In 2015’s primary numismatic legal story, the Langbord family moved
closer in its quest to keep 10 1933 Saint-Gaudens gold $20 double
eagles that it allegedly discovered in a family safe deposit more than
a decade ago. Joan Langbord, the daughter of the late Philadelphia
coin dealer Israel Switt, is joined by her two sons in the lawsuit.
The case started in 2004 when the Langbords informed the Mint that
the 10 coins existed and submitted them for authentication. The Mint
retained the coins and the Langbords sued the government in 2006,
seeking the return of the coins. On July 21, 2011, a jury agreed with
the government, deciding that the coins were likely stolen by Switt
from the Mint long ago, but that judgment was later vacated. The
jury’s 2011 decision was confirmed by the district court’s 2012
decision that awarded the coins to the government.
On April 17, 2015, a three-judge appeals court held that the
government was required to file a judicial civil forfeiture complaint
or to return the coins to the Langbords. The appeals court said that
the government was wrong in believing that it did not need to abide by
CAFRA — the applicable forfeiture standard. A July 28 filing directed
a rehearing en banc at the convenience of the court, where the court
would hear arguments from both sides.
The Langbord family’s core argument is that the Appellate Court’s
April 17 decision in favor of the Langbords recognized that the case
is about more than coins: that it is “about an unconstitutional abuse
of power and holding the government accountable for its unlawful
acts.” The government’s reply was that the coins should not be
returned to “the family of a thief” and that individuals should not be
able to benefit from the ill-gotten gains of Switt’s criminal actions.
Further, the government contended that the decision would limit the
government’s ability to forfeit property used in criminal activities
and would negatively impact the government’s ability to protect
Representatives of the Langbord family and the government met before
all of the judges in Philadelphia’s U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on Oct. 14, 2015. The oral arguments before the en banc
panel of judges — as opposed to the three-judge panel for the initial
appeal — were limited to two definitional questions. First, whether
the 1933 double eagles should be considered “monetary instruments” or
“merchandise” under certain statutes and second, whether the
government has waived certain rights on appeal.
Both sides were allotted 30 minutes to make their points, which were
further enumerated in briefs submitted to the court on Oct. 12. Each
side received five minutes of uninterrupted time, after which the
court questioned attorneys representing both sides.
The Langbord family’s attorney Barry Berke contended that the coins
should have been subject to administrative forfeiture and that the
government unconstitutionally seized the coins. The government’s
representative Robert Zauzmer argued that the double eagles were not
subject to administrative forfeiture since their value was in excess
of $500,000 and the 1933 double eagles were never issued as money and
were not in circulation.
As of Dec. 22, 2015, the Third Circuity Court of Appeals has not
released a decision.
Switt, a Philadelphia jeweler and coin dealer, was investigated by
Secret Service officials in 1944 when the government became aware of
the market in 1933 double eagles, which the Mint had claimed were not
officially issued. Switt confirmed selling 10 of the coins, nine of
which were tracked down, confiscated, and eventually melted. The 10th
coin had been sold to Egypt’s King Farouk and in 1944, mistakenly
allowed to be exported. It is the only one allowed to be privately owned.
More Top 10 Stories
Women on 20s
Coin and Chronicles sets
Special dimes in March of Dimes set
Major auctions: Partrick, Gardner, Pogue
American Eagle silver bullion sales record
2016 gold centennial coins
Canada gold coin melt
New Queen Elizabeth II portrait
American Liberty, High Relief gold coin