Archaeological Artifact Misappropriation and Counterfeit Bond Liability Assessment
Article 3. It is reported that Japanese soldiers had concealed valuable assets, discarding them within between two canals. Mr. Dam discovered a Buddha image made of solid gold from the Ayutthaya period. The image weighed 5 kilograms, possessing significant artistic and archaeological value, which could not be accurately assessed in monetary terms. The United States Government fabricated copies, causing others to intentionally conceal and bury them to create the illusion that they were genuine, totaling 10 copies at $10 million each, as stated by the aforementioned circumstances. Mr. Dam and Mr. Ang, having obtained the aforementioned assets without asserting ownership or presenting themselves as the true owners, did not know. Subsequently, Mr. Ang discovered that the United States bonds he had obtained were counterfeit. Mr. Ang intentionally retained the counterfeit bonds, intending to deceive others, but prior to this, the following occurred. Are Mr. Dam and Mr. Ang liable for any offenses? Mr. Dam’s acquisition of the Ayutthaya period gold Buddha image, a national treasure and archaeological artifact, which was buried without anyone claiming ownership and without delivering it to the state, constitutes a seizure and appropriation of the property for his own benefit. Regarding the counterfeit United States government bonds obtained by Mr. Ang, pursuant to Section 355 of the Criminal Code, the fact that he obtained them does not constitute valuable assets concealed or buried under circumstances where ownership was claimed, as it was not claimed. Mr. Ang’s actions lack the requisite elements of a crime under Section 355. For the case where Mr. Ang obtained the counterfeit United States government bonds after having knowledge that they were counterfeit, and later intended to sell them to others as genuine, the fact that he did so, when they were in fact counterfeit, does not constitute a crime for the purpose of issuing them for circulation, as Mr. Ang obtained the assets at the time of acquisition. Section 244 and Section 247. Mr. Ang did not know they were counterfeit. Therefore, Mr. Ang’s actions do not constitute a crime under Section 245 and Section 247 of the Criminal Code, as Mr. Ang was apprehended before he could deceive others with the counterfeit items. The counterfeit bonds were issued.
Mr. Tight and Mr. Pong jointly executed one contract whereby Mr. Tight borrowed money from Mr. Pong.