Federal Charges For Florida Fossil Dealer

[PrehistoricFlorida]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/18/12286182-feds-file-lawsuit-to-get-tyrannosaur-skeleton-sent-back-to-mongolia

[Harry Pristis]

I am sorry to hear of Eric's problem with the Tarbosaurus. I missed the part about the "federal charges," though. I understood that it is a "claim," and a civil lawsuit, to recover the fossil for Mongolia.

[THobern]

Exactly; while the federal government is bringing the claim, it is a civil case. It's just that the federal government will have standing where an international treaty is the basis of the claim. This is certainly not a 'federal charge' as the term is commonly used; the implication there is almost always that criminal charges are being pressed.

Edited June 20, 2012 by THobern

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Sorry, I should have included in the title that the charges against Eric are civil. However, it does sound like there should be criminal charges for the original exporter in Britain for customs fraud.

[Harry Pristis]

Sorry, I should have included in the title that the charges against Eric are civil. However, it does sound like there should be criminal charges for the original exporter in Britain for customs fraud.

"Fraud" is a pretty strong word to describe the situation. Fraud under British law? Fraud under U.S. law? I doubt that there will ever be sanctions under criminal law. Try to be less judgmental, Nate, . . . leave that to the professional paleontologists and the ambitious prosecutor.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Harry Pristis

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Customs forms read:

"I, the undersigned, whose name and address are given on the item, certify that the particulars given in this declaration are correct and that this item does not contain any dangerous article or articles prohibited by legislation or by postal or customs regulations."

If you know something other than that which was given in the article, please share.

[mikeymig]

Oh man, my boy Eric has come along way from selling me horse teeth and other Pleistocene fossils from Florida. I like how in the article they use the term "looted" and "stolen" but if it was Paul Sereno it would have been "discovered" and "amazing". If the Mongolian govt. gives my bud a hard time then Im not telling them where the tomb of Genghis Khan is. Seriously, the govt only got involved cuz of the price point and how did it get here? Oh yeah the poor customs officer and the Mayor of the town and the villagers and the police were all fooled by this nasty American. Yeah right, everyone knew and pushed the paperwork through as they had their hands out.

[PrehistoricFlorida]

He has come a long way. Don't have to worry about him diving Florida rivers anymore. He's going around the world chasing the big fish now!

[mikeymig]

He has come a long way. Don't have to worry about him diving Florida rivers anymore. He's going around the world chasing the big fish now!

I know at one point he was trying to bring up logs at the bottom of Floridas rivers as well as fossils. I just wrote him and I said I hope it doesnt cost too much and that it all works out for him. Hes a good guy and Im glad to know hes a fossil globe trotter.

[PrehistoricFlorida]

I know at one point he was trying to bring up logs at the bottom of Floridas rivers as well as fossils. I just wrote him and I said I hope it doesnt cost too much and that it all works out for him. Hes a good guy and Im glad to know hes a fossil globe trotter.

I know several Florida river loggers. It seems to be pretty lucrative. It's expensive to get going, though. There are many necessary permits and you actually have to get an archaeologist to sign off and say that there is nothing archaeologically significant on your section of river.

[steelhead9]

Customs forms read:

"I, the undersigned, whose name and address are given on the item, certify that the particulars given in this declaration are correct and that this item does not contain any dangerous article or articles prohibited by legislation or by postal or customs regulations."

If you know something other than that which was given in the article, please share.

I agree that declaration particulars were cleary mis-represented, but could you enlighten me as to what legislation prohibits this fossil from possession or sale in the US?

[Auspex]

I agree that declaration particulars were cleary mis-represented, but could you enlighten me as to what legislation prohibits this fossil from possession or sale in the US?

If the customs declaration was falsified, it is contraband.

[THobern]

I agree that declaration particulars were cleary mis-represented, but could you enlighten me as to what legislation prohibits this fossil from possession or sale in the US?

Well, larceny would be a start if it was knowingly misacquired; however, I'd imagine that it wouldn't be the possession, but the conspiracy that would be the basis for the charges.

[THobern]

"Fraud" is a pretty strong word to describe the situation. Fraud under British law? Fraud under U.S. law? I doubt that there will ever be sanctions under criminal law. Try to be less judgmental, Nate, . . . leave that to the professional paleontologists and the ambitious prosecutor.

For the exporter, it's fraud by failing to disclose information where there was a legal duty to do so; Fraud Act 2006 (UK), s2. I'm guessing its mirrored under U.S. law, so the U.S. dealer could potentially be charged as an accessory. I doubt, however, that it's basis for an extradition.

Edited June 20, 2012 by THobern

[Boesse]

It's pretty clearly fraud when the people involved A) lied about what the fossil was during import and lied about where it came from. What something IS and WHERE it's from are pieces of information that are sort of important.

[THobern]

It's pretty clearly fraud when the people involved A) lied about what the fossil was during import and lied about where it came from. What something IS and WHERE it's from are pieces of information that are sort of important.

A crime has likely been commited, but the prosecutor will have to prove that the dealer (as opposed to the sender) is liable. Hence conspiracy.

[THobern]

Oh man, my boy Eric has come along way from selling me horse teeth and other Pleistocene fossils from Florida. I like how in the article they use the term "looted" and "stolen" but if it was Paul Sereno it would have been "discovered" and "amazing". If the Mongolian govt. gives my bud a hard time then Im not telling them where the tomb of Genghis Khan is. Seriously, the govt only got involved cuz of the price point and how did it get here? Oh yeah the poor customs officer and the Mayor of the town and the villagers and the police were all fooled by this nasty American. Yeah right, everyone knew and pushed the paperwork through as they had their hands out.

Paul Sereno isn't falsifying documents and selling to private collectors. Even if the government were getting involved because of the price (even though their trying to ensure that it isn't sold, but is retained by the state), that doesn't mean that there isn't still consideration in preventing and disincentivising the sale of illegally-acquired fossils. Finally, it shouldn't be a legal defence that local officials were bribed, especially when that is in itself an admission of guilt.

[Harry Pristis]

Do we all agree to this premise: For a criminal charge to be brought and sustained, the prosecutor would have to be confident that he could prove, among other things, criminal intent (or criminal negligence). And, he would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every time that tarbosaur changed hands, a new firewall was erected which a prosecutor would have to penetrate. The firewall in question here is the one between the recipient (Eric) and the shipper, but other firewalls may exist between shipper and broker, broker and seller, seller and seller ........... first buyer and collector. Prosecution of an international criminal conspiracy, for example, would be almost impossible. It certainly would be resource-draining.

Without identifying the chain of custody, it would be impossible to prove that the skeleton came from Mongolia. It is impossible to prove a negative: "To date, no tarbosaur has been found outside of Mongolia; therefore, this tarbosaur must be from Mongolia." Paleobiology is replete with examples of range extensions.

What no one seems to recognize is the possibility that Eric acted in good faith. Did Eric pay (was it $13,000?) for a tyrannosaur that was purported to be, say an old find from the Isle of Wight? If $13,000 seems like a ridiculously low price, remember how Phil Currie described the skeleton -- much damaged and missing significant parts. I prefer to give Eric the benefit of the doubt.

It is the exporter's responsibility to make the customs declaration (Nate quoted the USPS language). The exporter may or may not have identified the fossil to his best knowledge. That determination will be made in Britain. We don't know that information, and it is foolish to speculate on the matter.

Years ago, I imported a shipment of reptiles from South America -- coral snakes, rattlesnakes (c. durissus), some snakes I never did identify. Among the reptiles were ten baby caimans, identified on the customs declaration (and passed by the local USF&W agent) as the common spectacled? caiman. When I went to sell these baby caimans, a knowledgable buyer identified them as young Caiman yacare, an endangered species. Mistakes do happen, and I incurred no liability.

My caiman experience involved a relatively small loss to me (I cannot speak for the C. yacare population). I understand from the news accounts that Eric invested a year in the preparation of the skeleton. I feel bad for his loss. I don't feel a sense of loss to the aggregate of human knowledge, nor does it feel like a blow to a Mongolian (if that's where the bones originate) fossil heritage.

[mikeymig]

Do we all agree to this premise: For a criminal charge to be brought and sustained, the prosecutor would have to be confident that he could prove, among other things, criminal intent (or criminal negligence). And, he would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every time that tarbosaur changed hands, a new firewall was erected which a prosecutor would have to penetrate. The firewall in question here is the one between the recipient (Eric) and the shipper, but other firewalls may exist between shipper and broker, broker and seller, seller and seller ........... first buyer and collector. Prosecution of an international criminal conspiracy, for example, would be almost impossible. It certainly would be resource-draining.

Without identifying the chain of custody, it would be impossible to prove that the skeleton came from Mongolia. It is impossible to prove a negative: "To date, no tarbosaur has been found outside of Mongolia; therefore, this tarbosaur must be from Mongolia." Paleobiology is replete with examples of range extensions.

What no one seems to recognize is the possibility that Eric acted in good faith. Did Eric pay (was it $13,000?) for a tyrannosaur that was purported to be, say an old find from the Isle of Wight? If $13,000 seems like a ridiculously low price, remember how Phil Currie described the skeleton -- much damaged and missing significant parts. I prefer to give Eric the benefit of the doubt.

It is the exporter's responsibility to make the customs declaration (Nate quoted the USPS language). The exporter may or may not have identified the fossil to his best knowledge. That determination will be made in Britain. We don't know that information, and it is foolish to speculate on the matter.

Years ago, I imported a shipment of reptiles from South America -- coral snakes, rattlesnakes (c. durissus), some snakes I never did identify. Among the reptiles were ten baby caimans, identified on the customs declaration (and passed by the local USF&W agent) as the common spectacled? caiman. When I went to sell these baby caimans, a knowledgable buyer identified them as young Caiman yacare, an endangered species. Mistakes do happen, and I incurred no liability.

My caiman experience involved a relatively small loss to me (I cannot speak for the C. yacare population). I understand from the news accounts that Eric invested a year in the preparation of the skeleton. I feel bad for his loss. I don't feel a sense of loss to the aggregate of human knowledge, nor does it feel like a blow to a Mongolian (if that's where the bones originate) fossil heritage.

You said it way better then I could or did. I know Eric and he’s no criminal and like I was trying to say there are more here at fault then just Eric. I know many mineral dealers and collectors who buy and sell specimens all the time for thousands of dollars each and some are now millionaires but no one says boo. I don’t know any millionaire fossil collectors and it seems a lot of people have a negative opinion when it comes to selling a fossil. There aren’t enough paleontologists in the world to collect all the fossils that are lying out there and besides, we collectors and dealers are merely curators. Our collections and specimens will live on long after we are gone but only if we are allowed to go out and find them first before they turn to dust.

[Boesse]

Could a Tarbosaurus bataar possibly be found in another country, such as China or Russia? It's certainly possible. But, it hasn't happened yet. So far, all known Tarbosaurus bataar fossils have come from the Nemegt Formation in Mongolia - and as the paleontologists who examined the fossil noted, it also had the same style of preservation as familiar specimens from the Nemegt Fm. On top of that, Phil Currie has in previous years talked about visiting the Nemegt Fm. exposures and seeing the remains of poached (and in some cases, vandalized) Tarbosaurus specimens in the field. Aside from this, the specimen in question bears all of the morphological details that identify it as Tarbosaurus bataar - only found in Mongolia. So far as can be told... there is positive evidence that this specimen came from Mongolia, and zero evidence that it came from elsewhere.

I thought I'd mention that there is a geochemical way of testing whether or not it originated from the Nemegt Formation: REE analysis, and it's been used before to tell whether fossils have been reworked or not by comparing the REE signature of a certain fossil to certain strata.

[Harry Pristis]

Could a Tarbosaurus bataar possibly be found in another country, such as China or Russia? It's certainly possible. But, it hasn't happened yet. So far, all known Tarbosaurus bataar fossils have come from the Nemegt Formation in Mongolia - and as the paleontologists who examined the fossil noted, it also had the same style of preservation as familiar specimens from the Nemegt Fm. On top of that, Phil Currie has in previous years talked about visiting the Nemegt Fm. exposures and seeing the remains of poached (and in some cases, vandalized) Tarbosaurus specimens in the field. Aside from this, the specimen in question bears all of the morphological details that identify it as Tarbosaurus bataar - only found in Mongolia. So far as can be told... there is positive evidence that this specimen came from Mongolia, and zero evidence that it came from elsewhere.

I thought I'd mention that there is a geochemical way of testing whether or not it originated from the Nemegt Formation: REE analysis, and it's been used before to tell whether fossils have been reworked or not by comparing the REE signature of a certain fossil to certain strata.

Well, that's just super, Bobby! I'm certain that a jury will be impressed (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that all Tarbosaurs are "only found in Mongolia. So far as can be told.... "

If tarbosaurs in the field are being vandalized, we should be happy that this one was saved. But then, do we really need another tarbosaur skeleton? Phil Currie probably cares, but it is not important to most of us.

You seem to have inside information, Bobby. Are you going to be testifying against the collectors involved in this lawsuit?

When next you're talking with him, I hope you'll suggest rare earth element analysis to the US Attorney. I'm sure he has that covered somewhere in his budget.

[siteseer]

Bobby and Harry,

I checked "The Dinosauria" (Second Edition; page 113) and it does list a few formations in China from which the species, T. bataar, is known.

Jess

Could a Tarbosaurus bataar possibly be found in another country, such as China or Russia? It's certainly possible. But, it hasn't happened yet. So far, all known Tarbosaurus bataar fossils have come from the Nemegt Formation in Mongolia - and as the paleontologists who examined the fossil noted, it also had the same style of preservation as familiar specimens from the Nemegt Fm. On top of that, Phil Currie has in previous years talked about visiting the Nemegt Fm. exposures and seeing the remains of poached (and in some cases, vandalized) Tarbosaurus specimens in the field. Aside from this, the specimen in question bears all of the morphological details that identify it as Tarbosaurus bataar - only found in Mongolia. So far as can be told... there is positive evidence that this specimen came from Mongolia, and zero evidence that it came from elsewhere.

I thought I'd mention that there is a geochemical way of testing whether or not it originated from the Nemegt Formation: REE analysis, and it's been used before to tell whether fossils have been reworked or not by comparing the REE signature of a certain fossil to certain strata.

Edited June 22, 2012 by siteseer

[MikeR]

Wow! I am in China and this story has made it to the paper here. Of course it was an AP release in the English language Shanghai paper but it does state that the consignor bought in good faith and spent a lot of money in preparation. It also states that five experts have seen the specimen and all agree that it most likely originated in the Nemegt Basin in Mongolia.

Mike

[THobern]

...When next you're talking with him, I hope you'll suggest rare earth element analysis to the US Attorney. I'm sure he has that covered somewhere in his budget.

I've had a biology lecturer and a paleontology lecturer who have given evidence at murder trials regarding the locality plant matter, based on genetics, and the locality of a sand sample (forams) respectively.

Edited June 25, 2012 by THobern

[THobern]

Well, that's just super, Bobby! I'm certain that a jury will be impressed (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that all Tarbosaurs are "only found in Mongolia. So far as can be told.... "

That's not the criminal standard; it's 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.