MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"MSN CPPnet (Ton Cremers)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 5 Nov 2005 06:48:10 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (151 lines)
How Tate laid money trail to recover Turners
By Nigel Reynolds 
(Filed: 05/11/2005)

The Tate Gallery paid money to Balkan underworld figures for the return of
two Turner masterpieces worth £24 million stolen while on loan to Germany,
according to a television programme.

The Tate has always insisted that a payout of £3.3 million was only for
"information" and for the costs of an investigation leading to the recovery
of the paintings.

 
But Underworld Art Deal, to be shown on BBC 2 next week, reveals in detail
how the Tate set out to "buy back" the paintings and hired a German lawyer
and two ex-Metropolitan police officers to act as their intermediaries.

In a cloak-and-dagger operation, apparently approved by both the German and
British authorities, the trio handed over all of, or the bulk of, the Tate's
£3.3 million to unnamed criminals connected with the theft.

The payment of money to criminals for stolen property would be a highly
sensitive issue, not only because it would put recovery above prosecution
but also because it could encourage other major thefts.

The Tate's decision to pay off criminals, albeit through third parties, is
likely to provoke strong debate in the art world.

Scotland Yard documents show that British police and the Tate agreed that
they must "ensure a robust media strategy is developed to prevent negative
rumours of a buy-back".

The Turner masterpieces, Shade and Darkness and Light and Colour - then
insured for £12 million each but now thought to be worth double that - were
stolen from an exhibition at Frankfurt's Schirn Kusthalle in 1994 during
which a security guard was tied up.

The Tate's insurers paid up in full. The two thieves and their getaway
driver were caught and in 1999 were given sentences ranging from three to 11
years.

But the mastermind behind the theft, thought to be a leader of Frankfurt's
Balkan mafia controlling drugs and prostitution in the city, was never
charged and the paintings vanished.

The Tate then took a gamble and paid its insurers, Lloyd's and Axa
Nordstern, £7 million to buy back the rights to ownership should the
paintings ever reappear and then it put its own recovery plan into action.

Edgar Liebrucks, a Frankfurt lawyer who had previously represented a
Frankfurt-based Serb told the Tate that he believed he could negotiate the
recovery of the paintings. 

He was hired as a go-between and the Tate also took on Det Supt Mike
Lawrence and Det Jurek "Rocky" Rokoszynski. All three co-operated with the
documentary, made by German television producer Kurtz Egmont.

The gallery paid £3.3 million into a Frankfurt bank account set up by
Rokoszynski. 

When criminals that Mr Liebrucks was negotiating with demanded £330,000 for
photographs proving that they held the paintings, Rokoszynski paid up and
the first step in the recovery had been taken.

In 2002, announcing the recovery, Sir Nicholas Serota, the director of the
Tate, refused to disclose any details but said: "We have paid for certain
information and we have paid in a number of directions but I don't think we
have paid the thieves in any sense. The sum is so small that I don't see it
as significant." 

But Mr Lawrence told the documentary makers: "This was a unique situation,
so unique in fact that the Tate had to approach the High Court to get
authority to use some of the money to assist in getting the paintings back.
He [the judge] used the term buy-back, and that's what it was in this case."

Mr Liebrucks and the former policemen also detail how the police in Germany
and Britain knew of the operation and, they claim, gave them immunity from
prosecution arising from the negotiations.

Mr Lawrence said: "The deal was that the recovery of the works of art was
more important than arrests. It was a strange feeling."

Mr Liebrucks' contacts wanted another £330,000 up front to hand over one of
the Turners. The Tate, by now anxious that it might be pouring money into a
lost cause, refused to sanction the second payment.

But Mr Liebrucks delivered the painting to the ex-detectives in Frankfurt in
2000 after driving to Switzerland to raise the money himself. 

He refused to tell the documentary makers where the money came from but he
is believed to have been reimbursed from Mr Rokoszynski's account. 

Sandy Nairne, now director of the National Portrait Gallery but then the
senior Tate official overseeing the recovery, flew to Frankfurt and
collected the painting but the Tate kept its recovery quiet for another two
years until after the second Turner was recovered.

This was more difficult. The trail, according to Mr Liebrucks went cold,
until he was contacted 18 months later by two sources claiming to have it.

The lawyer handed over £660,000 to one of them but no painting emerged and
no further contact was made for some time until Mr Liebrucks was ordered to
rendezvous in a wood outside Frankfurt. There he was led to a hut and shown
the painting but not allowed to take it.

The Tate would not authorise a deal unless Mr Rokoszynski was present. 

A complicated arrangement was set in place under which Mr Liebrucks was
taken to an empty flat in a small town outside the city, told to memorise
its whereabouts and return with Mr Rokoszynski.

When they returned, they found the painting, took it to a hotel, telephoned
the Tate, took 2.5 million euros out of the ex-detective's Frankfurt
account, delivered the cash in a bag and, in Mr Liebrucks's words: "We met
people to hand it over."

No record was made of the serial numbers of the banknotes and they were not
secretly marked, the lawyer says.

Did the Tate knowingly pay a form of ransom?

Mr Nairne says in the programme: "I think what we knew in all the different
stages of the investigation was that a reward would be necessary, that a
reward would be involved, that a reward initially offered by the insurers
might need to be enhanced. 

I think that was clear from very early on." He said he had no idea in whose
hands the Tate's money had finished.

"It was absolutely not a ransom," he said. "A ransom is where somebody is
threatening something. It may sound like splitting hairs but we paid for
information leading to the recovery of the paintings."

A Tate spokesman said last night: "The Tate acted throughout the
investigation with the assistance and advice of the Metropolitan Police and
dealt with a reputable German lawyer. 

The Tate obtained authorisation from the appropriate British and German
authorities for all payments made by it to the German lawyer."

• Underworld Art Deal will be shown on BBC 2 at 7pm on Wednesday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).

ATOM RSS1 RSS2