The Status of Egyptian Antiquities "Floating Around the USA"?

.
It would seem that the St Louis Art Museum has engaged the wrong cultural property lawyers in their fight to keep the Ka Nefer Nefer mask from Saqqara which they bought from the Aboutaam brothers' Pheonix Ancient Art for half a million dollars. ACCG Executive Director Wayne Sayles would obviously be doing his local art museum a favour putting them in touch with the Guild's own cultural property law expert:

Egyptian Archaeological Objects Like Cocaine? As hard as it might be to believe, the US Government has apparently claimed so in a court filing relating to the pending forfeiture action against the SLAM Mummy Mask.[...] Hopefully, the Government is basing its contention on more than the fact that Egypt has had at some point (1983 was the date adopted by the Court in the Schultz case) a patrimony law that vests unequivocal state ownership of Egyptian artifacts found in the ground of that country and that the artifact is indeed "Egyptian." But, if not, what exactly is the status of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other Egyptian antiquities, significant or not, floating around the United States, according to the USDOJ?[...] Have senior US Government officials cleared such arguments to be made? And, if so, do they truly understand the implications of such claims?

Well, isn't that a thought-provoking topic for the collector who has bought no-questions-asked antiquities to ponder? How can a US collector who cannot prove legal title to an object claimed by another party establish legal title? Only by a documentation of the fact that the other party had actually relinquished title to the object.

Before too many collectors start shooting themselves in the head in anticipation of prison sentences, perhaps it should be recalled that this case does not hinge just on the state ownership of excavated artefacts due to Egypt's patrimony laws (what the ACCG's lawyer calls "the wildest claims of Egyptian cultural property nationalists like the now disgraced former Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass"). The object falls under the terms of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (to which, like it or not, the US is a state party) because it was allegedly stolen from museum storage, and Egypt has asked for it back. I really do not see why a US museum would not react to such a situation in any way other than to surrender the object.

The ACCG's lawyer says "there is no US law on the books that bans the possession of Egyptian artifacts as is the case with cocaine", what about stolen Egyptian artefacts? So basically all SLAM has to do is to prove that the items was not stolen from museum storage and that any movements since its excavation were in accordance with international laws and agreements in force.