Da Vinci accused Marshall Ronald's payout bid proceeds
Marshall Ronald's bid to sue the Duke of Buccleuch will go to a hearing of evidence
A
judge has rejected a move to dismiss a bid to sue the Duke of Buccleuch
for £4.25m over the return of a stolen Leonardo da Vinci painting.
Marshall Ronald, 57, is seeking the payout following the recovery of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.He was cleared in 2010 of conspiring to extort money for its return.
Lawyers for the duke described the bid to sue as "an attempt to extort a sum of money" but a judge decided it should go to a hearing of evidence.
Mr Ronald, of Upholland, Lancashire, was acquitted with others of a conspiracy to extort money for the safe return of the masterpiece at a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2010.
“Start Quote
Lord GlennieAs matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer's case is bound to fail on grounds of illegality or public policy”
The valuable artwork had been stolen from the Duke of Buccleuch's Drumlanrig Castle seven years earlier.
After the court case, Mr Ronald raised an action claiming
that he was due payment for the return of the painting which was
recovered in 2007.At first he was suing both the duke and the police but dropped his claim against the police last year.
The duke is contesting his claims and his lawyers moved to dismiss the action.
They say the agreement Mr Ronald is seeking to rely on is "unenforceable as being illegal and contrary to public policy".
However, Lord Glennie said that it was "by no means obvious" that a "to whom it may concern" letter written as part of a police undercover operation was not meant to be taken at face value.
"It is by no means impossible to conceive of a case where, as part of a police operation to recover a painting, a reward is offered to someone who may be in a position to facilitate its recovery, and the reward is paid to that person when the painting is in fact recovered," he said.
"I accept that it is no doubt also possible to conceive of a situation where the offer of a reward is not intended to be genuine, and the letter granting authority to the intermediary to make that offer on behalf of the owner of the painting is indeed intended as a sham."
'True picture' He added that on Mr Ronald's pleadings in the action it was alleged that the agreement was made at a time when he was not in possession of the stolen painting and did not know who had it.
"The best that can be said is that he was in a position in which he had the opportunity, through others, to pay money in the hope of procuring its release," he said.
"If this is the true picture, I can see no basis upon which it can be said that his negotiation of an agreement to be paid a handsome reward for his part in procuring the release of the painting amounts to extortion.
"It might be quite different if he himself had possession of the painting or it was within his control; but that is not what is presently averred either by the pursuer or even by the defender.
"As matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer's case is bound to fail on grounds of illegality or public policy."
Related Stories
Duke could be sued over Drumlanrig da Vinci theft
Marshall Ronald, 57, is seeking a payout from the UK’s largest private landowner following the recovery of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder, which was stolen from Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfriesshire, in 2003.
Former solicitor Mr Ronald claims he was commissioned to ensure the painting was handed over.
He was at the offices of a Glasgow law firm along with others – including undercover police officer John Craig, posing as a risk-management expert – in 2007 when the masterpiece was returned after four years. Mr Ronald, of Upholland, Lancashire, was cleared, with others, of a conspiracy to extort money for the safe return of the masterpiece at a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2010.
He claims he was put in touch with undercover officers and on 29 August 2007 he and Mr Craig entered into an agreement which would see the duke pay him £2m to secure the painting. The figure increased to £4.25m a few days later, it is claimed.
Mr Ronald claims that was less than 10 per cent of the value of the painting.
He said he knew the painting was stolen but did not know by whom.
Mr Ronald said he was in contact with intermediaries and agreed to pay them £700,000 to secure the art work’s release. He claims he paid over £500,000.
The duke maintains that undercover officer Mr Craig had no authority to make an agreement on his behalf.
It is also alleged the agreement Mr Ronald seeks to rely on is “unenforceable as being illegal and contrary to public policy”.
Lawyers acting for the duke sought to have the action dismissed at a procedural hearing before Lord Glennie. Andrew Young QC said: “Properly viewed, what the pursuer [Mr Ronald] is averring is an attempt to extort a sum of money.”
Mr Ronald said he had acted in good faith and told the court: “I don’t accept any illegal acts.”
Lord Glennie said he would not dismiss the case.
He said: “It is by no means impossible to conceive of a case where, as part of a police operation to recover a painting, a reward is offered to someone who may be in a position to facilitate its recovery, and the reward is paid to that person when the painting is in fact recovered.”
He added: “The best that can be said is that he was in a position in which he had the opportunity, through others, to pay money in the hope of procuring its release.
“If this is the true picture, I can see no basis upon which it can be said negotiation of an agreement to be paid a handsome reward amounts to extortion.
“It might be quite different if he himself had possession of the painting or it was within his control; but that is not what is presently averred.
“As matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer’s case is bound to fail.”
Mr Ronald is expected to continue with the case.
COURT OF SESSION
|
|
[2014] CSOH 101
|
|
A460/12
|
OPINION OF LORD GLENNIE
in the cause
MARSHALL NEIL CRAIG RONALD
Pursuer;
against
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
Defender:
________________
|
COURT OF SESSION
|
|
[2014] CSOH 101
|
|
A460/12
|
OPINION OF LORD GLENNIE
in the cause
MARSHALL NEIL CRAIG RONALD
Pursuer;
against
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
Defender:
________________
|
Pursuer: Party
Defender: A Young, QC;
Anderson Strathern LLP
19 June 2014
Introduction
[1] On 27 August 2003 a
valuable painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, known as “Madonna of the
Yarnwinder”, owned by the ninth Duke of Buccleuch, was stolen from his home at
Drumlanrig Castle.
[2] A criminal investigation
was launched together with attempts by the police, insurers and others to
recover the painting. This was known as “Operation Drumlanrig”. The operation
involved the use of undercover police officers, including one who posed as a
risk management expert under the assumed name “John Craig”. It is alleged by
the pursuer that the defender, who became the tenth 2
Duke of Buccleuch on his father’s death early in September
2007, participated to some extent in this operation, by holding one or more
telephone conversations with one of the then suspects, by preparing written
documentation showing a willingness to pay monies in exchange for the safe
return of the painting and, of particular relevance for present purposes, by
providing an undated written letter of authority, addressed “To whom it may
concern”, confirming that John Craig acted as his agent in the recovery of the
painting and expressly authorising John Craig on his behalf to conduct any
lawful negotiation or transaction in relation to the matter.
[3] The
pursuer avers that on 10 August 2007 he wrote to the loss adjuster offering to
facilitate the return of the painting. After contacting the senior
investigating officer, the loss adjuster put him in touch with the undercover
officers. On 21 August 2007 John Craig contacted the pursuer, stating that he
was acting on the defender’s behalf. On 29 August 2007 the pursuer and John
Craig entered into an agreement whereby the defender would pay him £2 million
to secure the return of the painting. A few days later, this figure was
increased to £4.25 million. That is said by the pursuer to be less than 10% of
the value of the painting.
[4] The
pursuer admits that, at the time of that agreement, he knew that the painting
was stolen. He says that it was being held by persons whose identities were not
known to him. He was in contact with two intermediaries, RG and JD, who were in
contact with those in possession of the painting, and had agreed to pay them
£700,000 to enable them to secure the release of the painting to them.
[5] The
pursuer avers that, on 3 October 2007, he paid £500,000, being part of that
£700,000, to RG. RG handed over that money at a pre-arranged location and later
that day was advised of the whereabouts of the painting. That evening RG
informed 3
the pursuer that the painting had been safely recovered and
that he was proceeding with it to Glasgow. The pursuer notified John Craig,
using the phrase: “the Lady is coming home”. On the next day, 4 October 2007,
the pursuer attended at the offices of an Edinburgh firm of solicitors where he
met, amongst others, John Craig. RG and JD arrived at about 11 am and handed
over the painting.
[6] The reward
of £4.25 million has not been paid to the pursuer. A number of criminal
prosecutions followed the recovery of the painting. In particular, the pursuer
was charged with extortion, or attempted extortion. He was indicted in the High
Court and the case went to trial. The jury brought in a verdict of not proven
and the pursuer was acquitted.
The
pursuer’s case
[7] The
pursuer sues for the sum of £4.25 million. His case is simple. That was the sum
agreed to be paid to him for his part in securing the return of the painting.
The agreement was made by John Craig acting on behalf of the defender. John
Craig had actual authority from the defender to make that agreement, as
evidenced in particular by the “To whom it may concern” letter. Having been
instrumental in securing the return of the painting, he is entitled to be paid
the agreed sum.
The
defender’s case
[8] The
defender advances two main lines of defence to the claim. The first is that
John Craig had no actual authority to enter into any such agreement on his
behalf. The second is that the agreement relied upon by the pursuer in support
of his claim is tainted by illegality and/or is contrary to public policy and
should not be 4
enforced. I shall explain what is said by the defender in
more detail below. But it is to be noted that the defender does not make any
case in these proceedings that the pursuer was in any way involved in the theft
of the painting or its retention pending its recovery.
Discussion
on the Procedure Roll
[9] The case
came before me for discussion on the Procedure Roll. The defender insisted on
his first plea in law, a general plea to relevancy and specification. He sought
dismissal of the action.
[10] The
discussion was conducted under reference to the well-known principles set out
in Jamieson v Jamieson 1952 SC (HL) 44, to the effect that the
pursuer’s case will only be dismissed if the court is satisfied that the action
is bound to fail even if he succeeds in proving everything which he offers in
his pleadings to prove. However, the defender’s argument was somewhat unusual
in that it sought to gain support from averments made in the answers and from
the fact that, as he contended, the pursuer’s averments in response were
lacking in candour.
[11] I propose
to deal separately with the arguments concerning lack of authority and
illegality.
Lack of
actual authority
[12] The
defender’s case in summary is this. The “To whom it may concern” letter was
written by the defender on the instructions of the police as part of their
undercover operation in order to deceive the pursuer, and possibly others, into
believing that John Craig was his agent when in fact he had no actual authority
to 5
agree any deal which would bind him. In those circumstances,
he says, it is clear that the letter did not in fact clothe John Craig with
authority to act on his behalf. He avers that the pursuer knows this to be the
case, because it was made clear in the evidence led by the Crown at his trial.
This is set out in the answers, and is met by a bald “Not known and not
admitted”. That response is lacking in candour and should be disregarded. In
consequence, the defender’s averments on this point should be treated as
admitted. Furthermore, it is inherently improbable that John Craig, a serving
police officer, would undertake a dual role, acting both as a law enforcement
officer and also as a private commercial agent for a member of the public. It
would require very detailed and specific averments by the pursuer to explain
how such an unusual and potentially contradictory arrangement could arise, but
the pursuer makes no such averments. In those circumstances it is clear that
the pursuer’s case on actual authority must inevitably fail.
[13] I cannot
accept this argument, for three main reasons. First, I accept that there have
been cases where a lack of candour in the defender’s answers has been held to
be a basis for treating those answers as irrelevant and granting decree de
plano, and I would accept that the same approach could, if valid, be
adopted mutatis mutandis in respect of a lack of candour in the
pursuer’s pleadings. But that approach has not generally found favour; and I do
not consider that in general it is legitimate to treat a denial or
non-admission, however bald, as amounting to an admission. Generally a party is
entitled to put the other party to proof of his averments. The problem of
dilatory defences, defences designed simply to delay by not admitting what must
obviously be known to be true, is well-known. That was the reason why the
provisions for summary decree were introduced in Rule of 6
Court 21: see Henderson v 3052775 Nova
Scotia Ltd 2006 SC (HL) 85 per Lord Rodger of Earlsferry at para [13]. But
the rules for summary decree apply only to the case of a pursuer moving for
decree on his claim and that of a defender moving for decree on his
counterclaim. They do not apply to a defender seeking dismissal of a claim made
against him. There is no “reverse summary decree”. This may be a gap in the
rules which ought to be addressed, but that is not for me. In that situation,
where the Rules of Court have been altered to provide an answer to the problem
caused by a lack of candour in a party’s pleadings, but those rules do not
apply to the present case, I do not consider that it would be proper to seek to
plug that gap by holding that decree of dismissal is available where a pursuer
fails candidly to answer averments made by the defender in his answers.
[14] My second
reason for rejecting this argument is straightforward. The defender’s case is
based upon evidence which will be called by the defender and which is similar
in nature to that called by the Crown in the criminal trial. The pursuer is
under no obligation to accept that evidence as true. He is entitled to put the
defender to proof. This is not a case where his denial or non-admission is of
something within his own knowledge which he knows or must know to be true. Just
because he knows that that evidence will be called, and just because he may not
have a positive case to advance in answer to it, does not mean that he has to
accept it. In the circumstances of the present case it is perfectly proper to
answer the defender’s averments relating to the police operation, the
circumstances in which the letter came to be written and the alleged intention
of those who were party to it with a simple “not known and not admitted”. 7
[15] My third reason for rejecting the defender’s argument on
this issue is equally straightforward. It is, to my mind, by no means obvious
that the fact, assuming it to be a fact, that the “To whom it may concern”
letter was written by the defender on the instructions of the police as part of
the police operation to recover the painting necessarily means that it is not
to be taken at face value. It is by no means impossible to conceive of a case
where, as part of a police operation to recover a painting, a reward is offered
to someone who may be in a position to facilitate its recovery, and the reward
is paid to that person when the painting is in fact recovered. If, in all such
cases, the offer of a reward is to be regarded as a pretence, because made
without the authority of those on whose behalf it was purportedly made, then I
doubt whether it would often lead to the recovery of a stolen painting. I
accept that it is no doubt also possible to conceive of a situation where the
offer of a reward is not intended to be genuine, and the letter granting
authority to the intermediary to make that offer on behalf of the owner of the
painting is indeed intended as a sham. Much will depend upon the precise
circumstances and the intentions of the parties as revealed by the evidence. Even
if the pursuer were to be taken to have admitted everything in the defender’s
pleadings about the offer having been made as part of the police undercover
operation, that would not necessarily mean that his case must fail. Although
the burden of proof lies on the pursuer to establish that the agreement under
which he sues was made with the authority of the defender, the evidential
burden of showing that the letter purporting to have given John Craig authority
to make that agreement on behalf of the defender is not to be taken at face
value lies with the defender. 8
[16] I should add this, in case it may be thought that the
existence of the “To whom it may concern” letter gives rise to a case of
ostensible authority and therefore makes the arguments about actual authority
irrelevant. The pursuer does not in his pleadings advance any case of
ostensible authority. So far as the letter is concerned, he only became aware
of that at a much later date. So he cannot rely on that letter for any
representation made by the defender upon which he relied so as to give rise to
a contention that at the time the agreement was made John Craig had ostensible
authority to act on behalf of the defender. Whether he could rely upon any
other representation made to him by John Craig as giving rise to ostensible
authority is not a matter before me, and, as I have said, there are no
pleadings raising such a case.
Illegality/
public policy
[17] The
defender’s second line of defence is that the agreement upon which the pursuer
sues is illegal and contrary to public policy. A number of arguments were
advanced.
[18] It was
said that it would be contrary to public policy to render a party liable on a
contract which was purportedly entered into by him as a ruse on the part of an
undercover police officer in order to recover stolen property. I cannot accept
that, at this stage at least. Assuming the contract to have been made with the
authority of the defender, an issue which will have to be resolved at proof, I
can see nothing in the fact that on the defender’s part it was entered into as
part of the police undercover operation and as a ruse to recover stolen
property which would make enforcement of it contrary to public policy. 9
[19] It was also argued that the pursuer cannot seek to
enforce a contract which would result in him receiving many millions of pounds
for the return of a stolen painting which was secured from criminal sources for
£500,000. I cannot see why not. It is not for this court to determine what a
person may be willing to pay, or should be allowed to pay, to recover property
which is of a particular monetary or sentimental value. That would be to remake
the bargain struck between the parties. How is the court to judge what would be
an appropriate reward to the pursuer for his part in the recovery of the
painting?
[20] It was
also suggested that other adminicles of evidence might be relevant. For
example, there are averments that the pursuer did not want the police involved.
But I cannot see why this should necessarily make any difference. There may be
many reasons, some more respectable than others, why a person seeking to assist
in the recovery of stolen painting should think it sensible to involve the
police.
[21] In
developing his argument on behalf of the defender, Mr Young QC focused on the
submission that what the pursuer was seeking to do amounted to extortion. He
submitted, under reference to Black v Carmichael 1992 SCCR 709 at
717A-B and 718B-C, that it is the crime of extortion in Scotland if a person
seeks to obtain money from the rightful owner of property in order to release
or return that property to its rightful owner. He submitted that, on his own
averments, the pursuer knew that the painting had been stolen and that the
possessors of it had no legal right to retain it. On that basis, he submitted, the
pursuer had no legal right to retain or deal with the property, and his actions
were no different in law from the unknown persons who only released the stolen
painting in return for £500,000. That amounted to extortion. 10
[22] I do not accept this argument. It is, to my mind, a
fallacy to equate the position of the pursuer with that of a person who is in
possession of the stolen property and refuses to return it except upon payment
of a large sum of money. That might well be extortion. But the position as
shown on the pursuer’s pleadings is quite different. On his pleadings the
agreement was made at a time when he was not in possession of the stolen
painting and did not know who was. He had ascertained that certain others, JD
and RG, were in a position to contact the people who held the painting and to
procure its release to them upon payment of a sum of money. On this account the
pursuer neither had the painting in his possession nor had the power to procure
its release. The best that can be said is that he was in a position in which he
had the opportunity, through others, to pay money in the hope of procuring its
release. If this is the true picture, I can see no basis upon which it can be
said that his negotiation of an agreement to be paid a handsome reward for his
part in procuring the release of the painting amounts to extortion. It might be
quite different if he himself had possession of the painting or it was within
his control; but that is not what is presently averred either by the pursuer or
even by the defender.
[23] One
additional point made by the defender was that the pursuer, who was a solicitor
at the time, funded the payment to RG by illegally removing monies from various
client accounts, as a consequence of which he was struck off. Mr Young QC
confirmed to me that he did not seek to rely upon this as a separate ground of
illegality making the agreement unenforceable. It was put forward, as I
understand it, in conjunction with other matters such as the request that the
police should not be involved, essentially to present a picture of dishonest
dealing by the pursuer colouring his whole involvement in the matter. I do not
consider that it is of any 11
assistance, at least at this stage. The defender makes no
averment that the pursuer was involved in the theft or was a party to the
withholding of the painting thereafter. If such an allegation were made and
proved, that would put a very different gloss on the whole matter.
[24] As
matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer’s case is bound to fail on
grounds of illegality or public policy.
Disposal
[25] For these reasons, I shall allow a proof before answer,
leaving the defender’s preliminary plea outstanding. I shall reserve all
questions of expenses
Da Vinci Madonna Take-Two
Top cop goes for gold after top prosecutor dropped case. A POLICE STING
culminating in arrests of persons negotiating the sale of a 2,500 year
old gold crown at the premises of Edinburgh law firm Balfour &
Manson has led to a court fight involving Chief Constable Sir Stephen
House of Police Scotland who wants to establish ownership of the ancient
relic. The increasingly political case, heard by judge Lord Brailsford
comes even though the Lord Advocate dropped any prosecution against the
Turkish cafe owner who claims ownership of the gold artefact and is
adamant the item is a family heirloom.
CROWNED OFF: Cops nab Turk selling £1M relic, Legal fight for Golden Treasure : Ancient Trinket was looted from Tomb
Top Cop goes for gold. Redacted documents relating to the civil action raised by the Chief Constable of Police Scotland over the gold wreath have now been released by the Scottish Courts.
Da Vinci Madonna Take-Two
GOLD SWAGGER: Police Swoop at Edinburgh law firm sparks legal fight by Chief Constable for ownership of £1Million ancient gold crown
Top cop goes for gold after top prosecutor dropped case. A POLICE STING
culminating in arrests of persons negotiating the sale of a 2,500 year
old gold crown at the premises of Edinburgh law firm Balfour &
Manson has led to a court fight involving Chief Constable Sir Stephen
House of Police Scotland who wants to establish ownership of the ancient
relic. The increasingly political case, heard by judge Lord Brailsford
comes even though the Lord Advocate dropped any prosecution against the
Turkish cafe owner who claims ownership of the gold artefact and is
adamant the item is a family heirloom.
Chief Constable House has hired private law firm
Morton Fraser to pursue the case at taxpayers expense, in an effort -
legal experts say appears to be solely focused on handing back the
treasure to the Turkish Government - even though Lord Advocate Frank
Mulholland ordered the item returned to Murat Aksukalli after all
charges relating to the swoop on the lawyer’s office in 2010 were
dropped.
AND. in spite of attempts by vested interests to
hinder public access to information of the court case, a Fife based
transparency campaigner & amateur historian - Tom Minogue, has
identified the wreath as one looted from a Greek tomb by the Earl of
Elgin, famous for the Elgin Marbles. Mr Minogue has submitted evidence
to the court and has written about it on his website here: The Gold Wreath riddle
The Scottish Sun newspaper published a highly detailed investigation into the affair:
CROWNED OFF: Cops nab Turk selling £1M relic, Legal fight for Golden Treasure : Ancient Trinket was looted from Tomb
EXCLUSIVE By RUSSELL FINDLAY Investigations Editor Scottish Sun 15 June 2014
UNDERCOVER detectives nabbed a Turkish cafe
boss as he tried to sell them a 2,500-year-old gold crown — worth a
staggering £1million. Murat Aksakalli claimed the stunning ancient relic
had been left to him by his grandfather.
But police believe the precious artefact
known as the Edinburgh Crown was looted from Turkey and should be
returned. They launched a sting operation and Aksakalli was held as he
tried to flog the intricate decorative wreath at a lawyers office in
Edinburgh.
A source said they could make a movie out of
this and call it Indiana Jones and the Edinburgh Crown. "Its an
incredible saga involving a Turkish wheeler dealer, an undercover police
sting, the chief constable and the Lord Advocate. The crown is now
being held at Police Scotland's Edinburgh HQ as a legal battle is fought
over its future.
A Turkish government report claims the
treasure may have been plundered from a tomb in the ancient city of
Milas between 2000 and 2010.
But 50 year old Aksakalli insists he
inherited the controversial antiquity from his grandfather Fazil
Aksakalli who died in rural Cemisgezek. And he claims he can prove he
had the relic before the ancient tomb was raided.
He said: "I kept it tor years and forgot
about it" "The police said that I went to Turkey in 2010 and just
started digging and found it"
His lawyer Aamer Anwar added "Just because
the Turkish Government say anything remotely connected to them belongs
to them doesn't mean that's right in our legal system"
Aksakalli decided to sell the beautifully
crafted crown when his cash and carry company hit financial problems.
And two of his business associates Ali Sanal and Hakki Ozbey also helped
in the attempt to find a buyer. They approached experts at posh auction
houses Sotheby's and Bonhams in Edinburgh.
And Aksakalll claims that a police officer
friend of his, Lawson Porter also spoke to the National Museum of
Scotland about the ancient head decoration on his behalf.
But their activity caught the attention of
the now defunct Serious Organised Crime Agency and an undercover cop was
deployed in a sting operation. The officer going under the name Ahmed
Shakur met Aksakalli it the Hilton and Marriot hotels in Edinburgh and
asked to see the crown.
A third meeting was then arranged at the
office of bluechip law firm Balfour & Manson in October 2010. Police
swooped on the talks in in the city centre and Aksakalli, Sanal and
Ozbey were held and the crown taken by detectives.
One source revealed "The official valuation
for the purpose of the court action is £225,000 but the true value is
thought to be £1million". "It's become known as the Edinburgh Crown
because it was found in the capital".
There is no suggestion Balfour-Manson were
involved in any wrongdoing. Following the raid Turkish embassy officials
met with Detective Superintendent David Gordon and Lindsay Miller, head
of the Crown Office 's organised crime division. They claimed the valuable object belonged to their country and demanded its return.
In December 2012, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland decided there would be no criminal proceedings against Aksakalli. But
months later he agreed to send the crown to Turkey for seven days to
undergo forensic analysis. An expert there concluded that the ornate
metal wreath - which his decorated with 50 myrtle leaves and flowers -
probably came from a Milas tomb and dated to around 350BC.
But in another twist, an amateur historical
claims the golden crown may have been looted from Greece in the 19th
century by the Earl of Elgin - famous for taking the sculptures from the
Parthenon in Athens now known as the Elgin Marbles. Campaigner Tom
Minogue found Elgin had bragged about discovering a golden wreath
matching the description of the disputed relic seized in Edinburgh,
He has now joined the legal battle being
fought over the crown, claiming it could be the same ancient artefact
which was mentioned by Elgin. And he is demanding that the experts in
Greece be allowed to examine the antiquity as well - just like the
Turkish have already done.
Retired engineering businessman Tom said
"There seems to have been a rush to judgement by the Police and the Lord
Advocate who determined that a gold wreath was Turkish for no other
reason than because the person in possession of it said so and happened
to be a UK national of Turkish birth.
"There was no claim of any such gold wreath
having been plundered from Turkey other than an unspecified
generalisation. "This airy-fairy reasoning by the Turks has caused the
Scottish authorities to send the gold wreath to Turkey, during which the
Turks were allowed to do anything with it as they wished, without
hinderance".
"The question of ownership of the golf wreath
should be dealt with in an open, fair and unbiased manner, recognising
the fact that Greece, the country that taught the world the meaning of
democracy, deserves equal treatment to Turkey in the eyes of the law"
Last night Police Scotland confirmed the crown was still being held while the legal battle over its future continues. A
spokesman said: "This item was seized in 2013 during a police operation
at business premises in Edinburgh. "It is being held until ownership
can be determined by the court"
RIDDLE OF LOST ROYAL WREATH
By Russell Findlay
THE intricate golden artefact dubbed the
Edinburgh Crown is thought to date from around 35OBC. It features thin
branches wound around a wreath with around 50 delicate myrtle leaves
and rosettes.
The relic is crafted from 98 to 99.5 per cent
pure ancient gold and would have been placed in a tomb in either Greece
or Turkey. And experts believe the treasure could be worth up to £1
million.
The Edinburgh Crown is very similar to one
unearthed in the Piraeus in Athens by the Earl of Elgin in the 19th
century.His discovery was recorded in a book about the aristocrat’s
travels in Greece.
Elgin presented to parliament a list of the
items that he had removed from the country.But missing from this list in
1811 was the gold wreath. The Earl speculated that the crown may have
come from a site known as the tomb of Aspasia.
HISTORY & MYSTERIES 350BC Gold crown is buried in royal tomb in Greece or Turkey.
1816 Lord Elgin sells Greek artefacts to the UK but a gold wreath he discovered is missing. 1982 Aksakalli claims he inherits gold wreath from grandfather. 1989 He moves from Turkey to Scotland and claims he later brings over the treasure. 2000-2010 Looting takes place at archaeological ruins in ancient Milas, Turkey 2004 Campaigner Tom Minogue urges Fife Police to probe items taken from Greece by Elgin, including a gold wreath. 2007 Aksakalli begins exploring attempts to sell the crown. SEPT 2010 He meets potential buyer who is actually an undercover cop. OCT 2010 Aksakalli is arrested. 2011 Scots police and prosecutors meet Turkish officials. 2012 Lord Advocate drops case against Aksakalli. MAR 2013 Crown sent to Turkey for analysis, then returned. MAR 2014 Police go to court to try to legally obtain wreath and hand it to Turkey. APRIL 2014 Minogue lodges legal claim that crown may be the one taken by Elgin.
CHIEF CONSTABLE IN COURT:
Top Cop goes for gold. Redacted documents relating to the civil action raised by the Chief Constable of Police Scotland over the gold wreath have now been released by the Scottish Courts.
The Chief Constable’s pleadings in court revealed:
“In or around July 2010 Lothian and Borders Police received information
that two men were believed to be in possession of a stolen golden
wreath of Turkish origin and were attempting to sell it. On 5 October
2010 the first defender, along with Ali Sanal and Hakki Ozbey, was
detained at the offices of Balfour & Manson, solicitors, 54-66
Frederick Street, Edinburgh on suspicion of reset. The three suspects
were in possession of the fund in medio and were attempting to secure its sale. All three are Turkish nationals.”
“At interview the first defender asserted ownership of the fund in medio. The
first defender and said Sanal and Ozbey were released without charge
pending further inquiries. A report was submitted to the Procurator
Fiscal. The pursuer retained possession of the fund in medio on the instructions of the Procurator Fiscal.”
“On 27 December 2012 the Lord Advocate
instructed that no criminal proceedings would be taken against the first
defender, or any other person, in respect of the fund in medio due to an insufficiency of evidence. The Lord Advocate instructed that the fund in medio should be returned to its owner.”
20 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
- Does it not strike you as odd that the Law Society of Scotland's own
lawyer Balfour & Manson are named as being involved in this?
Strange? -
Anonymous said...
- Blimey! What is it with Edinburgh.
Their legal shenanigans are truly unique. -
Anonymous said...
- If the Police are so sure of this crown's origin then why are the Crown
Office Civil Recovery Unit not leading the case instead of Morton
Fraser.
Police Chief hiring private lawyers to pursue private property after the Crown say it should be returned to owner sets a dangerous precedence. -
Anonymous said...
- “On 27 December 2012 the Lord Advocate instructed that no criminal
proceedings would be taken against the first defender, or any other
person, in respect of the fund in medio due to an insufficiency of
evidence. The Lord Advocate instructed that the fund in medio should be
returned to its owner.”
So why wasnt it returned after this?
Dont like the way this is going anyone else smell something in the background? -
Anonymous said...
- Watch out for a stray bullet
-
Anonymous said...
- and let that be a lesson to anyone fool enough to do business in the offices of Scottish law firms
-
Anonymous said...
- All the high heid yins including the judges will be trying it on for size
-
Anonymous said...
- Looks like a lot of effort just to go to for an antique so what else is going on we are not being told about?
-
Anonymous said...
- This sounds highly suspicious
-
Anonymous said...
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8607994.stm has the same ring to it
-
Anonymous said...
- Anonymous said...
and let that be a lesson to anyone fool enough to do business in the offices of Scottish law firms
18 June 2014 17:12
Amen to that! -
Anonymous said...
- Anonymous said...
All the high heid yins including the judges will be trying it on for size
18 June 2014 20:24
ddddddddddddddddddd
Does my bum look big in this? -
Anonymous said...
- Totally bonkers the crown was sent to Turkey when it should have stayed in Scotland and had tests done here.
There is clearly something going on in the background here.Political double dealing and handshakes between Edinburgh and Turkey. -
Anonymous said...
- Something very dodgy going on here no wonder they wanted to keep it quiet
-
Anonymous said...
- Anonymous said...
If the Police are so sure of this crown's origin then why are the Crown Office Civil Recovery Unit not leading the case instead of Morton Fraser.
Police Chief hiring private lawyers to pursue private property after the Crown say it should be returned to owner sets a dangerous precedence.
18 June 2014 15:36
Nothing is safe (if its genuinely yours or not) if someone in the justice system has decided they want it off you.
Just ask the sheriff clerk who ended up with a £350,000 4 bedroom house for £70,000 out of a bogus sequestration signed off by his local sheriff. -
Anonymous said...
- The show me the money brigade, squabbling over the spoils of someone else's property?
-
Anonymous said...
- and compare the way this is going what Lord Glennie said in the davinci payout case today!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-27922530
Da Vinci accused Marshall Ronald's payout bid proceeds
A judge has rejected a move to dismiss a bid to sue the Duke of Buccleuch for £4.25m over the return of a stolen Leonardo da Vinci painting.
Marshall Ronald, 57, is seeking the payout following the recovery of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder.
He was cleared in 2010 of conspiring to extort money for its return.
Lawyers for the duke described the bid to sue as "an attempt to extort a sum of money" but a judge decided it should go to a hearing of evidence.
Mr Ronald, of Upholland, Lancashire, was acquitted with others of a conspiracy to extort money for the safe return of the masterpiece at a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2010.
The valuable artwork had been stolen from the Duke of Buccleuch's Drumlanrig Castle seven years earlier.
After the court case, Mr Ronald raised an action claiming that he was due payment for the return of the painting which was recovered in 2007.
At first he was suing both the duke and the police but dropped his claim against the police last year.
The duke is contesting his claims and his lawyers moved to dismiss the action.
They say the agreement Mr Ronald is seeking to rely on is "unenforceable as being illegal and contrary to public policy".
However, Lord Glennie said that it was "by no means obvious" that a "to whom it may concern" letter written as part of a police undercover operation was not meant to be taken at face value.
"It is by no means impossible to conceive of a case where, as part of a police operation to recover a painting, a reward is offered to someone who may be in a position to facilitate its recovery, and the reward is paid to that person when the painting is in fact recovered," he said.
"I accept that it is no doubt also possible to conceive of a situation where the offer of a reward is not intended to be genuine, and the letter granting authority to the intermediary to make that offer on behalf of the owner of the painting is indeed intended as a sham."
He added that on Mr Ronald's pleadings in the action it was alleged that the agreement was made at a time when he was not in possession of the stolen painting and did not know who had it.
"The best that can be said is that he was in a position in which he had the opportunity, through others, to pay money in the hope of procuring its release," he said.
"If this is the true picture, I can see no basis upon which it can be said that his negotiation of an agreement to be paid a handsome reward for his part in procuring the release of the painting amounts to extortion.
"It might be quite different if he himself had possession of the painting or it was within his control; but that is not what is presently averred either by the pursuer or even by the defender.
"As matters stand, I do not accept that the pursuer's case is bound to fail on grounds of illegality or public policy." -
Anonymous said...
- This stinks, and so do Balfour and Manson - a firm to steer clear of believe me, I know.
-
Diary of Injustice said...
- @19 June 2014 12:58
Good point ... and there are a few Sheriff Clerks & higher who fit the terms of your comment ...
Girl in Sunlight by Rupert Bunny. 
