To me what is really disturbing is the gunshot wound to the head. I think tommorrow is the aniversary of the Lincoln shooting.
Did you see the Kennedy half? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...its=S%2BI&itu=UCI%2BSI&otn=4#ebayphotohosting
it's illegal to deface u.s. currency if it renders it unfit to be circulated. requires intent, but he's borderline IMHO. United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY 333. Mutilation of national bank obligations Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Your reference is for currency and not coins. Try this for coins; My understanding of that is that there must be the intent to deceive. No example I have seen here attempts to deceive anyone. Were this not the case, hobo nickels would be illegal.
Very interesting. That reference you cited re: coins does not mention any requirement of a showing of intent (unlike the section on bills). So now I'm more convinced than I was that there's a possible violation here because he has definitely altered, defaced and/or mutilated the coin.
I read the term "fraudulently as applying to the word "alter." I don't know if this question has been litigated, and I'm not going to take the time to research it, but it looks like the section contains several discreet violations separated by commas, i.e: to fraudulently alter, to deface, to mutilate, etc. One thing I'm sure of is this coin is not useable as money anymore.
I see no unfair gain, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether it illlegal under the Act to deface a coin.
Even if literally it is illegal to deface one coin, people have a hard time realizing the difference between the letter of the law, and the intent of the law. In this case, if something is done massively and there is the intent to make money out of it, then legal issues may arise. On the other hand, the intent of the law does not consider making a hole in a penny or a half dollar as a punishable crime. Can you imagine someone having to go to jail or paying a fine for doing this? http://www.onmylist.com/category/arts/Extraordinary_Art_of_Money_Folding_1
Back to coins again. Look up some of billzach's posts and look at some of his art. Those coins have been massively "defaced". He sells them openly on eBay. Unless it has happened just recently, the government, eBay, nor anyone else has come after him for any "crime".
It absolutely has been litigated - and "fraudulently" applies to all the verbs following. i.e., "fraudulently alter", "fraudulently deface", "fraudulently mutilate", etc.
I'm not 100% sure, the lingo on the laws can be confusing, but here I go : I think what he's doing would techniqually fall under fraudently defacing the coins, because he is in fact altering the coin for personal gain. If he's altering a half dollar, and selling it for $5 it's illegal.
Well if it's a real skilled person, I wont call the secret service . I've seen some coins that are just amazing, but this guy is a hack.
I am 100% sure. He is defacing a coin (mostly nickels) and selling them for $200 - $400 and it is absolutely legal. BTW, he is far from the only one doing it. If you read further the law I posted, it also states that is is illegal to possess (fraudulently, of coarse) such coins. Hobo nickels have been around since at least the 30's when they were carved by hobos (imagine that). Do you really think that if they were illegal, nobody would have done anything in all those years?