Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material

District Court, S.D. Florida
252 F.Supp.2d 1367, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4672, 2003 WL 1564006 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c)(1)(A), property introduced into the United States is subject to forfeiture if it is considered stolen under the laws of the country from which it was taken, specifically when that country's laws designate the item as inalienable national property that cannot be sold or acquired by private individuals.


Facts:

  • In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon gifted a moon rock and a commemorative plaque to the government and people of the Republic of Honduras.
  • Between 1990 and 1994, during a change in administration, the moon rock and plaque disappeared from the Honduran Presidential Palace.
  • In 1994, Alan Rosen, an American businessman in Honduras, learned the items were for sale by a retired Honduran military colonel.
  • In 1995, Rosen paid the colonel approximately $50,000 (part cash, part truck) for the items, despite an initial asking price of $1 million.
  • Rosen transported the moon rock and plaque into the United States and had the lunar material authenticated by experts at Harvard and the Smithsonian.
  • In 1998, Rosen responded to a newspaper advertisement placed by undercover federal agents ('The Sting') looking to buy moon rocks.
  • Rosen met with undercover agents in Miami, offering to sell the items for $5 million while admitting that dealing in lunar material was usually done 'under the table.'
  • Federal agents seized the moon rock and plaque pursuant to a warrant.

Procedural Posture:

  • Federal agents seized the moon rock and plaque pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a Magistrate Judge.
  • The United States filed a civil complaint for forfeiture in rem in the U.S. District Court.
  • Alan Rosen filed a claim asserting ownership of the seized property.
  • The U.S. District Court conducted a bench trial to determine facts and conclusions of law.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the lunar material and plaque subject to civil forfeiture as stolen property introduced into the United States when Honduran law classifies such items as inalienable 'national property of public use' that cannot be sold without legislative authorization?


Opinions:

Majority - District Judge Jordan

Yes, the property is subject to forfeiture because it was stolen from the Republic of Honduras and illegally introduced into the United States. The court reasoned that while federal law dictates that stolen property is forfeitable, the determination of whether an item is 'stolen' relies on local law—in this case, Honduran law—to define property interests. Relying on expert testimony regarding the Honduran Civil Code, the court determined the items were 'national property of public use' because they were a gift to the entire nation. Under Honduran law, such property is inalienable and cannot be sold, nor can a private individual acquire title to it through possession (prescription) without specific legislative authorization. Since no such legislation existed, the removal of the items constituted larceny. Consequently, the colonel who sold the items to Rosen had no title to convey, and Rosen could not have acquired valid title. The government successfully established probable cause for forfeiture, which Rosen failed to rebut.



Analysis:

This decision illustrates the critical interplay between U.S. forfeiture statutes and foreign property laws. It establishes that a claimant's possession of a 'bill of sale' is irrelevant if the underlying foreign law prohibits the alienation (sale) of that specific type of property (here, national patrimony). The case serves as a warning to collectors of cultural artifacts: valid title cannot be created through a chain of sales if the original removal from the source country violated laws deeming the property inalienable public, property. Furthermore, it clarifies that 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c) does not provide an 'innocent owner' defense, although the court noted the claimant here was likely not innocent given the suspicious circumstances of the purchase.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"