I see you've now backed off your claim that the Wagner was only something "brought up later." Progress.
Mastronet sold the Wagner in 2000.
http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_3.html
In any event, the indictment is not charging him with fraud in connection with the sale to Copeland, it's talking about Mastro Auctions marketing materials which allegedly misrepresented or concealed material facts about the Wagner. Was it a weak claim, could he have prevailed at trial? Maybe so. My only point is that the assertion was made here that the Mastro case did not involve a charge concerning the Wagner and I posted relevant documents to show that it did. Again, it was not the focus of the case, for sure.
And how do you think he was sentenced if he didn't plead guilty? Yes, initially the judge rejected the parties' sentencing proposal, that doesn't mean the substance of the plea agreement was abrogated. You can't sentence someone without a guilty plea or verdict. That's why the official press release from the government continues to refer to the substance of the plea agreement. Or maybe a new one saying the same substantive things was substituted, I would have to check the docket, but it's irrelevant.
I have never claimed the Wagner was a factor in the length of the sentence. I would have to go back and see if the record reflects that one way or the other (and I doubt it was a factor) but it's unimportant to my point.
And you still are ducking MY question, which is why, if there is no conceivable crime for selling an altered card without disclosure, did the FBI investigate for several years, issue scads of subpoenas, etc.?
That is all.