Rolex 116231 - M564018 snatched from my Chester store, December 2008

So busy recording everybody else's losses......!

Gent's steel and rose metal Rolex Datejust 116231 - M564018 on Jubilee 63201 bracelet with PJ1 date code in the clasp was snatched from my Chester store in December 2008 by a lone male. We have employed door attendants ever since.

I have full details if required.

Thanks!

Haywood

2008?

He will be long gone.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcam

2008?

He will be long gone.

---

So? The watch could turn up decades later and title thereto would still rest correctly with my company.

Fair enough.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Out of interest - what would happen if this watch 'legitimately' turned up by an unbeknownst seller? Presume it would be dealt with as "handling stolen goods" but this seems a bit extreme given the time scale and also the number of hands it has probably gone through.

If the watch is in the hands of some-one who thought they were lawfully the owner then legally they are in the clear with no worries.
However, the watch remains stolen and the title remains with Haywood. The watch would be returned to the lawful owner and the unwitting buyer would be out of pocket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl.1

If the watch is in the hands of some-one who thought they were lawfully the owner then legally they are in the clear with no worries.
However, the watch remains stolen and the title remains with Haywood. The watch would be returned to the lawful owner and the unwitting buyer would be out of pocket.

---

Unless it was the subject of an insurance claim, presumably?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learningtofly

Unless it was the subject of an insurance claim, presumably?

---

Absolutely right, indeed: my insurers paid out so title would correctly rest with them, rather. I would then hope to do a deal for it, of course.

H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl.1

If the watch is in the hands of some-one who thought they were lawfully the owner then legally they are in the clear with no worries.
However, the watch remains stolen and the title remains with Haywood. The watch would be returned to the lawful owner and the unwitting buyer would be out of pocket.

---

Indeed so. The legal principle is “nemo dat quod non habet” or “no-one gives what he does not have.” No subsequent “owner” could have taken or passed title to the watch and that remains with (through us) our insurers.

An innocent party later could not be convicted if they did not know nor should have anticipated that the watch was stolen. They would have no title to the watch and would lose it, but face no risk of prosecution.

Is all of this true in any jurisdiction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingstepper

Is all of this true in any jurisdiction?

---

No. I am aware of at least one European state where an innocent, subsequent purchaser is allowed to retain property.

I believe the U.K. system is better!

If it was stolen in 2008, it could be due a service any time soon...

It will, of course, be impossible to sell without box and papers....