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

[Kaleun96]

25 minutes ago, red_spork said:

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. 

What's the burden of proof etc like for the MOUs? Do you need to demonstrate that the coin meets the conditions of the MOU upon importing it into the US, and can that be as simple as "I was told by the seller it had been outside X country for more than 10 years"?

What I'm wondering, but completely lacking in knowledge, is whether proof that the supplied provenance is false (for a coin being imported) would then automatically default to the coin being subject to the MOUs and thus deemed stolen property of the relevant country with the MOU.

In other words, if you lie about the origin of the coin and you have no other proof that the coin is legal in terms of the MOU, then it is considered to be stolen on the balance of probabilities. No idea if the law would work like that in this case though, or what burden of proof (and on which party) is necessary for the MOUs.

[red_spork]

Just now, Kaleun96 said:

What's the burden of proof etc like for the MOUs? Do you need to demonstrate that the coin meets the conditions of the MOU upon importing it into the US, and can that be as simple as "I was told by the seller it had been outside X country for more than 10 years"?

What I'm wondering, but completely lacking in knowledge, is whether proof that the supplied provenance is false (for a coin being imported) would then automatically default to the coin being subject to the MOUs and thus deemed stolen property of the relevant country with the MOU.

In other words, if you lie about the origin of the coin and you have no other proof that the coin is legal in terms of the MOU, then it is considered to be stolen on the balance of probabilities. No idea if the law would work like that in this case though, or what burden of proof (and on which party) is necessary for the MOUs.

So, a few things here. First, the MOUs are not criminal law. The MOU status of an object does not make it stolen property, it simply means CBP can seize it but nothing in the MOUs allow any sort of criminal penalties related to a seizure.

As far as proof for the MOUs in theory, you need not demonstrate anything - a sworn statement should be enough(of course that does nothing if there's evidence it's untrue). But the MOUs do not apply here at least as concerns the Eid Mar Aureus because the Greek MOU only covers coins in silver and bronze. If the aureus was minted in Greece(debatable, but I think likely, and the prosecution docs seem to suggest that's what they think too), then the MOU doesn't cover it. I looked through the whole MOU - nothing in it applies to gold coins at all. Here's how the section describing Roman coins struck in Greece starts:

 

In general for the MOUs the burden of proof is on the importer who either needs to provide some evidence of provenance or a sworn statement if a shipment is stopped. 

[Kaleun96]

1 minute ago, red_spork said:

So, a few things here. First, the MOUs are not criminal law. The MOU status of an object does not make it stolen property, it simply means CBP can seize it but nothing in the MOUs allow any sort of criminal penalties related to a seizure.

As far as proof for the MOUs in theory, you need not demonstrate anything - a sworn statement should be enough(of course that does nothing if there's evidence it's untrue). But the MOUs do not apply here at least as concerns the Eid Mar Aureus because the Greek MOU only covers coins in silver and bronze. If the aureus was minted in Greece(debatable, but I think likely, and the prosecution docs seem to suggest that's what they think too), then the MOU doesn't cover it. I looked through the whole MOU - nothing in it applies to gold coins at all. Here's how the section describing Roman coins struck in Greece starts:

 

In general for the MOUs the burden of proof is on the importer who either needs to provide some evidence of provenance or a sworn statement if a shipment is stopped. 

Thanks for clearing that up. So it sounds like the DA has to have some direct evidence of the coin having been stolen/looted if they are to have any chance of those grand larceny and CPSP charges sticking. Falling back on a lack of provenance for evidence of theft wouldn't get the job done, it seems.

I wonder if they decided not to mention this evidence due to Italo Vecchi being a co-conspirator and not in their custody (i.e. hasn't given a statement, presumably). They may want to hold that back until they can interview him and see if he contradicts what they know.

 

[Spaniard]

Wow!...6 pages on what might be or not!...Maybe everyone should just wait for the final verdict!?

[Kaleun96]

14 minutes ago, Spaniard said:

Wow!...6 pages on what might be or not!...Maybe everyone should just wait for the final verdict!?

Beale has already admitted to much of what he is accused of, according to the affidavit. Sure, that's not a conviction but it's significant information that is useful to know for those considering bidding/selling with Roma given the risks to the company.

You're free to ignore this thread and wait for a verdict if you prefer. I don't see why there is any need to though, just try to balance the information provided in the affidavit and elsewhere with the known facts and supplemental information to the case (e.g. prosecution history of this DA).

The discussion we're in the middle of touches on this very point; the fraud/conspiracy charges do not look good but there isn't any solid evidence presented for grand larceny. So one might put more weight on the fraud/conspiracy charges resulting in a conviction than the grand larceny/CPSP charges at this stage.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Kaleun96

[red_spork]

11 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

So it sounds like the DA has to have some direct evidence of the coin having been stolen/looted if they are to have any chance of those grand larceny and CPSP charges sticking. Falling back on a lack of provenance for evidence of theft wouldn't get the job done, it seems.

Possibly. Or they are simply attempting to argue that all the evidence and actions point to it likely being stolen or possibly just that the defendant believed it to be stolen based on his actions - many crimes in the US have an element of "knew or should have known" that can in some cases make a party guilty of a certain crime like possession of stolen property when property is not stolen but it can be proven that the defendant believed it was. Famously in the case of Arnold Peter Weiss even though the coins were declared fake he still technically plead guilty to the attempt to commit certain crimes.

Ultimately it's hard to understand exactly where that charge comes from. Hopefully we get some clarification. I would really like to know if this is some new legal theory being tested and applied to antiquities or a more germane, straightforward case they intend to argue.

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

11 minutes ago, Spaniard said:

Wow!...6 pages on what might be or not!...Maybe everyone should just wait for the final verdict!?

While I agree that no condemnation should be said to date, I do find the charges warranting of concern. I will not bid or do other business with Roma again unless the charges are dismissed or acquitted.
 

While it is important to understand the case is not settled and that the public evidence currently existing is limited, I do not support unethical coin collecting or dealing. The charges and admission of guilt to be found already are seemingly damning. The end result of this prosecution will show the whole truth. 

[Spaniard]

Just now, TheTrachyEnjoyer said:

The end result of this prosecution will show the whole truth. 

Exactly!...Hopefully?

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

2 minutes ago, Spaniard said:

Exactly!...Hopefully?

Hopefully?

Its an unbiased court of law. The evidence that currently exists is what evidence currently exists. Either enough is present to convict Beale or he is exonerated and presumed to be innocent. 

[Spaniard]

Yep that always works!

[Deinomenid]

1 hour ago, Spaniard said:

Wow!...6 pages on what might be or not!...Maybe everyone should just wait for the final verdict!?

Spaniard, I don't think it's so  simple as wait for  justice to  be done.  Whether you  think  she is blind or not.

There are  important aspects for members of this community who consign and who purchase, and there are  CLEARLY scenarios where they get caught up in a bankruptcy. This could be from external events as we are discussing or even in the case of "not  guilty"  members have carefully explained why there is risk of voluntary bankruptcy, which is legally allowed in the UK.  You get yourself caught up in that, good luck. You'll  need it back there at the back of the queue.

That's  not me  opining on the legality of what's been apparently  done, let alone morality, or the increased chance of  political  interference in an already troubled area etc, or a broader concern about faked/bought provenances or a  potential shadow  over coins we own that were sourced from this house,  or the host of directly relevant issues others here think (rightly) are of concern.

And yes I own a coin from the "Italo Vecchi collection" argh! In a slightly different  price  bracket thankfully. Sourced "from the inventory of  a UK dealer", no less!

 

 

 

 

[DLTcoins]

I'm out of the loop these days but I recall a conversation in 2008 or so, after-hours at NYINC, with a high-profile young dealer who explained to me that he was getting out of the retail side of ancient numismatics and moving to the services side because, he said, "The handwriting is on the wall".

In 2012, again at NYINC, I had just arrived back at the Waldorf from a visit to the ANS library downtown when I learned that police had raided one of the auction previews only minutes before, confiscated marquee coins and made an arrest. The chilling effect on the rest of the show was palpable.

This 'chilling effect' on the art world is the underlying motivation, in my opinion. It's all about sound bites, headlines, and the anti-collecting agenda.

Edited March 9, 2023 by DLTcoins

[DonnaML]

This is from someone's comment at Coin Talk -- a member who lives in France who declined to join this forum. Had anyone previously heard about anything like this? I certainly hadn't before now. And remember that in a thread I started a while back asking which dealers people purchased the most ancient coins from in 2022, Roma was #1 by a wide margin. So I doubt that many of us knew anything negative.

"I personally don't know Mr Beale, never met him, never bought anything from Roma Numismatics, but I know that the firm has been ill-reputed for some time now. Some major bidders (top collectors, public institutions) refrain from bidding for extremely rare and important coins auctioned by Roma, for they don't trust their catalogues, the alleged provenances, and suspect the sale could be found illegal some day. In London, Roma Numismatics employees (even Richard Beale himself probably) have been warned. Questions were asked by journalists and academics, but the only answer they got was: "prove it".

In London the laws are in favour of unlawful cultural property concealers and handlers. I know a London collector who possessed in full light two objects stolen from antiquities storage facilities, which was proved by photographs, but had the right to keep them just by pretending he had bought them not knowing their origin.

This is why Richard Beale was arrested in New York, when he could quietly run his business in London, laughing at those who dared ask questions. Same for the person from whom he had bought looted coins, "a convicted antiquities trafficker, who is known to the District Attorney's Office", a guy who used to run his business in the USA, was caught and convicted some years ago, after what he moved to Canada and carried on his business in London, where it's safer to do it."

Edited March 9, 2023 by DonnaML

[DonnaML]

Here is a Coin Talk thread from two years ago in which it was implied that Roma engages in certain shady practices relating to provenance (and Richard Beale vigorously defended himself). The thread has suddenly become more interesting in retrospect:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/from-the-collection-of-an-antiquarian-bavaria-c-1960s-1990s.377501/#post-7270198

 

 

[DonnaML]

Also, I went back and looked at the auction description of the Eid Mar aureus from back in 2020, and indeed it seems to be the case that there was no actual documentation of provenance provided with the coin; only an "attestation" of the alleged ownership history:

"From the collection of the Baron Dominique de Chambrier, original attestation of provenance included;
Ex collection of Bernard de Chambrier (1878-1963) and Marie Alvine Irma von Bonstetten (1893-1968);
Ex collection of the Baron Gustave Charles Ferdinand von Bonstetten, Chamberlain to Ferdinand I, Emperor of Austria.
Marie Alvine Irma von Bonstetten was daughter of Gustave August Arthur Albert von Bonstetten (1864-1935), the founder of the 'Automobile Club Suisse' in 1898, and great-niece of Gustave Charles Ferdinand von Bonstetten (1816-1892), who was a distinguished antiquarian and collector who published many articles in the Recueil d'antiquités suisses (1855, 1860 and 1867) and L'Essai sur les dolmens (Geneva, 1865), an authoritative study on European dolmens erected between the 5th millennium BC and the end of the 3rd millennium BC. Later, Gustave Charles Ferdinand von Bonstetten worked as an independent researcher and carried out archaeological excavations in both Switzerland and France. In 1873 he donated a part of his important collection to the 'Antiquarium of Bern' and his collection formed the basis of the Bernisches Historisches Museum. The Musée Romain of Avenches also owns pieces from his collection."

In other words, a lot of fancy-sounding gobbledygook and hot air including capsule biographies of people who apparently really existed, but no suggestion that there was a shred of actual documentation proving that any of those people ever owned, bought, or sold the coin -- no drawings, no photos, no catalogs, no bills of sale, no collection inventories, no memoirs, no references in dusty old Swiss or Austrian numismatic or antiquarian journals, no nothing. I don't care if I were a billionaire; there's no way I'd spend millions of dollars on anything without more proof than someone's "attestation." Especially now that we know it's possible for a dealer to pay for such an attestation to be fabricated out of whole cloth. And especially because none of the standard online reference works about von Bonstetten even hint that he had any interest in numismatics or collected coins -- never mind had an Eid Mar aureus in his back pocket! See https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/fr/articles/010434/2004-06-07/ ; https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Charles_Ferdinand_de_Bonstetten .

Note also that Paul Barford -- no friend of the collecting community, to put it mildly! -- has apparently been reading this thread:  see  http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2023/03/beware-ides-of-march.html .

Edited March 9, 2023 by DonnaML

[Kaleun96]

2 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Note also that Paul Barford -- no friend of the collecting community, to put it mildly! -- has apparently been reading this thread:  see  http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2023/03/beware-ides-of-march.html .

I find it funny that he copied part of one of my comments nearly word-for-word without attributing it to me and seems to be refusing to publish my comment on his blog pointing that out.

edit: my comment on the left, his on the right:

Edited March 9, 2023 by Kaleun96

[DANTE]

Sad news. If only because Roma was one of my favourite auction houses. Not least because I believed they really tried to live up to a certain ethical standard. So I'm really disappointed here. I suppose many feel the same way.

And there's a wry irony in the fact that this news comes only days after I received my first coin purchase in almost a year. And where did I buy it? Yes, of course, Roma. Where else? But hey, my coin is good, it's provenanced to 'a private UK collection'. So no worries...  Besides, they're dedicated to ethical provenance, they say. It says so under every coin they sell. So, really, I'm good...🙂

'Our commitment to ethical and responsible provenance: the consignor affirms that this auction lot is their lawful property to sell, and where cultural property restrictions may exist, that it meets the requirements to be legally imported into the United States and Germany unless specifically stated otherwise'.

 

[DANTE]

1 minute ago, Kaleun96 said:

I find it funny that he copied part of one of my comments nearly word-for-word without attributing it to me and seems to be refusing to publish my comment on his blog pointing that out.

Ah, yet another fake provenance...🙂

Edited March 9, 2023 by DANTE

[NewStyleKing]

I always doubted the Eid mar's provenance, I just didn't see how the "most famous ancient coin in the world" could be essentially lying in an obscure collection, unknown to the small coin world.  I was not bothered by the doubt  only amused.  How do you find a singular coin? How would you know where to dig? The mint site of the Eid Mar is unknown.  Just a lucky find?

[John Conduitt]

5 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Here is a Coin Talk thread from two years ago in which it was implied that Roma engages in certain shady practices relating to provenance (and Richard Beale vigorously defended himself). The thread has suddenly become more interesting in retrospect:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/from-the-collection-of-an-antiquarian-bavaria-c-1960s-1990s.377501/#post-7270198

 

 

I was looking for this,thank you. I think there was another discussion about the US authorities looking into Roma at the time of the Eid Mar sale, but I can't remember.

[John Conduitt]

5 hours ago, DonnaML said:

This is from someone's comment at Coin Talk -- a member who lives in France who declined to join this forum. Had anyone previously heard about anything like this? I certainly hadn't before now. And remember that in a thread I started a while back asking which dealers people purchased the most ancient coins from in 2022, Roma was #1 by a wide margin. So I doubt that many of us knew anything negative.

"I personally don't know Mr Beale, never met him, never bought anything from Roma Numismatics, but I know that the firm has been ill-reputed for some time now. Some major bidders (top collectors, public institutions) refrain from bidding for extremely rare and important coins auctioned by Roma, for they don't trust their catalogues, the alleged provenances, and suspect the sale could be found illegal some day. In London, Roma Numismatics employees (even Richard Beale himself probably) have been warned. Questions were asked by journalists and academics, but the only answer they got was: "prove it".

In London the laws are in favour of unlawful cultural property concealers and handlers. I know a London collector who possessed in full light two objects stolen from antiquities storage facilities, which was proved by photographs, but had the right to keep them just by pretending he had bought them not knowing their origin.

This is why Richard Beale was arrested in New York, when he could quietly run his business in London, laughing at those who dared ask questions. Same for the person from whom he had bought looted coins, "a convicted antiquities trafficker, who is known to the District Attorney's Office", a guy who used to run his business in the USA, was caught and convicted some years ago, after what he moved to Canada and carried on his business in London, where it's safer to do it."

I'm pretty sure UK law is not "in favour of unlawful cultural property concealers and handlers". If something can be shown to be looted, you can be prosecuted. The authorities do prosecute, as they did recently when a Saxon hoard was sold without being reported. Some people might appear to get away with it - although I seem to remember there was an antiquities dealer selling looted and fake artefacts in New York for decades before they were prosecuted.

You will also be prosecuted if you sell anything under false pretences e.g. with a fake provenance. But I think that might be considered a civil law matter, so for that to happen, a complaint usually needs to be raised by the buyer with the authorities. As I understand it, that might be what's happened in New York.

Just because the UK doesn't confiscate people's property without evidence, doesn't mean the laws favour 'cultural property concealers and handlers'. (Especially 'unlawful' ones, who, by definition, are operating against the law).

[Kaleun96]

5 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

I find it funny that he copied part of one of my comments nearly word-for-word without attributing it to me and seems to be refusing to publish my comment on his blog pointing that out.

edit: my comment on the left, his on the right:

I guess he has a habit of doing this as his latest blog post has also lifted quite a lot of the text from a comment left on CoinTalk. It seems he doesn't rewrite the posts from scratch, instead he just copies them across and maybe changes a word or phrase here and there. It's also not a sign of great journalism when he says "it is reported that the house of the palestinian trafficker in gaza has been raided", when that is what the post he is copying is saying. So he's merely reporting that someone else reported that supposedly the trafficker's house has been raided. He links to the CoinTalk comment as if he's citing that report, but he's only citing the report of the report 😆

[Heliodromus]

5 hours ago, DANTE said:

But hey, my coin is good, it's provenanced to 'a private UK collection'. So no worries... 

Yes, you just need a translation guide to understand what that means. I've seen couple of times coins sold on eBay appear 6 months later on Roma "From a private English collection". Not too long ago they sold a gold coin, sold on Violity 6 months prior, (now on Roma with extensive undisclosed "repair" work done to it) as "From a private North European collection", and so it goes ... I guess if you apply Bill Clnton's "I did not have sex with that woman" parsing of the english language then it's not technically untrue ... 🙄

[NewStyleKing]

No other examples on Coinarchives.  From a UK private collection.  The 4th one only known, after the ANS, Kilikis Macedonia  Hoard and the Demetrios l Hoard, Turkey. I wonder who was the UK private collector expert in Athens New Style? I thought it was Andrew Meadows and then me! Again, as with the Gold Eid Mar I was a little suspect of the provenance...where had such a rarity been hiding..otherwise it goes with what I have always said that collectors are often not interested in the coins themselves but a secret squirrel type of one-up man ship, pointlessly self satisfying, only one step up from the Museo Archaeolgica Chieti.

Shall I contact the DA? Will I get a free holiday in NYNY..." # it's a hell of a place" I am led to understand.

 

[Johnnie B]

Forgive my ignorance but what happens to the buyer in this situation? Do they have the Eid Mar in hand already? Depending on where they are located, and the MOU between countries, I assume they could keep the coin despite the fabricated provenance.