Dept. of Justice Filing in Gibson Case

A June 4 filing by the U.S. Department of Justice in a civil case over illegal wood against Gibson Guitar lays out details of its case, according to the Environmental Investigations Agency.

The recent filing by Dept. of Justice prosecutors filing to strike claims by wood supplier Theodore Nagel and Gibson stated: “Gibson sourced its unfinished ebony wood in the form of blanks (for use in the manufacture of fingerboards for Gibson guitars) from Nagel (in Germany), which obtained it exclusively from Roger Thunam (a supplier in Madagascar). Madagascar prohibits the harvest of ebony wood as well as the exportation of unfinished ebony wood.”
 


The filing also quotes internal Gibson e-mails: “[A] Gibson employee…wrote that ‘[t]he true Ebony species preferred by Gibson Musical Instruments is found only in Madagascar (Diospryos perrieri). This is a slow-growing tree species with very little conservation protection and supplies are considered to be highly threatened in its native environment due to over exploitation.’ In fact, [he] spent two and a half weeks in Madagascar this June [2008],’ writing on his return, ‘I represented our company along with two other guitar manufacturers… All legal timber and wood exports are prohibited because of wide spread corruption and theft of valuable woods like rosewood and ebony.’”
 
”On February 25, 2009, in a reference to the potential long term solution, [he] wrote… that the company Maderas Barber ‘has been in the business a long time and may be able to help begin some legitimate harvests. Mr. [Roger] Thunam on the other hand should now be able to supply Nagel with all the rosewood and ebony for the grey market.’”



The prosecutions asserts that Gibson and Nagel do not have legal “standing” to claim ownership over the seized ebony because it is contraband, or inherently illegal to possess, “both because it was unfinished wood and because Claimants’ source for ebony in Madagascar was not authorized to sell it.”

The court is now being asked to determine whether to strike the companies’ claims for this reason.