Leu knowingly selling stolen coins?

[Tetradogma]

24 minutes ago, SimonW said:

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.

But that's my point - presumably CNG wouldn't make that claim if they didn't have evidence. Doesn't necessarily mean its been reported to the police

[SimonW]

8 minutes ago, Tetradogma said:

But that's my point - presumably CNG wouldn't make that claim if they didn't have evidence. Doesn't necessarily mean its been reported to the police

Mike Gasvoda makes this accusation on FB without giving any background. This alone does not speak well of him and CNG. If you are going to publicly discredit someone, the evidence should be made public, too.

Otherwise, malicious tongues might say that he is simply trying to do damage to a competitor.

Edited August 27, 2023 by SimonW

[sand]

43 minutes ago, SimonW said:

Mike Gasvoda makes this accusation on FB without giving any background. This alone does not speak well of him and CNG. If you are going to publicly discredit someone, the evidence should be made public, too.

Otherwise, malicious tongues might say that he is simply trying to do damage to a competitor.

Perhaps this is true. It seems like, if someone believes that coins were stolen, then it may be better, to handle it in a court of law, where evidence is presented, and a legal conclusion is reached.

[Rand]

The peaceful hobby turns increasingly toxic. The previously seen 'safe and ethical' approach of collecting coins through buying from reputable auctions falls apart if the sellers do not guarantee legitimate provenance or even the status of "good faith purchaser".

Would the buyer be considered a "good faith purchaser" when dealing with an auction house with a history of selling a stolen item?

Would the buyer be considered a "good faith purchaser" when dealing with an auction house being accused of selling a stolen item? This last is relevant to the Lue sale. Whether true or not, the accusation may lead to reputational damage and financial losses. 

Also, the legal differences in various countries may create a legal loophole that would make it very expensive or even impossible for a legitimate owner to recover stolen coins.

[Kaleun96]

1 hour ago, SimonW said:

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.

On the topic of police reports, I wonder if the consignor ever felt the need to get one. Assuming the package was insured (either by FedEx or perhaps even by CNG if it was a collection being consigned to them), would you still bother with a police report? Might even be the case that the case is still pending within FedEx and until a decision is made, the consignor may hold off on filing a police report.

So I could potentially see why there may not be a police report yet. Though I'm sure there's some documentation of the claim with FedEx including photos of the coins prior to shipping so at the very least you would think that could be made public with the necessary personal info redacted.

[Ed Snible]

I suspect many of these auction houses are self-insured.  It makes sense that they might want to figure out what happened — which might require asking awkward questions of consigners.  Similar to how detectives don’t release all information while they are investigating.

In 2002 a New York dealer was robbed of over a million dollars worth of coins and antiques.  The FBI solved it, and the thief is still in prison.  The coins were never recovered.  

I knew a little bit of the 2002 story but I learned more when I noticed an electrum stater from the robbery browsing the “sold coins” on the web site of an American dealer.  I thought perhaps I had found a clue that would lead back to the rest of the coins from the robbery.  I wrote to the victim.  I learned robbery coins have been noticed before.  The police and FBI are very involved with catching robbers but they don’t help with untangling how stolen goods wind up back on normal markets.  Auction houses don’t cooperate with private investigations, preferring to respect consigners’ privacy.  Lawsuits are required, and lawsuits are more expensive than electrum staters.

The coin trade involves a lot of personal trust.  Many dealers are self-insured.  It would be great if everyone worked together to figure out what happened.  At the end of the day the loser is not likely to be the criminal or an insurance company, but a small regional dealer.  It is easy for us, who don’t have our wallets on the line, to call for transparency.

[Limes]

40 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Might even be the case that the case is still pending within FedEx and until a decision is made, the consignor may hold off on filing a police report.

Agreed. But the claim above was made by the poster of this topic, that the coins were stolen from a FedEx truck. Which could of course be the case (i have no reason to doubt the poster!), but that does raise the question about the police report. Still, its always important to make a report with the police, insurance or not, in my opinion. 

But I also.understand what Ed Snible says; being legally right doesnt give you justice. And lawsuits are expensive. 

So its understandable that Mike Gasvoda sends out the messagea and in that sense sticks his neck out. But in doing so, he also raises a lot of questions, which in my opinion are okay to ask and deserve some more info. (And maybe that s already being done, i dont use Facebook. So in that case, that would be great and very helpful!)

If the police wouldnt act on the stolen coins being sold, its up to the collectors and the collecting scène to take action. 

Again, not defending anyone here, and a warned person counts for 2 😉

[Prieure de Sion]

I don't want to judge the following sentence either contra or pro Leu - neither contra nor pro of some users here.

The only thing that comes to my mind is that the subject is too serious and too severe in its impact on the people involved that it is actually forbidden to discuss guilt or innocence publicly on the basis of speculation.

[DonnaML]

31 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

I don't want to judge the following sentence either contra or pro Leu - neither contra nor pro of some users here.

The only thing that comes to my mind is that the subject is too serious and too severe in its impact on the people involved that it is actually forbidden to discuss guilt or innocence publicly on the basis of speculation.

Forbidden? You don't mean forbidden by law, do you? Because it's certainly not.

[Prieure de Sion]

16 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Forbidden? You don't mean forbidden by law, do you? Because it's certainly not.

No... as always - this is what happens when you try to translate German idioms 1:1 into English.

How do I write it in English?!

In German "es verbietet sich" = translate 1:1 into "forbidden" - but it means "isnt a good style to discuss this" (because I have no confirmed information). Something like that. Maybe someone can paraphrase "es verbietet sich" a little better in English.

 

No one should speculate publicly on this subject - as long as the clues are only based on speculation and conjecture. The subject is too serious in its consequences for all persons concerned. My 2 Cent.

 

I mean - these are not just any accusations. This is not "the auction house auctioned a fake yesterday" or "the auction house communicated badly with me" or "I was not satisfied with the shipping".

Here, an auction house is publicly accused of a criminal offence (depending on the country and the legal situation) - or at least a criminal offence is put forward. In the extreme, this can drive a business to ruin. Jobs are also at stake here. 

And as has already been written - the internet does not forget. 

The topic is simply very "hot". There should be no room for speculation on this issue. If there is, it has to be based on facts. Then we can discuss it. 

But on the basis of "I have read" or "I have heard that" - sorry - I don't think it's good! And I don't want to defend (or accuse) the auction house. I just don't know the facts. And again - if here don't know the facts - here should not speculate publicly about certain accusations (acts that have criminal relevance).

That is my opinion.

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Prieure de Sion

[Roman Collector]

1 minute ago, Prieure de Sion said:

No... as always - this is what happens when you try to translate German idioms 1:1 into English.

How do I write it in English?!

In German "es verbietet sich" = translate 1:1 into "forbidden" - but it means "isnt a good style to discuss this" (because I have no confirmed information). Something like that. Maybe someone can paraphrase "es verbietet sich" a little better in English.

 

No one should speculate publicly on this subject - as long as the clues are only based on speculation and conjecture. The subject is too serious in its consequences for all persons concerned. My 2 Cent.

 

Some English idioms that might be used:

It's in bad taste to ...
It's not recommended to ...
It's bad form to ...
It's not appropriate to ...
 

[Salomons Cat]

2 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Forbidden? You don't mean forbidden by law, do you? Because it's certainly not.

I'm not sure about this. I believe that here, we might have another difference between US law and continental European law.
According to the Swiss Penal Code (Art. 173), spreading any suspicions that could harm someones reputation is a crime. This is not the case if these suspicions were based on facts. 
The problem with regard to the FedEx shipment is: We have a lot of rumour but very little facts. So I believe that in this context, it is at least on thin ice when someone says that Leu willingly sells stolen goods.
Germany has a similar article in their penal code (§ 186) as Switzerland. In the US, I believe that they apply something that is called "substantial truth", which is more tolerant than the requirement for facts.

So, as long as we're discussing facts that we can see in front of our eyes (for example, what the phrase "From a Swiss collection, formed before 2005" could mean and its implications) I see absolutely no problem.
But I think that we should not impute any malicious intent to anyone. Not only because of the possible legal consequences - I also find it ethically wrong to do so in a public forum without enough supporting facts.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[Deinomenid]

4 hours ago, SimonW said:

Mike Gasvoda makes this accusation on FB without giving any background. This alone does not speak well of him and CNG.

Just  to air it,  there may be some animus as Leu was/is hiring senior CNG staff. Maybe not. I know none of the personalities involved.  

[robinjojo]

Yet another roiling controversy to add in these roiling times.  Again the normally tranquil and collegial world of ancient coin collecting is faced with a controversy, actually an old theme of ethics and legality, abetted by our age of social media and rapidly transmitted information.

I cannot address the issue of legality, being only ten days in law school in LA before forsaking it for a 1966 Mustang and a trip up Highway 1 to the Bay Area.  Nor can I speak of the "facts" until there is more factual evidence that might come out in legal proceedings, if they occur.

I will say, in my view, that auction firms, dealers and collectors should act with prudence, diligence and ethically in the area of coins that might have been stolen.  If there are allegations that particular coins have been stolen, then prudence and diligence would inform the firm or individual to investigate the allegations and, in the case of an auction firm, withdraw the lots, no matter their value, from the auction while an investigation internally and with external authorities to attempt to prove or disprove the allegations.  

I do not know why Leu proceeded with the sale of these lots.  I do not know their internal decision making process.  It is troubling that the sale proceeded in light of the Facebook allegations.  One the face of it, Leu seems to have made a mistake, but in absence of their side of the story the picture is incomplete.

We live in a time of ever increasing rapid change (a favorite theme of mine).  We have unprecedented access to coins that would have astounded collectors of previous generations.  Technology has created rivers of ancient coins in huge numbers from global sources.  Aside from "high profile" coins, the bulk of coins entering the market from hoards and individual finds generally do so with little scrutiny.  Joining this flow are very likely coins that have been purloined one way or another, including the Leu lots that are allegedly stolen. 

Auction houses and dealers are the conduits for these ancient coins, conduits that provide a churning, continuous supply of coins to an insatiable collector market.  That most of these coins are given vague, at best, provenances can be understood from the auction house's or dealer's perspective.  Especially for the former volume and turnover, with commissions, is the life blood of the firm.  Case in point: the appearance of large numbers of Tigranes II tetradrachms.  These coins are popping out of the woodwork in auctions and on retail websites.  I was presented with a group of them  by an overseas dealer.  Clearly a hoard has hit the market.  But what hoard?  Where? Found by whom, and legally or illegally?  The fact is we are likely never to know.  All of these coins, from what I have seen, have been offered with no provenance.  

Well, time to get off my high horse.  I do hope that over time the Issue with Leu and these lots becomes more defined.

Edited August 27, 2023 by robinjojo

[Prieure de Sion]

1 hour ago, robinjojo said:

I do not know why Leu proceeded with the sale of these lots.  I do not know their internal decision making process.  It is troubling that the sale proceeded in light of the Facebook allegations.  One the face of it, Leu seems to have made a mistake, but in absence of their side of the story the picture is incomplete.

 

1 hour ago, robinjojo said:

Well, time to get off my high horse.  I do hope that over time the Issue with Leu and these lots becomes more defined.

 

That is what I mean.

So it's already established facts that the auction house is "the culprit"? Is that certain? Are the facts now certain and has the matter been resolved today?

If not - that is exactly what I mean. From a thread that has the basis "I have read / I have heard" and put it into the world - has it now in the end become certain that it is so?!

[CPK]

5 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

...

But on the basis of "I have read" or "I have heard that" - sorry - I don't think it's good! And I don't want to defend (or accuse) the auction house. I just don't know the facts. And again - if here don't know the facts - here should not speculate publicly about certain accusations (acts that have criminal relevance).

That is my opinion.

 

Couldn't agree more. If you only have one side of the story, you don't have the story. I'll need to see a lot more than Facebook posts and internet hearsay before I can form an opinion either way on the matter.

[Salomons Cat]

I must say that I'm not comfortable with this discussion.

It starts with the title "Leu knowingly selling stolen coins?", followed by a lot of accusations and zero hard evidence that anyone at Leu did anything wrong. And on top of that, all of this can be read by anyone in the internet. I completely agree with @Prieure de Sion that such accusations could potentially ruin a business - even if no proof at all is provided. Sometimes, a rumour is enough.

It would be okay to discuss such things within a small and closed group - but not like this.

[ominus1]

...well, anythings possible i reckon, but i've talked to Ken McDevitt a few times and i just recently had them sell one of my coins and i've bought from them also and i dont believe they would purposely sell  stolen items of any kind and until i see some "proof' i ain't buying it(this story) anyway

Edited August 27, 2023 by ominus1

[Bailathacl]

Would feel more comfortable if the Facebook accusation were fleshed out more. The specifics behind the accusation are simply missing here.  

But I don’t think it’s reasonable to think we can only raise concerns after there has been a trial with proof that meets a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. Sometimes all you get, particularly when the stakes are lower and the jurisdictions are far apart, is information.  

Based on the credibility of the source, I’m not prepared to ignore the information, nor would I ignore a thoughtful response from the other side.  Unless more is forthcoming, we are left with a lot of questions and not a lot of clarity. 

[DonnaML]

3 hours ago, Salomons Cat said:

I must say that I'm not comfortable with this discussion.

It starts with the title "Leu knowingly selling stolen coins?", followed by a lot of accusations and zero hard evidence that anyone at Leu did anything wrong. And on top of that, all of this can be read by anyone in the internet. I completely agree with @Prieure de Sion that such accusations could potentially ruin a business - even if no proof at all is provided. Sometimes, a rumour is enough.

It would be okay to discuss such things within a small and closed group - but not like this.

Nobody in this thread has accused Leu of wrongdoing. Discussing the fact that two allegations (regarding sales made in a previous auction as well as certain lots in an upcoming auction) have been made by the head of one major auction house against another major auction house -- certainly a matter of public interest -- is most certainly not defamation.  And I assure you that the comments here have been much more low-key and temperate than some of those made by people in the Facebook group who seem to have accepted the allegations as fact. I certainly have no knowledge of the underlying facts, and don't even have an opinion on what happened. I've bought lots of great coins from both Leu and CNG and have had positive experiences with both companies. The fact that my most recent purchase from Leu hasn't arrived certainly isn't Leu's fault.

I think what's important to remember is that the person from CNG who made the allegation on Facebook isn't saying that either CNG or he personally is the true owner of the allegedly stolen coins. Only that he notified Leu that certain coins in the previous auction were stolen, and Leu didn't respond to him, or withdraw the lots from sale, and went ahead and sold the coins. There is no claim that Leu has been notified yet about the allegedly stolen coins in the upcoming auction.

Whatever the usual courtesies may generally be between major dealers or auction firms in such a situation, I don't think Leu would have any legal obligation to withdraw lots from sale solely on the basis of notification by a third party that those lots were stolen goods. At least, not without contacting the consignor for an explanation. And we have no idea whether Leu did or didn't get such an explanation, or undertake an investigation of the facts, before going ahead with the sale.

By contrast, if the notification had come from the alleged "true owner" of the coins at issue, and that party had formally demanded their withdrawal from sale and their return, then I'd be surprised if Leu had gone ahead and sold the coins. That would have been quite a legal risk for Leu to take. Similarly, if the notification regarding the allegedly stolen coins in the upcoming auction comes not from CNG but from the alleged true owner of those coins, in writing, I'd be very surprised if Leu doesn't withdraw them from sale pending the results of an investigation into the underlying facts.  

Edited August 28, 2023 by DonnaML

[David Atherton]

This topic will continue to go nowhere because we have no hard evidence. And even when presented with such evidence, as in the Roma case where the defendant plead guilty, many on here excuse the behaviour because they don't agree with the law.

I fear that will be the case with Leu even if good evidence is provided that the coins were stolen. Whether looted/stolen from a dig site or stolen from a FedEx truck there will be apologists.

[filolif]

6 hours ago, David Atherton said:

many on here excuse the behaviour because they don't agree with the law.

I have a feeling that fewer would excuse Leu selling stolen coins since it would be stealing from the collector and not stealing cultural heritage from a country. Funny how people's opinions change when they can imagine it affecting them personally.

Also, between the two of them (Leu and CNG), I tend to trust CNG. I've had some very concerning experiences with Leu and I can't say the same about CNG. Nothing but professionalism from them. I have a feeling Mike would say more if he could but doesn't want to stir the pot too much. There is likely something to these accusations but since no one here is personally involved, we will never get the details.

Edited August 28, 2023 by filolif

[Nemo]

May I ask a stupid question?

Who is in such a case the legal owner if a coin gets stolen in mail?

Will the buyer be the legal owner at the time he bought and paid it or at the time when he/she receives it?

My thoughts are that the buyer will be refunded by the seller or auction house and is so losing his ownership (if the buyer was at this time actually already the legal owner), the seller or auction house is getting refunded by insurance and is so losing its ownership and so the insurance company that paid will be the last legal owner.

If coins got lost, I always as sellers or auction house if I can buy them again to the invoice amount if they will be delivered later to me if post will find them.

I had the cases that a coin from Sovaca got lost, I got refunded after some weeks but they asked me if I will take it for invoice amount if it will reappear, I said yes, after some month it reappeared and was delivered to me, I paid the money and I was then again the legal owner.

I assume only the legal owner can claim the stolen coins so the question is who is the legal owner in such a case?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Nemo

[Heliodromus]

So we're on page 4 of this topic and yet it seems we still know nothing other than "Mike Gasvoda claims these coins were stolen off a FedEx truck", right ? If I understand correctly we don't even know if CNG was the sender or intended recipient of these coins, or not involved at all other than making this claim on FaceBook.

Does  @JimBranson know more than what he posted here in order to make this claim of Leu "knowingly selling stolen coins"?

Edited August 28, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Rand]

1 hour ago, filolif said:

I have a feeling that fewer would excuse Leu selling stolen coins since it would be stealing from the collector and not stealing cultural heritage from a country. Funny how people's opinions change when they can imagine it affecting them personally.

Does this refer to Mike Gasvoda, or has anyone else been affected?

Since joining the Forum in March 2023, I have not seen any posts from Mike Gasvoda or anyone else supporting any stealing.

Or does your post refer to discussions of cultural property housed by museums?

Otherwise, the post reads as an allegation.