US Mint officer admits taking $2.4M worth of coins

Exactly -- although the fact that he's a police officer might have helped him get around some of the security.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The dealer selling those coins is in major doo doo.

I used to see a dealer at the Whitman shows that only sold mint error coins. Some were major errors and no way had they made it into circulation. He had hundreds of error coins.
I never understood where he got them. Now I think I know where he got them.

 

Which raises the obvious question; were they officially ever released by the mint? And if not, should we expect them to be siezed like 1933 double-eagles?

 

I believe that the Wisconcin state quarters errors (high leaf and low leaf) were, allegedly, made by a US Mint employee.

 

If they were purchased from a legitimate dealer then the buyer would not be subject to legal charges. At most, the coins would be subject to confiscation.

 

I'm not implying that at all.

When you have property and it's stolen, who ever is in possession of it, can be prosecuted for possessing stolen property. Check the statues from any state and I doubt you will find one that does not have a possession of stolen property statute in their laws.

Since these were errors, and known to be errors by the Mint, one can reasonably assume the intention of the Mint was to destroy these errors and recycle the materials they're made from, and not release them into the public, which is what the Mint strives to do when they discover errors of what they produce.

 

Except those were under the GRA of 1934 to be turned over to the Government, no?

 

United States In the United States, Receipt of stolen property is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2315, defined as knowingly receive, conceal, or dispose of stolen property with a value at least $5,000 that is part of interstate commerce (i.e., been transported across state lines).
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proven:

• The person received or concealed or stored or disposed of items of stolen property.
• The items were moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce.
• The items had a value in excess of $5,000.
• The person acted knowingly and willfully.

Seems to me, that buying these off of eBay or Teletrade does NOT constitute "knowing" that the items were stolen which would eliminate the possibility pf prosecution under any statute for "possessing stolen property".

 

How come all these links don't work?!

PS: I love the line: "The Mint just can't seem to get it right all the time." I love it when the Mint gets it wrong...this was just the wrong kind of wrong!

 

I think he stole the coins before they were sent to the edge inscription department. If so, are they really errors?

 

I think they're errors when they're missing a step. It has to be done accidentally, though!

I was almost tempted by the low prices on the 66s. Why do I regret not buying one?!

 

The cornell.edu link works fine here. The others should say "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki..." instead of "http://www.cointalk.com/wiki..."

Christian

 

I was joking about the links in the photo I uploaded. All the links of the "New Discovery!!!" available at Modern Coin Mart lead you to items that are "currently unavailable."