Auction houses and dealers failing to cooperate with investigators over stolen items

[threescoops]

Came across this one - given recent discussions it doesn't seem terribly surprising, but obviously disappointing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ms-says-expert

I'll limit my political commentary to an eyeroll.

[Haywood_Milton]

It's a rather poorly researched article, presenting only one view-point.

I trust that my own position relating to crooks and stolen watches is generally understood here and direct any who have not seen it to the "Lost and Found" forum where I regularly spend my time to help publicise and recover watches.

In that context, I raise just one problem that dealers and auction houses face.

A claim that something is stolen, indeed even when an insurance payment has been made, is not proof that something actually has been stolen.

There are many circumstances where the claim is incorrect, perhaps as a result or fraud, error or misunderstanding.

The dealer or auction house then reasonably requires independent police investigation before it can do too much. In many cases they will be following the requirements of their own insurers. The latter may provide "defective title" cover, but it requires reasonable evidence and ideally police involvement rather than the assertion of an individual with something to gain.

We are all in knots with Data Protection obligations etc and I think the lawyer's criticism of auction houses and dealers may be misplaced (not that I am any apologist or fan of Antiquorum's).

What would the lawyer have them do, without police involvement ?

[threescoops]

It's a rather poorly researched article, presenting only one view-point.

I trust that my own position relating to crooks and stolen watches is generally understood here and direct any who have not seen it to the "Lost and Found" forum where I regularly spend my time to help publicise and recover watches.

In that context, I raise just one problem that dealers and auction houses face.

A claim that something is stolen, indeed even when an insurance payment has been made, is not proof that something actually has been stolen.

There are many circumstances where the claim is incorrect, perhaps as a result or fraud, error or misunderstanding.

The dealer or auction house then reasonably requires independent police investigation before it can do too much. In many cases they will be following the requirements of their own insurers. The latter may provide "defective title" cover, but it requires reasonable evidence and ideally police involvement rather than the assertion of an individual with something to gain.

We are all in knots with Data Protection obligations etc and I think the lawyer's criticism of auction houses and dealers may be misplaced (not that I am any apologist or fan of Antiquorum's).

What would the lawyer have them do, without police involvement ?

Indeed, nothing is ever simple. I guess the article does a least nod in this direction with the quote about police priorities/limitations. The system is only as good as the weakest link.