I don't think US law is going to matter one hill of beans since the car was stolen in Spain from a Swiss citizen... Shure does if the car is show at Cavilino or is in the US for restoration work. Swiss family can call the sheriffs office and impound the car. Countrys with out reciprocity are Saudi Arabia and Japan.
The ad in Cavallino Magazine is serious and definitely not a joke. It is widely known in the Ferrari Community that the Ferrari 250 GT #0799 was stolen in Marbella, Spain, in 1993 from a Swiss. Check the following link for further information about the history of Ferrari 250 GT: http://www.barchetta.cc/english/All.Ferraris/Detail/0799GT.250GT.Cabriolet.SI.htm Be careful, that history is not complete, but it makes clear who the real owner is. And of course US law does matter in this case. The receipt of a stolen vehicle which crossed a US border is a serious federal crime! Check: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002313----000-.html
It sounds like they've been in touch with the current owner and he's told them to piss off so now they're putting some more pressure on the guy. Stolen stuff should be returned to the rightful owner regardless of what a subsequent buyer knew or didn't know and what they paid for it. On another note the Getty Museum out here recently had to return a long list of Roman artifacts to Italy which were deemed to have been looted at one time and sold to the Getty by unscrupulous dealers.
If it's really stolen, certainly. Lots of scams start off by claiming legit property is stolen, however.
If someone contacted you and told you that one of your cars, which you bought, paid for, and have legitimate title to, was stolen, would you simply give it back to them? Granted, it sounds from the barchetta entry like there was some awareness of "title issues" with this car for some time, but still...
My take on this is that after 15 years, several owners (legitimate or otherwise) and several countries, Mr Weber's client better have some pretty ironclad proof of ownership. Talk is cheap. Documents can be "created". There are likely more than two versions of this story. A car with questionable provenance is not the same as looted Roman artifacts.
Scary situation for the current owner, and the one who got ripped off. No matter what happens it sounds like one of them will get screwed. I am surprised the FBI isn't interested in something like this.
Sure, but it's difficult to get automobile title insurance to cover more than the first $50 to $60k...useless for 7 and 8 figure cars.
Statute of limitations on criminal charges are probably up, leaving civil action only...which would be expensive for anyone, much less a foreigner. Plus, if a U.S. state has issued a clear title...few juries and even fewer judges are going to override the state. Evidence would have to be unimpeachable and in-your-face.
I know you can get title insurance for a $20,000,000 Picasso so you should be able to get it for a $2,000,000 Ferrari. I know there are other cars out threre with murky histories.
wow Josh's lambo repo pales in comparison to this. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. i guess the car wont be seen at any concourse with this hanging over it's head.
Some states will recognize title by adverse posession, in which case the owner who had it "stolen" is SOL as long as the current owner keeps it for the requisite time (7-21 years). Other states, like Florida, say that title never vests when the property is stolen, unless its run through something like a pawn shop. One of my clients is an art gallery and we're going through this whole thing right now with a Pollock and a gap in the provenance. I think the best place to look is the first title transaction after the theft and see how it came to be. Then again, there are issues about mechanic's liens for repairs done after the theft and the original owner being equitably estopped if they never tried to pursue the car, etc.
Pollocks without provenance have got to be the easiest art to forge ever known. Heck, you could prove title there and still wind up with a fake.
Latest Email. I regret I couldn't wait for Mr. Weber's permission on this latest email, too excited I guess. But the plot thickens. I did a search here for the other Ferraris in question and found nothing: Perhaps I need better search techniques. I should have searched google too [my friend] but since this is being expressed, I find the train of Ferraris claiming to be stolen interesting when publically advertised. ======================== 6 May 2008, 9:42AM PST Dear Mr. Weber; Thank you for the response. We do hope this is resolved. No one, especially in the Ferrari community endorses nor encourages stolen Ferrari items, of course to include the actual vehicle. As a matter of fact, the community is large and much in tune with the world of Ferrari enough that such behavior is typically sorted out and the community becomes aware of the 'players' involved and typically are banned from the community. If you don't mind, would you allow me to post this latest email? sincerely, rik granucci From: Oliver Weber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:32 AM To: Rik Granucci Subject: Re: FW: Stolen Ferrari Dear Mr. Granucci Thank you very much for your helpful email and for starting the interesting discussion on ferrarichat.com. I will update you, if I have further information about the car of my client. Maybe it is interesting for you to know that the Ferrari of my client has been stolen together with 3 other Ferraris of another owner. As you can see, this theft was a big coup and probably organized crime was involved. The three other stolen Ferraris are: - Ferrari 250 GT Spider, Series 2, year of construction 1960, Chassis No. 1893, red color with black leather interior - Ferrari 365 GT 2 + 2, year of construction 1970, Chassis No. 13811, blue color, with black leather interior - Ferrari 250 GTE 2 + 2, year of construction 1961, Chassis No. 2925, black color, with cream leather interior With kind regards Oliver Weber ===============================
Oliver's not going to make much progress with a U.S. court when his facts aren't straight... Number 2925 was a 1960 model: http://www.ferrarilif*.com/register/view.php?id=2925GT (Change the "*" to an "e" to access link)
I do find the following train of thought interesting: Don't you find it odd the number of people on this thread who have said if the car really is stolen then the current owner must give it back; yet not one of you talked about having to give back all the insurance money that I'm quite certain was given to the owner to compensate him for the loss. Now don't get me wrong; I have very little use for those who pray on, and benefit from, the hard work others have done. But I doubt the current owner of the car is the person who stole it and he most likely purchased the car with hard earned cash. The past owner took the insurance money he to which he was entitled. These thoughts don't solve anything and I'm not saying what happened was right. The bottom line is someone was wronged by a thief. But in stories like this it is important to try to keep your eye on all the facts or possible scenarios. I live in Texas; our state laws give us an interesting way to deal with thieves. 40 cal Glocks are great for this purpose.
I tend to doubt this theft story. There were enough people, such as Marcel Massini, who could have quickly told the victims of such a theft the location of this car - it was not hidden. I remember seeing (and drooling over) 0799 in the late '90s/ early '00s at Clasic Coach in Elisabeth, NJ. They had completely restored the car for the then current owner. He had decided that it did not suit him so he had it for sale for $595K. It was in perfect condition at the time - fresh, high end restoration. Regards, Art S.
