Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;EyeAppealingCoins, post: 3321325, member: 96749&quot;][USER=1101]@JeffB[/USER]</p><p><br /></p><p>It looks like we are in agreement thus far.&nbsp; The over strike process is irrelevant and it comes down to intent and the fantasy date issue, each issue which should be dissected separately.</p><p><br /></p><p>First, the intent issue is another distraction.&nbsp; Regardless of Carr&#039;s subjective intent, it is irrelevant to the objective label applied to his coins.&nbsp; If intent has any role whatsoever it is to any potential legal liability.&nbsp; His coins may still accurately be described as &quot;counterfeit&quot; even if he faces no criminal liability.&nbsp; After all, we label Chinese coins as counterfeits; however, none of them are in violation of U.S. law because U.S. law is not operative to foreign actors in China.&nbsp; The pieces are still &quot;counterfeit.&quot;&nbsp; Also, if I strike a restrike for fun and am so impressed with my work that I decide to see if I can pass it, at what point did the coin become a &quot;counterfeit?&quot;&nbsp; At what point did the &quot;coin&quot; change?</p><p><br /></p><p>Now on to law and intent.&nbsp; There must be an intent to defraud to be charged under the alteration statute 18 U.S.C. 331.&nbsp; We both agree that there is no apparent liability for Carr under 18 U.S.C. 331 for the destruction of the host coin or for the over strike process.&nbsp; The issue now becomes whether he has run afoul of the counterfeiting statute, 18 U.S.C. 485 and 18 U.S.C. 487.&nbsp; This entails a discussion of Von Nothaus.&nbsp; To be clear, I am not saying that his works are identical to the coins in Von Nothaus.&nbsp; The pieces are not.&nbsp; The case is still instructive as it makes a ruling on the intent required to trigger a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 485, one of the statutes that Von Nothaus was convicted under.</p><p><br /></p><p>In <i>U.S. v. Von Nothaus</i>, No. 5:09CR27-RLV, slip op. (W.D. N.C. 2014) a federal district court judge applied the plain meaning of 18 U.S.C. §485 and found it spells out at least two separate criminal offenses. One concerned the production of coins that are counterfeited, forged, or otherwise falsely made as stated in the first paragraph. The second paragraph prohibits uttering and other offenses involving counterfeit coins. The court found that the second paragraph (for the crime of uttering) prohibits the same class of coins as contained in the first paragraph but &quot;adds an intent requirement - that the conduct be undertaken with the intent to defraud.&quot; In other words, the court found that no intent to defraud is required to convict under the first paragraph for falsely making, forging, or counterfeiting a coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>The interpretation articulated by the Von Nothaus court is also consistent with logic applied in interpreting other federal forgery statutes. In <i>U.S. v. Reich</i>, 479 F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. 2007), a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was charged with interpreting another federal forgery statute falling within Chapter 25 of Title 18 (the chapter addressing forgery and counterfeiting that includes the currency and coin statutes). In interpreting the statute, the court looked to other statutes in the same chapter and concluded that there were two classes. Acts involving forgeries and counterfeits likely to be used to defraud private citizens out of their money or property such as uttering required an intent element. Acts which &quot;impugn the reputation or integrity of the federal government regardless of whether the perpetrator intended to defraud private citizens.&quot; <i>Id</i>. at 189. The court specifically discussed 18 U.S.C. §485 and agreed with me that that the first paragraph does not incorporate an intent to defraud element with the &quot;falsely make, forge, or counterfeit&quot; language contained in the first paragraph (the offense for production of counterfeits), while it did require an intent to defraud to &quot;pass, utter, publish, or sell&quot; for the offense provided in the second paragraph.<i> Id.</i> at 189. Cf. <i>U.S. v. Cowan</i>, 116 F.3d 1360 (7th Cir. 1997). I&#039;m sure Carr will dismiss the two circuit court opinions as dicta, but they do reinforce the holding in <i>Von Nothaus</i>.&nbsp; The cases thus far have specifically addressed the coinage statute, 18 U.S.C. 485.&nbsp; The logic (i.e. the lack of intent explicitly in the statute means that intent to defraud is not a factor) has also been applied to the paper currency statute.&nbsp; <i>Webb v. U.S.</i>, 216 F.2d 151, 152 (6th Cir. 1954) (&quot;The legislative purpose is clear that Congress intended, in protecting the currency, to tolerate no manipulation in the making of impressions of government obligations or securities, whether the copies or impressions might be good or bad, and regardless of the purpose for which they might be made.... [T]here being no need of proof of unlawful intent, there is no need of proof that such impressions were calculated to deceive.&quot;).</p><p><br /></p><p>There is also another case addressing 18 U.S.C. 487 that I don&#039;t have my fingertips.</p><p><br /></p><p>NEXT STOP... Fantasy Dates and Coins Never &quot;Issued&quot; or &quot;Monetized&quot;[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in