## Facts

- An original manuscript dated June 21, 1777, bearing the signature of Father Junípero Serra, was kept in Mexico City as part of a larger document collection held by Mexico’s National Archives (Archivo General de la Nación).
- At an unknown time, an unknown person removed the manuscript from the archives’ collection without authorization.
- The manuscript was later sold at a flea market in Mexico and was brought into the United States by a subsequent buyer.
- Dana Toft, a collector of valuable historical documents, eventually purchased the manuscript in the United States for approximately $16,000 after meeting the seller in a hotel room.
- Toft did not request authentication documents, proof of lawful ownership, or other documentation showing clear title or legitimate provenance.
- Toft consigned the manuscript to Sotheby’s in New York for auction.
- A rare-manuscript dealer recognized the item and informed Mexico’s National Archives that the manuscript was being offered for sale.
- Archives staff investigated and concluded the manuscript had been removed from their holdings.
- To show the manuscript belonged to the archives, staff produced microfilm records of the relevant archival collection showing the manuscript in the archives’ files.
- The United States brought an in rem forfeiture action under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2613, and moved for summary judgment.
- In support of summary judgment, the government submitted the microfilm documentation and an art-fraud specialist’s comparison analysis concluding the Sotheby’s manuscript matched the microfilmed archival manuscript.
- Toft opposed the motion, arguing the government had not proven the manuscript’s identity and asserting he was an innocent purchaser.

## Issues

1. Whether the government established, as a matter of law, that the manuscript was cultural property documented as part of the inventory of Mexico’s National Archives, stolen from that institution, and imported into the United States in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 2607, making it forfeitable under 19 U.S.C. § 2609(a).
2. Whether Toft’s claimed “innocent purchaser” status could defeat forfeiture (or otherwise bar summary judgment) in a CPIA forfeiture action.
3. Whether Toft raised a genuine dispute of material fact on the manuscript’s origin and identity sufficient to preclude summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court ordered the manuscript forfeited under the CPIA as cultural property imported into the United States in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 2607 and subject to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 2609(a).
- The court rejected Toft’s reliance on an “innocent purchaser” theory as a basis to avoid forfeiture on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Under 19 U.S.C. § 2607, the United States may bar importation of cultural property that is documented as part of the inventory of a museum or similar public institution in a UNESCO Convention State Party and stolen from that institution.
- Under 19 U.S.C. § 2609(a), cultural property imported in violation of § 2607 is subject to seizure and forfeiture in an in rem proceeding.
- Documentation such as microfilm records of an institution’s holdings can be used to show that an item was part of an institutional inventory for purposes of the CPIA.
- Identity and provenance may be established through a combination of institutional records and technical comparison testimony from a qualified specialist; unsupported speculation is insufficient to create a triable issue.
- The CPIA’s forfeiture framework does not provide a general good-faith-purchaser exception that defeats forfeiture of stolen, inventoried cultural property; a claimant’s asserted good faith does not, by itself, block forfeiture once the statutory elements are proven.
- In evaluating a purchaser’s claimed lack of notice, courts may consider the circumstances of acquisition (including unusual or suspicious purchase conditions and the absence of routine provenance or title checks) when determining whether the claimant has raised a material factual dispute.

## Conclusion

The Southern District of New York held that the United States proved through microfilm inventory records and comparison evidence that the Junípero Serra manuscript at Sotheby’s was the same document stolen from Mexico’s National Archives and imported in violation of the CPIA, so the manuscript was forfeitable as a matter of law and Toft’s asserted innocent-purchaser position did not prevent summary judgment.


United States of America v. An Original Manuscript . . . Bearing the Signature of Junipero Serra, Located at Sotheby's, . . . New York, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1859, 1999 WL 97894 (1999)