Questions .... Please elaborate on your statement, "The best course of action for Antiquorum was indeed to back entirely out of the situation." Specifically, what criteria are you using to determine "best"? And how do you conclude that Antiquorum's chosen course of action (i.e., returning the watch to the consignor immediately after receiving proof of theft and then keeping the consignor's identity secret) was a better course of action than holding the watch or turning it over to law enforcement, especially when so much of your post is about how difficult and complicated it could be to determine ownership?
Comments ...
(1) I would substitute the word "expedient" for your word "best" in your comment above. In my opinion, Antiquorum chose the expedient course of action, not the best course of action.
(2) You ask the very relevant, appropriate question, "But how can a third party legally verity the bona fides of that claim [that the watch was stolen from Nico]?" The third party here (Antiquorum) asked, and then answered, that very question by asking Nico to provide specific documentation of his ownership and of the theft. Nico immediately complied with Antiquorum's request by providing Antiquorum with his proof of purchase, scans of the original papers unique to this watch (#185/500), and the police report documenting the theft. In addition, there exists a multi-year history of internet posts that documents the theft of Nico's Langematik Anniversary. So that's the answer to your question. And I cannot fathom more robust proof than the aggregate of those objective facts.
(3) Parties do not get to choose whether they are "disinterested." Antiquorum was NEVER a "disinterested party" from the moment the consignor first contacted Antiquorum about auctioning his or her watch. Auctioning watches is Antiquorum's business. It is why Antiquorum exists. Antiquorum (and any watch dealer who ever touched this watch after 2011) could never have had any reasonable expectation that they had (or could convey) good title to this watch -- a watch that was floating around without any boxes or papers and with its unique limited edition number and serial number prominently engraved on the outside of the case -- when a simple Internet search of those numbers and/or a simple call to Lange would have yielded that it was stolen. And Antiquorum was subsequently informed by the buyer -- the auction winner who had just received the stolen goods -- that this watch was reported stolen after the buyer did such a simple internet search, and the buyer then returned the watch to Antiquorum. Antiquorum then knew it likely had stolen property in its physical possession, and that knowledge was confirmed when Nico provided Antiquorum with the aforementioned documentation (which happened while Antiquorum still had the watch in its physical possession). You can't unring a bell and claim "But I was just a disinterested third party!" after all of that -- at least, legally, I HOPE you can't (but that has yet to be determined).
(4) Experienced representatives from other auction houses have said that Antiquorum's behavior was aberrant (and abhorrent) in this instance. They said that best practice -- standard practice -- in these cases is for the auction house to hold the watch and notify law enforcement if necessary, but certainly NOT to immediately return the watch to the consignor regardless of the consignor's claims of legitimate ownership.
(5) I don't understand why an insurance company would provide any help to recover stolen goods when that insurance company did not paid a claim for those goods. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that the insurance company has no incentive or reason to help. This message has been edited by CR on 2016-01-18 11:50:10