United States v. Schultz

Citation. 333 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2004)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation333 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2004)

Brief Fact Summary.

Schultz was indicted for violating the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), in violation of Egypt’s Law 117, concerning the protection of antiquities.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The National Stolen Property Act applies to stolen property that violates foreign patrimony law.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Where a federal criminal statute uses a common-law term of established meaning without otherwise defining it, the general practice is to give that term its common-law meaning.

View Full Point of Law

Schultz was an art dealer in New York who purchased Egyptian antiquities along with Jonathan Parry (Parry). Schultz and Parry smuggled the antiquities into the U.S. and disguised them as cheap souvenirs. Schultz was indicted for violating the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), in violation of Egypt’s Law 117, concerning the protection of antiquities. Schultz moved to dismiss the indictment and the motion was denied. Schultz appealed.

Issue.

Whether the National Stolen Property Act applies to stolen property that violates foreign patrimony law?

Held.

Yes. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Schultz violated law 117 and violated the NSPA. Egyptian Law 117 was clear that the antiquities removed by Schultz were owned by Egypt, and Schultz did not receive permission to remove the antiquities.

Discussion.

The NSPA applies to stolen property that violates foreign patrimony law. The NSPA requires travelers to follow local laws when removing articles form another country.