SHARE
COPY LINK

JEWELLERY

Geneva jeweller tracks stolen sapphire to US

When Geneva-based jeweller Ronny Totah received an offer last November to view a rare Kashmir sapphire set for auction with an asking price of up to $12 million, his jaw dropped.

Geneva jeweller tracks stolen sapphire to US
Missing sapphire was on a bracelet made by Cartier, the luxury brand owned by Geneva-based company Richemont. Photo: AFP

The large glimmering blue sapphire pictured in the prospective from the Phillips auction house was, he was convinced, a gem his company once owned before it was audaciously snatched from a Milan hotel nearly two decades earlier.
   
“I looked at the certificate, and I had this feeling. I said to myself: 'That's it. That's it',” he told AFP in an interview.
   
The story reads like the plot of a mystery novel, with a multitude of twists and turns, a second disappearance and an as yet unresolved ending centred around a New York pawn shop.
   
It all started in 1996, when the Horovitz & Totah (H&T) jewellers had offered for auction a Cartier bracelet bearing a stunning 65.16-carat unheated Kashmir sapphire with an unusual elongated cushion-cut.
   
On November 14th that year, days before the anticipated sale in Geneva focused exclusively on Cartier jewels, auction house Antiquorum displayed the pieces at the Four Seasons hotel in Milan.
   
According to Swiss daily Le Temps, more than 50 people were in the viewing room when the bracelet, the main attraction of the show, vanished.

 'A shock' 

“It was terrible,” Totah said.

“It is always a shock when you get robbed.”
   
H&T's insurers dished out the $1.8 million — the price they had expected to fetch at the time — and Totah and his colleagues put the uncomfortable incident behind them.
   
Until November 8th 2015, when he received an email from Phillips offering a Geneva viewing of a 59.57-carat Kashmir Sapphire ahead of an auction in New York.
   
Totah did not view the stone, but studied the certificate carefully.
   
Considering “there are basically no stones with this origin, weight and shape out there . . . it is “very, very, very probably” the stolen H&T sapphire, he said.
   
The fact that the gem in the prospectus was a little smaller than the one stolen 19 years earlier did not make Totah less suspicious, since jewel thieves will often file down a stone to alter its weight or shape.
   
He suggested the sapphire being offered by Phillips had been filed down to just under the 60-carat mark to make it less spectacular and noteworthy.
   
Renowned US gem expert Donald Palmieri agreed.
   
“The Stolen H&T Sapphire and the Subject Sapphire that Phillips intended to auction are much more likely than not to be one and the same stone, albeit after an apparent re-cutting or re-polishing,” he said in an affidavit.
   
He pointed out that in his 45-year career, “I have never seen evidence of a faceted Kashmir sapphire approaching or exceeding 60 carats in weight,” besides those “two” stones.
   
Soon after receiving the viewing invitation, Totah contacted Phillips to voice his suspicions, and also put in a call to his insurers, who had become the rightful owners of the stolen gem.
   
But when the insurers contacted Phillips, they learned that the auction house had withdrawn the sapphire from the sale, and sent it back to its alleged, undisclosed owner in New York.

 Pawn broker 

Worried the stone had vanished again, the insurers hired New York lawyer Owen Carragher to help track it down.
   
According to court filings, he determined that a company named Auction House 43, based in New York's diamond district, had presented the sapphire to Phillips for auction.
   
The firm is owned by a Boris Aronov, who also owns a number of other companies, including Modern Pawn Broker, listed at the same address.
   
Court filings indicate that the pawn broker received the sapphire and other jewels from a man named Rafael Koblence in 2011 as collateral for a $3.75-million loan.
   
Koblence, who according to Le Temps is in fact a business partner of Aronov, failed to repay the loan, offered at an annual interest rate of 60 percent — or more than $6,000 a day.
   
Modern Pawn foreclosed and said his collateral would be sold at auction, court documents showed.
   
Carragher obtained a court order on December 23 calling for Modern Pawn to turn over the sapphire for examination and blocking “the defendants from transferring, selling, altering or in any way disposing of” the stone.
   
Modern Pawn has until January 29th to oppose that order.
   
When an AFP reporter recently visited the small, brightly lit shop on a stretch of 47th Street lined with jewellery stores, staff politely declined to answer questions due to the ongoing lawsuit.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

IMMIGRATION

Three years after Denmark’s infamous ‘jewellery law’ hit world headlines, not a single piece has been confiscated

A controversial law enabling Danish authorities to confiscate valuable items from refugees, known as the ‘jewellery law’, was passed by parliament on January 26th, 2016.

Three years after Denmark’s infamous 'jewellery law' hit world headlines, not a single piece has been confiscated
Asylum seekers arriving at Nyborg in 2015. File photo: Sophia Juliane Lydolph/Scanpix 2015

The legislation allows police to confiscate cash and valuables above 10,000 kroner from arriving migrants and asylum seekers.

Under Ministry of Immigration guidelines, police are told not to take wedding rings or engagement rings and individual officers are left to determine the sentimental value of other items.

Since it came into effect in February 2016, one car and 186,000 kroner in cash have been seized – and no jewellery, news agency Ritzau reported this week.

Those figures have resulted in critics saying the law is more symbolic than practical in purpose.

“We think that, instead of making symbolic restrictions such as this, a new and humane asylum system should be brought in, so people don’t have to flee,” Jacob Mark, parliamentary group leader with the Socialist People’s Party, said to Ritzau.

Rasmus Nordqvist, a political spokesperson with the Alternative party, tweeted that the jewellery law “has shown itself, as expected, to be pure optics.”

“I wish (Danish politics) spent its time on politics that changes and improves the world instead of sending out unpleasant signals,” Nordqvist added.

At the time of its introduction, the law received criticism from international human rights groups including US-based rights watchdog Human Rights Watch (HRW).

“Does a rich country like Denmark really need to strip the very assets of these desperate asylum seekers before providing them basic services?” HRW’s executive director Kenneth Roth said in January 2016.

Disapproval could also be found in international media, including in a New York Times editorial and a cartoon published by British paper The Independent, which depicted the Little Mermaid flush with cash and jewellery confiscated from refugees.

Minister for Immigration and Integration Inger Støjberg said she did not see the low number of confiscations as giving weight to criticism of the legislation.

“It is a matter of principal that, if you can provide for yourself, you must do so. That applies to Danes and it also applies to the refugees that come here,” she told Ritzau in a written message.

Støjberg cited low Danish refugee intake figures – 2018 saw the lowest number of arrivals since 2008 – as proof that the jewellery law and the government's overall policy of being strict on immigration was paying off, the news agency writes.

The jewellery law was originally passed by a large parliamentary majority which included the three parties now part of the conservative coalition government, the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party, and the Social Democrats, the largest party in opposition.

The Danish People’s Party’s spokesperson on immigration, Martin Henriksen, has previously said he wants the law to go further by checking whether asylum seekers have money in foreign bank accounts.

Henriksen’s counterpart with the Social Democrats, Mattias Tesfaye, told Ritzau he was also in favour of that idea.

“I think it’s completely logical, regarding valuables worth over 10,000 kroner, that this should apply whether they are in your back pocket or in a German bank account,” Tesfaye said.

Støjberg said that she did not see this as a realistic option.

“I find it difficult to see how we would be able to check what someone has in a foreign bank account,” she told Ritzau.

READ ALSO: BBC cross-examines Danes on integration policy