A step in the right direction, but.........

But....but.......Officer. We borrow our neighbors cars all the time back in my home town! We thought it was legal to do it here!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Im no lawyer, but I think you have this a bit confused. If a seller knew the coin was fake, and sold it, then claimed they were ignorant of the law which made that act illegial, it would not stand.

On the other hand, a seller could know that selling counterfiet coins is against the law, believe he is selling a genuine coin, and possible not get in trouble. The concept is mens rea, to commit a crime requires intent. I can see a case where the seller can convince a jury that they did not know the coin was fake thereby not being punished.

 

This is where my comments come in. If it is a real ngc holder and a fake coin then you have a solid argument it was not known to you as it was not known to the graders.

But if you have a truckload of 1804 dollars then you "should" know they are fake.

 

And this is different, how? Most of the so-called "real" 1804 dollars are fakes as well. (The class 2 and 3s).

Are you going to tell me that these multi-million dollar coins can't be sold because the owner should "know" that they are fakes? How about 1913 Liberty nickels? They are technically counterfeit, as well.

 

The actual text of the law can be found here

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2754/text
which amends the original
http://www.collectors.org/Library/Hobby_Protection_Act.asp
Another useful link
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title16-vol1/pdf/CFR-2004-title16-vol1-part304.pdf

The statements from the original article although technically correct in scope they aren't worded exactly how the author presented them. Which when dealing with law the actual wording of the law makes a huge difference in presenting a legal defense when ones charged with breaking said law.

 

Actually I said a trunk load of 1804 dollars. The implication which I guess I now need to explicitly spell out is if you are a rare coin dealer selling thousands of a coin with a total population under a hundred you should understand by the volume of the coins vs mintage you are dealing with fakes.

Then look at the actual provided provided kindly by @Blissskr.



The person knows or should have known. I know you have fixated on every other word there is but you just can not escape those words which are clear as day. So you can choose to acknowledge that known or should have known is written there or continue to completely ignore them as you see fit. I have brought you the water but can't make you drink it. Don't worry everyone else can.

 

I agree and would continue with the African head Connecticut copper coins,the Jefferson Head large cents, the 1793 'Smith Couterfeit' large cents, and the 1823 re-strike large cents. Do they need to be stamped copy from now on?

 

The 'knows or should have known' applies to the person providing assistance to the seller, not to the seller. It's not clear from that text that a seller is protected from the same concept.

 

Well, ebay made it easy over a year ago. They do not allow the sale of any replica coins anymore. Some were marked, some were not, and it got too confusing for the buyer trying to figure it out, especially disgruntled novices, that they just did away with it. I got stuck with a large purchase of replicas that I can no longer sell there. Although, I have not tried to list them in the "Medals" section there, I imagine this would be okay as long a they were described properly.

 

There is a legal argument to be made against marking some counterfeits, especially contemporary counterfeits, with "COPY" before selling them. The marking requirements read as follows:

Now I am not a lawyer -- so this is pure conjecture at this point -- but one could make the argument that a contemporary counterfeit of high numismatic value is made of nonincusable material, for to incuse it would materially destroy it. As such, one could then opt for the less-intrusive imprinting, via a decal or potentially be integrated into a certification slab somehow.

Further arguments could lie within the definition of a counterfeit, as many contemporary counterfeits have become numismatic items of their own with counterfeits made of them (I've seen fake Henning Nickels, for example).

This law, as it is presently updated, was made with clear intent -- to stem the flow of fraud -- but has caused some very serious unintended side effects.

 

I think the theory of "mens rea" would apply here. If you are a layman who sends a coin to an expert for analysis and he says it is legit you had no state of mind as far as committing a crime. Writing a bad check is a crime. If you check your balance and in between the check of the balance and the writing of the check an identity thief clears out your account you have not committed a crime even though you wrote a bad check since your mentality was to write a payable check. You would have strict liability for the money but no criminal act.

 

I believe adjudication of an action pertaining to the sale of a "COPY" coin is very specific in the amended legislation. If you buy/sell an unmarked "COPY" of currency or a copyrighted collectible product you are in violation of the law.

An exception is that where an authoritative organization stated the product was authentic by inference or guarantee (e.g. graded product of a TPG).

The addendum legislation appears to close the "plausible deniability" loophole which seemingly everyone would like to use as an excuse for seemingly legitimately selling these "copies". It's understood, if one purchases an illegitimate copy, by definition they are aiding or assisting.

If, as some state, an item is authenticated as a "copy" by a TPG, and someone tries to sell same, or theoretically even retains it without the COPY stamp, they are in violation of the very definitive law. A believed exception is a "copy" that was produced by/through an authoritative/legislative process.

An owner of banned products aren't likely to be prosecuted for owning products deemed illegal by legislation generated after their individual personal acquisition, unless they violate the terms of the new law.

An example of the aforementioned exception is that amongst my other collections is a very unique "firearms" accumulation. Many of the firearm components which were once legally available to the general public, are now illegal to own by the general public. I had a massive burglary in the past where I reported the guns stolen along with the respective serial numbers. Several of the less challenged items were returned, although currently illegal at the time of recovery. Others weren't returned, but numerous officers were "dismissed" in a future action where many firearms were found to have been removed from the "recovery gun vault".

JMHO

 

One problem with the "Knows or should have known" clause is it seems to me it would require the person bringing the complaint to prove what the other person "knows". You may feel or think that the person shold "know" but can you prove that he does or should have?

 

I believe, that to the contrary, the accuser would need to absolutely prove the product to be an illegitimate "copy".

This would close the current dilemma which is often seen, where unqualified individuals are quick to accuse without qualifying proof. This Federal legislation would require an accuser to provide "without a reasonable doubt" proof of criminality unless the accused can be directly "linked" to a previously proven illegal source.

This Federal legislation finally requires accusers to justify their claims in a possibly defamatory unsupported action

I personally have acquired a quality rare "Double Eagle" that I "felt" wasn't authentic. It was perfect in every respect, by weight, dimensions, Gold tested content, attributes. I shared the coin with every individual I respected who I thought qualified to judge. Intelligent individuals stated they didn't know authenticity. Others stated not authentic without credible reason. The coin was eventually submitted to "top tier" TPG, returned as "questionable authenticity", as I would/could legally defend.

I believe the legislation is well written as it seemingly places guilt on an individual who buys or sells an unmarked proven "copy" coin, regardless of known condition. Having been involved in successful federal prosecution, I know that the prosecutorial agents expend great effort to assure that their cases are virtually flawless, generally with voluminous files showing repeated violations. From my experience, years of investigative/depositional "finding" efforts may transpire before an action is formally initiated.

I believe that because of the burden of proof for Federal prosecution, and the mandatory minimum sentences, the Congress/President have responded to verbal pressure, now mandating private sector proof/evidence for their action.

JMHO

 

Hmm,

I am not a lawyer and to even try to figure this law out is beyond me. As with trying to figure out each posters side in this thread.Deep sigh.
What I do know is there is probably more then one stock market investor in this thread. You can make a difference.
Who is the biggest counterfeiter of coins. Just plain don't buy Chinese stocks. Especially alibaba. Who do you think the new changes in the law were in the end mostly aimed at.
If you collect coins but own stock in that company then just look in the mirror...are the "gains" worth it.
There are many very good stocks out there to buy & not ones that our hurting your beloved hobby.

John