Kenneth W. Dorney
(dealer from Redding, CA 96049-3362 ) [ken@coolcoins.com ] freely and publicly states (
here among the Yahoo antiquities pirates) 'One can readily buy and sell just about anything well within the law', especially if you bend it a little by not being transparent about what is you are actually doing
Since you mention shipping/receiving: It all depends on how much attention you wish to bring down on yourself. When I ship overseas and have to declare the contents, for coins I always use the designation “numismatic token”. I have never had a problem. But if I declared any various keywords, such as Roman, Syrian, Iranian, Italian, etc., it would likely attract attention.
As for other items, well, who can say? If I sell a Marlik spear point I might call it a “metallurgic item for study” or something similar. I’m not lying, its true what I say, I am not doctoring anything. By doing so I avoid unwarranted attention either by government officials or thieves.
Well of course calling a spade a 'sheet metal implement combined with non-metallic hafting' avoids drawing attenton to the fact that there is a spade in the package, but that is not an honest way to conduct any kind of business. Why would Mr Dorney sending licitly sourced antiquities by perfectly legal means (following all the procedures)wish to avoid drawing attention to the propriety of his activities? I would have thought that a responsible dealer would want quite the opposite - confirmation of the propriety of all he does. Or has Mr Dorney in fact something to hide?
.jpg)
5 comments:
"Why would Mr Dorney sending licitly sourced antiquities by perfectly legal means (following all the procedures)wish to avoid drawing attention to the propriety of his activities?"
Apart from the many stories circulating about shipments of antiquities facing huge delays or even confiscation by overzealous customs officials regardless of whether they are "licitly sourced" or not, senders are also concerned about shipments being needlessly held up by officials incorrectly confusing the word 'coin' with a prohibition on posting modern currency or stolen by workers alerted by tempting keywords such as 'coin', 'Roman', etc. (you might be surprised at how many items mysteriously get 'lost in the post'). Even if the object has a verifiable provenance stretching back to Alfred the Great, it is therefore easy to understand why some senders would choose to word their descriptions in a 'low profile' manner rather than invite stressful delays or potential theft.
While customs declarations must be open and honest, I think there is a danger of confusing a pragmatic (albeit perhaps legally misguided) attempt to state a bare minimum with an intent to "launder". The term "laundering" has a specific meaning in law: the deliberate processing of items to disguise their illegal origin. Effect is not the same as intent.
>Apart from the many stories circulating about shipments of antiquities facing huge delays or even confiscation by overzealous customs officials regardless of whether they are "licitly sourced" or not<
Stories/anecdotes? What about the facts? There are procedures in place in many countries for importing antiques and collectables, which will in most cases incur minimal holdups as long as the correct procedures are followed. If however a buyer prefers the 'pop it in an envelope and risk it' system (I use the term loosely), then it is their lookout if the customs decide to open the pack age and see what is inside - especially is the contents are vaguely described. What do you think customs declarations are FOR?
> senders are also concerned about shipments being needlessly held up by officials incorrectly confusing the word 'coin' with a prohibition on posting modern currency <
These restrictions occur WITHIN the destination country- are you suggesting that absolutely no numismatic trade functions in those countries? Surely not. I live in such a country - but coin dealers manage quite well by using the registered post system - or insured packages. Again, if you are a cheapskate, then 'pop it in an envelope and risk it' can be used here - but that is the difference between a serious dealer and the cowboys.
>or stolen by workers alerted by tempting keywords such as 'coin', 'Roman', etc. (you might be surprised at how many items mysteriously get 'lost in the post')<
Well, I can only speak from experience buying all sorts of collectables here in Eastern Europe - yes, something going missing in the post would surprise me if it is sent registered. I will not buy anything, even a 1960s postcard where the dealer does not offer to send it registered, would you? In over a decade I have had one item go astray, and got the cost refunded by the sender (who got twice that from the post office that lost it). I think this is a red herring smoke and mirrors argument.
"Stories/anecdotes? What about the facts?"
I was talking about perceptions. It is in fact perfectly legal to send cash through the US mail system (although a few misinformed postal clerks may incorrectly refuse to accept it) and while the postal systems in some countries are indeed notorious for 'losing' shipments even when registered, shipping to those higher risk countries is simply best avoided altogether. But that does not alter perceptions no matter how naive, fallacious or avoidable they may be.
I do not defend the practice of obfuscating descriptions. My point was that a shoddy customs declaration of items is not necessarily motivated by an intent to disguise illegal origin. In those cases, the practice might be classified as "misleading" or even "falsifying" but not as "laundering" (your post title). My point concerns terminology.
Let me define why 'laundering'. A coin dug up illegally in Syria, Lebanon or Turkey and smuggled out to (say) Munich is an illicit artefact by any definition. Even though it is mixed in with a 'pool' of other items sold by the Munich guy, it (or the coin batch in which it came) also can have a paper trail, a Munich dealer's money transfer to and/or correspondence with a Turkish middleman (say). In order to make a 'they-can't-touch-you-for-it' sale, it has to be removed from that commercial context. That is done by shipping it to another country - say, the USA. Once it is in a US dealer's stock, as Dealer Dave keeps pointing out with an insistence, "no US law is broken" by keeping, handling or selling that coin - even though it is the same illicitly-acquired object that it was back in Turkey or Bavaria. Where that attempt to give that coin a different commercial status can go astray (as the ACCG is only too well aware- which is why they fight the regulation of imports) is when it crosses the border INTO the USA from outside, this is when the object and its licitness is scrutinised by US authorities. That is why any attempts to get unpapered artefacts through border controls (both ways) 'without arousing attention' is suspicious. It reveals that the seller HAS no paperwork to show that the item is of licit origins - and as such, I think we can all agree that it should not be being traded by a legitimate and responsible dealer.
In the interest of accuracy I should just add to my previous comment that although it is perfectly legal to send modern currency through the internal US mail system, you are right to point out that restrictions may exist within the destination country(e.g. Australia) when sending internationally. In the latter case, it is therefore wise to avoid confusion by clearly distinguishing an old obsolete coin from a modern one. Whether the phrase 'numismatic token' is sufficiently clear is moot.
However, I understand your point that stating the bare minimum on a customs declaration and deliberately not revealing the object's culture or likely country of origin may contribute to laundering.
Post a Comment