Worries about the right to own property, ancient coins and import customs

[Salomons Cat]

Lately, I've grown increasingly concerned about the evolving legal landscape surrounding ancient coin regulations. Despite the legal framework remaining quite stable in recent years, I've noticed a rise in practical difficulties when it comes to dealing with and shipping coins across borders. Import customs sometimes seize coins merely based on their age, without considering any other factors. This trend has become a source of worry for many collectors and dealers. While I've been fortunate to have my coins clear customs so far, I can't help but wonder how long this will last. 

So, how will these regulations develop?
It seems to me that the protection of private property is not a priority for the authorities. The thought of whether it will still be safe in a few years to showcase my collection online is increasingly troubling. Will import customs start monitoring online forums for coin discussions in a few years? Are we risking our collections by posting pictures online? These uncertainties weigh heavily on my mind. Or am I getting paranoid? I just signed up for the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and gave a small donation. Coin collectors barely have a voice and there is a good chance that we and our collections will just become collateral damage when new regulations that are aimed at restricting the trade with ancient artifacts are introduced.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

[Al Kowsky]

As long as the major auction houses aren't concerned about the legality of the coins they're selling, why should I be concerned 🤔?

I don't care who comes to my home looking for coins that don't have a legitimate provenance, they're getting nothing 😠!

                           

 

                                        

 

 

[John Conduitt]

Things work fine in the countries that have a system that allows people to own and find coins without making them out to be criminals, and I don't see that changing. The countries who take an inflexible line are the same ones that always have done, and they suffer for it. But the headlines have been grabbed and there's only so much money any government would want to put into confiscating lower value coins or even higher value common coins for no benefit to anyone. Moving coins across borders has always been an issue because of the tax and duty, not the risk of confiscation. The US is the only country that seems to have increased the hassle for reasons not relating to duty, but I would've put them in the 'awkward' category anyway for their bizarre rules on coins that originated in the same region as countries they don't like.

Obviously, it helps if you know your coins weren't recently looted. I'm wary of auction houses that seem to take the view that they can sell looted coins as long as they don't say so, and they're not expensive or culturally significant. But they're probably right. Repatriating a coin must be a lot of work, and it wouldn't take many LRBs for the authorities to realise it's pointless. Imagine if they tried to confiscate everything? Even the museums would be begging them to stop.

Edited February 14 by John Conduitt

[DonnaML]

@Salomons Cat, I think it's perfectly justified to be concerned about ancient coins being held up or even confiscated by U.S. Customs because of inadequate documentation. But it's a giant leap from there, wider than the Atlantic Ocean, to the prospect of the government obtaining a warrant allowing them to burst into your home to confiscate coins already in your possession -- as if they were classified documents you hid in the toilet at Mar-A-Lago -- because the people they hypothetically assigned to monitor coin forums saw you post photos of those coins on Numisforums or elsewhere. Unless you're in the habit of buying million-dollar coins with suspicious provenance (or no stated provenances at all) at highly-publicized auctions. Even then, the authorities are more likely to step in before such coins change hands following the auction, than after they're in the hands of the buyer. Confiscation after the fact is far more likely for unique, identifiable antiquities with mysterious pedigrees, purchased from notoriously crooked dealers like Robin Symes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Symes ), and/or purchased by ultra-wealthy collectors known not to have paid too much attention to provenance, and/or on public display at famous museums. No government, including ours, has the resources to spend persecuting small-time collectors -- whether of ancient coins or ancient artifacts -- after their purchases have passed through Customs into their possession.

[panzerman]

[Removed by Admin] 

While it is not against the rules here to vent frustration with policies around importing coins, please do not share ways (feasible or otherwise) to skirt customs regulations as doing so is illegal. 

-Res 

Edited February 15 by Restitutor

[rasiel]

Hi DonnaML, I have a slightly off topic question maybe you (or someone else) has some ideas on. If I as an American were to move to Europe and take my coins with, what would be the best way? Take them on my person, mail them, hire a narco lord?? Just wondering how people take their collections or any other valuables when moving overseas.

[John Conduitt]

6 hours ago, rasiel said:

Hi DonnaML, I have a slightly off topic question maybe you (or someone else) has some ideas on. If I as an American were to move to Europe and take my coins with, what would be the best way? Take them on my person, mail them, hire a narco lord?? Just wondering how people take their collections or any other valuables when moving overseas.

It really depends on the laws of the country you're moving to. There's quite a web of duties, taxes and reliefs. If you brought them to the UK, they need to be declared and imported within 12 months, and you must not have bought them within 6 months, to qualify for transfer of residence relief. You must also not sell them for 12 months. I think then you might not have to pay the 5% VAT, which is the only relevant duty. If you don't declare them, they can be confiscated, so the risk is somewhat higher than paying 5% of their value (or nothing).

[DonnaML]

11 hours ago, rasiel said:

Hi DonnaML, I have a slightly off topic question maybe you (or someone else) has some ideas on. If I as an American were to move to Europe and take my coins with, what would be the best way? Take them on my person, mail them, hire a narco lord?? Just wondering how people take their collections or any other valuables when moving overseas.

At least you don't have to worry that your ancient coins will be considered American cultural heritage, requiring you to obtain an export permit before taking them out of the USA in the first place!

I agree with @John Conduitt that with respect to bringing them to the new country, you have to look at the laws of that specific country.

[rasiel]

11 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

It really depends on the laws of the country you're moving to. There's quite a web of duties, taxes and reliefs. If you brought them to the UK, they need to be declared and imported within 12 months, and you must not have bought them within 6 months, to qualify for transfer of residence relief. You must also not sell them for 12 months. I think then you might not have to pay the 5% VAT, which is the only relevant duty. If you don't declare them, they can be confiscated, so the risk is somewhat higher than paying 5% of their value (or nothing).

Wow... I really appreciate the heads up even if a bit of a cold water bucket. My wife and I are expecting to retire in Spain. This sounds like a headache no matter what :'-(

Edited February 15 by rasiel

[Salomons Cat]

1 hour ago, GregH said:

As an Australian, I have noticed that postage costs for coins i have bought from auction houses have increased significantly. It seems some postage services now refuse to post coins to Australia, which leaves the expensive courier options (eg FedEx, TNT). This is strange - whatever the postal/courier service, customs rules are the same, and the customs declaration is the same. 

Part of the problem is there is a total lack of clarity over which coins can/cannot be imported between countries. Import/export restrictions are often vaguely worded. Example: "Cultural property, such as pottery, artefacts, paintings, sculptures, fossils, historical documents and numismatic material, often requires an export permit to be exported from their countries of origin. Without a permit issued by the relevant government authority, these objects could be treated as illicitly trafficked cultural property and seized upon entry into Australia".

This doesn't tell me what coins from what countries could be "treated as illicitly trafficked cultural property" and is open to interpretation. Obviously I want to do the right thing. Should i simply avoid ancient coins now, and focus on another area of interest like hammered/milled British coins?

Yes, the terminology surrounding this issue is indeed imprecise, and the concept of cultural property, as outlined in the 1970 UNESCO convention, is inherently flawed. Applying the notion of cultural heritage (or property) to coins presents significant challenges. Firstly, many ancient coin minting sites are no longer inhabited by the same peoples, and ancient coins, particularly Roman ones, were widely circulated as a global currency, often ending up far from their place of origin. If a hoard is not documented when it was found, there is no chance to fill this gap in knowledge later. Thus, without a clear provenance, it becomes difficult for any country to claim that a specific coin would be part of their cultural property.

I agree that a vague terminology based on a vague idea, in combination with the fact that the whole concept is inappropriate for ancient coins, just causes insecurity. And this is the main reason why we sometimes face problems with import customs.

Fortunately, I believe that @DonnaML is right that regular collectors have not much to fear. At least as long as they do not try to cross a border with their collection.
Take, for instance, the Roma Numismatics scandal a few years back, with the fake provenances. The authorities seized the coins of significant historical value with these falsified provenances, prosecuted the responsible parties, and left all other collectors undisturbed. There was no widespread investigation into the origins of all coins auctioned by Roma Numismatics. In fact, the absence of provenance alone has never triggered any investigations anywhere. And I think that this is important to remember, because it takes an unrealistic burden from sellers and collectors.

Edited February 19 by Salomons Cat

[IanG]

I have mentioned this in another thread along similar lines but I think it bears repetition here because it specifically touches upon Salomons Cat's concerns about the 'evolving legal landscape'.

I take comfort from the Cultural Assets Protection Act that was passed by the German Parliament in 2016. I say this for two reasons. First, it is, as far as I am aware, the only root and branch revision of cultural property legislation that has been carried out by a major country in relatively recent times and it was the subject of intensive debate in Parliament. Second, the German Government is considered quite progressive insofar as cultural property is concerned; some of you may remember that when the bill was going through parliament various petitions were flying about numismatic forums because of the concern that if the law was harsh other countries, particularly European countries, were likely to follow where the Germans led. Indeed, the general tenor of the Act is quite restrictive to collecting and other non-coin collecting communities have voiced serious concerns about the difficulties it is causing. The big thing from our perspective is that the German Parliament did ultimately recognise coins as a special case.

The Act specifically stated that the new law required no unbroken evidence of origin; it pointed out that in most cases people could not reasonably be expected to remember the details of acquiring coins after some time; and it stated that private coin collectors are not required to keep records. And as many of you will know Parliament also recognised the difference between common, low-value coins and rare, high-value coins and set a threshold of 2,500 EUR. Under that both sellers and buyers must not knowingly acquire coins that are lost, unlawfully imported or illegally exported (or do so in suspicious circumstances). It would seem that this duty of care will in other than the most extraordinary cases be satisfied by buying from a reputable dealer or auction house, particularly one that is a member of a professional association. For coins over 2,500 EUR there is a higher duty on coin dealers but not collectors - dealers are expected to undertake certain due diligence on provenance and keep records for 30 years. But as Ursus pointed out it is important to note that the law does not require all coins worth more than 2,500 EUR to have a full chain of provenance dating back decades in order to be traded legally. In cases of common coins, establishing a "negative provenance" (there is no reason to suppose that the coin was stolen, looted, or smuggled) together with a "group provenance" (the type is listed in a catalogue or other reference work) is typically sufficient.

The point that I am making here is that when a nation generally considered quite progressive on cultural property issues has looked into this matter in detail it has given coins special status and come up with a law that is, to me at least, a fair compromise. That gives me hope that we are not inevitably drifting towards a future that is unreasonable towards collectors.

 

[Salomons Cat]

On 2/19/2024 at 9:52 AM, IanG said:

I have mentioned this in another thread along similar lines but I think it bears repetition here because it specifically touches upon Salomons Cat's concerns about the 'evolving legal landscape'.

I take comfort from the Cultural Assets Protection Act that was passed by the German Parliament in 2016. I say this for two reasons. First, it is, as far as I am aware, the only root and branch revision of cultural property legislation that has been carried out by a major country in relatively recent times and it was the subject of intensive debate in Parliament. Second, the German Government is considered quite progressive insofar as cultural property is concerned; some of you may remember that when the bill was going through parliament various petitions were flying about numismatic forums because of the concern that if the law was harsh other countries, particularly European countries, were likely to follow where the Germans led. Indeed, the general tenor of the Act is quite restrictive to collecting and other non-coin collecting communities have voiced serious concerns about the difficulties it is causing. The big thing from our perspective is that the German Parliament did ultimately recognise coins as a special case.

The Act specifically stated that the new law required no unbroken evidence of origin; it pointed out that in most cases people could not reasonably be expected to remember the details of acquiring coins after some time; and it stated that private coin collectors are not required to keep records. And as many of you will know Parliament also recognised the difference between common, low-value coins and rare, high-value coins and set a threshold of 2,500 EUR. Under that both sellers and buyers must not knowingly acquire coins that are lost, unlawfully imported or illegally exported (or do so in suspicious circumstances). It would seem that this duty of care will in other than the most extraordinary cases be satisfied by buying from a reputable dealer or auction house, particularly one that is a member of a professional association. For coins over 2,500 EUR there is a higher duty on coin dealers but not collectors - dealers are expected to undertake certain due diligence on provenance and keep records for 30 years. But as Ursus pointed out it is important to note that the law does not require all coins worth more than 2,500 EUR to have a full chain of provenance dating back decades in order to be traded legally. In cases of common coins, establishing a "negative provenance" (there is no reason to suppose that the coin was stolen, looted, or smuggled) together with a "group provenance" (the type is listed in a catalogue or other reference work) is typically sufficient.

The point that I am making here is that when a nation generally considered quite progressive on cultural property issues has looked into this matter in detail it has given coins special status and come up with a law that is, to me at least, a fair compromise. That gives me hope that we are not inevitably drifting towards a future that is unreasonable towards collectors.

I like your point of view, because it's very optimistic.

In Switzerland, even after 2016, courts have rendered judgments defining all types of ancient coins as cultural property. 
The Swiss Federal Office of Culture itself lists a Byzantine solidus and a sestertius of Diva Faustina on its website as examples of cultural property (🤦‍♂️) without even specifying exactly what type of coins they are. Both coins were restituted to Serbia:

In the case of a coin dealer who imported coins without declaration, there was an expert opinion stating that the coins were classified as archaeologically significant and accordingly classified as cultural property. The coins in question were:

(Source)

Of course, we don't know the details. If one knows where the coins were found, they might be archaeologically significant in an appropriate context.
But I believe everyone here agrees that these coins are hardly interesting for numismatists and on the market, they would be almost worthless. Of course, the dealer should have declared these coins before importing them. But I find it difficult to understand why these coins were defined as cultural property?
I would absolutely understand it if these coins were illegally looted. A newly discovered hoard could indeed provide archaeologically relevant information. But the article doesn't say so.

When we compare what ordinary auction houses in Switzerland offer regularly, one must say that the Swiss Federal Office of Culture has published definitions on its website and Swiss courts have rendered judgments that contradict (i) international customary practices (for example, as outlined in the German Cultural Assets Protection Act), (ii) daily customary law of almost all countries including Switzerland and (iii) common sense. By the way, customary law is an official source of law in Switzerland.

Has anyone ever submitted a coin to Leu or Nomos for auction from an EU country and import customs labeled them as cultural property? I don't think so. Because this does not commonly happen to Roman coins. The majority of Roman coins is not regarded as cultural property by anyone. Not even Swiss customs do that. 

So, unfortunately, in Switzerland, it seems that we are having an unclear legal situation regarding the import and export of coins. 
For once, German legislation and jurisdiction is better than the Swiss counterpart. It seems that Germany managed to create a clear and comprehensible legal foundation. But not all countries have that.

On 2/14/2024 at 2:45 PM, Al Kowsky said:

As long as the major auction houses aren't concerned about the legality of the coins they're selling, why should I be concerned 🤔?

Leu and Nomos don't seem concerned. And their activities are most likely monitored by the Swiss Federal Office of Culture. At least they claim to regularly review online auctions. 

Personally, I am particularly bothered that Swiss courts have rendered judgments and shaped definitions that seem to blatantly contradict international practice and even daily practice in Switzerland itself. Probably, for these court judgments, experts were consulted who weren't really experts. And now we have a mess...

Edited February 21 by Salomons Cat