Accordingly, there is NO TITLE with regard to owning US Coinage or Currency as both are actually property of the United States Government so by your own comment, "lack of title" exists when buying and selling coins as well as counterfeits.
I don't believe that DCARRs coins are actually "defaced" in that the monetary value is still clearly displayed. The only real change is the date and mintmark.
Yes there is. Legal title of coins is obtained when you receive them in the transaction. First legal title from the US is obtained by the Fed or a collector when purchased from the mint. Its a myth that the US "owns" all US coins. This is simply untrue. Regarding counterfeits, the only real interest the US has in them is to prevent them from being passed. This is why the Secret Service does not care much about collector fakes, they would be concerned, though, about fakes of any current coinage, so I could see them impounding fake jefferson nickels, but not impounding shield nickels possibly. Items like the 33 double eagle or 64 silver dollar are different. This is not about counterfeits but government property. On these they claim they know title has never left US control.
Somewhere on this forum you will find a thread where the Secret Service itself is quoted as stating that it is perfectly legal to own counterfeit coins. You will also find references to case law stating the same. What individuals and the public interpret the law to mean, and what courts interpret the law to mean are quite often two very different things.
Yes, unless an authorized agent of the government (secret service or other Treasury agent) requests that you turn them over to them. Refusal to do so is illegal and subject to a fine and imprisonment of one year. Title 18 Section 492 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/492
I suppose one could look at it in that sense but there, technically in no title with regard to the ownership of coins. It is an "assumed" title simply due to the fact that they are in your possession.
Legal title only means you legally own them. Stolen goods cannot have good title, but something you buy at the store does. Has nothing to do with what most people think of as a title.
I have to disagree. You need to define "counterfeit." It is true that contemporary counterfeits get a blind eye from the law. The letter of the law would contravene the spirit of the law. Contemporary pennies and half pennies from colonial America, ancient copies of Athenian owls (both in good silver and plated forgeries), and similar items do not usually concern law enforcement. I have a coffee cup coaster 3-1/2 inches in diameter in the likeness of an Indianhead Cent. No one cares. The Henning Nickels are a different problem, as are the 1912 Liberty Nickels, and the 1804 Dollars. They are contraband under the law and can be seized without a warrant. It will never happen. Rich people are allowed to get away with some economic crimes. It is a fact of life in a capitalist society (or any society) - and no one here is more libertarian than I am. Nonetheless, the sociology of crime remains a constant. If I were in charge of the Secret Service, I would seize them. But that is why I am not in charge of the Secret Service - or much of anything else. Common sense tends to rule. (And it was common sense that Baron von Nothaus's "Liberty Dollars" would not be allowed to continue. But that is another story.) Ultimately, there is the problem of the criminal production and sale of counterfeit US currency. About 2000 or so, businesses along the East Coast were hit by a large volume of counterfeit US Quarter Dollars. We have had new designs for FRNs since then, also, because of the huge influx of counterfeits. The US government brought pressure on China, and three men were executed for making counterfeit US currency. Selling a collectible counterfeits for more than their face value does not open the door to larceny. Selling them for less than face value does. But contraband cannot be legally owned. You can never have title to it. Period.
However, there is an inherent difference between passing counterfeit currency off as authentic money, and passing it off as counterfeit. As Doug stated, counterfeit currency is bought and sold legally in the U.S. and he is essentially correct, as it is not represented as being legal tender, but counterfeit. Our annual coin show has 3 dealers of counterfeit coins, and the coins are marked as counterfeit, as are the 2x2s they are housed in. There is nothing illegal about it because they are marked for what they are, and are in accordance to the HPA. Take those fake gold buffaloes advertised on t.v., those are fake, but are marked as COPY and conform to the law.
Read the laws for yourself. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-25 If you have a question, pay a competent attorney who will represent you in court. Otherwise, you are on your own. I said what I know. I am not going to flounder about in the gray areas. As a degreed criminologist and a professional numismatist, I consider both the Henning Nickels and the Carr Peace Dollars to be illegal. I would not own one. Also, a PS on this, in case you did not know, Reid Goldsborough and I went around on this and several related issues about 2000-2002.
So, you think it is legal for you to offer $100,000 in counterfeit $100 bills as long as you say that they are counterfeit? It would not be your fault if someone else tried to pass them? When the Secret Service comes to you, and they seize your computer (and everything else you own), they will see this post from GDJSMP, and fold up and go home? Anyone in Michigan will tell you that you can drive 12 miles per hour over the posted speed limit and get away with it. That does not make it legal.
Haven't most of the great counterfeiters of US currency pass them to people who knew they were counterfeit? They moved the counterfeits at a discount, and their purchasers passed them to the public for their profit. In this instance, as long as the person who printed the fake notes sold them as fakes, would he still be a counterfeiter or merely a "copy manufacturer"? That is the slippery slope I have always had with the prevailing arguments about counterfeiters here on CT.
It's all based on intent. Did I intend to deceive or defraud anyone by sell those counterfeit bills marked as counterfeits? No. This is where people have legal troubles with violating counterfeit laws, is they intend to defraud by passing the counterfeit as genuine and legal tender.
I believe according to the strict interpretation of the laws your are correct. However, apparently (at least with Carr) he's received a "by". And eBay apparently has granted Henning nickels a "by". A still feel there are inherent differences between "counterfeit" and "replica" when applied to coinage only. Replicas are perfectly legal if marked according to HPA standards... if not, they are still replicas, just not properly marked. I think arguments could be presented in favor of ownership (possession) of replicas or "fantasy coins." But I agree than Henning nickels were manufactured as counterfeits to be circulated, and therefore subject to legal ramifications. Possibly they get a "by" as a "historical significant" item or some such silliness that only the legal profession could dream up.
I suggest y'all take a look at the case of Boggs v. Rubin: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/161/161.F3d.37.97-5313.html Quick summary: Boggs was creating images of U.S. currency for what he claims was artistic purposes. The court explicitly found "No one contends that Boggs intends to defraud his customers." A Secret Service agent and a U.S. Attorney entered Boggs's hotel room without a warrant and seized 15 "Boggs Bills." The next year they seized 1300 items from his home in Pittsburgh. I think you can safely call these "legal troubles." As far as I know, Boggs has never been charged with a crime for his "Boggs Bills." But despite any showing of intent to defraud, the court upheld the both seizures.
You missed line 28 of that decision Ben. "Without viewing the bills, this court cannot determine for itself whether the district court correctly applied the law, or even if it applied the correct law. "