Art Hostage Services
-
The Art Hostage team undertakes a wide range of services, including due diligence, collection conservation and management, risk assessment and security as well as legal issues, recovery and dispute resolution involving art and artifacts. Through partnerships with leading organizations, the Art Hostage team can provide a complete service for all aspects of collecting and protecting art.
A
judge has rejected a move to dismiss a bid to sue the Duke of Buccleuch
for £4.25m over the return of a stolen Leonardo da Vinci painting.
Marshall Ronald, 57, is seeking the payout following the recovery of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.
He was cleared in 2010 of conspiring to extort money for its return.
Lawyers for the duke described the bid to sue as "an attempt
to extort a sum of money" but a judge decided it should go to a hearing
of evidence.
Mr Ronald, of Upholland, Lancashire, was acquitted with
others of a conspiracy to extort money for the safe return of the
masterpiece at a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2010.
“Start Quote
As matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer's case is bound to fail on grounds of illegality or public policy”
Lord Glennie
The valuable artwork had been stolen from the Duke of Buccleuch's Drumlanrig Castle seven years earlier.
After the court case, Mr Ronald raised an action claiming
that he was due payment for the return of the painting which was
recovered in 2007.
At first he was suing both the duke and the police but dropped his claim against the police last year.
The duke is contesting his claims and his lawyers moved to dismiss the action.
They say the agreement Mr Ronald is seeking to rely on is "unenforceable as being illegal and contrary to public policy".
However, Lord Glennie said that it was "by no means obvious"
that a "to whom it may concern" letter written as part of a police
undercover operation was not meant to be taken at face value.
"It is by no means impossible to conceive of a case where, as
part of a police operation to recover a painting, a reward is offered
to someone who may be in a position to facilitate its recovery, and the
reward is paid to that person when the painting is in fact recovered,"
he said.
"I accept that it is no doubt also possible to conceive of a
situation where the offer of a reward is not intended to be genuine, and
the letter granting authority to the intermediary to make that offer on
behalf of the owner of the painting is indeed intended as a sham." 'True picture'
He added that on Mr Ronald's pleadings in the action it was
alleged that the agreement was made at a time when he was not in
possession of the stolen painting and did not know who had it.
"The best that can be said is that he was in a position in
which he had the opportunity, through others, to pay money in the hope
of procuring its release," he said.
"If this is the true picture, I can see no basis upon which
it can be said that his negotiation of an agreement to be paid a
handsome reward for his part in procuring the release of the painting
amounts to extortion.
"It might be quite different if he himself had possession of
the painting or it was within his control; but that is not what is
presently averred either by the pursuer or even by the defender.
"As matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer's case is bound to fail on grounds of illegality or public policy."
The Duke of Buccleuch faces a claim over return of the art work to Drumlanrig Castle. Picture: Ian Rutherford
A JUDGE has cleared the way for a bid to sue the Duke of
Buccleuch for £4.25 million over the return of a stolen Leonardo da
Vinci painting.
Marshall Ronald, 57, is seeking a payout from the UK’s largest private landowner following the recovery of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder, which was stolen from Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfriesshire, in 2003.
Former solicitor Mr Ronald claims he was commissioned to ensure the painting was handed over.
He
was at the offices of a Glasgow law firm along with others – including
undercover police officer John Craig, posing as a risk-management expert
– in 2007 when the masterpiece was returned after four years. Mr
Ronald, of Upholland, Lancashire, was cleared, with others, of a
conspiracy to extort money for the safe return of the masterpiece at a
trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2010.
He claims he was put
in touch with undercover officers and on 29 August 2007 he and Mr Craig
entered into an agreement which would see the duke pay him £2m to
secure the painting. The figure increased to £4.25m a few days later, it
is claimed.
Mr Ronald claims that was less than 10 per cent of the value of the painting.
He said he knew the painting was stolen but did not know by whom.
Mr
Ronald said he was in contact with intermediaries and agreed to pay
them £700,000 to secure the art work’s release. He claims he paid over
£500,000.
The duke maintains that undercover officer Mr Craig had no authority to make an agreement on his behalf.
It is also alleged the agreement Mr Ronald seeks to rely on is “unenforceable as being illegal and contrary to public policy”.
Lawyers
acting for the duke sought to have the action dismissed at a procedural
hearing before Lord Glennie. Andrew Young QC said: “Properly viewed,
what the pursuer [Mr Ronald] is averring is an attempt to extort a sum
of money.”
Mr Ronald said he had acted in good faith and told the court: “I don’t accept any illegal acts.”
Lord Glennie said he would not dismiss the case.
He
said: “It is by no means impossible to conceive of a case where, as
part of a police operation to recover a painting, a reward is offered to
someone who may be in a position to facilitate its recovery, and the
reward is paid to that person when the painting is in fact recovered.”
He
added: “The best that can be said is that he was in a position in which
he had the opportunity, through others, to pay money in the hope of
procuring its release.
“If this is the true picture, I can see no
basis upon which it can be said negotiation of an agreement to be paid a
handsome reward amounts to extortion.
“It might be quite
different if he himself had possession of the painting or it was within
his control; but that is not what is presently averred.
“As matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer’s case is bound to fail.”
Mr Ronald is expected to continue with the case.
COURT OF SESSION
[2014] CSOH 101
A460/12
OPINION OF LORD GLENNIE
in the cause
MARSHALL NEIL CRAIG RONALD
Pursuer;
against
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
Defender:
________________
COURT OF SESSION
[2014] CSOH 101
A460/12
OPINION OF LORD GLENNIE
in the cause
MARSHALL NEIL CRAIG RONALD
Pursuer;
against
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
Defender:
________________
Pursuer: Party
Defender: A Young, QC;
Anderson Strathern LLP
19 June 2014
Introduction
[1] On 27 August 2003 a
valuable painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, known as “Madonna of the
Yarnwinder”, owned by the ninth Duke of Buccleuch, was stolen from his home at
Drumlanrig Castle.
[2] A criminal investigation
was launched together with attempts by the police, insurers and others to
recover the painting. This was known as “Operation Drumlanrig”. The operation
involved the use of undercover police officers, including one who posed as a
risk management expert under the assumed name “John Craig”. It is alleged by
the pursuer that the defender, who became the tenth 2
Duke of Buccleuch on his father’s death early in September
2007, participated to some extent in this operation, by holding one or more
telephone conversations with one of the then suspects, by preparing written
documentation showing a willingness to pay monies in exchange for the safe
return of the painting and, of particular relevance for present purposes, by
providing an undated written letter of authority, addressed “To whom it may
concern”, confirming that John Craig acted as his agent in the recovery of the
painting and expressly authorising John Craig on his behalf to conduct any
lawful negotiation or transaction in relation to the matter.
[3] The
pursuer avers that on 10 August 2007 he wrote to the loss adjuster offering to
facilitate the return of the painting. After contacting the senior
investigating officer, the loss adjuster put him in touch with the undercover
officers. On 21 August 2007 John Craig contacted the pursuer, stating that he
was acting on the defender’s behalf. On 29 August 2007 the pursuer and John
Craig entered into an agreement whereby the defender would pay him £2 million
to secure the return of the painting. A few days later, this figure was
increased to £4.25 million. That is said by the pursuer to be less than 10% of
the value of the painting.
[4] The
pursuer admits that, at the time of that agreement, he knew that the painting
was stolen. He says that it was being held by persons whose identities were not
known to him. He was in contact with two intermediaries, RG and JD, who were in
contact with those in possession of the painting, and had agreed to pay them
£700,000 to enable them to secure the release of the painting to them.
[5] The
pursuer avers that, on 3 October 2007, he paid £500,000, being part of that
£700,000, to RG. RG handed over that money at a pre-arranged location and later
that day was advised of the whereabouts of the painting. That evening RG
informed 3
the pursuer that the painting had been safely recovered and
that he was proceeding with it to Glasgow. The pursuer notified John Craig,
using the phrase: “the Lady is coming home”. On the next day, 4 October 2007,
the pursuer attended at the offices of an Edinburgh firm of solicitors where he
met, amongst others, John Craig. RG and JD arrived at about 11 am and handed
over the painting.
[6] The reward
of £4.25 million has not been paid to the pursuer. A number of criminal
prosecutions followed the recovery of the painting. In particular, the pursuer
was charged with extortion, or attempted extortion. He was indicted in the High
Court and the case went to trial. The jury brought in a verdict of not proven
and the pursuer was acquitted.
The
pursuer’s case
[7] The
pursuer sues for the sum of £4.25 million. His case is simple. That was the sum
agreed to be paid to him for his part in securing the return of the painting.
The agreement was made by John Craig acting on behalf of the defender. John
Craig had actual authority from the defender to make that agreement, as
evidenced in particular by the “To whom it may concern” letter. Having been
instrumental in securing the return of the painting, he is entitled to be paid
the agreed sum.
The
defender’s case
[8] The
defender advances two main lines of defence to the claim. The first is that
John Craig had no actual authority to enter into any such agreement on his
behalf. The second is that the agreement relied upon by the pursuer in support
of his claim is tainted by illegality and/or is contrary to public policy and
should not be 4
enforced. I shall explain what is said by the defender in
more detail below. But it is to be noted that the defender does not make any
case in these proceedings that the pursuer was in any way involved in the theft
of the painting or its retention pending its recovery.
Discussion
on the Procedure Roll
[9] The case
came before me for discussion on the Procedure Roll. The defender insisted on
his first plea in law, a general plea to relevancy and specification. He sought
dismissal of the action.
[10] The
discussion was conducted under reference to the well-known principles set out
in Jamieson v Jamieson 1952 SC (HL) 44, to the effect that the
pursuer’s case will only be dismissed if the court is satisfied that the action
is bound to fail even if he succeeds in proving everything which he offers in
his pleadings to prove. However, the defender’s argument was somewhat unusual
in that it sought to gain support from averments made in the answers and from
the fact that, as he contended, the pursuer’s averments in response were
lacking in candour.
[11] I propose
to deal separately with the arguments concerning lack of authority and
illegality.
Lack of
actual authority
[12] The
defender’s case in summary is this. The “To whom it may concern” letter was
written by the defender on the instructions of the police as part of their
undercover operation in order to deceive the pursuer, and possibly others, into
believing that John Craig was his agent when in fact he had no actual authority
to 5
agree any deal which would bind him. In those circumstances,
he says, it is clear that the letter did not in fact clothe John Craig with
authority to act on his behalf. He avers that the pursuer knows this to be the
case, because it was made clear in the evidence led by the Crown at his trial.
This is set out in the answers, and is met by a bald “Not known and not
admitted”. That response is lacking in candour and should be disregarded. In
consequence, the defender’s averments on this point should be treated as
admitted. Furthermore, it is inherently improbable that John Craig, a serving
police officer, would undertake a dual role, acting both as a law enforcement
officer and also as a private commercial agent for a member of the public. It
would require very detailed and specific averments by the pursuer to explain
how such an unusual and potentially contradictory arrangement could arise, but
the pursuer makes no such averments. In those circumstances it is clear that
the pursuer’s case on actual authority must inevitably fail.
[13] I cannot
accept this argument, for three main reasons. First, I accept that there have
been cases where a lack of candour in the defender’s answers has been held to
be a basis for treating those answers as irrelevant and granting decree de
plano, and I would accept that the same approach could, if valid, be
adopted mutatis mutandis in respect of a lack of candour in the
pursuer’s pleadings. But that approach has not generally found favour; and I do
not consider that in general it is legitimate to treat a denial or
non-admission, however bald, as amounting to an admission. Generally a party is
entitled to put the other party to proof of his averments. The problem of
dilatory defences, defences designed simply to delay by not admitting what must
obviously be known to be true, is well-known. That was the reason why the
provisions for summary decree were introduced in Rule of 6
Court 21: see Henderson v 3052775 Nova
Scotia Ltd 2006 SC (HL) 85 per Lord Rodger of Earlsferry at para [13]. But
the rules for summary decree apply only to the case of a pursuer moving for
decree on his claim and that of a defender moving for decree on his
counterclaim. They do not apply to a defender seeking dismissal of a claim made
against him. There is no “reverse summary decree”. This may be a gap in the
rules which ought to be addressed, but that is not for me. In that situation,
where the Rules of Court have been altered to provide an answer to the problem
caused by a lack of candour in a party’s pleadings, but those rules do not
apply to the present case, I do not consider that it would be proper to seek to
plug that gap by holding that decree of dismissal is available where a pursuer
fails candidly to answer averments made by the defender in his answers.
[14] My second
reason for rejecting this argument is straightforward. The defender’s case is
based upon evidence which will be called by the defender and which is similar
in nature to that called by the Crown in the criminal trial. The pursuer is
under no obligation to accept that evidence as true. He is entitled to put the
defender to proof. This is not a case where his denial or non-admission is of
something within his own knowledge which he knows or must know to be true. Just
because he knows that that evidence will be called, and just because he may not
have a positive case to advance in answer to it, does not mean that he has to
accept it. In the circumstances of the present case it is perfectly proper to
answer the defender’s averments relating to the police operation, the
circumstances in which the letter came to be written and the alleged intention
of those who were party to it with a simple “not known and not admitted”. 7
[15] My third reason for rejecting the defender’s argument on
this issue is equally straightforward. It is, to my mind, by no means obvious
that the fact, assuming it to be a fact, that the “To whom it may concern”
letter was written by the defender on the instructions of the police as part of
the police operation to recover the painting necessarily means that it is not
to be taken at face value. It is by no means impossible to conceive of a case
where, as part of a police operation to recover a painting, a reward is offered
to someone who may be in a position to facilitate its recovery, and the reward
is paid to that person when the painting is in fact recovered. If, in all such
cases, the offer of a reward is to be regarded as a pretence, because made
without the authority of those on whose behalf it was purportedly made, then I
doubt whether it would often lead to the recovery of a stolen painting. I
accept that it is no doubt also possible to conceive of a situation where the
offer of a reward is not intended to be genuine, and the letter granting
authority to the intermediary to make that offer on behalf of the owner of the
painting is indeed intended as a sham. Much will depend upon the precise
circumstances and the intentions of the parties as revealed by the evidence. Even
if the pursuer were to be taken to have admitted everything in the defender’s
pleadings about the offer having been made as part of the police undercover
operation, that would not necessarily mean that his case must fail. Although
the burden of proof lies on the pursuer to establish that the agreement under
which he sues was made with the authority of the defender, the evidential
burden of showing that the letter purporting to have given John Craig authority
to make that agreement on behalf of the defender is not to be taken at face
value lies with the defender. 8
[16] I should add this, in case it may be thought that the
existence of the “To whom it may concern” letter gives rise to a case of
ostensible authority and therefore makes the arguments about actual authority
irrelevant. The pursuer does not in his pleadings advance any case of
ostensible authority. So far as the letter is concerned, he only became aware
of that at a much later date. So he cannot rely on that letter for any
representation made by the defender upon which he relied so as to give rise to
a contention that at the time the agreement was made John Craig had ostensible
authority to act on behalf of the defender. Whether he could rely upon any
other representation made to him by John Craig as giving rise to ostensible
authority is not a matter before me, and, as I have said, there are no
pleadings raising such a case.
Illegality/
public policy
[17] The
defender’s second line of defence is that the agreement upon which the pursuer
sues is illegal and contrary to public policy. A number of arguments were
advanced.
[18] It was
said that it would be contrary to public policy to render a party liable on a
contract which was purportedly entered into by him as a ruse on the part of an
undercover police officer in order to recover stolen property. I cannot accept
that, at this stage at least. Assuming the contract to have been made with the
authority of the defender, an issue which will have to be resolved at proof, I
can see nothing in the fact that on the defender’s part it was entered into as
part of the police undercover operation and as a ruse to recover stolen
property which would make enforcement of it contrary to public policy. 9
[19] It was also argued that the pursuer cannot seek to
enforce a contract which would result in him receiving many millions of pounds
for the return of a stolen painting which was secured from criminal sources for
£500,000. I cannot see why not. It is not for this court to determine what a
person may be willing to pay, or should be allowed to pay, to recover property
which is of a particular monetary or sentimental value. That would be to remake
the bargain struck between the parties. How is the court to judge what would be
an appropriate reward to the pursuer for his part in the recovery of the
painting?
[20] It was
also suggested that other adminicles of evidence might be relevant. For
example, there are averments that the pursuer did not want the police involved.
But I cannot see why this should necessarily make any difference. There may be
many reasons, some more respectable than others, why a person seeking to assist
in the recovery of stolen painting should think it sensible to involve the
police.
[21] In
developing his argument on behalf of the defender, Mr Young QC focused on the
submission that what the pursuer was seeking to do amounted to extortion. He
submitted, under reference to Black v Carmichael 1992 SCCR 709 at
717A-B and 718B-C, that it is the crime of extortion in Scotland if a person
seeks to obtain money from the rightful owner of property in order to release
or return that property to its rightful owner. He submitted that, on his own
averments, the pursuer knew that the painting had been stolen and that the
possessors of it had no legal right to retain it. On that basis, he submitted, the
pursuer had no legal right to retain or deal with the property, and his actions
were no different in law from the unknown persons who only released the stolen
painting in return for £500,000. That amounted to extortion. 10
[22] I do not accept this argument. It is, to my mind, a
fallacy to equate the position of the pursuer with that of a person who is in
possession of the stolen property and refuses to return it except upon payment
of a large sum of money. That might well be extortion. But the position as
shown on the pursuer’s pleadings is quite different. On his pleadings the
agreement was made at a time when he was not in possession of the stolen
painting and did not know who was. He had ascertained that certain others, JD
and RG, were in a position to contact the people who held the painting and to
procure its release to them upon payment of a sum of money. On this account the
pursuer neither had the painting in his possession nor had the power to procure
its release. The best that can be said is that he was in a position in which he
had the opportunity, through others, to pay money in the hope of procuring its
release. If this is the true picture, I can see no basis upon which it can be
said that his negotiation of an agreement to be paid a handsome reward for his
part in procuring the release of the painting amounts to extortion. It might be
quite different if he himself had possession of the painting or it was within
his control; but that is not what is presently averred either by the pursuer or
even by the defender.
[23] One
additional point made by the defender was that the pursuer, who was a solicitor
at the time, funded the payment to RG by illegally removing monies from various
client accounts, as a consequence of which he was struck off. Mr Young QC
confirmed to me that he did not seek to rely upon this as a separate ground of
illegality making the agreement unenforceable. It was put forward, as I
understand it, in conjunction with other matters such as the request that the
police should not be involved, essentially to present a picture of dishonest
dealing by the pursuer colouring his whole involvement in the matter. I do not
consider that it is of any 11
assistance, at least at this stage. The defender makes no
averment that the pursuer was involved in the theft or was a party to the
withholding of the painting thereafter. If such an allegation were made and
proved, that would put a very different gloss on the whole matter.
[24] As
matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer’s case is bound to fail on
grounds of illegality or public policy.
Disposal
[25] For these reasons, I shall allow a proof before answer,
leaving the defender’s preliminary plea outstanding. I shall reserve all
questions of expenses Da Vinci Madonna Take-Two
GOLD SWAGGER: Police Swoop at Edinburgh law firm sparks legal fight by
Chief Constable for ownership of £1Million ancient gold crown
Top cop goes for gold after top prosecutor dropped case. A POLICE STING
culminating in arrests of persons negotiating the sale of a 2,500 year
old gold crown at the premises of Edinburgh law firm Balfour &
Manson has led to a court fight involving Chief Constable Sir Stephen
House of Police Scotland who wants to establish ownership of the ancient
relic. The increasingly political case, heard by judge Lord Brailsford
comes even though the Lord Advocate dropped any prosecution against the
Turkish cafe owner who claims ownership of the gold artefact and is
adamant the item is a family heirloom.
Chief Constable House has hired private law firm
Morton Fraser to pursue the case at taxpayers expense, in an effort -
legal experts say appears to be solely focused on handing back the
treasure to the Turkish Government - even though Lord Advocate Frank
Mulholland ordered the item returned to Murat Aksukalli after all
charges relating to the swoop on the lawyer’s office in 2010 were
dropped.
AND. in spite of attempts by vested interests to
hinder public access to information of the court case, a Fife based
transparency campaigner & amateur historian - Tom Minogue, has
identified the wreath as one looted from a Greek tomb by the Earl of
Elgin, famous for the Elgin Marbles. Mr Minogue has submitted evidence
to the court and has written about it on his website here: The Gold Wreath riddle
CROWNED OFF: Cops nab Turk selling £1M relic, Legal fight for Golden Treasure : Ancient Trinket was looted from Tomb
EXCLUSIVE By RUSSELL FINDLAY Investigations Editor Scottish Sun 15 June 2014
UNDERCOVER detectives nabbed a Turkish cafe
boss as he tried to sell them a 2,500-year-old gold crown — worth a
staggering £1million. Murat Aksakalli claimed the stunning ancient relic
had been left to him by his grandfather.
But police believe the precious artefact
known as the Edinburgh Crown was looted from Turkey and should be
returned. They launched a sting operation and Aksakalli was held as he
tried to flog the intricate decorative wreath at a lawyers office in
Edinburgh.
A source said they could make a movie out of
this and call it Indiana Jones and the Edinburgh Crown. "Its an
incredible saga involving a Turkish wheeler dealer, an undercover police
sting, the chief constable and the Lord Advocate. The crown is now
being held at Police Scotland's Edinburgh HQ as a legal battle is fought
over its future.
A Turkish government report claims the
treasure may have been plundered from a tomb in the ancient city of
Milas between 2000 and 2010.
But 50 year old Aksakalli insists he
inherited the controversial antiquity from his grandfather Fazil
Aksakalli who died in rural Cemisgezek. And he claims he can prove he
had the relic before the ancient tomb was raided.
He said: "I kept it tor years and forgot
about it" "The police said that I went to Turkey in 2010 and just
started digging and found it"
His lawyer Aamer Anwar added "Just because
the Turkish Government say anything remotely connected to them belongs
to them doesn't mean that's right in our legal system"
Aksakalli decided to sell the beautifully
crafted crown when his cash and carry company hit financial problems.
And two of his business associates Ali Sanal and Hakki Ozbey also helped
in the attempt to find a buyer. They approached experts at posh auction
houses Sotheby's and Bonhams in Edinburgh.
And Aksakalll claims that a police officer
friend of his, Lawson Porter also spoke to the National Museum of
Scotland about the ancient head decoration on his behalf.
But their activity caught the attention of
the now defunct Serious Organised Crime Agency and an undercover cop was
deployed in a sting operation. The officer going under the name Ahmed
Shakur met Aksakalli it the Hilton and Marriot hotels in Edinburgh and
asked to see the crown.
A third meeting was then arranged at the
office of bluechip law firm Balfour & Manson in October 2010. Police
swooped on the talks in in the city centre and Aksakalli, Sanal and
Ozbey were held and the crown taken by detectives.
One source revealed "The official valuation
for the purpose of the court action is £225,000 but the true value is
thought to be £1million". "It's become known as the Edinburgh Crown
because it was found in the capital".
There is no suggestion Balfour-Manson were
involved in any wrongdoing. Following the raid Turkish embassy officials
met with Detective Superintendent David Gordon and Lindsay Miller, head
of the Crown Office 's organised crime division. They claimed the valuable object belonged to their country and demanded its return.
In December 2012, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland decided there would be no criminal proceedings against Aksakalli. But
months later he agreed to send the crown to Turkey for seven days to
undergo forensic analysis. An expert there concluded that the ornate
metal wreath - which his decorated with 50 myrtle leaves and flowers -
probably came from a Milas tomb and dated to around 350BC.
But in another twist, an amateur historical
claims the golden crown may have been looted from Greece in the 19th
century by the Earl of Elgin - famous for taking the sculptures from the
Parthenon in Athens now known as the Elgin Marbles. Campaigner Tom
Minogue found Elgin had bragged about discovering a golden wreath
matching the description of the disputed relic seized in Edinburgh,
He has now joined the legal battle being
fought over the crown, claiming it could be the same ancient artefact
which was mentioned by Elgin. And he is demanding that the experts in
Greece be allowed to examine the antiquity as well - just like the
Turkish have already done.
Retired engineering businessman Tom said
"There seems to have been a rush to judgement by the Police and the Lord
Advocate who determined that a gold wreath was Turkish for no other
reason than because the person in possession of it said so and happened
to be a UK national of Turkish birth.
"There was no claim of any such gold wreath
having been plundered from Turkey other than an unspecified
generalisation. "This airy-fairy reasoning by the Turks has caused the
Scottish authorities to send the gold wreath to Turkey, during which the
Turks were allowed to do anything with it as they wished, without
hinderance".
"The question of ownership of the golf wreath
should be dealt with in an open, fair and unbiased manner, recognising
the fact that Greece, the country that taught the world the meaning of
democracy, deserves equal treatment to Turkey in the eyes of the law"
Last night Police Scotland confirmed the crown was still being held while the legal battle over its future continues. A
spokesman said: "This item was seized in 2013 during a police operation
at business premises in Edinburgh. "It is being held until ownership
can be determined by the court"
RIDDLE OF LOST ROYAL WREATH
By Russell Findlay
THE intricate golden artefact dubbed the
Edinburgh Crown is thought to date from around 35OBC. It features thin
branches wound around a wreath with around 50 delicate myrtle leaves
and rosettes.
The relic is crafted from 98 to 99.5 per cent
pure ancient gold and would have been placed in a tomb in either Greece
or Turkey. And experts believe the treasure could be worth up to £1
million.
The Edinburgh Crown is very similar to one
unearthed in the Piraeus in Athens by the Earl of Elgin in the 19th
century.His discovery was recorded in a book about the aristocrat’s
travels in Greece.
Elgin presented to parliament a list of the
items that he had removed from the country.But missing from this list in
1811 was the gold wreath. The Earl speculated that the crown may have
come from a site known as the tomb of Aspasia.
HISTORY & MYSTERIES 350BC Gold crown is buried in royal tomb in Greece or Turkey.
1816 Lord Elgin sells Greek artefacts to the UK but a gold wreath he discovered is missing. 1982 Aksakalli claims he inherits gold wreath from grandfather. 1989 He moves from Turkey to Scotland and claims he later brings over the treasure. 2000-2010 Looting takes place at archaeological ruins in ancient Milas, Turkey 2004 Campaigner Tom Minogue urges Fife Police to probe items taken from Greece by Elgin, including a gold wreath. 2007 Aksakalli begins exploring attempts to sell the crown. SEPT 2010 He meets potential buyer who is actually an undercover cop. OCT 2010 Aksakalli is arrested. 2011 Scots police and prosecutors meet Turkish officials. 2012 Lord Advocate drops case against Aksakalli. MAR 2013 Crown sent to Turkey for analysis, then returned. MAR 2014 Police go to court to try to legally obtain wreath and hand it to Turkey. APRIL 2014 Minogue lodges legal claim that crown may be the one taken by Elgin.
CHIEF CONSTABLE IN COURT:
Top Cop goes for gold. Redacted documents relating to the civil action raised by the Chief Constable of Police Scotland over the gold wreath have now been released by the Scottish Courts.
The Chief Constable’s pleadings in court revealed:
“In or around July 2010 Lothian and Borders Police received information
that two men were believed to be in possession of a stolen golden
wreath of Turkish origin and were attempting to sell it. On 5 October
2010 the first defender, along with Ali Sanal and Hakki Ozbey, was
detained at the offices of Balfour & Manson, solicitors, 54-66
Frederick Street, Edinburgh on suspicion of reset. The three suspects
were in possession of the fund in medio and were attempting to secure its sale. All three are Turkish nationals.”
“At interview the first defender asserted ownership of the fund in medio. The
first defender and said Sanal and Ozbey were released without charge
pending further inquiries. A report was submitted to the Procurator
Fiscal. The pursuer retained possession of the fund in medio on the instructions of the Procurator Fiscal.”
“On 27 December 2012 the Lord Advocate
instructed that no criminal proceedings would be taken against the first
defender, or any other person, in respect of the fund in medio due to an insufficiency of evidence. The Lord Advocate instructed that the fund in medio should be returned to its owner.”
20 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Does it not strike you as odd that the Law Society of Scotland's own
lawyer Balfour & Manson are named as being involved in this?
“On 27 December 2012 the Lord Advocate instructed that no criminal
proceedings would be taken against the first defender, or any other
person, in respect of the fund in medio due to an insufficiency of
evidence. The Lord Advocate instructed that the fund in medio should be
returned to its owner.”
So why wasnt it returned after this?
Dont like the way this is going anyone else smell something in the background?
Da Vinci accused Marshall Ronald's payout bid proceeds
A
judge has rejected a move to dismiss a bid to sue the Duke of Buccleuch
for £4.25m over the return of a stolen Leonardo da Vinci painting.
Marshall Ronald, 57, is seeking the payout following the recovery of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.
He was cleared in 2010 of conspiring to extort money for its return.
Lawyers
for the duke described the bid to sue as "an attempt to extort a sum of
money" but a judge decided it should go to a hearing of evidence.
Mr
Ronald, of Upholland, Lancashire, was acquitted with others of a
conspiracy to extort money for the safe return of the masterpiece at a
trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2010.
The valuable artwork had been stolen from the Duke of Buccleuch's Drumlanrig Castle seven years earlier.
After
the court case, Mr Ronald raised an action claiming that he was due
payment for the return of the painting which was recovered in 2007.
At first he was suing both the duke and the police but dropped his claim against the police last year.
The duke is contesting his claims and his lawyers moved to dismiss the action.
They say the agreement Mr Ronald is seeking to rely on is "unenforceable as being illegal and contrary to public policy".
However,
Lord Glennie said that it was "by no means obvious" that a "to whom it
may concern" letter written as part of a police undercover operation was
not meant to be taken at face value.
"It is by no means
impossible to conceive of a case where, as part of a police operation to
recover a painting, a reward is offered to someone who may be in a
position to facilitate its recovery, and the reward is paid to that
person when the painting is in fact recovered," he said.
"I
accept that it is no doubt also possible to conceive of a situation
where the offer of a reward is not intended to be genuine, and the
letter granting authority to the intermediary to make that offer on
behalf of the owner of the painting is indeed intended as a sham."
He
added that on Mr Ronald's pleadings in the action it was alleged that
the agreement was made at a time when he was not in possession of the
stolen painting and did not know who had it.
"The best that can
be said is that he was in a position in which he had the opportunity,
through others, to pay money in the hope of procuring its release," he
said.
"If this is the true picture, I can see no basis upon which
it can be said that his negotiation of an agreement to be paid a
handsome reward for his part in procuring the release of the painting
amounts to extortion.
"It might be quite different if he himself
had possession of the painting or it was within his control; but that is
not what is presently averred either by the pursuer or even by the
defender.
"As matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer's case is bound to fail on grounds of illegality or public policy."
Can I imagine stealing a great work of art? Yes, I can. But I wouldn't
Art thief Patrick Vialaneix says he became so obsessed with a Rembrandt he had to steal it. I can sympathise
'That rare being – a
thief who is an art lover' … Patrick Vialaneix, who hid a stolen
painting in his bedroom for a decade. Photograph: Collet
Guillaume/Sipa/Rex
Art thieves are usually a great disappointment to
anyone cherishing romantic fictional ideas of gentleman burglars or
fanatical collectors. Most of the best-known art thefts of recent years
are connected with gangland. Paintings from Munch's Scream to Rembrandt's Christ in the Storm on the Sea of Galilee were taken not by art-lovers, but career criminals on the look-out for forms of underworld collateral.
Patrick
Vialaneix appears to be an exception. This French unemployed technician
turned up at a police station earlier this year to confess to the theft
of Child with a Soap Bubble, a painting often attributed to Rembrandt, from a museum near Cannes in 1999.
If an interview he gave to Le Monde is to be believed,
Vialaneix is that rare being – a thief motivated by the love of art. He
says he fell in love with the painting when he saw it at the age of 13
and regularly visited it from then onwards to stand rapt before the
genius of Rembrandt. Finally, he worked out how he could use his skills as a security technician to steal it.
Is
this plausible? Vialaneix has now been arrested in connection with an
attempt to sell the painting, but is it believable that he really was motivated initially by an obsession with this work of art?
Yes,
it's believable. I can easily imagine being so obsessed with a painting
that you feel compelled to steal it. Not this painting, though: I do not believe it to be an actual Rembrandt. But sure, I might be tempted by a real Rembrandt.
After
all, the entire art world rests on its power to seduce and fascinate
and obsess people, to make them covet it. Collectors are people who
cannot bear to just see art in museums. They need it in their house.
They get it (usually) in legal ways, by buying from galleries or at
auction. Similarly, curators who work in public museums are driven to
get physically close to art, to dedicate their working lives to being in
close proximity to it. And writing about art is another way of taking
possession of it.
On the other hand … writers share art
with their readers. Curators care for it on the public's behalf. Only
private collectors come close to the art thief in selfishness, yet even they bequeath works to museums or loan them to exhibitions.
The
art thief who loves art is seeking a totally selfish experience, hidden
from the world. By taking art out of circulation, making it vanish, you
deny everyone else the pleasure you covet. Your relationship with the
work of art becomes like that between a kidnapper and a hostage. If this
is love, it is of the perverse kind.
Let's be honest.
Anyone who adores art can imagine hiding away a secret, stolen
masterpiece. But it's a sick daydream. The beauty of art lies in
sharing. It is the fact that everyone loves a masterpiece that makes it a
masterpiece. To steal art is to destroy the social phenomenon that is
beauty.
Shame still hangs over the Sevso hoard
The recent return of seven of the 14 pieces of Roman
silver to Hungary from the UK is a positive development in the find’s
sad history
Marcus Linell, a senior director of Sotheby’s, with some of the Sevso hoard before its aborted sale in 1990
It is a relief that the sorry story of the
misappropriation of the great treasure of late Roman silverware known as
the Sevso hoard now seems to be reaching an acceptable conclusion. A
tangled tale of greed and irresponsibility by “collectors” in high
places who might have known better, seeking a quick and easy profit and
showing little respect for the world’s archaeological heritage, it ends
where it presumably began, in Hungary.
For it is to Budapest that the key piece, the Hunting
Plate, along with six other major pieces of silverware, has now been
returned. The Hunting Plate is crucial, for it bears an inscription
referring to its owner, Sevso (from whom the treasure takes its name),
as well as a reference to Pelso, the Roman name for Lake Balaton in
Hungary, near where the treasure was allegedly found. That now appears
to have been the case, although the government of Croatia has not yet
withdrawn its claim to ownership.
Mysterious discovery
The
treasure seems to have been discovered—the circumstances remain
murky—in the 1970s. That the late Peter Wilson, formerly the chairman of
Sotheby’s, should have started acquiring pieces of the treasure in 1980
seems odd today, since it was not until 1981 that a Lebanese export
permit (later found to be forged) was acquired for the first four pieces
that were bought. A buyer with a more suspicious mind would have
realised that the treasure must have been looted and must have been
exported illegally from its country of origin.
Through his
lawyer, Peter Mimpriss of Allen and Overy, Wilson was able to interest
the Marquess of Northampton in the silver as a proposition for
investment, and by 1987, the Marquess of Northampton 1987 Settlement
Trust was the sole owner of what by then was a collection of 14 pieces
of impressive Roman silverware. The plan for Sotheby’s to sell the
silver by auction in Switzerland in 1990 was halted by the seizure of
the treasure on a publicity tour to New York, when Lebanon, and then
Hungary and Croatia, laid claim to it in the New York State Supreme
Court. The court did not find in favour of either Hungary or Croatia,
Lebanon having withdrawn its claim, and the treasure was returned to
London to the custody of the Marquess of Northampton.
It is
important to note that the judge did not rule that the marquess was the
legal owner, simply that neither Hungary nor Croatia had demonstrated
good title. Not surprisingly, the Marquess of Northampton was
disappointed by the sale fiasco of his investment, and (with a new
lawyer) sued Mimpriss and Allen and Overy, winning a
settlement—reportedly of £24m—in 2000.
In November 2006, the 14
pieces of silver (and the copper container in which they were found)
were placed on display at Bonhams auction house for an invited audience.
Then the scene went quiet, until the announcement in late March by
Victor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister, that seven pieces of the
treasure had been successfully repatriated (at a cost of €15m) and put
on public display.
The vendors, who are €15m better off, did not
include the Marquess of Northampton; the silver was instead sold by a
trust. Its beneficiaries are the two sons of the late Peter Wilson, who
made the initial, ill-fated purchase in 1980. Ludovic de Walden, the
current lawyer of the marquess, indicated last week that the marquess is
still the owner of the remaining seven pieces.
Loss to archaeology
There
are several conclusions to be drawn from this unhappy tale. The first
is that much crucial archaeological information must have been
lost
at the time of the discovery of the treasure. The circumstances of the
find remain unclear, although later investigations in Hungary seem to
have identified the place where the silver was found. The archaeological
associations could have yielded crucial information, which is now lost
forever, about the circumstances of burial.
Whether or not it is
true, as has been claimed, that another 40 vessels and 187 spoons were
also part of the hoard can probably never now be established.
The
second rather shocking outcome is that the treasure, after all its
unhappy history, has again been divided, with seven pieces in Budapest
and seven apparently still in the possession (although, according to the
New York judge, not necessarily the legal ownership) of the seventh
Marquess of Northampton. Financial expediency wins again, as Europe’s
cultural heritage is treated as a mere investment. It is sad that the
integrity of this important assemblage of Roman silverware has again
been broken.
Sullied reputations
There are other
dismal features. The reputation of the late Peter Wilson, and indeed of
Sotheby’s, does not come well out of this unseemly episode. The
government of Hungary has had to pay €15m to repatriate what was
presumably its own property in the first place. The law firm Allen and
Overy was obliged, in 2000, to pay £24m to the marquess, in a settlement
that certainly did not enhance its reputation (nor his own). And the
unfortunate marquess is probably not in overall profit, after paying
substantial legal fees to his succession of lawyers, and is still in
possession of seven pieces of silver that are probably now unsaleable.
For
Croatia has not yet protested about the recent export from England of
the seven pieces to Hungary, undertaken with an export licence from the
UK government. If Croatia were to relinquish its claim, Hungary might
well be able to reassert its own claim as the sole remaining claimant to
the pieces still in the possession of the marquess. Certainly it would
now be difficult for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to grant
an export licence for these remaining seven pieces if their destination
were anywhere other than Hungary.
Still, to look on the bright
side, seven of the most important pieces of Roman silverware in the
world are now on display in Budapest. There, the Latin motto on the
Hunting Plate can still be read:
“Let these, O Sevso, yours for many ages be/Small vessels fit to serve your offspring worthily”.
And
it is an ill wind that does nobody any good: the restoration of at
least a part of Hungary’s cultural heritage in March did no damage at
all to the standing of Prime Minister Orbán, who secured a second term
in the election held on 6 April.
A detail of the Hunting Plate
Professional criminal Reginald Soper masterminded raids across Devon as part of prolific gang, court hears
Criminal gang carried out 54 raids across Devon.
A PROFESSIONAL criminal funded a
jetsetting lifestyle by allegedly masterminding burglaries across Devon
including South Molton, Winkleigh and Hatherleigh, a court has heard.
Reginald Soper was claiming Jobseekers Allowance and living
in a caravan but had been on two holidays to Jamaica, two to Cyprus,
and trips to Mexico, Egypt and Majorca in the four years before his
arrest.
The alleged thefts cost businesses hundreds of thousands of
pounds and even forced one shopkeeper into bankruptcy, a jury has been
told.
Soper formed part of a gang which carried out 54 raids on jewelers and small businesses throughout the county.
The other members were his older brother Percy, who lived at the
same caravan site near Taunton, his stepson Daniel Small, and his friend
Nicky Christian, who both lived in Plymouth.
The group never left finger prints and hid their loot in
remote areas of the countryside to ensure there was no evidence to link
them to the raids if they were stopped on their way home.
Their most frequent targets were firms with units on small
trading estates and stretched from Plymouth in the West to Beer and
Dunster in the East and from Churchstow in the South to Hatherleigh and
South Molton in the North.
They often took vehicles in one raid to use in the next and
even left a cheeky message on the whiteboard at one office saying
‘Thanks for the car’ with a smiley face.
They caused massive damage, smashing their way through
walls or fire exit doors and used tools and even a stolen fork lift to
remove safes which were bolted to floors.
They wore masks to hide their faces and used walkie-talkies
to communicate with each other and a night vision device was found at
Reginald Soper’s caravan.
On at least two occasions they escaped in getaway cars
which had no lights on, making them more difficult to identify on town
centre CCTV systems.
The total value of the goods stolen is estimated at around
£200,000 and included 17 safes, but the damage to building also runs
into six figures. The stolen jewellery alone was worth £50,000.
Exeter Crown Court was told how they were arrested after a
five month police operation codenamed Churchill in the summer of 2012.
Detectives used CCTV footage, shoe prints, DNA from the
handle of tools, number plate recognition, mobile phone evidence and
even a hidden camera in a safe to link the men to many of the offences.
They are linked to the rest by the use of vehicles and the
similarities in method. In many cases the stolen cars and vans were
abandoned or burned near the scenes of the raids.
The crimes ended after Percy Soper was arrested red-handed
during a raid on a car showroom in Taunton and identified despite giving
his name as Donald Duck.
Reginald Soper, aged 49, and his brother Percy Soper, aged
54, both of the Otterford caravan park at Culmhead, near Taunton,
Somerset, Daniel Small, aged 23, of Linketty Lane, Plympton, and Nick
Christian, aged 23, of Bernice Terrace, Plymouth, Devon, all deny
conspiracy to burgle.
Reginald Soper, Small and Christian all deny two counts of
conspiracy, including one dealing with the raids on jewelers while Percy
Soper only faces one, dealing with the rest of the burglaries.
Mr Donald Tait, prosecuting, told the jury: “This case is
about burglaries and there were a lot of them. Our case is that these
defendants, and the two Soper brothers in particular, are professional
career criminals with no legitimate source of income.
“They specialised in the burglary of commercial premises
and Reginald Soper, with the assistance of Small and Christian also
burgled antique and jewellery shops.
“They planned these offences in advance, wore disguises to
avoid recognition. They were forensically aware and left very little to
link them with these offences.
“The Sopers knew the countryside of North Devon like the
back of their hands. They used this to stash stolen property in very
remote locations so they could come back at a later time for it.
“According to tax records Reginald Soper had no income
since at least 2006/7 and has been claiming Jobseekers Allowance. The
same applies to his brother.
“Despite Reginald apparently lacking employment and income
inquiries with the National Border Targeting Centre to find out if he
had even been abroad, and despite having no known income, he visited
Jamaica in 2008.
“In September 2008 he also visited Cyprus. In January 2010
the Jamaica experience was repeated and in August 2010 he spent ten days
in Cyprus.
“In August 2011 he spent 14 days in Majorca and in May 2012
he had an early spring break in Cancun, Mexico and his passport showed
he also visited Egypt at some time.
“The jury may want to ask how he supported all this foreign
travel on Jobseekers Allowance. The prosecution say the answer is
simple. He is a criminal who burgles premises and steals whatever he
can, money and any equipment that can be sold on.”
He said Christian’s last known income was a small amount
from Pizza Hut and an employment agency in Plymouth in 2010/11 while
Small was also on JSA and employment support allowance.
Mr Tait identified common features of the raids including
the way in which some walls were demolished to get in, including one
raid at Cullompton Football Club where a hole was smashed through a
brick wall with a sledgehammer.
He said these were not victimless crimes and antique dealer
Jason Jones had been bankrupted by the £20,000 uninsured loss from the
raid on his shop in Budleigh Salterton.
Mr Tait said: “Although these were commercial premises,
these crimes are not victimless and many people lost a lot of money as a
result of these activities. In one case that meant a business going
into bankruptcy.”
He showed CCTV from several of the raids in most of which
nobody could be identified, but said footage from a shop in Budleigh
Salterton which was cased but not burgled, showed Reginald Soper and
Christian.
Another clip, taken from a Spar shop close to the scene of a
raid at the Silver Lion Jewellers in Ashburton, Reginald Soper and
Small were identifiable.
He also showed a short clip from a camera which police
planted in a safe which was found hidden in woodland at Modbury which
showed Percy Soper returning to it but moving away when he became
suspicious.
None of the defendants made any comment after their arrests.
The trial continues and is expected to last for six to ten weeks.
Trial of men accused of 54 West Country raids stopped
THE trial of a group of men accused of carrying out a five month burglary spree around the West Country has been stopped.
The jury at Exeter Crown Court had only just started
hearing the 10-week case when they were discharged for legal reasons
which cannot be reported.
The four men from Plymouth and Somerset were accused of
taking part in a total of 54 raids on commercial premises across the
West Country in which antiques, jewellery, safes, plant and other
machinery were stolen.
The alleged offences took place between May and October
2012 and stretched from Plymouth and Churchstow in the South and West to
Budleigh Salterton and Beer in the East and Hatherleigh, South Molton
and Dunster in the North.
Reginald Soper, 49, and his brother
Percy Soper, 54, both of the Otterford caravan park at Culmhead, near
Taunton, Somerset, Daniel Small, 23, of Linketty Lane, Plympton, and
Nick Christian, 23, of Bernice Terrace, Plymouth, Devon, all deny
conspiracy to burgle.
Reginald Soper, Small and Christian all deny two counts of
conspiracy, including one dealing with the raids on jewelers while Percy
Soper only faces one, dealing with the rest of the burglaries.
The case is to be relisted for a fresh trial in April next year by Judge Phillip Wassall.
Stolen Rupert Bunny painting, Girl in Sunlight, returned after 23 years
The mystery began on an autumn night in April 1991, when a burglar
broke into the Blairgowrie home of elderly retiree Albert Watt.
According to the police report, the only item stolen was Mr Watt's cherished Rupert Bunny painting, Girl in Sunlight, which hung above his dining table and is worth about $250,000.
Mr Watt bought the painting - which depicts a woman with a
white parasol reading in a Parisian garden - in 1953 and kept it in his
South Yarra apartment until his sea change in the late 1970s.
Police never solved the theft, which they described as
''targeted''. Over the years, Mr Watt would blame his cleaner - the
only person who regularly admired the painting - while his nephews,
James and Michael, assumed it ended up overseas. Mr Watt died in 1993,
two years to the day after Girl in Sunlight was taken, with the case unsolved.
As executors of their uncle's will, Michael and James Watt
continued the search, offering a substantial reward and even engaging a
private investigator, but to no avail.
Eventually, an anonymous phone call ended the mystery. That
call came in 2010, when the National Gallery of Victoria held a
retrospective of Rupert Bunny's work. Girl in Sunlight was scheduled to go on display.
The tip-off led police to the Malvern East home of Frank Levy
- the new owner of the painting - and the discovery that it had
apparently been stolen by Mr Watt's closest friend, Peter Rand. Mr Watt
and Mr Rand - an eccentric millionaire property investor and rumoured
Melbourne brothel owner - were South Yarra friends and neighbours for
more than 40 years.
But now, according to court documents, it has been established that Mr Rand was the likely mastermind behind the theft.
Mr Rand kept the painting until his own death in 1997.
According to his will, Mr Levy - his lawyer - would receive a ''painting
by Rupert Bunny of a woman sitting on the ground''.
The Levys did not know the painting had been stolen, displaying it in their Malvern East home for the next decade.
In February 2008, Mr Levy and his wife decided to have the
painting valued. The valuer told them art historian and curator David
Thomas was cataloguing Rupert Bunny's work for an exhibition at the NGV
and would be interested in seeing the painting. A few weeks later, Mr
Thomas decided to include the work in the NGV's retrospective.
In April 2010, the matter was reported to police and a few
weeks later a search warrant was executed at Mr Levy's home. But that
wasn't the end of the battle for the Watts. Their uncle's painting had
been found, but Mr Levy argued that the statute of limitations had
expired and the Bunny was now rightfully his.
For the past three years, the case has been before the Supreme Court. Last week Mr Levy finally lost his appeal.
Twenty-three years after Girl in Sunlight disappeared, the painting is once again with Mr Watt's heirs.
Police keeping eye out for stolen WWII medals
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/28/4143316/police-keeping-eye-out-for-stolen.html#storylink=cp
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. --
Roy Hopper survived the Normandy invasion and a prisoner of war camp during World War II.
Now,
Hopper, 89, faces another challenge: Trying to get back military medals
— including a Bronze Star for bravery — that were stolen from his home
last month while he was in the hospital.
The Albuquerque Police Department and U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, are leading the effort to help Hopper.
Detectives are watching pawn shops and antique stores for the
framed service medals, Albuquerque police spokeswoman Tasia Martinez
said Wednesday. Hopper's name is inscribed on the back of the medals,
authorities said.
Heinrich, D-New Mexico, told KOB-TV (http://goo.gl/l4B7bG) that his staff is working on getting replacement medals for Hopper.
"I
hope ... he can get his original medals back with his name inscribed on
the back," Heinrich told the station. "If that's not possible, we're
here to make sure he gets replacement medals for every single medal he's
earned."
Military services work on request for replacement medal
for veterans at no cost, according to the National Archives website.
This includes family members with the signed authorization from
veterans, the website says.
In 1991, Hopper was awarded the Bronze
Star for his heroic efforts during World War II. Hopper participated in
the Normandy Invasion before being captured by the Germans. He spent
nine months in a camp for prisoners of war.
Investigators searched
Hopper's home for evidence, but they didn't find any fingerprints,
police said. Investigators said they believe the suspect was wearing
gloves.
Guns and cash were also missing from Hopper's home. No arrests have been made.
Terri
Stewart, co-owner of Stewart's Military Antiques in Mesa, Arizona, said
it's difficult to put a price tag on WWII medals like the Bronze Star.
"It all depends on if his name is inscribed on the back and if the medals come with proper documents," Stewart said.
In a separate incident, another World War II veteran was robbed at his home in Carson City, Nevada.
The
Secret Witness program is offering a $1,500 reward for the arrest and
prosecution of suspects who robbed the 101-year-old veteran during the
Memorial Day weekend.
The robbers forced their way into the home
of the Air Force veteran around 5 a.m. Sunday looking for a non-existent
safe, authorities said. One of the robbers had a gun.
The victim,
Jim Sorentino, told KRNV-TV that he lives alone with a caretaker in a
gated community. His home was ransacked, and the thieves stole a
wristwatch, pocketknife and a wallet with about $30 in it, Sorentino
said.
Yichang Thief Decorates House with Over 300 Priceless Antiques Stolen over 3 Years
The
Yichang authorities recently cracked a big case of antique theft. The
suspect, Zhu, had apparently been accumulating the collection for over
three years. Since 2011 he has been preying on upscale districts of the
city. Statues of Buddha, wood and ivory carvings as well as valuable
jade carvings were found dotted around his small house.
Discovered
among his collection were priceless treasures from the Zhou and Shang
Dynasties (that’s over 3,000 years old), the value of which is
literally inestimable, according to Beijing experts.
Zhu has been arrested as is awaiting trial for grand theft.
Court hears of £500,000 art theft from Dowager Countess Bathurst
Former housekeeper of the Dowager Countess Bathurst, Kim Robert
A FORMER housekeeper of the Dowager Countess Bathurst has appeared in
court charged with stealing £500,000 of art and antiques.
Kim Roberts, of Lower Church Street, Colyton, Devon, appeared at
Gloucester Crown Court this week accused of taking items including a
Picasso sketch while she worked at the Dowager's Cirencester and London
homes as a housekeeper and personal assistant.
Her defence team told the court that she would be pleading not guilty
and had in fact been given the items after working for the Dowager
Countess Bathurst, after she had worked for her for less than a month.
She is charged with three charges of theft - two from the Dowager Countess and one from a previous employer.
She will appear back in court on August with a three day trial planned for the start of November.
The Dowager Countess Gloria lives in a farmhouse on her family's
Cirencester Park Estate and is the widow of the eighth Earl Bathurst,
Henry, who died in 2011 aged 84.
The charges against Ms Roberts include theft at Sapperton between
April 30 and May 21 last year of art and antiques to the value of
approximately £500,000 belonging to the dowager Countess Bathurst.
She is also charged with stealing antique vases between April 30,
2013, and August 20, 2013, from the Dowager's London home in Kensington
and with stealing a £10,000 Volvo XC90 on October 21, 2012. The Volvo
was allegedly stolen from Drayton House in Drayton Foliat, Wiltshire,
the home of previous employer Emily Olympitis.
Prosecutor Julian Kesner said the defence had informed him Ms Roberts
will plead not guilty to all charges and there will definitely be a
trial.
Ms Roberts was released on bail pending the trial.
Masterpiece is returned – 22 years after theft
A PAINTING that was stolen from a Dublin gallery more than
20 years ago has finally been returned to its walls after being found
by gardai.
Members of the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) discovered In the
Omnibus, by the French artist Honore Daumier, during a criminal
investigation last year.
When it was stolen in 1992, the watercolour and gouache work was insured for at least €250,000.
Sources in the art world have said the small painting could now be worth up to €1m, depending on market trends and tastes.
It was put back on display in the Dublin City Council-funded Hugh Lane Gallery on Parnell Square yesterday.
Collector
But
while the masterpiece by the French artist, who died in 1879, is
hanging in the gallery once more, its future is less certain.
When it was stolen, the painting was owned by Dublin City Council and the insurance company who covered it paid out on the loss.
That
means that the painting is now in the ownership of the insurance
company, which could sell it to a private collector if it wanted to.
The painting does not seem to have suffered any damage during the years it was missing.
“Our
internal audit section are liaising with the insurers, who have changed
ownership since the theft occurred, to see if a suitable arrangement
acceptable to both parties can be agreed,” said assistant city manager
Brendan Kenny.
“We would hope that no matter who owns the
masterpiece it might remain in the Hugh Lane for the public to enjoy,
having been hidden away from them for more than two decades,” he told
The
council said it is not privy to the details of the garda investigation
that led to the discovery of the painting, and a spokesperson for An
Garda Siochana would not comment on the matter.
“We are just happy that this important work of art has been retrieved in good condition,” said Mr Kenny.
Security
at the gallery was upgraded after the painting was stolen in 1992 and
again following the construction of a new wing to display more works of
art.
In the Omnibus is part of the original collection presented
by Hugh Lane to Dublin for the Gallery of Modern Art, which first opened
to the public in 1908.
Honore Daumier was a printmaker,
caricaturist, painter and sculptor, whose many works offer commentary on
social and political life in France in the 19th Century.
He
was best known for his caricatures of political figures and satires on
the behaviour of his countrymen, although the value of his work as a
painter was appreciated after his death.
Los Angeles police are searching for a pair of burglars they say broke into Miley Cyrus' San Fernando Valley home and got away with jewellery and a luxury car.
The LAPD says officers from the department's North Hollywood station responded to a report of a burglary Friday at Cyrus' home.
They say a man and a woman scaled a fence and got inside the house and garage while no one was home.
A 2014 Maserati luxury sedan and an unspecified amount of jewelry were taken.
Police asked Sunday that anyone with information about the crime call North Hollywood's burglary detectives.
Last
month the 21-year-old pop star obtained a temporary restraining order
against an Arizona man who was detained by police while trying to meet
her - See more at:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tabloid/burglary-at-miley-cyrus-house-maserati-stolen/article1-1225233.aspx#sthash.BCcxnrBM.dpuf
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/28/4143316/police-keeping-eye-out-for-stolen.html#storylink
Los Angeles police are searching for a pair of burglars they say broke into Miley Cyrus' San Fernando Valley home and got away with jewellery and a luxury car.
The LAPD says officers from the department's North Hollywood station responded to a report of a burglary Friday at Cyrus' home.
They say a man and a woman scaled a fence and got inside the house and garage while no one was home.
A 2014 Maserati luxury sedan and an unspecified amount of jewelry were taken.
Police asked Sunday that anyone with information about the crime call North Hollywood's burglary detectives.
Last
month the 21-year-old pop star obtained a temporary restraining order
against an Arizona man who was detained by police while trying to meet
her - See more at:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tabloid/burglary-at-miley-cyrus-house-maserati-stolen/article1-1225233.aspx#sthash.BCcxnrBM.dpuf
Dali sculpture snatched from Paris museum
In the latest stolen art caper in
France, a thief made off with a sculpture by surrealist art master
Salvador Dali. The only good news here is that stolen works in France
do sometimes get back to their rightful owners.
The stolen bronze sculpture was a depiction of
Dali's famous melting clocks, as seen here in The Persistence of Memory.
Photo: Wikicommons
Thieves rob dead woman at French funeral home (12 May 14) Police are searching for two thieves who burst into two exhibition
rooms on Saturday showing works from the renowned Spanish surrealist
artist Salvador Dali in Montmartre in Paris’s18th arrondissement.
One of the men reportedly tried to steal a sculpture entitled ‘Danse
du Temps I’ at the Espace Dali on rue Poulbot. However his attempt was
thwarted by a vigilant tourist and he fled empty handed.
Meanwhile, at a nearby gallery just 100 metres away on place du Tertre, a
second man managed to make off with a bronze sculpture depicting Dali’s
famous so-called melting clocks, a recurrent symbol in the surrealist’s
work, French daily Le Parisien reported.
Estimated at €22,000, the stolen work was kept behind a display case
but was not equipped with an alarm. Both men managed to escape.
Sadly this isn't the first piece of art to go missing from a French museum or private collection. However, police recently recovered a Rembrandt worth millions that was stolen from a museum in the south of France.
Also a trickle of the trove of artworks pilfered by the Nazis during
World War II have found their way back to their rightful owners. France recently turned over three works that were seized and auctioned off in the 1930s.
click profile, below, then Stolen Vermeer for latest on Gardner Art Heist
Himself a former trafficker of stolen art, Turbo Paul Hendry M.A. provides information to the readers of his blogs (including collectors, victims, insurers, and other members of the public) regarding the latest news from the world of stolen art and artifacts and, wherever possible, he assists in the recovery of art and artifacts stolen by others. Art Hostage, for the last Ten years, has provided services to private individuals, insurers, law enforcement agencies, and to those who have information that will lead to the recovery of stolen art.