 |
| Miami, Florida. |
The U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida on July 18 filed a second complaint to forfeit Peruvian
cultural property. The complaint alleges that Jean Combe Fritz, a citizen of Peru,
illegally imported additional heritage objects when he arrived at Miami
International Airport in Florida in August 2010. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
seized the items.
The federal district court has
consolidated this new case of U.S. v.
Three Artifacts Constituting Cultural Property of Peru with the case of U.S.
v. Twenty-Nine Pre-Columbian and Colonial Artifacts from Peru, filed in May.
The three artifacts described in the latest complaint consist of two amulets
and a tunic.
The prosecution's newest pleading follows on the heels of Combe Fritz's court notice claiming lawful title to the original 29 artifacts.
In answer to the government's initial complaint, he
denies "that the CPIA [Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act]
applies, that the items are Pre-Columbian or Colonial, and that Peru is the
source country." In the alternative, the claimant argues that
"it is not possible to determine whether or not Peru is the source
country." Meanwhile, a third affirmative defense asserts that "[t]he articles
seized are not Peruvian as their production predates the establishment of Peru
as a nation."
A fourth affirmative defense raised by the claimant argues that the objects are not ones of "cultural significance" that can be
forfeited as required by the terms of the CPIA. And a fifth affirmative defense
contends that CBP failed to provide an administrative process that would have allowed the claimant
to recover the property. Indeed, a final affirmative
defense says that Combe Fritz "has valid title to the items and is a bona fide purchaser
for value...."
The prosecutors' latest complaint targeting the three artifacts argues that the objects can be seized, not
under the terms of the CPIA, but pursuant to 19 U .S.C. § 1595a(c)(1 )(A), which states that "[m]erchandise
which is introduced or attempted to be introduced into the United States contrary
to law . . . shall be seized and forfeited if it ... is stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely
imported or introduced."
The prosecution alleges, "The Defendant
in rem is merchandise that has been introduced into the United States contrary to
law, as it constitutes property unlawfully exported from Peru and stolen, smuggled
or clandestinely imported or introduced into the United States." They cite
Law
28296 as legal authority, Peru's patrimony law, but make no mention of any specific U.S. criminal law that would have been violated.
Prosecutors, nevertheless,
outline additional facts in their case. They allege, among other details, that
Those named include a doctor in New York City; a man located in Westchester County, NY; and a textile conservation company in New Mexico.Combe-Fritz initially told the officers that he had come to Miami for a vacation and to do some shopping for his wife and child. He said that he had purchased the artifacts for $500 from the Inca market in Lima, and that he intended to send them to his aunt in San Francisco.On further questioning by Customs officers, however, Combe admitted that he was bringing the artifacts in for three persons whose names were on a list given to him by his father, who had also paid for his ticket.
Photo courtesy naomistern.
This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com