Leu knowingly selling stolen coins?

[Hesiod]

2 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

I see the attribution is from 2012

This is the date of the work which is used to attribute the coin. It is unrelated to the coin in question.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=10548540

This is the listing where it sold in Bucephalus, 5 months prior.

 

I have no idea what you're looking at for the other coin.

 

Unless you think the coin was consigned by the consignor to bucephalus and bought back and then sent to Leu. Seems highly unlikely to me (there's a hoard of these and this seems to be one of them. Also who is consigning to Bucephalus?)

[Salomons Cat]

18 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

They should not be held responsible for believing what the consignors told them - as long as the circumstances are not suspicious. I meant exactly what I wrote.

I have the impression that I should explain a bit more what I meant with this.
Of course it is important to consider provenance. But let's imagine that someone wants to sell the coins from his father or grandfather and he doesn't know where the coins were bought. In this case, his word must be enough to assure that the coins were legally acquired.
If a phrase like "From a European collection, formed before 2005." is not acceptable, then we should all forget about buying or selling ancient coins in the future.
Let's hope that no court ever comes to the conclusion that this isn't enough... 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[El Cazador]

15 minutes ago, Hesiod said:

When I consigned with them they certainly went out of their way to find any and all sales history for the coins I provided

Can we ask what you consigned with them?

[Hesiod]

4 minutes ago, El Cazador said:

20 minutes ago, Hesiod said:

 

Can we ask what you consigned with them?

I've mentioned it on the other leu thread, bunch of random stuff – Phaistos Stater, other random Greek, bunch of Roman Provincials, bunch of tiny kyzikene fractions. Any specific coins you'd be asking about? 

 

An example of a cheap coin they found a provenance for (which isn't that easy since Savoca doesn't provide any text in their blue auction listings) : https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?lot=989&p=lot&sid=6942 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Hesiod

[Hesiod]

(And no, I did not provide the savoca linkage myself)

[Kaleun96]

10 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

If a phrase like "From a European collection, formed before 2005." is not acceptable, then we should all forget buying or selling ancient coins in the future.
Let's hope that no court ever comes to the conclusion that this isn't enough... 

You're missing the point entirely. The phrase, on its own, is fine. It's no better or worse than "from a collection formed between 1960 and 1990" that other auction houses use. 

However, take that phrase and use it on 7,000 lots that clearly did not come from one consignor, nor come from dozens of family collections that have been sitting in mahogany cabinets for decades.

Next, consider that many of these coins have been harshly cleaned, are sold in large quantities of the same type, and generally have hoard-like characteristics. 

Lastly, keep in mind that Swiss law requires these coins to have been inside Europe prior to 2005.

Now, what is your conclusion? Do you still think Leu is just super lucky and stumbling across all these consignors who know their coins are pre-2005 yet have zero sales history or more precise dating?

Edit: I'll add that I'm making no judgements here about buying coins from Leu with these provenances. I just don't think those provenances are fooling anyone.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Kaleun96

[El Cazador]

4 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

You're missing the point entirely. The phrase, on its own, is fine. It's no better or worse than "from a collection formed between 1960 and 1990" that other auction houses use. 

However, take that phrase and use it on 7,000 lots that clearly did not come from one consignor, nor come from dozens of family collections that have been sitting in mahogany cabinets for decades.

Next, consider that many of these coins have been harshly cleaned, are sold in large quantities of the same type, and generally have hoard-like characteristics. 

Lastly, keep in mind that Swiss law requires these coins to have been inside Europe prior to 2005.

Now, what is your conclusion? Do you still think Leu is just super lucky and stumbling across all these consignors who know their coins are pre-2005 yet have zero sales history or more precise dating?

Edit: I'll add that I'm making no judgements here about buying coins from Leu with these provenances. I just don't think those provenances are fooling anyone.

I personally care less about provenances- marketing hype created to drive up prices

[Kaleun96]

2 minutes ago, El Cazador said:

I personally care less about provenances- marketing hype created to drive up prices

Good for you. That's not what this is about.

[El Cazador]

3 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Good for you. That's not what this is about.

Thanks for enlightening me🙏

[Salomons Cat]

20 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Next, consider that many of these coins have been harshly cleaned, are sold in large quantities of the same type, and generally have hoard-like characteristics. 

I agree. Here, the circumstances are quite questionable. On the other hand - is it even possible to prove that these coins stem from a recently discovered hoard?
I'm honestly not sure how far Leu's obligation to question the information that the consignors provide goes.

Quote

Lastly, keep on mind that Swiss law requires these coins to have been inside Europe prior to 2005.

Switzerland just translated international into national law. The roots for this is in the Unesco convention - so, the same probably applies to many countries.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[DonnaML]

To me the "from a European Collection formed before 2005" issue (a description  that most of the European auction houses use with minor variations in language, even though it's not as elegant as "from the collection of a Lady," or "purchased on the London art market in the 1980s"!) is a very different matter from refusing to remove from an upcoming auction coins that it has been informed were stolen. I wonder what sort of proof Leu demanded, and what its reasons were for refusing to withdraw the lots. Since apparently there was communication before Leu stopped responding.

I'm a member of the Ancient and Medieval Coins group on Facebook, and just read the thread, which began with a post by our own @KenDorney on a different problem with Leu relating to delivery of his lots. I'll let him provide further details if he wishes. It's in that thread that Mike Gasvoda left a comment about the stolen coins.

Of course everyone is correct that under the Uniform Commercial Code, enacted in every State, the status of "good faith purchaser" does not -- by contrast to the old rule under Anglo-American common law -- confer good title to the items at issue. A thief can't pass good title, as the saying goes! So in the USA, it wouldn't matter if Leu, and the purchaser at auction, and even the immediate consignor (who, after all, wasn't necessarily the thief) all acted in good faith: the original owner whose coins were stolen would have a right of recovery. Of course, they would have to provide proof. Swiss law, however, is somewhat different, and a court would have to make a choice of law analysis to decide which law governed between Swiss law and the laws applicable in the country or countries where the other interested parties are located.

See this recent explanation by a New York court of the difference between New York and Swiss law, in a 2019 case entitled Angiolillo v Christie's, Inc. (found at https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_29122.htm  )  :

Here, there is well-recognized conflict between New York and Swiss law with respect to the issue of title (e.g. Bakalar v Vavra, 619 F3d 136 [2d Cir 2010]). It is well-settled that under New York law, "a thief cannot pass good title" (id. at 140). "New York case law has long protected the right of the owner whose property has been stolen to recover that property, even if it is in the possession of a good-faith purchaser for value" (Solomon R. Guggenheim Found. v Lubell, 77 NY2d 311, 317 [1991]). This reflects "an overarching concern that New York not become a marketplace for stolen goods and, in particular, for stolen artwork" (Bakalar at 141). The burden of proving title under New York law rests with the possessor (Lubell, 77 NY2d at 321). Under Swiss law, however, a bona fide purchaser becomes the owner even if the chattel was stolen or otherwise transferred without the authorization of its owner (Schoeps v Museum of Modern Art, 594 F Supp 2d 461, 467 [SD NY 2009]). Under article 934 of the Swiss Civil Code, a good faith purchaser will acquire valid title to stolen property after a period of five years (Bakalar, 619 F3d at 140). After the five-year period, a previous owner of a stolen object can no longer seek the return of the object from a good faith possessor, and, critically, Swiss law "also presumes that a purchaser acts in good faith, and a plaintiff seeking to reclaim stolen property has the burden of establishing that a purchaser did not act in good faith" (id.).

Here are more details about Swiss law, including the requirement that a bona fide purchaser has to be reimbursed for the price paid before the goods can be recovered by the true owner, even before expiration of the limitations period (from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=00ec704c-fdce-4c25-a51d-0ce270c5229a  )  : 

In principle, Swiss law protects the acquirer in good faith. The acquisition in good faith of an artwork in due possession of the transferor is not open to challenge, regardless of whether the transferor lacked actual power of disposal, unless the artwork was either stolen or lost or otherwise taken from the original owner against his or her will.

In the event of stolen or lost artwork, the original owner can claim it back (article 934, Civil Code). The claim to recover cultural property falling under the definition of the CPTA is limited to one year from the day the owner discovers the current possessor’s identity and location of the object, and 30 years since the loss of the object. Prior to the entry into force of the CPTA on 1 June 2005, artworks and collectibles were subject to a five-year limitation period, which is still applicable for chattels other than cultural property.

For artwork sold at auction or by an art dealer, the original owner may only reclaim his or her property against the reimbursement of the price paid by the good-faith purchaser. This price does not include any increase in value of the artwork since the purchase.

The question of whether the purchaser was in good faith when buying the artwork must be determined based on the facts of the case. The good-faith purchaser must exercise the required care and attention in the particular circumstances. The Federal Court has not imposed a general duty on the buyer to investigate the seller’s ownership title. Instead, it distinguishes between businesses that are particularly exposed to the supply of goods of dubious origin and those that are not so exposed. In the latter event, the buyer has a duty to investigate the seller’s legitimacy only if any suspicions have arisen. In the former event, the buyer must be inquisitive at the outset of the transaction. Federal case law suggests that the antiquities market is considered a business that is particularly exposed to title risks, whereas the Federal Court has held otherwise for the sale of works of classical modern art from the former Soviet Union (see Federal Court decisions BGE 122 III 1 and BGE 139 III 305). More importantly, the courts take into account the buyer’s expertise and knowledge of the market to establish the requisite level of due diligence. Heightened expectations are not only held against dealers and auction houses, but also collectors. Guidelines and ethics codes of dealers’ associations may serve judges as a basis to determine the diligence required under the given circumstances. The CPTA provides further details (see questions 8 and 9).

In terms of the burden of proof, there is a presumption of good faith (article 3, Civil Code). Hence, the party alleging bad faith bears the burden of proof (article 8, Civil Code), which can be difficult in practice.

Acquiring title to stolen art through prescription

If ownership in stolen art, antiques or collectibles does not vest in the acquirer in good faith, is the new acquirer protected from a claim by the victim of theft after a certain period?

Yes, the acquirer in good faith of stolen or lost cultural property is protected upon expiry of the limitation period, that is if the original owner missed to file a claim one year after he or she knew about the current possessor’s identity and location of the object, and 30 years after the loss (see question 4).

Can ownership in art, antiques or collectibles vest in the acquirer in bad faith after a period?

No, ownership never passes to a purchaser in bad faith (article 936, Civil Code).

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by DonnaML

[kirispupis]

1 hour ago, Hesiod said:

This is the date of the work which is used to attribute the coin. It is unrelated to the coin in question.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=10548540

This is the listing where it sold in Bucephalus, 5 months prior.

 

I have no idea what you're looking at for the other coin.

 

Unless you think the coin was consigned by the consignor to bucephalus and bought back and then sent to Leu. Seems highly unlikely to me (there's a hoard of these and this seems to be one of them. Also who is consigning to Bucephalus?)

Ah. I misread the day.month.year and thought the Bucephalus sale came later. 

[Salomons Cat]

Thanks @DonnaML, this helps. Incredible how quickly you figured this out. I knew only the Swiss law but I wasn't aware that this is not the same everywhere in the world (I studied law and medicine - but my law studies were 10 years ago and in the meantime, I forgot most of what I had learned about law). 
I think that this is why @Kaleun96 and I were talking past each other for a moment. 

To be honest, personally, I think that it would be morally completely okay to sell coins from recently discovered hoards. If people wouldn't have any motivation to search for hoards, then most hoards would have never been discovered. Also, the vast majority of coins are probably better in private hands than in some hidden boxes in museums. But legally, there could indeed be a problem in this case - although I don't like this fact. I wonder if you can still buy in good faith when coins look like they could stem from a recently discovered hoard, as @Kaleun96 mentioned.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[Väinämöinen]

1 hour ago, Salomons Cat said:

If a phrase like "From a European collection, formed before 2005." is not acceptable, then we should all forget about buying or selling ancient coins in the future.

The issue here is the exact dating. Phrases such as "From the Collection of a Gentleman" are window dressing that don't provide us with exact information. However, once you add the "formed before 2005" you are making a claim about the history of the item. It is not "reportedly" or "possibly". It is, just, "formed before 2005" stated as a fact over 7000 times. Actually there are also almost one thousand items with "From a Swiss collection, formed before 2005" to add to the pile.

It seems like a hand-wave to try and avoid any issues with the Swiss legislation. That said, my main issue is with any given company willingly lying to their customers and abusing their goodwill and trust for the company. I find it morally wrong and it rubs me the wrong way.

1 hour ago, Salomons Cat said:

I agree. Here, the circumstances are quite questionable. On the other hand - is it even possible to prove that these coins stem from a recently discovered hoard?
I'm honestly not sure how far Leu's obligation to question the information that the consignors provide goes.

When you got dozens of a specific in some case rare coin type, from identical dies and die states, cleaned the exact same way, often blast white, repeating over multiple types totalling in hundreds if not thousands of coins including the group lots, and in some cases being the exact types that have suddenly flooded the market in multiple auction houses... I think a professional auction house will figure that those claims about a grandfather's inheritance are bull. Other auction houses sell these same coins, but they don't claim a pre-2005 provenance.

It's also not one or two coins that have been flips from recent sales that have received the descriptor. The sales were definitely showing up on the popular search engines. One example from Bucaphalus was already provided. 

This is all obviously secondary to the actual topic of this thread.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Väinämöinen

[Salomons Cat]

@Väinämöinen, in Swiss legislation, the phrase "From a Swiss collection, formed before 2005" protects the customer and not the auction house.

[Hesiod]

5 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

@Väinämöinen, in Swiss legislation, the phrase "From a Swiss collection, formed before 2005" protects the customer and not the auction house.

Out of curiosity, does this apply to the same statement but European instead of Swiss?

[Salomons Cat]

9 minutes ago, Hesiod said:

Out of curiosity, does this apply to the same statement but European instead of Swiss?

It is as @DonnaML explained. Leu adds this phrase because any buyer can say that they acquired the coin in good faith. So under Swiss law, there will be no doubt about their ownership.

My legal knowledge is unfortunately too rusty and I don't know how this is outside of Switzerland... But in general, most continental European law systems are quite similar. 
The American solution where a thief cannot transmit property poses big practical problems. Just imagine that you buy something in good faith, then you sell it to someone else, the next owner also sells it, and so on. Suddenly, 8 years later, someone appears and claims that this item was stolen. You would have to unwind all former transactions - which is usually just impossible. Honestly, I don't know how people in the US handle this practical problem.
I think that most Europeans would have noticed it if they had to apply the same law as the US.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Salomons Cat said:

The American solution where a thief cannot transmit property poses big practical problems. Just imagine that you buy something in good faith, then you sell it to someone else, the next owner also sells it, and so on. Suddenly, 8 years later, someone appears and claims that this item was stolen. You would have to unwind all former transactions - which is usually just impossible. Honestly, I don't know how people in the US handle this practical problem.
 

Not necessarily, because there are statutes of limitations for replevin actions to recover personal property (as opposed to seeking damages), with the limitations periods being different lengths in different states (it's 3 years in New York), accruing at different points depending on the state and whether the property is in the hands of the thief or a good faith purchaser. For example, in New York (where a substantial percentage of American art sales take place, so there's the most litigation), the 3-year period begins to run not from the time of theft or even the true owner's discovery of the theft, but from the true owner's demand for return of the property to the person who has it, and that person's refusal, as the Court of Appeals held in the Guggenheim v. Lubell case.  Unless the defendant can raise a successful defense of laches, i.e., that the true owner unreasonably delayed in pursuing recovery despite knowledge (or presumed knowledge) of the property's location, to the defendant's prejudice from that delay. In other words, it's complicated! And I'm retired, anyway.

[Väinämöinen]

1 hour ago, Salomons Cat said:

I think that most Europeans would have noticed it if they had to apply the same law as the US.

Most Europeans don't typically deal in stolen goods where this would matter one way or the other. This probably varies quite a bit by country with some countries having legal deadlines or thresholds and others not.

I had to look it up and in the case of my native legislation ownership can not be transferred through theft and stolen items that have been sold are not stripped off their original ownership regardless of how many years have passed. When an item is successfully identified as stolen property it is to be returned to its original owner. The person who had bought the stolen item is entitled to compensation from the person who sold the item, and that seller can further seek compensation from the previous seller, and so on.

Yes, a person who bought stolen property can get shafted. I am willing to argue that this is better than the original legal owner getting shafted.

1 hour ago, Salomons Cat said:

Suddenly, 8 years later, someone appears and claims that this item was stolen. You would have to unwind all former transactions - which is usually just impossible. Honestly, I don't know how people in the US handle this practical problem.

I may be proven wrong, but I doubt that in most US states this someone can just walk to a person, claim that an item of theirs has been stolen, and place the burden of proof on the current holder of the item. Likely they need to be able to provide evidence of original ownership and that the item was stolen., after which the claim can be challenged which may require some digging.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Väinämöinen

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

1 hour ago, Salomons Cat said:

Suddenly, 8 years later, someone appears and claims that this item was stolen. You would have to unwind all former transactions

Legally speaking, nope. Only the current owner is on the hook. He or she would have to pursue a refund from their buyer or forfeit the stolen item with no compensation 

[Molag Bal]

Is the phrase "from a European collection formed before 2005" misleading if the collection started before 2005? That's how I always interpreted it.

[Limes]

Its daylight here, so Im more then pleased I can jump on the wagon again. 

Again, I'm not defending anyone here.

But, there are still some questions left unaswered by the members who started this post and added to it. But first, a personal summary: ? 

Yes, Leu is selling stolen coins:
- CNG mentions this on facebook
- they use the '2005' provenance phrase
- the coins look all the same, cleaned, bright, and large quanitities of the same types are offered

No, or not sure:
- There's still much vague/unclear: where's the hard evidence (police report, proof of previous ownership, and so on)
- Unaswered questions remain: Why was the matter tried to be solved 'privately', in this serious case as this? Where are the lots of the previous sale? Did Mike file a report with the police? Or only post it on facebook as a warning to other potential buyers? 
- The 2005-provenance thing is used a lot, but there's no evidence that that means coins are previously stolen and sold nevertheless. Its also a practice used by many other auctioneers, in different wording. So, what does this actually mean, in relation to the 4 items shown, being stolen?
- How can a buyer know the coins are stolen? Where are the stolen coins from the previous sale, mentioned by Mike Gavoda? 

My conclusion: I simply do not know what to think of it. I can imagine the members starting this thread wanted to share a warning, which I appreciate. A warned person counts for two, we say here in the NL, and I will certainly take this into account. But many questions remain unanswered, and in light of such a serious accusation, I think it's more than fair to buyers and the aution house in question, to provide important information. Also, internet does not forget, and if someone googles 'Leu', this thread will forever pop up, and it's still not proven! (Ironically, when I did just that, a thread on cointalk and Forum popped up about Leu being the victim of stolen coins, in 2018!) 

10 hours ago, Hesiod said:

This 2005 provenance shenanigan is such a common practice, and demonstrably false on some coins it's been provided to, such that yes we can assume them and other swiss firms fake these provenances

10 hours ago, Väinämöinen said:

I'll just leave this here.

thanks for the replies, but my question was, that if Leu willingly is selling these coins whilst they know they were stolen, are they are also faking the provenance? I think no member of this board thinks these statements are worth a lot. The lack of value of these statements by auctioneers all comes down to the proof provided. I never bought a coin with such provenance, but do auctioneers actually provide proof of this statement? If not, I dont see the value of it, other than what @Salomons Cat mentions about buyers protection in relation to cultural goods, which is another issue completely. 

[Väinämöinen]

51 minutes ago, Limes said:

- The 2005-provenance thing is used a lot, but there's no evidence that that means coins are previously stolen and sold nevertheless. Its also a practice used by many other auctioneers, in different wording. So, what does this actually mean, in relation to the 4 items shown, being stolen?

This is completely unrelated as I see it. We ended up disgressing and this is a separate topic altogether.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Väinämöinen

[Tetradogma]

To re-iterate, there is no way a head at  CNG would plubically state they had informed Leu about stolen coins if they weren't 100% certain of that fact. If incorrect they would be making themselves liable for defamation, a risk I just do not think they would take.

[SimonW]

1 hour ago, Tetradogma said:

If incorrect they would be making themselves liable for defamation...

I think that's exactly the case. In dubio pro reo. This seems to apply to the USA as well as Switzerland and most countries in between. No police report or other reliable evidence have been released. All that has been presented is hearsay. That's very thin ice, I'd say.

If there is a police report, why not share it? If there is none, why not? I believe that no auction house would or should expropriate a consignor or cancel a consignor's contract and expose themselves to legal action by the consignor simply because someone claims that the coins have been stolen, without providing any evidence. Otherwise, it could easily be abused.

Edited August 27, 2023 by SimonW