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

[velarfricative]

13 minutes ago, sand said:

 

I haven't noticed any text, which says that Mr. Beale knew that the provenance was fraudulent. Perhaps I've missed it. The only text, that I've seen, says that Mr. Beale paid for provenance. I see that Informant #2 said to Mr. Beale, that the provenance was false. However, perhaps Mr. Beale did not believe Informant #2. Perhaps Mr. Beale believed that the provenance was correct.

Ultimately, it hardly matters; because he admitted to faking provenances in a separate instance, anyway. It literally says "According to the defendant, this provenance is false." in regards to the Gaza hoard coins. It doesn't matter what mental gymnastics you do, he's pretty openly admitted to lying about provenance here.

Edited March 10 by velarfricative

[DonnaML]

I hope for his sake that Mr. Beale's lawyers are better than certain posters here at dreaming up scenarios, hopefully sufficient to create reasonable doubt, under which maybe perhaps possibly he didn't know that the provenance for which he paid such a large sum was false. Remember, the doubt has to be "reasonable"!

Edited March 10 by DonnaML

[sand]

12 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Informant #2 is Provenance Person 1 in your example, and Owner 1 is Baron Dominique de Chambrier.

I haven't seen any text, which says that the person, whom Mr. Beale actually paid for the provenance, is Informant #2. Perhaps I've missed it. Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2 for provenance, but perhaps Mr. Beale actually paid someone else (not Informant #2) for the provenance.

11 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Then why did he try to pay Informant #2 to attest to the provenance after the informant had told Beale that the provenance was incorrect?

According to the text, which I have read (see below), the following is true. "The informant" (call him/her "Informant #1") and "Informant #2" are 2 different persons. According to Informant #2, Informant #1 told Mr. Beale that the provenance from Provenance Person 1 is false. Then, Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2, a sum of 100,000 swiss francs, if Informant #2 would sign provenance documents. However, it doesn't say, that Informant #2 said to Mr. Beale, that the provenance from Provenance Person 1 is false, before Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2 for provenance.

[sand]

P.S. : There seem to be a lot of holes, in the publicly available information, regarding the Eid Mar and the Sicily Naxos coin. Because of the holes, I don't know, if Mr. Beale is guilty of any criminal activity, with regard to the Eid Mar and the Sicily Naxos coin. Perhaps the holes will be filled in, during the trial.

[Steppenfool]

It appears to my untrained eye that the outlook is not good for the defendant. With that said, I'm surprised there has been so much legal discussion surrounding the case. In my experience following previous high profile cases, legal speculation at this point is mostly wasted time because much more information will come to light in the future. At that point we will all be able to have more informed opinions. This is without even considering the potential for bungled prosections/defences, inadmissable evidence, vacillating witnesses or other strange events that can occur in the legal process.

I think a better use of our thoughts would be to decide whether we will bid in the upcoming Roma Auction and whether we consider issues such as these ethically significant. To me, the ethics of this situation are multi-faceted and murky. People have weighed in appropriately regarding the ethical/legal debate surrounding the trade of ancient coins. Therefore, I will simply make my life easy and follow the law. If Roma is allowed to continue to operate, I will probably continue to bid.

 

 

[Dafydd]

`Whatever way you look at this, it is disconcerting to our hobby.

Over recent years I put together a Marc Antony Legate collection and during its assembly I bought duplicates and consigned them to Roma together with a number of Republican duplicates and some surplus English hammered coins. I questioned some very low estimates but was told that this was to attract bidders.

My dilemma  is that, my mainly mundane coins, are being auctioned on the 28th March.  One or two coins were, I felt , better suited to a main auction including a Replicon Drachma but I respected their opinion.

I have a dilemma now, do I pull my consignment and consign to Switzerland or Germany where I may receive crazy prices or do I keep them with Roma? I asked last week what terms would be if I did not take cash but accepted a credit on other coins as I wanted to improve my collection. 

I have not had an answer to my query and over the past two months response to my status enquiries have been slow. 

I feel that this discussion will certainly dissuade some collectors on this forum from bidding until at least May when the case will be heard but in the interim,  my value could be prejudiced.  Is it business as normal or is there a potential downside that I may not be paid?  I deal professionally with distressed businesses and have real concerns in a situation in which we are considering millions of dollars of liability but also appreciate that "knee jerk" action can precipitate a negative scenario in which many could suffer.

I am minded, because of slow communications, to withdraw my lots subject to checking the contract I have but would welcome any views. 

I respect the opinion of  @DonnaML  which is rational and based on a legal background.

My 20 coins were consigned at the end of November.

Edited March 10 by Dafydd
typo

[Hesiod]

13 minutes ago, sand said:

However, it doesn't say, that Informant #2 said to Mr. Beale, that the provenance from Provenance Person 1 is false, before Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2 for provenance.

No, informant #2 reached out to Beale by email after the sale was public, about two weeks before the sale. Thus, this offer of 100k francs should come after this contact and should be in response to them saying that the provenance from Provenance Person 1 is false. Informant #1 doesn't seem to factor into this specific provenance creation loop at all.

[Kaleun96]

20 minutes ago, sand said:

I haven't seen any text, which says that the person, whom Mr. Beale actually paid for the provenance, is Informant #2. Perhaps I've missed it. Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2 for provenance, but perhaps Mr. Beale actually paid someone else (not Informant #2) for the provenance.

According to the text, which I have read (see below), the following is true. "The informant" (call him/her "Informant #1") and "Informant #2" are 2 different persons. According to Informant #2, Informant #1 told Mr. Beale that the provenance from Provenance Person 1 is false. Then, Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2, a sum of 100,000 swiss francs, if Informant #2 would sign provenance documents. However, it doesn't say, that Informant #2 said to Mr. Beale, that the provenance from Provenance Person 1 is false, before Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2 for provenance.

You are very mistaken, it is the same informant mentioned throughout this paragraph. The Special Agent has precisely numbered each informant throughout the affidavit. He would number the other informant if they were introduced in this sentence and he would also capitalise "informant" because it would then be a proper noun referring to a specific person, rather than just a noun. Since it is the same informant which is the subject throughout, he has left "informant" lowercase in that instance.

"According to Informant #2, when the informant [i.e. Informant #2] told Vecchi and the defendant that the provenance was false, Vecchi and the defendant offered 100,00 Swiss francs for Informant #2 to sign provenance documents, which Informant #2 refused to sign".

You are really bending over backwards to find some excuse for Beale when the language of the paragraph is quite clear.

[idesofmarch01]

47 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Then why did he try to pay Informant #2 to attest to the provenance after the informant had told Beale that the provenance was incorrect?

Informant #2 didn't tell Beale that the provenance was "incorrect" -- he told him that it was false:

If Beale believed the provenance wasn't false, why wouldn't he just reassert his professional opinion that it was true and ignore Informant #2's opinion?  Logically, the answer is that Beale knew the provenance was false and hoped that Informant #2 would sign the false provenance document or possibly even provide his own (false) signed provenance.

I really don't understand your interpretation of the ADA's filing.  Is your viewpoint on this filing that somehow Beale was duped into believing the false provenance, for which he had paid, and was only trying to get a true provenance for the coins by offering Informant #2 CHF 100,000?

[DonnaML]

31 minutes ago, sand said:

I haven't seen any text, which says that the person, whom Mr. Beale actually paid for the provenance, is Informant #2. Perhaps I've missed it. Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2 for provenance, but perhaps Mr. Beale actually paid someone else (not Informant #2) for the provenance.

According to the text, which I have read (see below), the following is true. "The informant" (call him/her "Informant #1") and "Informant #2" are 2 different persons. According to Informant #2, Informant #1 told Mr. Beale that the provenance from Provenance Person 1 is false. Then, Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2, a sum of 100,000 swiss francs, if Informant #2 would sign provenance documents. However, it doesn't say, that Informant #2 said to Mr. Beale, that the provenance from Provenance Person 1 is false, before Mr. Beale offered to pay Informant #2 for provenance.

No. The small "i" informant referred to in the third line from the bottom is, in fact, Informant #2, who had informed Beale and Vecchi that the provenance was false (see @Hesiod's post above), and is referred to as such in order to avoid using male or female pronouns. And "when" in that sentence, as in "when the informant," = "after."

Edited March 10 by DonnaML

[idesofmarch01]

Just now, DonnaML said:

No. The small "i" informant referred to in the third line from the bottom is, in fact, Informant #2, who had informed Beale and Vecchi that the provenance was false (see @Hesiod's post below), and is referred to as such in order to avoid using male or female pronouns. And "when" in that sentence, as in "when the informant," = "after."

Thanks.  That's what I assumed as well.

 

[Deinomenid]

13 minutes ago, Dafydd said:

  Is it business as normal or is there a potential downside that I may not be paid? 

@DafyddThere's  no chance it is business as  normal. None.

You have 2 main risks -

1) This  whole shambles puts off bidders.  That's a  judgement call. In my view at the margin it will and  at the margin is where prices are often (not always of course) set.  Against that there's a chance this will attract so many  bottom-fishers that it works the other way. I wouldn't bet on it.

2) At some point between now and when you would get paid for the sold coins there's a bankruptcy. For whatever reason. You are screwed, either short-term (waiting to get your assets (coins  or cash) back  or permanently if your  clearly junior  claim is too far down the line to be met.

 

[Kaleun96]

6 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

Informant #2 didn't tell Beale that the provenance was "incorrect" -- he told him that it was false:

I believe "incorrect" can be synonymous for "false". I've also described it as "false" multiple times.

Quote

 If Beale believed the provenance wasn't false, why wouldn't he just reassert his professional opinion that it was true and ignore Informant #2's opinion?  Logically, the answer is that Beale knew the provenance was false and hoped that Informant #2 would sign the false provenance document or possibly even provide his own (false) signed provenance.

I really don't understand your interpretation of the ADA's filing.  Is your viewpoint on this filing that somehow Beale was duped into believing the false provenance, for which he had paid, and was only trying to get a true provenance for the coins by offering Informant #2 CHF 100,000

🤨No, and I haven't said anything like that. I'm not sure where you got that from. This entire time I've been arguing that Beale knew the provenance was false as is stated in the affidavit. I think you've misread my posts in my attempt to explain the affidavit in plain language for sand and AmazedAncient.

It's difficult to say where you got that impression from though since you don't quote me except for saying "incorrect" instead of false. I only said Beale published the provenance before Informant #2 told him it was false.

Edited March 10 by Kaleun96

[Heliodromus]

13 minutes ago, Dafydd said:

I am minded, because of slow communications, to withdraw my lots subject to checking the contract I have but would welcome any views. 

I wonder how many auction bidders will even be aware of this - how many read numisformums or any other news source where such things might be discussed. I get the impression that those of us in the hobby that actually participate in online discussions are the very small minority.

I don't see this as likely to cause Roma to disappear or declare bankrruptcy, even if they do end up having to reimburse or compensate the buyer. it's not even clear who would be liable for any such reimbursement - Beale/Vecchi personally, or Roma Numis. LLC.

It's hard to see any of these felony theft charges sticking, so it seems the real impact here will be a huge hit to the reputation of Roma/Beale, at least among those who care. It seems an extraordinarily arrogant and stupid way to shoot oneself in the foot, after the company managed to quickly gain reputation as a top venue.

[idesofmarch01]

4 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

No, and I haven't said anything like that. I'm not sure where you got that from. This entire time I've been arguing that Beale knew the provenance was false as is stated in the affidavit. I think you've misread my posts in my attempt to explain the affidavit in plain language for sand and AmazedAncient.

 

Sorry, in the second part of my post ("I really don't understand your interpretation of the ADA's filing.  Is your viewpoint on this filing that somehow Beale was duped into believing the false provenance, for which he had paid, and was only trying to get a true provenance for the coins by offering Informant #2 CHF 100,000?") I should have specifically responded to Sand, not you.  I mixed two responses in one post and didn't clarify this.  Mea culpa.

But while I'll defer to DonnaML's opinion on this, "incorrect" and "false" certainly aren't equivalent, especially in a legal sense.

[Deinomenid]

6 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

I wonder how many auction bidders will even be aware of this - how many read numisformums or any other news source where such things might be discussed. I get the impression that those of us in the hobby that actually participate in online discussions are the very small minority.

I don't  know the answer but it's been widely discussed in most of the other main coin forums (English language for sure),  German too where @Prieure de Sion started a lively discussion, French etc, though the main Italian site is fairly quiet on it. Not silent. That doesn't mean you are incorrect at all about  us being a minority,  but it is getting  plenty of "airtime" across most bidding countries. (Don't speak any Asian languages so I'm excluding them!)

[Kaleun96]

12 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

Sorry, in the second part of my post ("I really don't understand your interpretation of the ADA's filing.  Is your viewpoint on this filing that somehow Beale was duped into believing the false provenance, for which he had paid, and was only trying to get a true provenance for the coins by offering Informant #2 CHF 100,000?") I should have specifically responded to Sand, not you.  I mixed two responses in one post and didn't clarify this.  Mea culpa.

But while I'll defer to DonnaML's opinion on this, "incorrect" and "false" certainly aren't equivalent, especially in a legal sense.

Ah ha, that makes much more sense. I was so confused 😅

[El Cazador]

35 minutes ago, Deinomenid said:

@DafyddThere's  no chance it is business as  normal. None.

You have 2 main risks -

1) This  whole shambles puts off bidders.  That's a  judgement call. In my view at the margin it will and  at the margin is where prices are often (not always of course) set.  Against that there's a chance this will attract so many  bottom-fishers that it works the other way. I wouldn't bet on it.

2) At some point between now and when you would get paid for the sold coins there's a bankruptcy. For whatever reason. You are screwed, either short-term (waiting to get your assets (coins  or cash) back  or permanently if your  clearly junior  claim is too far down the line to be met.

 

Which is great for bidders

[Deinomenid]

10 minutes ago, El Cazador said:

Which is great for bidders

He's a seller

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Dafydd said:

`Whatever way you look at this, it is disconcerting to our hobby.

Over recent years I put together a Marc Antony Legate collection and during its assembly I bought duplicates and consigned them to Roma together with a number of Republican duplicates and some surplus English hammered coins. I questioned some very low estimates but was told that this was to attract bidders.

My dilemma  is that, my mainly mundane coins, are being auctioned on the 28th March.  One or two coins were, I felt , better suited to a main auction including a Replicon Drachma but I respected their opinion.

I have a dilemma now, do I pull my consignment and consign to Switzerland or Germany where I may receive crazy prices or do I keep them with Roma? I asked last week what terms would be if I did not take cash but accepted a credit on other coins as I wanted to improve my collection. 

I have not had an answer to my query and over the past two months response to my status enquiries have been slow. 

I feel that this discussion will certainly dissuade some collectors on this forum from bidding until at least May when the case will be heard but in the interim,  my value could be prejudiced.  Is it business as normal or is there a potential downside that I may not be paid?  I deal professionally with distressed businesses and have real concerns in a situation in which we are considering millions of dollars of liability but also appreciate that "knee jerk" action can precipitate a negative scenario in which many could suffer.

I am minded, because of slow communications, to withdraw my lots subject to checking the contract I have but would welcome any views. 

I respect the opinion of  @DonnaML  which is rational and based on a legal background.

My 20 coins were consigned at the end of November.

@Dafydd, I don't think it's very likely that anything like bankruptcy is likely to happen in the near future that would prevent you from getting paid, considering that the next court hearing isn't until May 8. (I have no idea how long after an auction Roma usually pays consignors, though.)

The greater risk, as others have pointed out, is that this situation will become widely-enough known in the next couple of weeks -- even though so far as I know neither coinweek nor coinworld has mentioned it, and there was nothing on google news the last time I checked -- that bidding will be depressed and you'll end up with less than you would have if this had never happened. That's a decision only you can make, and I don't even know if you're allowed under your agreement to withdraw your coins at this late date. Personally, I'd feel pretty queasy, but I tend to be risk-averse. I'm also the sort of person who assumes that whatever decision I make on such financial issues will be the wrong one, because the gods don't usually smile on me in that way!

[AmazedAncient]

2 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

It's hard to see any of these felony theft charges sticking, so it seems the real impact here will be a huge hit to the reputation of Roma/Beale, at least among those who care. It seems an extraordinarily arrogant and stupid way to shoot oneself in the foot, after the company managed to quickly gain reputation as a top venue.

I tend to agree.

Again, we are not privileged to know exactly what transpired during the entire conversations between Mr. Beale and "Informant 2" other than the word "false" as noted.

I believe Mr. Beale may only need to prove he had a reasonable basis for the publication of the provenance. That's all. If Mr. Beale might be able to show he had a reasonable basis for his original provenance, only contradicted by the informants belief the provenance was not authentic, it seems this case is more about possible mutual mistakes, perhaps making a claim of outright fraud much, much more difficult. 

[AmazedAncient]

2 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

It's hard to see any of these felony theft charges sticking, so it seems the real impact here will be a huge hit to the reputation of Roma/Beale, at least among those who care. It seems an extraordinarily arrogant and stupid way to shoot oneself in the foot, after the company managed to quickly gain reputation as a top venue.

I tend to agree.

Again, we are not privileged to know exactly what transpired during the entire conversations between Mr. Beale and "Informant 2" other than the word "false" as noted.

I believe Mr. Beale may only need to prove he had a reasonable basis for the publication of the provenance. That's all. If Mr. Beale might be able to show he had a reasonable basis for his original provenance, only contradicted by the informants belief the provenance was not authentic, it seems this case is more about possible mutual mistakes, perhaps making a claim of outright fraud much, much more difficult. 

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

MAYBE WE NEED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THIS FORUM……………

 

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, AmazedAncient said:

I believe Mr. Beale may only need to prove he had a reasonable basis for the publication of the provenance. That's all. If Mr. Beale might be able to show he had a reasonable basis for his original provenance, only contradicted by the informants belief the provenance was not authentic, it seems this case is more about possible mutual mistakes, perhaps making a claim of outright fraud much, much more difficult. 

"honest difference of opinion" is going to be a tough sell given the money he offered to the informant.

[Kaleun96]

8 hours ago, AmazedAncient said:

I tend to agree.

Again, we are not privileged to know exactly what transpired during the entire conversations between Mr. Beale and "Informant 2" other than the word "false" as noted.

I believe Mr. Beale may only need to prove he had a reasonable basis for the publication of the provenance. That's all. If Mr. Beale might be able to show he had a reasonable basis for his original provenance, only contradicted by the informants belief the provenance was not authentic, it seems this case is more about possible mutual mistakes, perhaps making a claim of outright fraud much, much more difficult. 

Again, if he had a reasonable belief that the provenance was legitimate, why would he try to pay the person who just told him it was false 100,000 Swiss francs? Why would this person, who personally believes it to be false, suddenly change their minds after being paid a sum of money?

Regardless, Beale has supposedly admitted to knowing the provenance for the Gaza hoard dekadrachms was false anyway. Seems like the DA has one of those coins within their scope of the investigation, along with the Eid Mar and Naxos coins.