One to Watch, St Hilaire on "U.S. v. Twenty-Nine Pre-Columbian and Colonial Artifacts from Peru"

Rick St. Hilaire has a piece ("Claimant Steps Forward in Peruvian Artifacts CPIA Forfeiture Case") on his Cultural Heritage Lawyer blog stressing the unusual occurrence that is when the owner of antiquities seized by federal authorities challenges the seizure. This is because such forfeiture cases can be pursued when the material was brought into the United States in violation of a federal criminal law. 

That can alarm claimants who may find it easier to walk away from the allegedly stolen or smuggled goods rather than risk facing potential criminal charges or paying expensive lawyers' fees. 

He cites the Tarby case of Eric Prokopi as an example of a challenge to a forfeiture which resulted in a criminal conviction (caveat emptor). Anyway, this time it's happening because Jean Combe Fritz is trying to get back artefacts seized at the airport in Miami.  He says they are "his" and do not, therefore, need a peruvian export licence and do not come under the remit of the CCPIA. We will see. I found this passage of St Hilaire's text interesting, with reference to an old article of his which is well worth reading:

Where the government alleges a violation of a Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) import restriction, claimants may feel that they are on sturdier legal ground to make an ownership claim. There is an argument that CPIA seizures and forfeitures allow for the added remedy of a criminal prosecution against an individual wrongdoer, and U.S. v. Perez is a supporting case. But there is a competing view that the CPIA's civil remedy of forfeiture is exclusive, precluding possible criminal prosecution.

That would explain a lot. Weird.