18 U.S.C. § 668

Theft of major artwork

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Definitions.—In this section—(1) “museum” means an organized and permanent institution, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce, that—(A) is situated in the United States;(B) is established for an essentially educational or aesthetic purpose;(C) has a professional staff; and(D) owns, utilizes, and cares for tangible objects that are exhibited to the public on a regular schedule.(2) “object of cultural heritage” means an object that is—(A) over 100 years old and worth in excess of $5,000; or(B) worth at least $100,000.(b)Offenses.—A person who—(1) steals or obtains by fraud from the care, custody, or control of a museum any object of cultural heritage; or(2) knowing that an object of cultural heritage has been stolen or obtained by fraud, if in fact the object was stolen or obtained from the care, custody, or control of a museum (whether or not that fact is known to the person), receives, conceals, exhibits, or disposes of the object,shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, § 320902(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2123; amended Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 604(b)(18), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–294 designated first and second pars. beginning with quotation mark as pars. (1) and (2), respectively, and made technical amendment to provisions appearing in original.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1998–2020 · leading case: United States v. McCarty, 628 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. McCarty, 628 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 5× “McCarty appeals his conviction and within-Guidelines sentence of forty-six months’ imprisonment for knowingly stealing two cultural heritage objects, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (b). Specifically, McCarty alleges six general errors: (1) the district court improperly…”

Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074 (2015). “§ 57b-1(c)(authorizing investigative demands for "documentary material or tangible things"); 18 U.S.C. § 668 (a)(1)(D)(defining "museum" as entity that owns "tangible objects that are exhibited to the public"); 28 U.”

United States v. Ernest Medford, in 98-1647 United States of Am. v. George Csizmazia, in 98-1648, 194 F.3d 419 (3rd Cir. 1999). · cites it 7× “§ 371 ; theft of objects of cultural heritage, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (b)(1); and receipt and concealment of stolen objects of cultural heritage, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Spiegelman, 4 F. Supp. 2d 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). · cites it 2× “Spiegelman argues also that the fact that sentencing for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 668 , which makes the theft of objects of cultural heritage a crime, is subject to Section 2B1.”

United States v. Russ Pritchard, Jr., 346 F.3d 469 (3rd Cir. 2003). · cites it 6× “was convicted of theft from a museum for his involvement in the misappropriation of a Civil War officer’s uniform in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (1994). At issue is whether the Hunt-Phelan Home Foundation, from whose care the uniform was taken, was a “museum” for purposes of…”

United States v. Pritchard (3rd Cir. 2003). · cites it 6× “was convicted of theft from a museum for his involvement in the misappropriation of a Civil War officer’s uniform in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (1994). At issue is whether the Hunt-Phelan Home Foundation, from whose care the uniform was taken, was a “museum” for purposes of…”

Jones v. Gen. Elec. Co. (D. Maryland 2019). “§ 666 (Chapter 31—Embezzlement and Theft, Section 666—Theft or Bribery concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds); • 18 U.S.C. § 668 (Chapter 31—Embezzlement and Theft, Section 668—Theft of Major Artwork); • 18 U.”

Rouhi v. Kettler (D. Maryland 2020). “First, Rouhi asserts claims under five provisions of the United States Criminal Code: 18 U.S.C. § 668 (theft of major artwork from a museum); 18 U.”

United States v. O'Higgins, 55 F. Supp. 2d 172 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “18U.S.C. § 668 provides: (a) Definitions: In this section- (1) "museum” means an organized and permanent institution, the activities of which affect interstate commerce, that- (A) is situated in the United States; (B) is established for an essentially educational or aesthetic…”

United States v. Okelberry, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (D. Utah 2000). “, the defendant orally admitted to facts constituting a violation of 16 USC § 668 (a). He also accepted and executed a six page statement in advance of plea of guilty, which contained a statement of facts constituting admissions of the offense (¶ 12(a)).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.