## Facts

- Ten 1933 Double Eagle $20 gold coins were minted in 1933, when gold coins were removed from circulation and the 1933 Double Eagles were intended to be melted and not issued as legal tender.
- Joan Langbord and her sons claimed they discovered ten 1933 Double Eagles in a safe-deposit box formerly belonging to Joan’s father, Israel Switt, a coin dealer linked to historical illicit transactions involving 1933 Double Eagles.
- In 2004, the Langbords voluntarily delivered the coins to the U.S. Mint for authentication.
- The Mint authenticated the coins as genuine but refused to return them, asserting the coins “already are, and always have been” U.S. property and that forfeiture proceedings were unnecessary.
- The government relied on historical records, including Secret Service investigative reports from the 1930s–1940s addressing thefts from the Mint and Switt’s involvement with 1933 Double Eagles.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s retention of the coins after voluntary submission for authentication constituted a “seizure” triggering CAFRA’s 90-day deadline to file a judicial forfeiture complaint under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A).
2. Whether the United States could seek a declaratory judgment to establish federal ownership of the coins rather than proceed solely through civil forfeiture.
3. Whether any 1933 Double Eagle could have lawfully left the Mint, such that the Langbords could possess title superior to the United States.
4. Whether admission of decades-old Secret Service reports under the “ancient documents” hearsay exception was erroneous and, if so, whether any error required reversal.

## Decision

- The en banc Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the United States following a jury verdict.
- CAFRA’s 90-day deadline was not triggered because the government did not initiate a nonjudicial forfeiture and instead consistently asserted continuous federal ownership of the coins.
- The government could use the Declaratory Judgment Act to obtain a judicial determination of ownership in a live title dispute.
- On the merits, the record overwhelmingly supported that no 1933 Double Eagle left the Mint through authorized channels; the coins therefore remained U.S. property, and private parties could not obtain good title to unlawfully removed government property.
- Any trial-level instructional or evidentiary errors, including aspects of admitting historical investigative reports, were harmless given the strength of the evidence supporting federal ownership.

## Legal Principles

- CAFRA’s 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A) 90-day filing requirement applies when property is seized for forfeiture; it is not triggered where the government disavows forfeiture and asserts it is retaining its own property.
- The United States may seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to resolve a justiciable controversy over title to disputed property, including where forfeiture procedures are not invoked.
- Property unlawfully removed from federal custody remains federal property; a possessor cannot obtain good title as against the United States through theft or unauthorized transfer.
- Under Fed. R. Evid. 803(16), an “ancient document” may qualify for hearsay exception if authenticated, but embedded hearsay concerns remain; erroneous admission does not require reversal absent prejudice affecting the verdict.

## Conclusion

The en banc Third Circuit held that CAFRA did not compel return of the coins because the government’s conduct was not a forfeiture-triggering seizure, permitted the government to litigate title through declaratory relief, and affirmed that the ten 1933 Double Eagles remained property of the United States because they never lawfully left the Mint.


Langbord v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 832 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc)