Reply With QuoteNot an unknown, but you could be a serial burglar with a good story for all they know ;)
I’d go somewhere else if it was just for newer watches, as surely there is just as much if not more risk to them on older models.
I had an interesting experience at WF today. I was moving on a BP FF, being less than six months old, which I bought from a longstanding forum member back in the summer. They would not complete the transaction, owing to the relative infancy of the watch, without a full written record of the original purchase by my seller and, in turn, my purchase from him. They need proof of his purchase in the first instance, plus evidence of his ID, my details and evidence of my paying him for the watch (bank statement or the like). None of the above is a problem, but it did strike me as a little heavy handed. They said this was now their procedure for nearly new watches being offered to them not long after their original sale. For info, this will be my fourth or fifth sale to them in the last 24 months, so it is not as though I am an unknown.
Last edited by Skyman; 3rd January 2019 at 23:40.
Not an unknown, but you could be a serial burglar with a good story for all they know ;)
I’d go somewhere else if it was just for newer watches, as surely there is just as much if not more risk to them on older models.
It's just a matter of time...
I guess my face mask and swag bag gave me away.😉Originally Posted by Omegamanic
Interesting comments above.
You may have missed this in “Asian Weekly,” but it’s worth reading carefully :
http://www.asianweekly.co.uk/2017/06...atches-jailed/
Some will wish not to be caught out (again).
Copper involved is one of the best, by the way.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 4th January 2019 at 00:00.
Jolly good.
That’s pretty large scale!
It's just a matter of time...
I can see why WF would do this.
I’m not though clear why they think an original seller would send their ID and financials to WF (with whom the original seller has no relationship) on behalf of a subsequent seller.
Great that it worked out in your case OP but I can see it not working out in other cases.
Did they not suspect something after buying 288 watches?
FFS
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Both theft and money laundering.
Watch trading is an easy way of 'layering' criminal money, so full ID is a prudent step to help reduce risk of being implicated in money laundering.
Exactly. WF are only catching up to the law. See the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, §14 (page 17) extending reporting and documentation requirements to "high value dealers", receiving or making payments in excess of EUR 10,000.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Surely holding this sort of information will break GDPR rules.
Why would it?
Because vendor 1 has no relationship with wf and therefore wf have no reason to collect his details.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
They would if it was for legitimate business reasons, and satisfying the money laundering directive would/could be a legitimate reason, assuming they made this clear to vendor 1.
Shame this scum bag only got 18 months, should have been much much longer
All the more reason to trade privately, avoiding this sort of highly intrusive behaviour. And as the vast majority of sales are under 10k, it’s usually irrelevant anyway.
I do however, like to see the purchase receipt, and , in the same way, provide one when selling.
Reading the newspaper article and unless I’ve read it wrong, the 2 “major” dealers who had purchased hundreds of watches from this guy didn’t check the Stolen Art Record before buying them? It was only when they provided the police, a list of the watches sold to them that this was found to be the case.
And yet, the Hatton Garden watch dealer did their due diligence on the single watch offered the them and found it to be on the register?
It also aplies to cumulative sales, so two watches of 6k trigger the same reuirements.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Does seem this way. Question needs to be asked why they didn’t bother to check rather than WF demanding background checks of previous owners.
Vendor 1 is not part of the transaction at all. It is not a legitimate reason. The AD wherever he is took the details of vendor 1 (legitimate reasons). Wf can find the AD from serial number. If AD is in a country that doesn’t match the criteria for money laundering checks they can pass, or check if the watch went through customs. But they have no legitimate reasons to ask details about a transaction that is none of their business.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
If WF have a suspicion that there may be money laundering taking place then they have a duty to validate the source of funds are legitimate. Jurisdiction does not come into it. Article 6 1(c) of GDPR provides a dispensation to allow the processing of data "for Compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject", for which the AML Directive most certainly is such obligation. Its WF's rule, the seller, nor vendor 1 need to follow it but as long as WF make it clear what they need this information for then GDPR most certainly doesn't come into it in this instance.
Have you opened a bank account lately?
I just did, and had to provide extensive documentation for the source of my wealth, including decade-old tax returns and transaction receipts.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Absolutely but it’s your wealth. Now assuming you earned a salary, did they ask to see the company’s accounts to check they were trading legitimately ? And if you inherited, did they check how your parent acquired the funds?
If you sell your car to a dealer, how many previous owners’ details should you supply ?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
They at least have to check it is a legitimate business, if it's not well-known, that will include asking for some form of proof it has actually been trading.
Yes.
At least one.
Last edited by Raffe; 4th January 2019 at 11:35.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
........thus greatly increasing the chances of buying a stolen watch in ignorance --- and from an individual, making later restitution much less likely?
I find people on SC generally trustworthy; if in doubt, I wouldn’t buy. On occasion, I’ve even got the original credit card and bank receipts. And I include all papers when I sell. And a reading of tales on TZ will indicate that buying from some traders is hardly foolproof.
Whichever way you go, you have to take care. As in the rest of life.
Last edited by paskinner; 4th January 2019 at 13:00.
These comments appear to conflate events that may have taken place over a couple of years, during which time the position regarding "stolen checks" has changed rapidly.
A couple of years ago the ALR (not "SAR") Watch Register was in its infancy, as was the Safergems / Checkmend Watch Register, while access to the Rolex UK list remained closed to most of the trade. Largely for commercial reasons the ALR Watch Register has come through as the primary database and would be the one I now recommend. Each of the databases held different data and it was perhaps lucky at that time that the Hatton Garden dealer checked the right register at the right time.
I'm not saying there weren't failings here......crikey, no.....but comparing one practice today (vendor KYC) with checking databases of stolen watches two years ago is a rather difficult matter.
H
Happily so, but your trustworthy SC seller may not himself have known the actual source of the watch. Where does that leave you when it hits the fan?
Life’sI’m a guy who doesn’t even insure his watches. Life is short, then we die.....all the rest is a bonus.
Last edited by paskinner; 4th January 2019 at 13:26.
Where do you live?
I don’t think criminals worry about whether their victims are insured!Where do you live?
But it was one reason why I sold most of my watches.Less to worry about. For some reason, I think that the older you get, the less you should own. After all, we arrived with nothing.....
Last edited by paskinner; 4th January 2019 at 14:13.
Same here. No insurance, also no insurance on my cars except legally required liability.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
I'm amazed that a greater proportion of the watches were stolen... He was obviously a wrong 'un.
Sent from my SM-J530F using TZ-UK mobile app
It may simply have been that they weren't reported as stolen. It is incredible how many people in the trade, never mind private owners, fail to record their watches' case numbers.
For some years I have been telling our insurers that they should not cover the trade when they lose watches whose numbers have not been recorded, but it seems to be a blind spot for underwriters.
H
If they don’t record serial numbers and a watch is returned how can they be sure it’s the one they originally sold?
Customer buys watch, customer swaps watch for a fake watch, customer storms into shop shouting you’ve sold me a counterfeit watch. How would the seller ever know without recording the watch particulars?
The mind really does boggle :)
Facing any such problem, they can simply deny it's the watch they sold. Thus your naughty "swapper" doesn't get anywhere.....nor might a genuine buyer with a legitimate problem.
Still, I would imagine it could cause quite a stir for the sake of writing down a few digits. I’m amazed some dealers don’t do this, it literally takes seconds. Just lazy I suppose!
Some lazy, yes.
Some also definitely so that they may not be linked to a watch further down the line.
Most, of course, wouldn't recognise a renumbered case if it came with a label anyway!
Right, I see what your saying now! Shocking.
The mind boggles that a business would buy £700k worth of watches from some guy without doing some serious checking.
I’m also surprised so few were stolen, I guess others were but they could not prove they were.
Last edited by Montello; 4th January 2019 at 20:41.
Thank god my days of dealing with WF are over. Most of my transactions were a phone call, followed by an e-mail supplying details and images and then posting the watch off to them. I rarely needed to complete one of their buying forms, just contacted the same guy.
I would guess that some were very recently stolen, so not yet on the radar, and some may have been from other countries perhaps - it looks like a fairly organised crime. The watch shops probably got to know the guy and believed him to be a watch trader - some on SC over the years have flipped a huge number of watches, so it’s not impossible. But... it’s still an eye opener!
It's just a matter of time...
Explicit :
https://www.policeprofessional.com/n...k-for-support/
...and, of the 56 watches identified as stolen out of the 535 he had sold, what happened where they had in turn been sold on, presumably to retail or trade clients?
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 6th January 2019 at 00:03.
So what happens now? It’s proven that some of the watches that haave been brought and sold on to the public are stolen.
Will these watches get clawed back by the Police? Who ends up out of pocket?
Legal position is fairly straightforward, but as for the practicalities you’d have to ask the two companies named in that latest link how they dealt with it / are dealing with it.
And the possible added complications of part exchanges/finance against the aforementioned watches.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
As in the watch should be returned to the owner?
In which case would the dealer be required to reimburse their customer? And what happens if said watch has gone up £2000 in the mean time?
As I type this I’m wearing a Rolex bought from one of those named dealers ...
Last edited by Montello; 6th January 2019 at 10:29.
The watch will be still be stolen property until recovered by the Police or owner (be that the original loser or a subsequent insurance company). Who ever is in possession of the watch at the point of seizure will be out of pocket. Often an insurance company who having paid out will allow purchase of that watch by the last 'owner' for a rate that can be determined by the two parties.
The last possessor of the watch will have to seek their own redress from whomever they bought the watch from.
Unwittingly buying stolen goods is a nightmare.
I see nothing wrong in any bona fide organisation insisting on financial checks to validate the history of the products they are selling.
Even in the last few days we have had examples of dishonesty and stupidity in this forum alone. We have a scrote who boasts about obtaining a refund from the RM for non delivery of a parcel that was in fact presented for delivery to mugs who assume that the papers on a watch are a sign of authenticity and which they will pass on at a later date to some other unsuspecting mug.
Sorry but the watch scene is full of dodgy chancers and mugs and the more protection we have from their antics the better.
Just the watch scene?
Posting Permissions
