The Treasure of the Mercedes: How Sovereign Immunity Sunk the “Finders Keepers” Rule
Sovereignty Over Silver: The Case That Defined Underwater Heritage
Historical records research services and legal document translations of historical records handwritten in Spanish and in other foreign languages play an important role in maritime law. In the history of maritime law, few cases have captured the public imagination—or more definitively shaped the legal landscape—than Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 657 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011). When Tampa-based salvage company Odyssey Marine Exploration announced in May 2007 that it had recovered approximately 594,000 silver and gold coins valued at over $500 million from a shipwreck in the Atlantic Ocean, the discovery was hailed as perhaps the largest treasure haul in history. Codenamed “Black Swan,” the recovery seemed to validate the romantic vision of deep-ocean exploration: a private company, employing cutting-edge technology, had stumbled upon riches “beyond the dreams of avarice.”
In Odyssey Marine Exploration v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that sunken military vessels remain sovereign property entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act regardless of the passage of time or physical possession, rejecting the “finders keepers” doctrine and ordering a salvage company to return over $500 million in treasure recovered from a Spanish warship that sank in 1804.
Beneath the surface lay a complex legal battle that would ultimately vindicate a principle far older than any treasure: the sovereign immunity of nations and their property. The Eleventh Circuit’s 2011 decision affirmed that the wreck was not merely an abandoned vessel available for salvage, but the final resting place of the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, a Spanish Navy frigate that sank in combat in 1804. In doing so, the court delivered a resounding rejection of “finders keepers” and established enduring precedents about the treatment of sunken military craft, the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), and the ethical obligations of salvors operating in international waters.
The Historical Context: A Warship’s Final Voyage
To understand why Spain’s claim prevailed, one must first appreciate the historical significance of the Mercedes. Built in 1788 at the Spanish Navy shipyard in Havana, Cuba, the frigate enjoyed a distinguished naval career spanning the tumultuous era of the Napoleonic Wars. The Mercedes participated in combat operations against the British, including the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in 1797 and the defense of El Ferrol in 1800. By 1803, with Spain allied to France and tensions with Britain mounting, the Spanish Crown ordered the Mercedes and other warships to collect treasure from its American viceroyalties—funds desperately needed to finance Spain’s precarious position between Napoleonic France and naval superpower Britain.
In early 1804, the Mercedes departed from the port of El Callao in Peru, laden with approximately 900,000 silver pesos, nearly 6,000 gold pesos, copper and tin ingots belonging to the Royal Treasury, and private cargo carried by Spanish citizens who had received official permission to ship their valuables aboard a naval vessel. The voyage was not merely commercial transport; it was a sovereign operation conducted by a warship under naval command, carrying both state property and privately owned cargo under military protection—a common practice in an era when merchant ships could not safely traverse oceans patrolled by hostile navies.
On October 5, 1804, just one day’s sail from the Spanish port of Cádiz, the Mercedes and three accompanying Spanish frigates were intercepted by a British squadron under Commodore Graham Moore. The British demanded surrender; the Spanish refused. Within minutes of the battle’s commencement, the Mercedes exploded catastrophically, killing nearly all its 300 crew members and passengers. Among the dead were the family of Captain Diego de Alvear, who watched helplessly from another ship as his wife, four daughters, three sons, and nephew perished. The surviving Spanish ships surrendered and were taken to England. Two months later, Spain declared war on Britain.
The wreckage of the Mercedes settled 1,100 meters below the surface, 100 miles west of the Straits of Gibraltar, where it remained undisturbed for over two centuries.
In 2006, Odyssey Marine Exploration began researching what it called the “Amsterdam Project”—a systematic effort to identify and locate shipwrecks in the heavily traveled shipping lanes off Gibraltar. The Mercedes was explicitly on Odyssey’s target list. According to the company, it recognized that Spain might have a “cultural (if not legal) interest” in vessels in the area and invited Spanish officials to participate in the project. A meeting occurred between Odyssey’s CEO and representatives of Spain’s Ministry of Culture. The parties disputed what transpired, but they agreed on one critical fact: Spain did not authorize Odyssey to salvage any Spanish vessels.
In March 2007, Odyssey’s survey vessel discovered a shipwreck site within the coordinates where historical research suggested the Mercedes had gone down. The debris field stretched 368 meters long and 110 meters wide—consistent with a vessel that had exploded at the surface before sinking. Over the following weeks, Odyssey’s remotely operated vehicles recovered approximately 594,000 coins and numerous artifacts.
Rather than disclose the find publicly or seek Spain’s involvement, Odyssey devised an unusual legal strategy. On April 9, 2007, the company filed an in rem admiralty complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against “The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, its apparel, tackle, appurtenances and cargo.” The complaint asserted claims under both the law of salvage (seeking compensation for recovering property) and the law of finds (seeking outright ownership based on alleged abandonment). Two days later, Odyssey obtained a warrant for the arrest of the vessel and its cargo, depositing a small bronze block with the court for “symbolic arrest.” The court appointed Odyssey as substitute custodian of all recovered artifacts.
The strategy was ingenious: by bringing the wreck within the court’s constructive jurisdiction through symbolic deposit of a single artifact, Odyssey hoped to obtain judicial recognition of its ownership or salvage rights over the entire treasure—all while maintaining complete secrecy about the wreck’s identity and location. The company refused to disclose where the wreck lay, what vessel it was, or even whether any vessel existed at all, claiming that revealing such information would invite looting.
Spain learned of the discovery through export documents Odyssey filed in Gibraltar, which disclosed that the recovered coins were Spanish. In May 2007, Spain, Peru, and 25 individuals that claimed to be descendants of those aboard the frigate, filed a verified claim to the vessel and its contents. What followed was a multi-year legal battle that would test the limits of the FSIA and the protections afforded to sovereign property.
The Legal Framework: Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 provides the exclusive basis for obtaining jurisdiction over foreign states and their property in U.S. courts. Section 1609 of the FSIA establishes that “property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment, arrest, and execution” except as provided in subsequent sections. Critically, the FSIA draws a distinction between immunity for the foreign state itself (governed by § 1604 with exceptions in §§ 1605-1607) and immunity for the property of a foreign state (governed by § 1609 with exceptions in §§ 1610-1611).
For Odyssey to maintain its in rem action against the wreck, it needed to establish either that the res was not sovereign property or that an exception to § 1609 immunity applied. The company advanced multiple arguments: that the vessel could not be identified as the Mercedes; that even if it were, the FSIA did not apply because the wreck lay in international waters and Spain did not possess it; that the cargo was privately owned and severable from the vessel; and that the Mercedes had been engaged in commercial activity, bringing it within FSIA exceptions.
Certified English Translation of Spanish Evidentiary Documents from Spain
Spain moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Mercedes was a Spanish warship entitled to sovereign immunity. The motion triggered a factual attack on jurisdiction, requiring the district court to weigh evidence rather than simply accepting Odyssey’s allegations as true.
The evidentiary record was extensive. Spain submitted affidavits from naval historians, copies of original Spanish naval documents from the early 19th century, and expert analyses comparing the recovered artifacts to known characteristics of the Mercedes. The evidence demonstrated that: the wreck was found within the zone historically identified as the Mercedes‘ demise; no other Spanish naval vessels of that type sank in the area during the relevant period; the debris field pattern matched an explosion at the surface; the coins recovered were almost exclusively silver, minted in Lima, Peru, and Potosí, Bolivia, between the late 18th century and 1804—consistent with the Mercedes‘ cargo manifest; the cannons recovered were 6- and 12-pounders matching the Mercedes’ armament, including distinctive bronze culverins being transported for recycling; and copper sheathing plates matched those used on Spanish warships of the era.
Odyssey resisted disclosure and argued that more evidence was needed, but the company’s own documents undermined its position. The company had listed the Mercedes as a target vessel. The wreck was found precisely where historical research placed the Mercedes. And the artifacts recovered matched the ship’s known cargo and armament with remarkable specificity.
On June 3, 2009, Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo issued a Report and Recommendation finding that the res was indeed the Mercedes and that the court lacked jurisdiction under the FSIA. The district court, Judge Steven D. Merryday presiding, adopted the recommendation on December 22, 2009, dismissing Odyssey’s complaint, vacating the arrest, and ordering Odyssey to return the treasure to Spain. The order was stayed pending appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Decision
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in a comprehensive opinion by Circuit Judge Susan H. Black, joined by Judges Frank M. Hull and Walter K. Stapleton. The court addressed five principal issues, each with significant implications for maritime law and sovereign immunity, also known as crown immunity.
Standard of Review
Odyssey argued that the district court should have applied the summary judgment standard under Rule 56 rather than the Rule 12(b)(1) factual attack standard. The company contended that because the jurisdictional question was “intertwined with the merits” of its salvage claims, the court should have viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Odyssey.
The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument. Jurisdiction becomes intertwined with the merits only when “a statute provides the basis for both the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiff’s substantive claim for relief.” Here, the FSIA governed subject matter jurisdiction, but Odyssey’s substantive claims arose from admiralty law—salvage and finds. Because different legal sources provided jurisdiction and the right to relief, the claims were not intertwined. The district court properly exercised its authority to weigh evidence independently.
Identification of the Wreck
The court conducted an exhaustive review of the historical and archaeological evidence, concluding that the district court’s factual finding that the res was the Mercedes was not clearly erroneous. The court emphasized the cumulative weight of evidence: location, debris pattern, coin composition and dates, cannon types, and the presence of distinctive artifacts matching the Mercedes‘ known cargo.
Odyssey argued that the absence of an intact vessel and the incomplete recovery of artifacts—only 594,000 of approximately 900,000 coins, only 17 of perhaps 50 cannons—undermined identification. The court found this argument unpersuasive: “The failure to fully recover all artifacts carried by the Mercedes is understandable considering the Mercedes exploded at the surface, sank 1,100 meters, scattered over a large area, and has been sitting on the ocean floor for more than 200 years.”
Application of the FSIA
Having identified the res as the Mercedes, the court turned to whether FSIA immunity applied. Odyssey raised three challenges to immunity.
First, Odyssey argued that § 1609 immunity only applies to property “in the United States,” and the Mercedes lay in international waters. The court noted that a court may exercise constructive possession over a shipwreck when part of it is presented to the court—exactly what Odyssey had done by depositing the bronze block and obtaining arrest of the res. “Odyssey has deposited parts of the Mercedes with the district court,” Judge Black wrote, “constructively bringing the shipwreck within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Because this is an in rem action based on the arrest of sovereign property, § 1609 provides the Mercedes with presumptive immunity from arrest.”
Second, Odyssey contended that the FSIA contains a possession requirement, arguing that Spain could not claim immunity because it did not physically possess the wreck. The court rejected this argument based on the plain language of the FSIA, which contains no possession requirement, and Supreme Court precedent establishing that the FSIA “provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state.” Pre-FSIA cases imposing possession requirements were superseded by the statute.
Third, Odyssey argued that the Mercedes was engaged in commercial activity, triggering FSIA exceptions. The court applied the FSIA’s definition of commercial activity—determined by reference to “nature” rather than “purpose”—and the Supreme Court’s instruction that an activity is commercial when “a foreign government acts, not as regulator of a market, but in the manner of a private player within it.” The Mercedes was a Spanish Navy vessel under naval command, crewed by naval personnel, armed as a warship, and sailing during a period of threatened war. Its transport of private cargo alongside government specie was a sovereign function: “providing protection and safe passage to property of Spanish citizens was a military function of the Spanish Navy, especially in times of war or threatened war.”
The Cargo Question
Perhaps the most significant legal issue—and one of first impression—was whether the cargo aboard a sunken military vessel was entitled to the same sovereign immunity as the vessel itself. Peru and twenty-five individual claimants argued that even if the Mercedes was immune, the privately owned cargo should be severable and subject to salvage.
The Eleventh Circuit held that cargo and vessel were inseparable for immunity purposes. Two principal rationales supported this conclusion. First, the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States and Spain required the United States to afford Spanish shipwrecks “the same assistance and protection and the same immunities which would have been granted to its own vessels in similar cases.” The United States, through the Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004, treats the cargo of its own sunken military vessels as part of the shipwreck, defining “associated contents” to include “equipment, cargo, and contents” within the debris field.
Second, principles of comity—the respect nations accord each other’s sovereign interests—compelled treating cargo and vessel as one. The Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel (2008) emphasized that when a sovereign asserts non-frivolous claims to property, courts must protect against “injury to the interest of the absent sovereign.” Here, Spain had an undeniable interest in the Mercedes as a warship and military grave. “The silver coins and all other artifacts Odyssey has salvaged and flown to Tampa came from the Mercedes,” the court observed. “There is an undeniable potential for injury to Spain’s interest if we separated the Mercedes from its cargo.”
The Remedy
Finally, Odyssey argued that even if jurisdiction was lacking, the court had no power to order the treasure returned to Spain. The proper remedy, Odyssey contended, was to vacate the arrest and return the parties to their pre-suit positions—which would mean returning the treasure to Odyssey, which had physical custody before the arrest.
The court rejected this argument. The res had been in the court’s custody since the arrest warrant issued. Odyssey held the artifacts as substitute custodian for the court, not in its own right. Once the court determined that the res was immune from arrest, it necessarily had authority to release the property from its custody. Releasing the treasure to Spain was appropriate given Spain’s sovereign interest and the treaty obligations requiring the United States to protect Spanish warships from unauthorized salvage.
The Aftermath: Sanctions and Legacy
The legal battle did not end with the Eleventh Circuit’s mandate. On remand, Spain sought sanctions against Odyssey for what the district court characterized as bad faith litigation conduct. In a September 2013 order, Judge Merryday awarded Spain attorney’s fees and costs, finding that Odyssey had knowingly advanced frivolous arguments and withheld evidence.
Judge Merryday’s opinion offered a withering assessment of Odyssey’s conduct: “This action presented from the outset not merely the dicey prospects of a damages action; this action presented a claim to ownership by a party holding-in-hand an enormous, historic trove of treasure, holding-in-hand riches ‘beyond the dreams of avarice.’ A contest for $600 million—winner take all—is plenty sufficient to endanger any boundary, to awaken any frailty, and to excite any temptation.”
The court found that Odyssey knew from the outset that the wreck was likely the Mercedes, yet denied the vessel’s existence and withheld evidence to maintain jurisdiction. The company’s calculus was clear: a potential upside of $600 million justified the litigation risk, with downside limited to legal fees less than 0.5% of the potential recovery.
Implications and Conclusion
The Odyssey case stands as a landmark in admiralty and sovereign immunity law. Its holdings carry significant implications for future shipwreck disputes:
First, the FSIA’s property immunity provision (§ 1609) applies to sovereign vessels regardless of whether the foreign state has physical possession, and regardless of whether the wreck lies in international waters, provided the property is brought constructively within U.S. jurisdiction.
Second, cargo aboard a sunken military vessel is not severable from the vessel for immunity purposes. This principle, grounded in treaty obligations and comity, protects the integrity of sovereign shipwrecks as historical and archaeological sites.
Third, the “commercial activity” exception to sovereign immunity does not apply to warships transporting private cargo as an incident of sovereign functions, particularly during periods of threatened hostilities.
Fourth, courts may impose sanctions on salvors who litigate in bad faith by withholding evidence and advancing frivolous arguments to maintain jurisdiction.
The Mercedes treasure now resides in Spanish museums, where it serves not as a trophy for private gain but as—cultural heritage—connecting modern Spaniards to their maritime history. The approximately 250 sailors who perished when the Mercedes exploded finally rest without their graves being plundered for commercial profit.
More broadly, the case represents a judicial rejection of the notion that technological capability confers moral or legal entitlement. Odyssey possessed the means to locate and recover the deepest wrecks, but the court held that capability does not supersede sovereign rights or historical preservation. As UNESCO and other international bodies continue to grapple with the protection of underwater cultural heritage, the Odyssey decision provides a powerful precedent: the law will protect sunken military craft as the eternal resting places of those who died in service, and as the property of the nations that sent them to sea.
The romantic vision of treasure hunters recovering lost gold from the deep must yield to a more nuanced understanding of maritime heritage. The Mercedes was not abandoned property awaiting discovery; it was a warship on a sovereign mission, a grave for hundreds of sailors, and a time capsule of Napoleonic-era naval history. In affirming Spain’s rights, the Eleventh Circuit did more than resolve a dispute over half a billion dollars in silver. It affirmed that some treasures belong not to those who find them, but to the history that created them.
Get in touch with the historical records researchers, certified translators, legal interpreters and professional genealogists at All Language Alliance, Inc. to unearth archival records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and other repositories worldwide; to request certified transcription and translation of historical records written in old cursive handwriting in Spanish; Ottoman Turkish; German; Danish; Hebrew; Polish; Portuguese, and other foreign languages.
Up Next: The Remote Video Deposition Dilemma: When Legal Gamesmanship Meets the Truth-Seeking Imperative