasis added). The statement that the Greco-Roman coffin had belonged to a separate 'owner' who 'sold' both the coffin and a related mummy linen and mask to Khouli was inconsistent with Khouli’s earlier representation that the Greco-Roman coffin had been sitting in his father’s collection for decades.  Upon learning this information, Lewis did not cancel the Greco-Roman transaction or request a new provenance from Khouli. Rather, he agreed to purchase the mummy linen and mask. In addition, despite Lewis’s only information about the mummy linen and mask’s provenance being that Khouli had 'just' received them and they were 'sold' to Khouli by another dealer, Lewis’s records for these antiquities include a Windsor bill of sale stating that these items were 'legally acquired by the late Jack Khouli in Israel in the 1960s.' While Lewis is not charged with smuggling the Greco-Roman coffin, his experience with Khouli in early 2009 told him that (1) not every Egyptian antiquity Khouli sold was from his father’s collection, and (2) any provenance that included Khouli’s father was unreliable."

The next day, on March 7, 2009, Khouli offered Lewis both a middle and outer coffin of an ancient Egyptian nesting coffin set, according to the prosecution.  Khouli reportedly went to Dubai in April to view them and discovered a third inner coffin.  Prosecutors say that  "Lewis’s e-mail messages indicate that he believed that the inner coffin was part of the same set as the middle coffin and outer coffin lid, making a three-piece nesting set. In these email messages, Khouli advised Lewis that the inner coffin had already been sold to another buyer and Lewis agreed to pay $150,000 for the inner coffin to avoid breaking up the set. The total agreed price for the nesting set was $310,000. Nothing in these e-mail exchanges suggested that Khouli had previously been aware of any of these coffins let alone that they had ever been in his father’s collection."

The government's lawyers add:
"On April 12, 2009, Lewis sent an e-mail message to Khouli confirming the details of the sale of the three piece coffin set. Lewis’s terms included that Khouli would provide “[p]rovenance from [his] late father’s collection, Israel 1960s” and a guarantee that the items would be cleared by Customs within 30 days of arrival. Khouli agreed to these terms. (Gov’t Exh. 4)."

The nesting coffins were sent to the United States in pieces using different transportation methods--international mail, air cargo, and sea cargo--and sent through separate points of entry, specifically JFK Airport in New York and the Port of Newark in New Jersey.  Prosecutors write in their pleading that the shipments were variously described for Customs as wooden panels, Indian furniture, purchased by a Connecticut third-party, or valued at $900. The coffin set was delivered to a Connecticut address.

Prosecutors further allege that Lewis knew that the Egyptian coffin parts required assembly.  "Lewis was therefore aware that pieces of the inner coffin and the remaining parts of the coffin set were being shipped in pieces, over an extended time period, because there was some risk attached to their importation."  Federal attorneys describe how Khouli sent an email to Lewis on April 29, 2009: "“i (sic) got the first half of the cut inner coffin the second half is on the way, shall I send it to you or should I wait for the second half and have [a certain person] look at it and have it fixed?” (Gov’t Exh. 6; emphases added). Lewis responded, “[The certain person] needs to put them together, when will the other two coffins arrive?” (Id.; emphasis added)."

Then in May 2009, Alshdaifat allegedly sold Khouli two ancient Egyptian funerary boats and five limestone figures for $40,000, which made their way from Ramadan to Khouli by international mail and then to Lewis. Prosecutors say that Ramadan sent the shipping label, which described the package as "antiques," to both Alshdaifat and Khouli.

The defendants may file a reply to the government's objection.  Meanwhile, Khouli's sentencing hearing is scheduled for next month.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com
(c) 2012 Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC

Prosecution Specifies Laws Allegedly Violated in U.S. v. Khouli et al. Prosecution

The prosecution has more particularly identified the laws it will use to prosecute Joseph A. Lewis, II and Salem Alshdaifat, both indicted last year by a New York federal grand jury for crimes relating to alleged antiquities trafficking.  Earlier this month, Chief Magistrate Steven M. Gold denied the defendants' motion for a bill of particulars.  However, the court ordered government attorneys to further crystallize the laws it would rely on during trial.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, in part, explained the following in a recent letter to the court:

"The Indictment alleges that the defendants acted contrary to law by providing Customs with false declarations of county of origin, seller, consignee and purchaser; providing Customs with vague and misleading descriptions of shipments' contents; failing to declare that multiple shipments contained a single purchase or to declare the full value of that purchase; and failing to file entry on international mail shipments, and accordingly, failing to make required declarations regarding those shipments. . . . The applicable Customs regulations that were violated by the above-described conduct are contained in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 141 (“Entry of Merchandise”), Part 142 (“Entry Process”), Part 143, Subpart C (“Informal Entry”), and Part 145 (“Mail Importations”). . . . "

"In addition, by making material false statements to Customs, the charged conduct was contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 542 (“Entry of Goods by Means of False Statements”). See, e.g., United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 134-37 (2d Cir. 1999)(finding that a false declaration regarding an item’s country of origin violated Section 542, and the importation was therefore “contrary to law” for purposes of forfeiture of that item pursuant to Section 545)."

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

U.S. v. Khouli et al. Update: Judge Denies Defendants' Discovery Motion... With An Exception

"In general, defendants' motion for a bill of particulars is denied ...."  That was the order of Chief Magistrate Steven M. Gold in the alleged antiquities trafficking cases of Joseph A. Lewis, II and Salem Alshdaifat. Together with Mousa Khouli and Ayman Ramadan, the defendants were indicted by a New York federal grand jury in 2011.  Lewis and Alshdaifat deny the charges.  Khouli  pleaded guilty to the charges in April. Ramadan remains a fugitive from justice.

Cultural property seized in U.S. v. Khouli et al.
Courtesy ICE

On April 11, 2012 co-defendants Lewis and Alshdaifat submitted a bill of particulars requesting more specific discovery from the prosecution.  The prosecution objected, saying "the government has already provided more than the law requires."

After a hearing last Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled against the defendants "with the exception that the United States shall, by May 25, 2012, identify any regulations, treaty provisions, or foreign laws it will rely on at trial as 'laws' in connection with the charge that defendants 'fraudulently or knowingly import[ed or brought] into the United States, any merchandise, contrary to law' in violation of 18 USC 545."

18 USC 545 is the federal smuggling statute.  That law states in relevant part:

"Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings into the United States, any merchandise contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Proof of defendant's possession of such goods, unless explained to the satisfaction of the jury, shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction for violation of this section."

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Part II: Motions Filed by Lewis and Alshdaifat in U.S. v. Khouli et al. Take Aim at the Government -- Smuggling Statute Claimed to be Overbroad

Continued from yesterday.

CC. Source: www.legaleducation.org.uk

Salem Alshdaifat’s attorney also filed an omnibus motion in the matter of U.S. v. Khouli et al.  He claims that his client was a broker or middleman who did not participate in the importation of the cultural objects that are part of the criminal case.   He seeks to dismiss all counts of the indictment against Alshdaifat; suppress physical and digital evidence; suppress post-arrest statements of his client; have an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes related to the motions; compel the government to produce expert witness discovery; provide notice of any “prior bad acts” evidence; and have permission to join in motions filed by Joseph A. Lewis, II.

Specifically, Alshdaifat contends that the smuggling statute (18 U.S.C. § 545) is void for vagueness.  Therefore, Alshdaifat cannot be prosecuted under the statute.  To quote from Alshdaifat’s memo of law:

“The federal smuggling statute … has been interpreted by federal courts to mean different things depending on where a defendant conducts his business. Mr. Alshdaifat could not be charged with a smuggling crime had the merchandise been mailed to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Delaware because the Third Circuit has ruled since 1994 that Section 545 requires an intent to deprive the United States of revenue.  In this case, the merchandise involved in the Section 545 offenses are classified as 'antiques,' and under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, Heading 9706, they are duty free. Thus, in the Third Circuit, there would be no crime here. However, in the Second Circuit [covering New York], the Section 545 smuggling crime has been more expansively interpreted to cover conduct beyond an intent to defraud the United States of its right to revenue. Given that the courts cannot agree on the meaning of this statute, ordinary people will find it difficult to understand what conduct is actually prohibited by the statute.” (Citations omitted).

Alshdaifat’s lawyer adds that “the current expansive interpretation in the Second Circuit of Section 545's ‘intent to defraud’ provision is unconstitutionally vague,” requiring dismissal of charges against the defendant.

Improper venue is also argued as a basis for dismissing the charges.  Counsel for Alshdaifat contends that points of entry for certain goods that are the subject of the indictment are not articulated, or that points of entry mentioned in the discovery materials specifically relate to places outside the Eastern District of New York such as Manhattan or Connecticut.

Alshdaifat’s motion additionally argues that evidence must be suppressed that was derived from “defective” search warrants granting seizure of emails.  Alshdaifat’s lawyer claims that one warrant lacked probable cause for the government to believe that “evidence of a crime would be found within the Alshdaifat Yahoo! e-mail account.”  “This request … was quite expansive and intrusive. It sought authorization to search literally tens of thousands of e-mail communications of several individuals.” Alshdaifat’s lawyer adds that the Magistrate issuing the warrant was “misled.”  A second warrant authorizing the search and seizure of emails must also be struck down, it is argued, because it is tainted by the fruits of the first search warrant.

Meanwhile, federal agents’ search of Alshdaifat’s Michigan home is alleged to be improper because the magistrate's warrant was based on tainted evidence, the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad, and the agents who executed the warrant went beyond their authority.  The evidence gathered must therefore be suppressed.

Alshdaifat’s lawyer takes pointed aim at statements made in the warrant affidavit by one Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, which describe a past allegation of smuggling by Alshdaifat in Detroit.  “The Agent's account of this incident is emblematic of the reckless way the government conducted this investigation and how they repeatedly misreported information to force the ‘facts’ to fit their theory,” writes counsel. “The Agent's rendition of the incident at Detroit Metro Airport with Mr. Alshdaifat should not contribute to a probable cause showing to invade his home because it does not suggest crimes involving violations of Customs laws or the National Stolen Property Act.” (Citations omitted).

The manner in which federal agents searched Alshdaifat’s home last year also earns scrutiny by legal counsel:  “While the Warrant's Attachment specifically limited the items to be seized to those ‘which are evidence of . . . art or antiquities that were illegally imported,’ the searching agents took everything—every last coin and trinket in the house. There was no attempt to connect these items with evidenc[e] that they were illegally imported—none at all.”

Moreover, it is argued that statements made by Alshdaifat to authorities should not be introduced at trial because the defendant was represented by legal counsel when authorities questioned him outside his home in Michigan.  The attorney writes that “Mr. Alshdaifat requested the opportunity to call his lawyer, and was denied. Under these circumstances, Mr. Alshdaifat did not voluntarily waive his right to have counsel present at his post-arrest interview and his statements were far from voluntary.  Moreover, because at the time of his arrest, Mr. Alshdaifat was already under indictment in the Eastern District of New York and represented by counsel on matters related to that indictment, the government also violated his attached Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” (Citations omitted).

The prosecution will have a chance to respond to the omnibus motions filed by Lewis and Alshdaifat.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Part I: Motions Filed by Lewis and Alshdaifat in U.S. v. Khouli et al. Take Aim at the Government -- SLAM Forfeiture Lawsuit and Sotheby's Cambodian Case Cited

Objects seized in U.S. v. Khouli et al.

Attorneys for Joseph A. Lewis, II and Salem Alshdaifat both filed omnibus motions this past Monday in the criminal case of U.S. v. Khouli et al.  They argue multiple grounds for relief.

A federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of New York indicted antiquities collector and businessman Lewis as well as ancient coin dealer Alshdaifat for their roles in an alleged antiquities trafficking conspiracy.  They are presumed innocent.  Their efforts appear more vigorous now that a third co-defendant, antiquities dealer Mousa "Morris" Khouli, pleaded guilty last week.  A fourth co-defendant, Ayman Ramadan, remains a fugitive.

Joseph Lewis’ lawyers seek to dismiss the case against their client; suppress evidence seized by authorities from email accounts; dismiss specified counts of the indictment; have the grand jury minutes reviewed by the court; seek to obtain advance notice of any prior bad acts by Lewis that the prosecution may raise at trial; and join arguments made by Alshdaifat’s attorney.  Some of the arguments made by Lewis’ lawyers are discussed here.

Lewis’ attorneys say that the evidence obtained by court issued search warrants must be suppressed.  The attorneys argue that affidavits in support of searches of Lewis’ home and emails were misleading and contained material omissions.  “In each supporting affidavit the government repeatedly presented exaggerated, conclusory assertions and omitted contextually important material facts.  Most blatantly, these affidavits painted Mr. Lewis and the alleged conspirators as grave robbers trafficking in stolen property, when the government knew that that was not true and more important, that it lacked proof to support these allegations.”  For example the government “never disclosed the absence of proof that any piece was stolen, preferring instead to create an aura that such proof did exist.”  The government also did not mention anything about Lewis’ inquiries to Khouli, made in order to confirm the provenance of an Egyptian coffin, instead implying that Lewis “asked [Mr. Mousa] Khouli to create a false provenance ….”  Had the government presented a full picture of its evidence and not made improper implications, Lewis’ attorneys contend that the “Magistrate Judge would have been deeply troubled by the [search warrant] application …”

The lawyers for Lewis protest that “the government baldly asserted . . . that ‘persons who smuggle cultural property of questionable provenance into the United States typically avoid detection by Customs by means of false statements . . . .”  Lewis’ attorneys attack this line of reasoning, in part, because they say that Lewis was never part of the importation process of antiquities and because “hundreds of foreign antiquities … lawfully exist throughout the United States despite their bearing explicitly uncertain provenances.”

To support their client’s claims, Lewis’ attorneys cite the recent dismissal of the federal government’s forfeiture case in the matter of US. v. Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer:  “[I]t has become the practice of the government in the antiquities field [to make assertions] without regard for the truth as was shown recently, when the government was badly rebuffed and excoriated in a recent effort to seize an antiquity from the St. Louis Art Museum.”

Lewis’ attorneys also contend that federal agents acted beyond the scope of the warrant authorizing a search of Lewis’ Virginia home last year.  Instead of simply taking relevant antiquities—e.g. a Greco Roman coffin, an Egyptian nesting coffin, limestone figures, and funerary boats—as well as related items such as documents, the agents took items well beyond what the warrant authorized.  The attorneys claim that the seizure of documents related to Lewis’ insect collection, personal documents, and more was outside the scope of the warrant’s authority.  The lawyers state that “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents were inappropriately invited to participate, undoubtedly contributing to the massive number of unrelated and unauthorized seizures.”  The only way to cure the problem of an overly broad execution of a search warrant is to suppress the evidence obtained by it, the lawyers argue.

Attorneys for Lewis further argue that the case against their client should be dismissed because of government excesses.  They urge the court to drop the criminal case against Lewis because of the alleged misconduct described above, because of reckless media statements, and because of selective prosecution.  The attorneys say that Lewis has been unfairly characterized in the press by government misrepresentations, and that there is “an overall campaign to harm Joe Lewis” as illustrated by “damaging accusations” made to CNN, The New York Times, and elsewhere. 

Lewis has also been unfairly targeted for prosecution, they say.  “Indeed, outside of this case, the number of traded antiquities with dubious , questionable or unknown provenances are too numerous to count and yet none of those sellers or buyers have been prosecuted based on questionable provenance alone—the only factor here,” the lawyers argue. (Emphasis in the original).  To further illustrate the claim, Lewis’ lawyers point to the lack of prosecution occurring in the Sotheby’s case involving forfeiture of a Cambodian statue.

Legal counsel also asks the court to dismiss the money laundering count against Lewis, in part, because the charge is not based on Lewis paying money for the importation of cultural property.

Because Customs seized the components of an Egyptian nesting coffin in Newark, New Jersey, the case should also be dismissed for improper venue.  The court for the Eastern District of New York does not cover cases arising in Newark, Lewis’ lawyers say.

Attorneys for Lewis conclude by asking the court to review the transcript of the grand jury session.  Normally grand jury proceedings are confidential.  But the attorneys state that the government’s excesses were so pervasive in this case that a judge should review the testimony given to the grand jury.

To be continued tomorrow ...

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Objection to Bill of Particulars Filed in U.S. v. Khouli et al.

The defendants have more than enough information.  So says the government’s 17 page objection to a bill of particulars filed by defendants in the case of United States v. Khouli et al.

Earlier this month co-defendants Joseph A. Lewis II and Salem Alshdaifat submitted a bill of particulars requesting detailed discovery from the prosecution.  The two were indicted last year in a New York federal district court in for their alleged roles in trafficking antiquities.  They want information from the prosecution about which ports were used to import the antiquities, what documents were provided to Customs, and which representations on Customs forms were false.  Mousa "Morris" Khouli, another co-defendant and an antiquities dealer, pleaded guilty to charges on April 18.

Assistant United States Attorney Karin Orenstein on Aprl 27 filed an objection to the bill of particulars, arguing “The defendants’ demands for particulars seek granular detail of the government’s proof, and the government has already provided more than the law requires. The Indictment and the discovery, which includes a verified civil complaint and multiple search warrants, provide the defendants with all the information they need to understand the specific acts of which they are accused.”

Attached to AUSA Orenstein’s objection is a sheet outlining the information that has been provided to the defense. It lists such items as bank records; search warrant affidavits concerning homes, emails, and businesses; postal records; UPS records; photographs of antiquities; Paypal records; travel records; customs documents; insurance documents; and Go Daddy accounts.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Antiquities "Launderer" Pleads Guilty As Co-Defendants Continue to Litigate Case of US v. Khouli et al.

Egyptian coffin seized in
US v. Khouli et al.
Courtesy ICE.

Mousa "Morris" Khouli pleaded guilty yesterday to smuggling Egyptian cultural property into the United States and making a false statement to law enforcement authorities, according to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  Khouli, a New York based antiquities dealer, was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2011 for his role in illegally importing ancient artifacts.  Also indicted were Joseph A. Lewis II, Salem Alshdaifat, and Ayman Ramadan. Ramadan remains at large.  (Those indicted are considered innocent unless proven guilty).

A press release issued by U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch states the following:
"The defendant [Mousa Khouli] entered his plea before the Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse in Brooklyn. The defendant faces a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. The defendant also entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving a civil complaint seeking forfeiture of the Egyptian antiquities, Iraqi artifacts, cash and other pieces of cultural property seized in connection with the government’s investigation." (See here for background).

This guilty plea follows a motion hearing held on March 23, 2012 where co-defendant Joseph Lewis II's lawyer argued a motion to dismiss the case against Lewis.

Lewis is alleged to have received contraband Egyptian archaeological material from Khouli.  But Lewis' lawyer maintained at the hearing that Lewis was never part of the illegal importation process.  At the March court proceeding, Lewis' attorney argued: "The issue for this case is whether this man participated in or agreed to participate in the process by which these objects were brought in deceitfully through United States Customs.  That's the issue.  There's no evidence of that."

Assistant United States Attorney Karin Orenstein countered that it is inappropriate for the court to dismiss a case based on facts that should be heard and evaluated during a trial.  She also stated that Lewis' involvement in an illegally imported Egyptian coffin found in Miami, Florida in 2008 would be used as evidence to show that Lewis knew about the mechanics of the import process into the U.S. of cultural property.

Attorney Orenstein further described how Khouli acted as "a cultural property launderer."  "He creates good provenance for a piece, so that when it comes through Customs, if it is scrutinized, they will see this is an item that left Egypt at a time when there were no laws protecting it from leaving Egypt."  She added that the Egyptian sarcophagus at issue in this criminal case was described as coming from Khouli's father's collection from Israel in the 1960s. Orenstein alleged that Lewis told Khouli: "Put in the provenance from your late[] father's collection, Israel, 1960s."  Orenstein also alleged that "Mr. Lewis had no reason to believe it came from [Khouli's] father's collection."

Lewis' attorney disagreed with the prosecutor, maintaining that the government lacked trial witnesses to back up its suggested evidence.

The court expressed reluctance to rule on the matter prior to trial when a fact finder would hear and weigh all the evidence.

Meanwhile, on April 11, 2012, co-defendants Lewis and Alshdaifat filed a bill of particulars requesting detailed discovery from the prosecution.  The co-defendants seek information about which ports were used to import the cultural property, what documents were provided to Customs, and which representations on the Customs forms were false.

Khouli is scheduled to be sentenced on September 14, 2012.

Reference: Transcript of March 23, 2012 hearing filed as attachment to Joseph Lewis II Bill of Particulars.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Pleadings Filed by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys Argue Lewis Dismissal Motion in US v. Khouli et al.

Lawyers for Joseph Lewis, II this past Friday filed a reply memorandum in support of their earlier motion to dismiss.  They claim that the prosecution does not have the evidence to prove Lewis guilty.  Federal prosecutors, meanwhile, demand that trial is the place where they will prove their case.

A federal grand jury in New York last year indicted Lewis and three others for their alleged roles in an Egyptian antiquities smuggling ring that involved sarcophagi and other artifacts.  All defendants are considered innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Lewis' pleading  lays out three separate arguments.  But the thrust of the defense counsels' memorandum is that Lewis was not deceitful about importing Egyptian cultural artifacts into the United States because he was neither involved with the importation process nor agreed to import the pieces unlawfully. "[T]here is no witness, no document, and no email that even alludes to Joseph Lewis participating in the importation process or agreeing with others that it would be handled deceitfully," the memorandum states.  The lawyers point out that Lewis "is not charged with importing contraband or of participating in a conspiracy to import contraband."

In support of the memorandum of law, defense lawyers for Lewis produced an email reportedly between Lewis and co-defendant Moussa Khouli dated April 12, 2009.  That email, in part, says the following:

"Hey Morris,

I am ready to wire the funds in the morning but because its a lot of $$$$, just to make sure that there are no misunderstandings; I want to doublecheck that you do guarantee the following:

1 - Provenance from your late father's collection, Israel 1960s; you have therefore established to the best of your knowledge, these items have not been illegally obtained from an excavation, architectural monument, public institution or private property.
2 - Clearance by US Customs (if the items are seized or detained more than 30 days upon arrival into the US you will issue a full refund)...."

The defendant's memorandum came in response to prosecutors' February 10, 2012 objection to Lewis' original motion to dismiss.  In that pleading, government lawyers reiterate that Lewis is charged with purchasing smuggled Egyptian antiquities transported into the United States, smuggling three Egyptian nesting coffins, conspiring to smuggle, and money laundering in support of smuggling.

The prosecution argues that "[i]t is 'axiomatic' that a criminal defendant 'may not challenge a facially valid indictment prior to trial for insufficient evidence,'" quoting federal case law.  Prosecutors add that "[t]he proper venue for testing the sufficiency of evidence is a trial, not a pre-trial motion based on 'defense counsel’s forecast of the ultimate trial evidence.'"  "Moreover, Lewis's characterization of the government's proof is based on a complaint against co-defendant Khouli and a series of search warrant applications, each of which explicitly states that it does not set forth all facts learned during the course of the government's investigation."

Federal prosecutors make efforts to resist presenting their case prior to going to trial.  They write:  "Accordingly, the government declines to respond to the particulars of Lewis's factual arguments, to correct misstatements of the government's legal theories, or to highlight relevant facts produced in discovery or know to Lewis that Lewis omitted from his factual recitation."

CONTACT: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/

Lewis Defense Lawyers File Motion to Dismiss in US v. Khouli et al.

Even before trial begins and testimony is heard, the case against Joseph Lewis, II must be dismissed because the government cannot prove its case.  That is what defense lawyers argue in a motion filed today in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York in the case of US v. Khouli et al.  The lengthy memorandum of law contends that the government lacks sufficient evidence to proceed to trial based on the information supplied in discovery materials.

Evidence in US v. Khouli et al.
Source: ICE

A federal grand jury indicted Joseph Lewis, Moussa Khouli, and two others in July 2011 alleging, in part, that Lewis illicitly bought Egyptian antiquities that were illegally imported into the United States through Dubai. The indictment also alleges that the four conspired together and with unidentified “others” in a smuggling operation.  (A defendant is presumed innocent unless the government proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).  The objects involved in the case include a Greco-Roman style Egyptian sarcophagus and a three-part nesting coffin set. See here for background.

Despite being accused of wrongdoing related to the import of ancient Egyptian antiquities, defense lawyers contend that Lewis was not involved with the importation process at all.  In fact, the only co-defendant Lewis had contact with at any time was Moussa Khouli, and that contact was after any object was imported into the United States, according to attorneys.  This argument is buoyed by defense lawyers' statements asserting that Lewis had neither sent nor received any emails discussing importation of cultural artifacts with Khouli.  Therefore, Lewis' lawyers argue that Lewis had no participation in the import process. 

Lewis had every reason and motive to want the import process to be legal, the defense attorneys claim.  Email exchanges between Khouli and Lewis never hinted at any illegal activity, they say.  Lewis, in fact, never had any idea that any pieces were stolen, particularly after having been informed by Khouli in writing at least seven times that the Egyptian pieces were part of Khouli’s father’s collection in Israel during the 1960’s.

Moreover, defense counsel contends that prosecutors cannot prove that the items in questions were stolen.  They highlight that there has been no assertion by Egypt that the items are in fact stolen.  And if the prosecution argues that the incomplete provenance of the artifacts should have informed Lewis that the objects may have been stolen, defense lawyers cite journal articles to show that lack of provenance is common in the antiquities market and does not demonstrate that a cultural object is in fact stolen.

 Lewis’ lawyers conclude that the lack of evidence cannot sustain a conviction, warranting a dismissal of the government's criminal case.

Contact: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Change of Venue Motion Filed in US v. Khouli et al. Previews Possible Defenses in Alleged Antiquities Trafficking Case

Federal courthouse in Brooklyn, NY.
Photo by Jim Henderson.  CC

The latest pleading filed by Salem Alshdaifat’s attorney in the case of US v. Khouli et al. asks for a change of venue. The defense argues that personal and financial hardships faced by Alshdaifat, a Michigan resident, urge a transfer of the case from the federal district court in New York to Detroit.

The motion provides a possible preview into some of the defenses that may be available in the case, including:

• a characterization of the charged conduct as “regulatory-based criminal charges,”
• a claim that the objects that are the subject of the multi-count indictment are neither stolen nor contraband, and
•  an argument that Alshdaifat was a middle man who did not possess criminal intent.

A federal grand jury charged Alshdaifat in May 2011 with conspiracy to smuggle, alleging that he directed Mousa Khouli to wire $20,000 to Ayman Ramadan’s UAE bank account and that Alshdaifat received an airway bill from Ramadan showing that “wooden panels” were being shipped by Ramadan’s company in the United Arab Emirates to JFK airport in New York.  Moreover, Alshdaifat is charged with money laundering conspiracy.  He is also charged with smuggling goods into the country as well as fraudulent importation and transportation of goods.  The indictment describes 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 a mechanism that initiates a criminal case; it is not a finding of guilt.)

Writing in support of the motion for change of venue, Alshdaifat’s attorney previews the possible defenses in the case.  The following are excerpts from the Memorandum of Law dated November 21, 2011:

• “The facts surrounding these charged criminal violations of the Customs laws arise out of the importation of rare Egyptian antiquities, including a three-piece set of sarcophagi and other funerary objects. These artifacts were allegedly shipped to the United States in several packages, variously by international air mail and by private air and sea carriers. The government does not claim that the Egyptian artifacts were stolen or were otherwise contraband when they entered the country. Instead, the government's charges rest on a theory that the alleged conspirators willfully falsely or vaguely declared these artifacts in entry documents into the United States because the importer purportedly had insufficient or incomplete documents of origin for the objects and this might have caused them to be detained at a United States port-of-entry if detected.” (emphasis in the original)

•  “Mr. Alshdaifat was neither the U.S. importer nor the foreign exporter of the subject Egyptian artifacts. Based on the government's own claims, he is alleged to have been the “finder” or middleman that put the alleged foreign source of the artifacts (defendant [Ayman] Ramadan) in contact with the U.S. importer, or interested antiquities dealer (defendant [Mousa] Khouli). Despite being charged with a role that essentially ended prior to the importation process, Mr. Alshdaifat is charged with his co-defendants for knowingly participating in making false or intentionally incomplete statements on shipping labels on various shipments of these Egyptian antiquities.  The government's claims against Mr. Alshdaifat, therefore, rely on findings that he knew and intentionally joined a conspiracy to falsely declare the Egyptian artifacts in their shipment to the United States after his role in being a broker to the transactions was already completed.” (emphasis in the original)

•  “In the Egyptian sarcophagi transactions, however, Mr. Alshdaifat only had a broker's interest and did not deal in the artifacts himself. Somehow, however, he now finds himself charged together with the principals of those transactions for allegedly violating technical Customs laws in the mailing and shipping of the merchandise, a process in which he did not participate.”

• “The government’s position in support of criminal liability on the charged air mail shipments is based largely on the claim that Mr. Alshdaifat's co-defendants put these pieces in international mail or on an airplane as air cargo without completing more formal U.S. Customs paperwork with the specific intent to avoid Customs’ detection of these shipments and break U.S. Customs' law.  No lay witnesses exist to testify as to whether a defendant's act of putting these parcels in the mail or on an airplane constituted an intentional and clandestine conspiratorial effort to get the charged, legal merchandise into the United States.” (emphasis in the original and footnote omitted)

•  “In any event, Mr. Alshdaifat is not even implicated in the government's discovery with doing anything – in New York or elsewhere – to assist in the importation of the merchandise. He is charged with putting the alleged source of the Egyptian coffins and artifacts (defendant [Ayman] Ramadan) in contact with the New York antiquities dealer who purchased them (defendant [Mousa] Khouli). The government must concede that Mr. Alshdaifat was neither the importer nor exporter of the charged shipments, and therefore had no role in the actual shipment of the merchandise, i.e., the packaging, labeling and placing of the merchandise in international mail.  As such, he never had any contacts with New York.”

•  “The government does not charge that the Egyptian coffins and funerary objects were stolen property. The objects imported, therefore, are not contraband or unlawful to possess in the United States. The government's claims in this Indictment rest instead on the precarious theory that the method in which the artifacts were shipped into the United States was intentionally fraudulent even though the goods themselves were not banned or prohibited from entry. Indeed, the government does not even claim that the method of importation was intentionally fraudulent to avoid import duties, since antiquities are excluded from any import tax.” (emphasis in the original)

The defense contends that the government’s conduct materially affected Alshdaifat’s business.  Alshdaifat writes in a Declaration to the court dated November 21, 2011 that he started dealing in ancient coins in Canada, selling them primarily over the internet and at international trade shows.  He describes himself as a specialist in ancient Judean coins who gained admission to many coin auction houses and membership associations.  Alshdaifat adds that he was the moderator of the “Judean ancient coin section for the largest numismatic worldwide web community.”  Defense counsel’s Memorandum of Law explains:

“Mr. Alshdaifat's circumstances are particularly extraordinary. These include the fact that from his initial arrest, the government stacked the deck against him, making it untenable for him to get his fair day in court. On July 13, 2011, the government arrested Mr. Alshdaifat in his Michigan home and confiscated his entire business inventory of ancient coins, thereby effectively shutting his business down.  It did so despite the fact that the criminal charges in the Indictment had nothing to do with Mr. Alshdaifat's coin business. Subsequently, the government returned his coins but not until his business suffered a crushing, and possibly, fatal blow. Mr. Alshdaifat's reputation as an honest coin dealer has been battered; more importantly, he has been removed or suspended from all of the auction houses where he sold his coins. His business is in dire shape.” (emphasis in the original)

Information supplied to the court describes the relationship between Alshdaifat and co-defendant Ayman Ramadan.  Court papers remark that “Mr. Alshdaifat has purchased ancient coins before from defendant Ramadan in the United Arab Emirates ("U.A.E.") and has sold coins to defendant Khouli in New York.  That is how he knew two of the other parties charged in this Indictment.”

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Status Conference Held in Case of US v. Khouli, Alshdaifat, Lewis

Egyptian coffin seized by ICE
in the case of US v. Khouli et al.
Photo: ICE

The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York held a status conference in the criminal matter of United States v. Khouli et al. on November 17, 2011.  The court waived all three of the defendants’ presence at the hearing.  The defendants include Mousa “Morris” Khouli, Salem Alshdaifat, and Joseph A. Lewis II.  Ayman Ramadan remains a fugitive.

By way of letter dated November 4, 2011 and written by his attorney, Khouli sought leave to attend a coin show in Baltimore, Maryland, reportedly scheduled for November 16 and 20.  The short letter explained: “As an antiquities dealer, Mr. Khouli’s livelihood depends on his ability to attend coin shows and other similar events.”  The court granted Khouli’s request and extended the ruling, waiving the appearance of the other co-defendants.

Internet records reveal that the Whitman Coin & Collectibles Baltimore Expo was held during this time.  Palmyra Heritage, the name of the business owned and operated by Khouli, was listed as occupying booth #1107 while Holyland Numismatics, the name of the business owned and operated by Alshdaifat, was listed as occupying booth #1154 at the event that took place at the Baltimore Convention Center.

Salem Alshdaifat’s attorney filed documents soon after the November 17 status hearing requesting a change of venue in an effort to curtail any hardship to Alshdaifat, who lives in Michigan.  Submitted on November 21, the pleadings reveal more information about Alshdaifat’s background and his association with co-defendant Ayman Ramadan.  The pleadings also supply a preview of Alshdaifat’s possible legal defenses.  These topics are discussed here.

The next court status conference is scheduled for January 27, 2012.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

Khouli +3 Case Update: Search Warrant Affidavit Describes HSI Investigation

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) petitioned for a warrant on July 12, 2011 to search Salem Alshdaifat’s home-based business and seize “antique coins and[/]or other antiquities or any other works of art or cultural antiquities of Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian, Islamic, European, Egyptian origin . . .” HSI also requested business records, correspondence, photos of merchandise, bank records, import records, and the like located at the home.

An HSI special agent applied to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for the warrant to search the home. That is the location where it is reported that Alshdaifat runs the ancient coins business called Holyland Numismatics. The affidavit, now unsealed, reveals further details about the antiquities smuggling investigation into Alshdaifat and three other co-defendants--Mousa Khouli, Ayman Ramadan, and Joseph A. Lewis, II.

It should be noted that a search warrant affidavit is a narrative that a law enforcement official or prosecutor supplies to a judge. It is meant to demonstrate the probable cause to believe that an object or thing is at a specified location and that it is probable evidence of a crime. Information contained in a search warrant affidavit may or may not be admitted as evidence at a trial. That is why an affidavit should not be read to form a conclusion of criminal guilt. Only a jury can decide whether there has been a violation of law, basing its decision only on legally admissible evidence.

In the present case, the federal agent’s affidavit called attention to several observations and actions of interest. For instance, the search warrant petition was filed following a review of Alshdaifat’s Yahoo! email account. Also reported were Alshdaifat’s alleged sale of ancient Egyptian artifacts in 2009 and his alleged importation of ancient coins in Detroit in 2010.

Writing in the July 2011 affidavit, the HSI special agent explained that a March 29, 2010 search warrant probe of “Alshdaifat’s e-mail records . . . confirm[] that he uses e-mail to communicate with sellers, purchasers, dealers and transporters of cultural property including stolen and/or smuggled cultural property.” A January 2009 email exchange was described where Alshdaifat allegedly offered a hoard of coins “[u]ncleaned at $4.5 each.” The email continued: “[T]he hoard came from Egypt and [is] now in Dubai[.] I asked my partner to ship directly from Dubai to you. [T]his hoard came from Banha, I think we bought coins that we sold you befor[e] from Banha, it is very big Roman city. [Y]ou can wire the funds to my bank account.”

The partner referred to is Ayman Ramadan of Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading in Dubai (NEST). Alshdaifat referred to NEST as his Dubai office, and that “Ramadan ships antiquities from the UAE to Alshdaifat’s customers on Alshdaifsat’s behalf,” declared the affidavit.

A second email dated February 22, 2010 from Alshdaifat reportedly said:
“[F]or a hoard from Egypt this is real[l]y a[]lot :) , you got a small group[], we usually don[‘]t see them at all in Egypt, I was told today that they found in the same spot while they are making the hole bigger another group[] around 800 coins, they are still working in the area, I hope it will[] be bigger than what I think. [N]ext week I will get those 800 tog[e]ther with the 2000 coins. [I]t is much easy to sell uncleaned, I notice[e] that they already tried to clean some, but I told them to stop[.]”

The HSI investigating agent, without supplying specific details, added that Alshdaifat’s email account allegedly showed that he “has offered customers hoards of coins taken directly from Petra, Jordan and from Kyrene, Libya.”

Perhaps most directly related to the current federal indictment, the affidavit described allegations that Alshdaifat in May 2009 “offered a New York dealer a set of ancient Egyptian funerary boats and limestone figures for $40,000.” The New York dealer found a customer interested in purchasing these antiquities . . . and resold them to the customer for a higher price. Ramadan shipped the ancient boats and limestone figures to the New York dealer via mail from the UAE.” The shipping label said “antiques.”

On December 20, 2010, Alshdaifat carried coins through the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on his way back from Amman, Jordan, according to the affidavit. Customs reportedly seized the coins because Alshdaifat presented inconsistent sets of invoices during two separate airport inspections. The first invoice presented was from NEST to Holyland Numismatics for Byzantine gold coins and Byzantine gold tremissis coins totaling $234,875. The invoice stated that they originated from Syria, according to the affidavit. Alshdaifat then reportedly offered a second set of invoices listing Byzantine gold coins and Roman-Egyptian billion tetradrachms. When Alshdaifat returned later with two mail packages of similar coins in an attempt to convince federal authorities to release the detained coins, customs officials seized these packages too because they were without entry paperwork, declared the affidavit.

Federal agents staked out Alshdaifat’s home in June 2011. After seeing a “for sale” sign posted, two HSI agents posed as potential buyers of the house and entered the home with a real estate agent. Alshdaifat was at the residence at the time. The agents reportedly observed pictures of coins on Alshdaifat’s computer and as well as books about ancient coins and artifacts.

Based on this information, federal authorities applied for a search warrant of Alshdaifat’s Michigan home. That search warrant preceded the eventual multiple count indictment against Alshdaifat and the three named co-defendants on charges related to antiquities trafficking.

Photo courtesy of ICE.

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.