United States v. Schultz

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003 · Property

PropertyNSPAforeign patrimony lawstolen propertyEgypt Law 117antiquitiesownership lawconscious avoidance

Facts

Schultz, a New York art dealer, worked with Jonathan Tokeley Parry to acquire Egyptian antiquities, smuggle them out of Egypt disguised as cheap souvenirs, create false provenances for them, and sell them in the United States. The government's theory was that these antiquities were owned by Egypt under Law 117, a 1983 Egyptian law declaring all newly discovered antiquities to be public property and prohibiting private ownership of such finds. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that Law 117 was a true ownership law. At trial, evidence showed Schultz knowingly participated in the acquisition, concealment, false labeling, and attempted sale of antiquities taken from Egypt without the Egyptian government's consent.

Issue

Whether antiquities taken from Egypt in violation of Egypt's patrimony law were "stolen" within the meaning of the National Stolen Property Act when the foreign law vested ownership in the Egyptian government. The court also considered whether Schultz could assert a mistake-of-American-law defense, whether the conscious-avoidance instruction was erroneous, and whether testimony about others' knowledge of Law 117 was properly admitted.

Rule

The NSPA applies to property taken in violation of a foreign patrimony law when that foreign law clearly and unambiguously vests true ownership of the property in the foreign government and is enforced as an ownership law rather than as a mere export restriction. Under § 2315, the relevant mens rea is knowledge that the goods were stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken; the statute does not require proof that the defendant knew his conduct violated American law. A conscious-avoidance instruction is adequate if it tells the jury that knowledge may be inferred when the defendant was aware of a high probability of the relevant fact unless he actually believed the fact did not exist.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz, an antiquities broker in Miami, buys Bronze Age figurines that were recently dug up in Turkey and routed through Lisbon. Turkish law requires an export permit for antiquities and imposes criminal penalties for unlicensed export, but it allows private ownership of newly discovered antiquities and does not declare them state property.

If Lena is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2315 for receiving stolen goods, what is the strongest argument against treating the figurines as "stolen"?

Explanation. The governing rule is that § 2315 reaches property taken in violation of a foreign patrimony law only when the foreign law clearly and unambiguously vests true ownership in the foreign sovereign and is enforced as an ownership law, not merely as an export restriction. Here, Turkey’s law regulates export but does not declare state ownership of newly discovered antiquities, so the best argument is that the items are not "stolen" on that basis under the NSPA.