Interesting thread on reddit about Roma Numismatics and the apparent arrest of Richard Beale

[Kaleun96]

It seems Beale's next court appearance for the 8th of March has been pushed until the 8th of May. I won't speculate why that might be as it could be any number of things but for us I think that might mean we may not get any new information from the DA or legal proceedings until then. Unless either side files a motion before then, I guess, but I'm not sure whether records like that are made public for active criminal cases similar to this.

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, kirispupis said:

The Naxos stater was obviously minted in Italy. Although I'm not overly familiar with this issue, I would expect it's range of use to have been Sicily and the Greek cities in Italy. I expect it would have been quite rare elsewhere. Therefore, Italy would have a natural claim of it.

The Eid Mar has no such certainty. We're still not exactly sure in whose borders it was minted, nor where exactly its range of use was. We also don't even know if this coin was purchased by someone in the US and who has it. If the buyer was in Russia or China, then they're probably SOL.

One other thing is the Naxos coin (and others) were confiscated at customs. Obviously they were purchased by a US buyer and US customs has nearly unlimited control in seizing what they want. I expect it would have been a far different case if the coins were already in possession of the individual. Come to think of it, I don't recall a case where coins weren't a) seized at customs OR b) voluntarily repatriated. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect the seizing country would have to provide overwhelming proof that the object was stolen in order for it to be forcibly removed from someone's possession.

Presumably, if Italo Vecchi was the source of the Eid Mar, he knows exactly where it came from.

[kirispupis]

12 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Presumably, if Italo Vecchi was the source of the Eid Mar, he knows exactly where it came from.

I'm sure both he and Beale have a pretty good idea, but we don't know (unless one of us is good friends with either). Given that I haven't heard of any repatriation ceremony for the Eid Mar, it seems like one of the following is true.

• The Eid Mar is in a country like Russia or China, from where it cannot be repatriated
• It is already in the hands of its owner, and seizing it will require a lengthy case with the onus on the seizing authorities to prove that it was stolen/looted.
• The coin is in possession of authorities, but there has been no decision on which country actually owns it (perhaps they could split it in three?)

[zadie]

3 hours ago, akeady said:

If you read the document on the first page of this thread, it says the Eid Mar was shipped to the US  on 29th Nov. 2020 (i.e., a month after the auction).   Therefore, I assume it had a US-based buyer and indeed that US Customs seized the Eid Mar then.

ATB,

Aidan.

The Eid Mar was purchased by a US-based dealer on behalf of the buyer. Roma does not know who the end-buyer is and it might have ended up somewhere else after that. To my understanding of this whole affair, prosecutors are not currently aware of where the coin is located or if its even in the US.

[DonnaML]

2 hours ago, kirispupis said:

I'm sure both he and Beale have a pretty good idea, but we don't know (unless one of us is good friends with either). Given that I haven't heard of any repatriation ceremony for the Eid Mar, it seems like one of the following is true.

• The Eid Mar is in a country like Russia or China, from where it cannot be repatriated
• It is already in the hands of its owner, and seizing it will require a lengthy case with the onus on the seizing authorities to prove that it was stolen/looted.
• The coin is in possession of authorities, but there has been no decision on which country actually owns it (perhaps they could split it in three?)

It wouldn't surprise me if the prosecutors try to make some kind of deal with Vecchi to flip him and grant him some form of immunity so he testifies against Beale to prove that the Eid Mar was illegally exported from its country of origin, and that Beale knew it. Of course Vecchi is apparently in the UK and didn't make Beale's mistake of showing up in New York City -- and publicizing his presence in advance! -- but it's not as if it's impossible to try to get jurisdiction over him here.

[DonnaML]

Just in case anyone wants to know what import restrictions are in effect with respect to particular countries, pursuant to Memoranda of Understanding between the USA and those countries, you can find links to the different agreements at https://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property/current-agreements-and-import-restrictions .

For what has to be proven in order to import into the USA an item subject to any such agreement, see the applicable law (19 USC §2606) and regulations at  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title19/pdf/USCODE-2021-title19-chap14-sec2606.pdf and https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-I/part-12/subject-group-ECFRe39e9fce2462969/section-12.104c.

Basically, as the regulation states:

 "§ 12.104c Importations permitted.

Designated archaeological or ethnological material for which entry is sought into the U.S., will be permitted entry if at the time of making entry: 

(a) A certificate, its electronic equivalent, or other documentation, issued by the Government of the country of origin of such material in a form acceptable to the Secretary is filed with the port director, such form being, but not limited to, an affidavit, license, or permit, or their electronic equivalents, from an appropriate, authorized State Party official under seal, certifying that such exportation was not in violation of the laws of that country, or 

(b) Satisfactory evidence is presented to the port director that such designated material was exported from the State Party not less than 10 years before the date of such entry and that neither the person for whose account the material is imported (or any related person) contracted for or acquired an interest, directly or indirectly, in such material more than 1 year before that date of entry, or 

(c) Satisfactory evidence is presented to the port director that such designated material was exported from the State Party on or before the date on which such material was designated under 19 U.S.C. §2604. [in other words, before the MOU was entered into]

(d) The term “satisfactory evidence” means - 

(1) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section - 

(i) One or more declarations under oath, or their electronic equivalents, by the importer, or the person for whose account the material is imported, stating that, to the best of his knowledge - 

(A) The material was exported from the State Party not less than 10 years before the date of entry into the U.S., and 

(B) Neither such importer or person (or any related person) contracted for or acquired an interest, directly or indirectly, in such material more than 1 year before the date of entry of the material; and 

(ii) A statement, or its electronic equivalent, provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer, which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party not less than 10 years before the date of entry into the U.S. and the reasons on which the statement is based; and 

(2) For purposes of paragraph (c) of this section - 

(i) One or more declarations under oath, or their electronic equivalents, by the importer or the person for whose account the material is to be imported, stating that, to the best of his knowledge, the material was exported from the State Party on or before the date such material was designated under 19 U.S.C. 2604, and 

(ii) A statement, or its electronic equivalent, by the consignor or person who sold the material to the importer which states the date, or if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party on or before the date such material was designated under 19 U.S.C. §2604, and the reasons on which the statement is based."

That's the purpose of the papers one often finds accompanying coins purchased from auction houses outside the USA, certifying that the requirements have been complied with.  As I understand it, the seller basically has to be able to show that the coin or artifact was exported from the country where it originated (or was found) more than 10 years before the date of import, or before an MOU was entered into with that country, whichever is more recent. Since most MOUs were originally entered into more than 10 years ago, I believe that it's usually enough to be able to prove that the item was out of the particular country deemed the "State Party" more than 10 years before the attempted importation. And if you can prove it was outside that country before the 1970 UNESCO Convention was implemented in the first place, all the better. 

I'm pretty sure, however, that if the country in question can provide contrary evidence disproving such certifications, or can prove that despite such certifications, a coin or artifact was, in fact, stolen -- for example, from a museum -- it can still assert a claim, depending on the applicable statute of limitations, even if the theft occurred and the item was exported from that country more than 10 years ago. 

And yes, people can scoff all they like at the idea that Turkey is the only country that can assert rights to "cultural patrimony" found in Anatolia regardless of what culture originally produced a particular coin or other artifact, but that's the way it works. It's not as if Turkey has only controlled Anatolia since last week; it's been almost 600 years for all of it, and more than 900 years for part of it.  Don't forget that under 19 U.S.C. §2601, these restrictions apply in the first place only to coins and other artifacts more than 250 years old, so it's not as if Turkey has the right to prevent, say, an Armenian importing Armenian cultural heritage from Turkey into the USA, as long as it was created after the late 1700s:

§2601(2)

(2) The term "archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party" means—

(A) any object of archaeological interest;

(B) any object of ethnological interest; or

(C) any fragment or part of any object referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B);

which was first discovered within, and is subject to export control by, the State Party. For purposes of this paragraph—

(i) no object may be considered to be an object of archaeological interest unless such object—

(I) is of cultural significance;

(II) is at least two hundred and fifty years old; and

(III) was normally discovered as a result of scientific excavation, clandestine or accidental digging, or exploration on land or under water; and

(ii) no object may be considered to be an object of ethnological interest unless such object is—

(I) the product of a tribal or nonindustrial society, and

(II) important to the cultural heritage of a people because of its distinctive characteristics, comparative rarity, or its contribution to the knowledge of the origins, development, or history of that people.

Edited March 8, 2023 by DonnaML

[NewStyleKing]

Oh Dear Roma is my number one favourite  auction house.  I have bought rare coins from Roma and disposed of coins through them.

The handling of coins when surrendered to museums is a big bug bear.  In 1954 a hoard was dug up in Abruzzi,  I think a falling out amongst the finders/looters took place  and they were arrested by the carabinari . Meanwhile part of the hoard was sold on the international market  and some ended up at the ANS  The confiscated part ended up in the Museo Archaeolgica Chieti. It has been essentially unstudied by the museum for 70 years. (SEVENTY YEARS). I believe it was part of an exhibition just a few years ago by Campanella but cannot find anything about it since the internet doesn't work in the Abruzzi region of Italy.  Needless to say what little has been published on the Chieti part has been done by non-Italians.  The hoard once called the Abruzzo hoard was renamed as the Poggio Picenze IGCH 2056 hoard. It is/was  a mixed hoard thought to be the lootings and pay of a Roman soldier who had fought in the first Mithradatic war  and buried it for safety whilst still in Sulla's command in Italy where, presumably his luck ran out.  The hoard supposedly had c  200 denarii, Pontic coins of Eupator, Bithynian tets, Cappadocian coins, Achaean league triobols, pseudo-Athenian New Styles and and Athens New Styles.  I offered the museum my services to classify and publish the New Styles,  from photographs, but after tying it all up in numerous paperwork which lead nowhere , I was handed onto 2 persons, whose e-mail addresses proved non-existent!  What is the point?  If the coins by some means or other ended up with a good auction house I'm sure they would get even the simplest of write ups that do not exist from the museum professionals.  My main target is the 2 Ears of Grain example. I know it's there  , I can almost see it on the one and only photograph I have found, so near and so far.  And that's it. And I think it will remain that way until the sun waxes and life becomes extinct!  The large photo I think is from the exhibition...( anyone know anything of it?),  the blow up from the picture I think is the object of my desires. If anyone could liberate it and sell it to me my scruples would vanish  for a good cause.  Is there anything good to say about this situation?  Long live dealers!

Edited March 8, 2023 by NewStyleKing

[NewStyleKing]

As the true and undoubted heir of Brutus  I claim the repatriation rights that is my due. I hereby register my interest.

[Hrefn]

And I am High King of the throne of Tara, according to my genetic profile.  As heir to the ultimate Celtic monarchy,  I claim all present and former Celtic-speaking lands, and all gold objects found thereon, including torques, brooches, staters and fractions thereof, and votary boats, as an inalienable part of my cultural inheritance.  I am willing to discuss an equitable division of spoils with the Bretons and the Welsh, but not the Scots, until they get their act together.  

Placet.       Hrefn Rex.                                            

 

 

By Ardfern - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons

[Gavin Richardson]

I have a naive question. How does one “purchase“ a provenance? It’s obviously much more complex than just claiming a provenance. And what a provenance! “Baron Dominique de Chambrier”? He might as well have said that the coin came from “Fancy McFancypants.” I should think this kind of claim would be something easily exposed. Did this person exist? Do we have documentary evidence of the Baron owning the finest example of the world’s most famous coin? Does purchasing a provenance involve fabricating documents to that effect? Photographs? Would such paperwork be falsely antiquated as well to give the illusion of a long-standing paper trail? I understand whoever paid for the false provenance spent a lot of money. What exactly does he get for his efforts?

[Roerbakmix]

9 minutes ago, Gavin Richardson said:

I have a naive question. How does one “purchase“ a provenance? It’s obviously much more complex than just claiming a provenance. And what a provenance! “Baron Dominique de Chambrier”? He might as well have said that the coin came from “Fancy McFancypants.” I should think this kind of claim would be something easily exposed. Did this person exist? Do we have documentary evidence of the Baron owning the finest example of the world’s most famous coin? Does purchasing a provenance involve fabricating documents to that effect? Photographs? Would such paperwork be falsely antiquated as well to give the illusion of a long-standing paper trail? I understand whoever paid for the false provenance spent a lot of money. What exactly does he get for his efforts?

Not a naive question. Perhaps, if mr. Beales joins numisforum, we could ask him 🙂

Edited March 8, 2023 by Roerbakmix

[Kaleun96]

9 minutes ago, Gavin Richardson said:

I have a naive question. How does one “purchase“ a provenance? It’s obviously much more complex than just claiming a provenance. And what a provenance! “Baron Dominique de Chambrier”? He might as well have said that the coin came from “Fancy McFancypants.” I should think this kind of claim would be something easily exposed. Did this person exist? Do we have documentary evidence of the Baron owning the finest example of the world’s most famous coin? Does purchasing a provenance involve fabricating documents to that effect? Photographs? Would such paperwork be falsely antiquated as well to give the illusion of a long-standing paper trail? I understand whoever paid for the false provenance spent a lot of money. What exactly does he get for his efforts?

Have wondered this as well. My entirely speculative guess would be to pay someone who is a descendent of de Chambrier or has otherwise researched/inventoried/catalogued de Chambrier's collection (if there is one). Basically someone who would have some authority to say "yes this coin was part of de Chambrier's collection".

[Deinomenid]

6 minutes ago, Roerbakmix said:

Perhaps, if mr. Beales joins numisforum, we could ask him 🙂

@Roerbakmix He is a member here!

I am far from the front line  here but it was strongly  suggested to me to that what @Kaleun96 speculates is quite possible. Theoretically any of us could do the same. The aristo part adds credence I suppose to the  incredulous or those inclined to tug forelocks. Many of the most famous collectors were not purple-born, at least from the 19th century on.

I, Lord Deinomenid, hereby  promise that this 1974 US quarter has  been in my family since 1262.

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Gavin Richardson said:

I have a naive question. How does one “purchase“ a provenance? It’s obviously much more complex than just claiming a provenance. And what a provenance! “Baron Dominique de Chambrier”? He might as well have said that the coin came from “Fancy McFancypants.” I should think this kind of claim would be something easily exposed. Did this person exist? Do we have documentary evidence of the Baron owning the finest example of the world’s most famous coin? Does purchasing a provenance involve fabricating documents to that effect? Photographs? Would such paperwork be falsely antiquated as well to give the illusion of a long-standing paper trail? I understand whoever paid for the false provenance spent a lot of money. What exactly does he get for his efforts?

I would think that convincing forged documents were likely part of it.

[AmazedAncient]

I'm just a humble coin collector, not an attorney, but there seems to be several weaknesses in the New York State DA "Authorities" written charges against Mr. Beale. This comment is not intended to imply I condone misrepresentations, theft or illicit activities.

First, the Roma catalog clearly states that the coin descriptions "are the opinions of the catalogers" which would include the provenance notes. The last I checked, opinions, unlike facts, are neither true nor false.

This is why they say, "always buy the coin itself, NOT the descriptions."

Second, is a jurisdictional question. Roma clearly states that any disputes resulting from a coin in an auction shall be resolved in the "England and Wales" Courts. Just because a United Kingdom sales catalog ends up in a New York mailbox does not mean suddenly catalog "opinions" or Mr. Beale's stated comments or "opinions" are now subject to the NY State jurisdictional system. But I could be wrong...

We get catalogers from several foreign countries. If we disagree with a foreign catalog statement(s), can we simply take it up in our local US Courthouse? Perhaps if we had unlimited funds, like the NYC DA?

I refrain from mentioning the multiple DA weaknesses in fact & evidence related to the coins themselves. There are many.

Bottom line: New York City and NY State "Authorities" ("academics" too) are suspicious & unfriendly to ancient coin Collectors, for over a decade and getting worse. Suggest another more friendly State for the annual International Numismatic Convention that does not have "informants" secretly crawling around the entire bourse vicinity, inside and out. 

Doubt we'll buy or sell anything in NYS again...

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

I would think that convincing forged documents were likely part of it.

I'm not reading that into it. It seems there were two attempts to falsely attest this apparently concocted provenance. First Roma published the catalog claiming "From the collection of the Baron Dominique de Chambrier, original attestation of provenance included". The "attestation" wording suggests to me just a signed statement - signed (or purporting to have been signed) by persons unknown. Next, "informant #2"  becomes involved, sending e-mails to both Beale and Vecchi(!) "notifying" them that the provenance was false. Informant #2's authority on the matter apparently being such that Beale & Vecchi knew they'd been caught and tried to "pay" them to sign alternate false documents... maybe again nothing more than a (false) attestation, but now signed by a real person with authority over the matter.

So many questions ... who was "informant #2" and how did they become involved in this. Who's (purported) signature was on the original "attestation" Roma provided? Why did Roma apparently go though with the sale even knowing that they'd been called out on the false provenance (and having had their "payment" rejected)? How did "informant #2" end up e-mailing Vecchi in addition to Beale?! ... What a train wreck!

Edited March 8, 2023 by Heliodromus

[velarfricative]

1 hour ago, Heliodromus said:

Why did Roma apparently go though with the sale even knowing that they'd been called out on the false provenance (and having had their "payment" rejected)?

If you read closely, this is not true. It clearly says that "The defendant himself admitted that he paid for the provenance"; he did not merely attempt to pay, he succeeded in paying someone for it. Mr. Beale even went on to admit that this was "the first and only time that [he] had ever paid for provenance". So it's not simply an accusation, Beale himself admitted to the full thing, and that he paid someone for the provenance in the final sale.

[AETHER]

Sadly this will bring more negatives to the hobby. This is seems like a big deal.

[Heliodromus]

23 minutes ago, velarfricative said:

If you read closely, this is not true. It clearly says that "The defendant himself admitted that he paid for the provenance"; he did not merely attempt to pay, he succeeded in paying someone for it. Mr. Beale even went on to admit that this was "the first and only time that [he] had ever paid for provenance". So it's not simply an accusation, Beale himself admitted to the full thing, and that he paid someone for the provenance in the final sale.

But it also says that he "offered" 100,000 CHF to informant #2 to sign provenance documents, which informant #2 refused to sign". So if he really meant "paid" as opposed to "attempted to pay", maybe this refers to the original attestation that was already listed in the catalog ?

[Bailathacl]

19 minutes ago, AETHER said:

Sadly this will bring more negatives to the hobby. This is seems like a big deal.

Wondering how slippery this slippery slope problem is.  The issues here — legality and integrity — are tender spots.  

[idesofmarch01]

18 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I'm pretty sure, however, that if the country in question can provide contrary evidence disproving such certifications, or can prove that despite such certifications, a coin or artifact was, in fact, stolen -- for example, from a museum -- it can still assert a claim, depending on the applicable statute of limitations, even if the theft occurred and the item was exported from that country more than 10 years ago.

Here's the issue that still disturbs me about the ADA's filing: While the filing asserts that the two coins (Eid Mar aureus and Naxos tetradrachm) are "Stolen Property," this assertion appears to be based solely on information from the ADA's informants (mainly Informant #2) and is not supported in the filing by any factual information (e.g., "it appears the Eid Mar aureus was part of the looted Gaza Hoard" or something similar).  Nor is it factually supported by any entity claiming ownership of these two coins.  Rather, it seems that the ADA is asserting ownership of the coins by the countries from which the coins would have originated, mainly based on both coins' lack of provenance, therefore they must be stolen.

The fraudulent provenance is a different matter -- it has been admitted factually by Mr. Beale and verified independently by Informant #2 -- but it doesn't necessarily prove that the coins were stolen.  At best, it seems to support the conclusion that Mr. Beale can't prove these coins weren't stolen from their countries of origin.  This isn't the same as proving they actually were stolen.

So my concern is that any coin that lacks a provenance, especially high-value coins that would produce equally high-profile publicity for an ADA -- is fair game for a legal entity to assert that it's stolen ("You can't produce a verifiable provenance, can you?").  Am I the only one who has this concern?

It's possible that the ADA is withholding information proving that the coins were actually stolen, or factually supporting their ownership by entities other than Beale and Vecchi, but this seems unlikely.  Are there further legal explanations and subtleties about the coins' ownership that I'm missing here?

[AETHER]

17 minutes ago, Bailathacl said:

Wondering how slippery this slippery slope problem is.  The issues here — legality and integrity — are tender spots.  

Integrity is the one I'm concerned about, a forged pedigree is scary and concerning. 

[DonnaML]

31 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

Here's the issue that still disturbs me about the ADA's filing: While the filing asserts that the two coins (Eid Mar aureus and Naxos tetradrachm) are "Stolen Property," this assertion appears to be based solely on information from the ADA's informants (mainly Informant #2) and is not supported in the filing by any factual information (e.g., "it appears the Eid Mar aureus was part of the looted Gaza Hoard" or something similar).  Nor is it factually supported by any entity claiming ownership of these two coins.  Rather, it seems that the ADA is asserting ownership of the coins by the countries from which the coins would have originated, mainly based on both coins' lack of provenance, therefore they must be stolen.

The fraudulent provenance is a different matter -- it has been admitted factually by Mr. Beale and verified independently by Informant #2 -- but it doesn't necessarily prove that the coins were stolen.  At best, it seems to support the conclusion that Mr. Beale can't prove these coins weren't stolen from their countries of origin.  This isn't the same as proving they actually were stolen.

So my concern is that any coin that lacks a provenance, especially high-value coins that would produce equally high-profile publicity for an ADA -- is fair game for a legal entity to assert that it's stolen ("You can't produce a verifiable provenance, can you?").  Am I the only one who has this concern?

It's possible that the ADA is withholding information proving that the coins were actually stolen, or factually supporting their ownership by entities other than Beale and Vecchi, but this seems unlikely.  Are methere further legal explanations and subtleties about the coins' ownership that I'm missing here?

They certainly aren't required to disclose all their evidence publicly in the charging documents! At a certain time before trial they have to disclose all of it to the defense. Not to the public.

[Heliodromus]

16 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

The fraudulent provenance is a different matter -- it has been admitted factually by Mr. Beale and verified independently by Informant #2 -- but it doesn't necessarily prove that the coins were stolen.  At best, it seems to support the conclusion that Mr. Beale can't prove these coins weren't stolen from their countries of origin.  This isn't the same as proving they actually were stolen.

Agreed - the eid mar was apparently already in the US back in 2015, and any known theft of such a high profile coin would have been widely reported. It does seem quite likely that the original finder had no legal right to it, and that it was therefore illegally exported from whatever country it was found in, but even that would not be the same as saying that Beale stole it. Maybe Beale/Vecchi do know where it originated from, or maybe it was obtained by Vecchi from a 3rd party "no questions asked" as to origin, but it certainly appears as if the authorities have no idea. As far as repatriation, then to where?! If authorities can prove where the eid mar coins were minted then maybe they can write a paper on it to enlighten us! If they have clairvoyant abilities to know where the original owner of the coin (one of Brutus' soldiers, perhaps?) lost it, whether in Greece or in another country, then that would be another fascinating read.

Of course none of this diminishes the hit to Roma's reputation... does kind of put all those "From a private European collection" descriptions in a new light ...

 

[red_spork]

2 hours ago, idesofmarch01 said:

So my concern is that any coin that lacks a provenance, especially high-value coins that would produce equally high-profile publicity for an ADA -- is fair game for a legal entity to assert that it's stolen ("You can't produce a verifiable provenance, can you?").  Am I the only one who has this concern?

This is my biggest unanswered question and my biggest worry here. If the case was just about known-to-be-looted coins and an allegedly fake provenance, that's pretty standard stolen property and fraud stuff. If instead the "stolen" bit hinges entirely on the lack of provenance then that's quite worrying indeed.