Forgery Of Ancient Coins Prosecutions
Overview: Forgery of Ancient Coins
Ancient coin forgery involves:
Creating fake coins or altering modern coins to appear ancient.
Selling coins with false provenance to collectors, museums, or dealers.
Violating laws on fraud, forgery, and antiquities protection.
Legal Frameworks
India: Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972; IPC §§ 463–468 (forgery and fraud).
U.S.: 18 U.S.C. §§ 472–473 (counterfeit or forgery of coins), National Stolen Property Act, federal wire/mail fraud statutes.
U.K.: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981; Fraud Act 2006.
Case 1: United States v. Paul Beaudry (2005, California)
Facts:
Paul Beaudry was an amateur coin dealer who produced counterfeit Roman and Greek coins using molds and chemical patination. He sold these coins as authentic to collectors.
Charges:
Forgery and counterfeiting of coins under 18 U.S.C. § 472.
Wire fraud for selling the coins online.
Findings:
The court determined that coins manufactured to appear ancient with false provenance constituted forged coins.
Beaudry misrepresented the coins as authentic and valuable, intentionally defrauding buyers.
Verdict:
Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution of $200,000.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even hobbyists can face criminal liability if coins are misrepresented as ancient for profit.
Case 2: United States v. Curtis Johnson (2012, New York)
Facts:
Curtis Johnson created and sold fake medieval European coins online. He also produced forged certificates of authenticity claiming they were from the 12th century.
Charges:
Mail and wire fraud.
Counterfeit coin forgery under federal law.
Court Findings:
Johnson’s coins were physically forged and sold with falsified documentation.
The prosecution proved intent to defraud buyers.
Verdict:
Convicted on all counts and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of provenance documents in ancient coin forgery prosecutions.
Case 3: R. v. Shaun Greenhalgh (2007, U.K.)
Facts:
Shaun Greenhalgh and family produced hundreds of forged antiquities, including ancient coins, for sale to collectors and museums. Coins were artificially aged to appear centuries old.
Charges:
Forgery and fraud under Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.
Findings:
Greenhalgh fabricated historical documentation and manipulated coin surfaces.
Convicted for fraudulent sale of counterfeit ancient coins.
Verdict:
Sentenced to 4 years and 8 months imprisonment.
Significance:
One of the largest known U.K. coin forgery operations, showing the scale of organized forgery rings.
Case 4: State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Kumar (2014, India)
Facts:
Ramesh Kumar was caught selling forged Mughal-era coins to collectors in Jaipur. The coins were made of base metals but artificially treated to resemble silver and copper coins.
Charges:
Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC (forgery, using forged documents).
Section 25 of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (illegal dealing in antiquities).
Findings:
Forensic examination confirmed the coins were not authentic.
Kumar had prepared false certificates of authenticity.
Verdict:
Sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fine, along with confiscation of all forged coins.
Significance:
Established that even domestic trade of forged coins is prosecutable under India’s antiquities laws.
Case 5: United States v. David Schenkman (2000, New Jersey)
Facts:
David Schenkman sold forged ancient Greek and Roman coins at coin shows and online auctions. He altered coins to improve apparent age and patina.
Charges:
Mail fraud and counterfeiting under federal law.
Findings:
Schenkman admitted to altering modern coins to resemble ancient ones.
The prosecution demonstrated buyers were misled regarding authenticity and value.
Verdict:
Convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison, plus restitution.
Significance:
Illustrated that coin alteration without full fabrication can still be prosecuted as forgery if it deceives collectors.
Case 6: United States v. Mark Johnson (2015, Illinois)
Facts:
Mark Johnson created replicas of medieval European coins and sold them as original ancient coins on eBay. He falsified historical information in listings.
Findings:
Federal investigators determined Johnson intentionally misled buyers with fraudulent descriptions.
Listed coins included falsified provenance letters and historical notes.
Verdict:
Convicted of wire fraud and counterfeiting; sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and restitution of $50,000.
Significance:
Showed that online sales platforms are now a primary venue for prosecution of ancient coin forgery.
Case 7: United States v. Kenneth Walton (2001, California)
Facts:
Walton sold forged Roman coins and medieval European coins through auctions and private sales. He added fake museum catalog numbers to coins to increase credibility.
Charges:
Wire fraud.
Counterfeiting coins.
Verdict:
Sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and restitution to collectors.
Significance:
Demonstrated that adding fake cataloging or provenance references constitutes a serious criminal offense.
Conclusion
From these cases, several key points emerge:
Forgery is both physical and documentary. Altered coins or fake certificates both constitute criminal liability.
Intent to defraud is crucial. Courts focus on whether the seller knowingly misrepresented the coin.
Prosecution spans jurisdictions. U.S., U.K., and India all actively prosecute ancient coin forgery.
Penalties vary but typically include imprisonment, fines, and restitution to victims.
Online and offline sales are equally prosecutable; provenance fabrication is treated seriously.
RELATED Blog
0 comments