FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AT THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1996 (202) 616-2771 TDD (202) 514-1888 DOMINION REPUBLIC RARE BANKNOTE COLLECTOR CHARGED WITH RIGGING BIDS AT NEW YORK NUMISMATICS AUCTION WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A Dominican Republic collector of fine art and rare banknotes was charged today by the Department of Justice with conspiring to rig bids for the purchase of rare banknotes sold at a New York City public auction. This is the third case in the Department's ongoing antitrust investigation into collusive bidding at auctions of numismatics items and other goods. Thus far, the investigation has resulted in criminal fines of $175,000. In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the Department's Antitrust Division charged that Inmobiliaria Samisu S.A., owned by Isaac Rudman, a leading numismatics collector, and co-conspirators agreed to refrain from bidding against one another at a major numismatics auction conducted by Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc., in New York City. The auction, which took place on November 28 and 29, 1990, primarily involved the sale of old and rare banknotes, proofs and specimens from the archives of the American Bank Note Company. In April 1995, William Barrett Numismatics Limited, a Canadian corporation, pleaded guilty to a charge of collusive bidding at the same auction and paid a $125,000 criminal fine. In September 1995, Mel Steinberg Inc., a California corporation, also pleaded guilty to a charge of collusive bidding at this auction and paid a $50,000 criminal fine. Anne K. Bingaman, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, said that the charges arose in connection with a grand jury investigation in New York City into collusive bidding at auctions of numismatics items and other goods. Bingaman said that the investigation, which is being conducted by the Division's New York Office, is continuing. The maximum penalty for a corporation convicted of a Sherman Act violation occurring after November 16, 1990 is the greatest of $10 million, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived by the defendant from the offense or twice the gross pecuniary loss caused to the victims of the crime. ### 96-126