By CELESTINE BOHLEN
The family of a Jewish widow who fled Germany to escape the Holocaust, leaving behind a 1924 work by the Expressionist painter Emil Nolde, has reached a settlement with a German museum where the painting turned up in 1984. Gov. George E. Pataki of New York announced the settlement yesterday, presenting it as an example of the research and restitution work that has been done by the State Banking Department since 1997, when it was charged with helping to recover assets lost during the Holocaust. The painting, "Bauernhof," will remain in the Kuntshalle in Emden, Germany, where it will be identified by a plaque listing its prewar provenance. The sum the family received under the settlement was not disclosed. David Bamberger of Columbia, Md., a grandson of Heinrich and Elizabeth Bamberger, who were the painting's original owners, said the research by the Holocaust claims office of the banking department had made the settlement possible. "We also appreciate greatly the willingness of the museum, the Kunsthalle in Emden, to engage in a constructive dialogue with us that facilitated a resolution of this matter at long last," he said in a statement. The painting was registered with the Nazis by Elizabeth Bamberger in 1938, as required for Jews, and when she fled in 1940, it was left in the care of Siegfried Wurzburger, the cantor at her synagogue in Frankfurt-am-Main. Mr. Wurzburger and his wife died in the Holocaust, and the painting, which had been seized by a Nazi appraiser, disappeared. Mrs. Bamberger survived the war and ended up in Ecuador, where she began a search that was to be pursued by the next two generations of her family. The painting was finally spotted in the Kuntshalle in Emden, where it arrived as a bequest from the Henri Nannen Foundation, which was formed by the prominent German journalist and collector.
http://www.nytimes.com/
Museum gem theft dazzles Dutch police
Jon Henley Tuesday December 3, 2002 The Guardian
A gang of particularly adroit thieves had no need of a Dutch science museum's tips on how to tell real diamonds from fakes when they made off with a king's ransom of its most precious exhibits yesterday. Embarrassed officials at the Museon in the Hague said the robbers "knew exactly what they were looking for" and that their haul included millions of pounds worth of necklaces, tiaras and gems lent by other institutions and individuals - including some of Europe's royal families. "They took only the most valuable items in the exhibition," said the museum's director, Bert Molsbergen, adding that the full list of jewellery was still being compiled by police. A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said no British royal jewellery was on show in the Hague. The crown jewels are never lent out, he said, and the tiara collection was recently returned from the Victoria and Albert Museum. The educational exhibition, entitled The Diamond - From Rough Stone to Gem, opened on October 5 and set out to offer visitors an insight into the gem business from mining through valuation to cutting and mounting. It also offered to assess stones and identify imitations. "The break-in happened at about 4am," said Museon deputy director, Bob Crezee. "But unfortunately it wasn't discovered for some time because like every Monday, the museum was closed." He said some pieces, besides being immensely valuable, were of great historical significance. "We still have no idea how the men got past the security system, nor indeed how many of them there were," he said. The exhibition was protected by round-the-clock security guards, surveillance cameras and infrared sensors, with reinforced glass display cases for the most valuable pieces.. "The thieves smashed a window to get in, but they weren't heard by the guards or picked up by the CCTV cameras," Mr Molsbergen said. "They made their way to the main jewellery room and somehow gained access to six of the 28 display cabinets. It was clearly carefully planned." Steltman, a celebrated jewellers in the Hague, had lent several valuable art deco pieces and said yesterday it had lost most of them. "None of these works are ever likely to resurface," said managing director Frans Brom. "They are so special that they have been photographed many times. They'll never appear at auction because everyone who knows their jewellery knows these pieces. They have almost certainly left Holland already." Without most of its royal attractions the Museon, near the Dutch parliament, may now have to end its display four months early.
Japan slams the door on stolen artwork
By BRAD GLOSSERMAN
HONOLULU -- Stolen art is big business. According to Interpol, the traffic in stolen art is worth about $5 billion a year, about as much as the illegal trade in arms and drugs. Accurate estimates of the trade are hard to come by, but this figure is almost certainly low. After all, how does one value one-of-a-kind historical and cultural objects? In those cases, price tags are meaningless. The uniqueness of these objects makes them even more treasured by collectors. Typically, the only constraint they face is the size of their bank account and their readiness to pay.
This month, the rules will change for Japanese collectors. On Dec. 9, the Convention on the Prevention of the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property goes into effect in Japan. The convention, adopted by UNESCO's General Conference in November 1970, is the first global legal instrument that protects cultural property against pillage and illegal sales. Although Japan will be the 95th country to ratify the convention, signing on is a big deal. First, Japan is one of the world's wealthiest countries and the home of many collectors. It is a critical node in the international art network. Second, Japan has an enormous amount of stolen art and cultural artifacts. Much of the damage was done during Japan's imperial period, when colonial administrators looted the lands they controlled. According to the Cultural Properties Administration of Korea, there are at least 34,157 cultural objects of Korean origin in Japan -- and those are only the objects that are known to be there. When objects that are thought to have been stolen are included, the number more than doubles to 75,266 objects. According to another estimate, Japanese colonial officials and private collectors took at least 100,000 artifacts and cultural treasures from the end of the 19th century until Japan's defeat in 1945. There are more than 1,000 Korean artifacts at the Tokyo National Museum, more than 800 at the Osaka City Museum of Ceramics and more than 2,100 books in the Kyoto University Library. Korea is not the only victim of the Japanese. According to an investigation by a commission established by the Ministry of Education of China in 1945, at least 3.6 million rare books, calligraphy works, paintings and other antiques were looted by the Japanese Army during its rampage through China.
It's a grim situation. Worse still is the loss of a nation's history. "Koreans have to go to Japan to see many of their own cultural assets, as it is the largest holder of Korean cultural objects outside of Korea," explained Kwan Cheeyon, a Seoul-based curator and art historian. Although stolen art has enormous value -- emotional, cultural and economic -- it has only been a minor irritant in the Japan-South Korea relationship. Political and economic issues took precedence when the two governments first began discussing normalization. At that time, money for development figured more prominently in Seoul's calculations than did cultural artifacts. Still, Tokyo did return over 1,300 articles, including porcelains and documents, to South Korea when the two countries resumed diplomatic relations in 1965. New attitudes in South Korea -- prompted by rising affluence and confidence -- as well as increasing attention to the need to protect cultural properties have spurred South Korea to take a more aggressive line in reclaiming its lost history. The growing emphasis on cultural and grassroots ties between the two countries has also helped raise the profile of the issue in the bilateral relationship. The issue will also dog Japanese efforts to normalize relations with North Korea. Reportedly, during the historic September summit, North Korea requested that Japan return cultural artifacts seized during the colonial period and compensate North Korea for the loss. The Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration issued at the meeting between Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il refers explicitly to "the issue of cultural property." Tokyo's decision to ratify the UNESCO convention will help foreign governments make the case that Japan has a moral obligation to make serious efforts to repatriate stolen property. It will also give petitioners legal support when they demand the return of stolen property. But the law will only have an impact if officials are ready to enforce it. Without aggressive attempts to track down violators, collectors will go unpunished. And since most such collectors tend to be individuals of means, there will be considerable reluctance to go after them. Also, as noted, many stolen artifacts are already in public collections. Requiring their return will involve considerable public embarrassment as well as economic losses to prestigious public and private entities. None of this bodes well for wiping the slate clean.
Japan's initial reluctance to join the 1970 convention is ironic given Tokyo's awareness of the need to protect cultural heritage. In 1871, the Meiji government introduced a decree on the protection of cultural objects, and in 1888 the government set up the Provisional Bureau for the Nation-Wide Investigation of Treasures, leading to the establishment of the Tokyo Imperial Museum. In the postwar era, the 1950 Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties has served as the foundation of efforts to protect such artifacts. In an additional irony, Korean legislation to protect national treasures is modeled after the Japanese law. Nor can Japan be faulted for only focusing on its own cultural properties. In 1989, Tokyo established the Japanese Trust Fund for the Preservation of World Cultural Heritage within UNESCO, which has been engaged in cultural heritage preservation activities. The Trust Fund was set up to preserve tangible cultural heritage, such as historic monuments and archaeological vestiges of great value. By the end of 1999, Japan had contributed $35.66 million to the fund, and preservation projects have been implemented at 18 sites in 14 countries. Joining the 1970 convention is an important step forward for Japan. Tokyo's adherence to the legal regime should have an impact on dealers, collectors and traders. Moreover, a readiness to see that the convention is honored and enforced will help ease some of the tensions that have dogged Tokyo's relations with its neighbors. Returning seized and stolen artifacts could help convince those nations that Japan understands the enormity of the misdeeds that were performed during the colonial period.
Brad Glosserman is director of research at Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based think tank.
The Japan Times
Ex-cleaner admits owning stolen art
By Olivia Hill-Douglas December 3 2002
The part-owner and former director of a cleaning company has admitted possessing a painting now valued at $200,000 that hung in the governor-general's Melbourne residence in 1994. George Kourounis, 49, of Riversdale Road, Hawthorn, pleaded guilty in the County Court yesterday to receiving stolen goods. The painting, In the Nice Flower Market by Ethel Carrick-Fox, was bought by the National Gallery in 1972 for $25,000, the court was told, and loaned to the Treasury Place offices of then governor-general Sir Zelman Cowen in 1981. The court heard that it was reported missing on November 25, 1994, when Bill Hayden was governor-general, and was recovered by the Australian Federal Police from the Deutscher Fine Art gallery three years later. Kourounis' company, G. J. & K. Cleaning Services, held the cleaning contract for the Treasury Place offices between June, 1989, and March, 1992, the court was told. Prosecutor Robert Barry said that in 1995 Kourounis sold the painting through art dealer Adrian Collins for $35,000. He allegedly told Mr Collins he had bought the painting overseas. After being sold again, it ended up in an exhibition at the Deutscher Fine Art gallery in Malvern Road, Malvern. Stephen Kaye, QC, for Kourounis, said art had been a "consuming passion" for his client since the early 1980s.
He said it was unclear how Kourounis had acquired the painting. Mr Barry said that given Kourounis' passionate interest in art and his knowledge of the Treasury Place offices, it would be unlikely he did not know the painting was stolen when he came into possession of it. The court was told that Kourounis had resigned as a director of the cleaning company in which he owns a half-share. Judge Peter Gebhardt will sentence Kourounis, who remains on bail, on a date to be fixed.
http://www.theage.com.au/
MI6 tipped off Yard's art squad over dhow sale
PAUL GALLAGHER
THE legal fiasco that has tarnished the reputations of the monarchy and judiciary began with an overheard indiscretion during a conversation between two drinkers at a pub in Mayfair. An eavesdropper was intrigued to hear a leading art expert tell his companion how a silver gilt model of an Arabian sailing dhow, on display at the London dealers Spink & Son, had a secret association with the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Details of the conversation, which took place at the beginning of November 2000, were passed on to a contact at MI6, who in turn alerted a detective at the art and antiques unit at Scotland Yard. It was to mark the start of an investigation which led police into the heart of the Royal household. The final element of the inquiry collapsed yesterday, leaving the taxpayer with an estimated bill of £2 million in legal expenses. Five days after they received the call from the MI6 source, three officers, led by Detective Chief Inspector Maxine de Brunner, visited the Bloomsbury offices of Spink to speak to senior staff. They had already established that the dhow, a £500,000 gift from the Emir of Bahrain to the Prince and Princess of Wales for their 1981 wedding, was missing. It had been given to Diana when the couple’s possessions were divided on their separation, but Buckingham Palace said it had not shown up in an inventory taken shortly after her death in 1997.
They also suspected that other valuable items, including paintings and antiques and some of Diana’s clothes, were missing and that they had been sold overseas, possibly to collectors in the US. The wedding gift that found its way to Spink was thought to be only the start. The dhow in question was found on display in one of Spink’s offices underneath a portrait of the Queen, and the company said it was available for sale at £30,000. Naturally, it had been modified slightly with the removal of the plaque dedicating it to Prince Charles and his bride. A jewel-encrusted flag and plinth were missing from the model vessel. Jan Havlik, a former director of Spink, insisted the item had been legitimately acquired, but his story immediately aroused the suspicions of detectives on the case. He said Harold Brown, a royal butler whom he had known for 12 years, had simply walked into Spink’s offices on 1 December 1997, carrying the 2ft model under his arm wrapped in a plastic bag. After evaluating the item, the company offered Mr Brown the sum of £1,200, which he accepted in cash. "I didn’t ask any questions," Mr Havlik said in a newspaper interview shortly after his arrest. "Our whole business is built on trust and discretion. When Harold Brown said he was selling this item I didn’t ask him too much about it," Mr Havlik said, adding that the dhow was not particularly valuable and that Spink’s had agreed to buy it "simply because we thought we were doing a favour for the Royal household". He added: "I thought I was dealing with someone acting for the Royal Family. I was being discreet but everything I did was above board and under Spink’s roof."
Mr Havlik, 51, told detectives Mr Brown had sold him items on "three or four" occasions. Records at Spink showed Mr Brown had also sold an emerald and diamond bangle and matching earrings for £3,700. A week after their visit to Spink, the police called at Kensington Palace where they arrested Mr Brown. He was to change his story three times over their subsequent investigations. "He denied selling the dhow to anyone, but he said that he did certain things for Diana, Princess of Wales, that he did not think were right at the time but he did not elaborate on that answer. He was arrested for the theft of the dhow," said senior prosecutor William Boyce QC as he outlined the case yesterday. During his first police interviews, Mr Brown claimed to have discussed with Princess Diana the selling of the dhow for cash. He explained that the jewel-encrusted flag on the model ship had been sold separately for £3,000 or £4,000. "I gave the money to the princess ... she just took the money and I either gave it to her or sent it to her. I do not remember the actual details," Mr Brown told detectives. "I cannot remember when I removed the dhow from the plinth. The sale was definitely before her death, about six years ago." After being shown the receipt from Spink, Mr Brown continued: "I sent the cash to the princess, in an envelope, gave it to her or left it for her; I cannot remember. I think it happened about six years ago. I am sure it happened before her death in 1997." It was only after the date of the transaction - January 1998, five months after Diana died - was pointed out to him, that he changed his story, saying: "I am amazed. Well, I must have kept the money, I cannot be certain."
He added: "I was given it to sell before her death and sold it afterwards. I suppose I spent the money for the dhow, I cannot remember what happened to the money for the flag. It was a game … beyond my depth." At a later interview, Mr Brown came up with another version, bringing in Diana’s former butler, Paul Burrell, and claiming that he had handed over the proceeds from the sale of the dhow to Mr Burrell on the understanding that they would go to the Diana memorial fund. "I have spent my life not talking about other people … to my own detriment," he added. "I had taken the dhow to Spink at least once for appraisal. It was in my possession when she died. Paul Burrell asked me to dispose of it. It was an on-going thing. It was now worth £1,200. It was not the best solution but it was a solution." Mr Brown was immediately suspended from the Royal household on his arrest but Princess Margaret missed her favourite servant and asked her private secretary, Viscount Ullswater, to investigate. He spoke to Mr Brown in December 2000 and the story that he was disposing of a gift from Princess Diana was accepted. Mr Brown, 50, was allowed to return to work as butler to Princess Margaret and remained there until five months later, after he was charged with theft and Mr Havlik with handling stolen goods. It was as part of their investigation into Mr Brown and Mr Havlik that police travelled to the home of Mr Burrell in Cheshire, hoping to find evidence to throw light on the case, and instead found more than 300 items related to the estate of Diana Princess of Wales. Mr Burrell denied any knowledge of the sale of the dhow and it was decided that his case would have to be tried separately. Even with the collapse of the Burrell trial, prosecutors still hoped to proceed with the case against Mr Brown and Mr Havlik. One plank of their case - that Mr Burrell did not have the authority to tell Mr Brown to sell items in Diana’s estate - had been undermined by the Queen’s intervention. However, they still planned to argue that staff in the Royal household would never be handed extravagant gifts such as the Arabian dhow by members of the Royal Family.
Lawyers for the prosecution had asked that the Brown and Havlik trial be delayed until the conclusion of an independent review by the Palace into the giving of Royal gifts to members of staff but the trial judge refused the request. Mr Boyce told the Old Bailey: "It is implicit in the prosecution analysis that there remains some evidence against Harold Brown and Jan Havlik capable of being deployed at trial. However, that is not the test which must be applied under the code for Crown prosecutors. "Given that the decision by the Director of Public Prosecution is that, in the light of what occurred during and after the trial of Paul Burrell, there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, the prosecution proposes to offer no evidence against both defendants on all counts."
The main players in the butler farce
HM QUEEN ELIZABETH
THE Queen was said to have warned former Royal butler Paul Burrell that his close relationship with Diana, Princess of Wales could put him in danger and that "there are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge". It was the Queen’s intervention that forced the collapse of the theft trial, when she recalled at the eleventh hour that Mr Burrell had told her he was looking after some of Diana’s belongings. In a three-hour meeting about the princess with Mr Burrell, the Queen apparently responded by nodding her approval.
JAN HAVLIK
SOCIETY jeweller Jan Havlik was introduced to the Royal butler Harold Brown by Lord Snowdon at a party held by Cartier, who were Mr Havlik’s employers. Mr Havlik described the "ultimate glory" of being introduced to Diana, Princess of Wales. The introduction came at another party in December, 1995, where Paul Burrell was "doing the honours and taking various people around". Mr Havlik said Mr Burrell had described him as "our man at Cartier". Mr Havlik left Cartier in April 1996, and went to Spink & Son as jewellery departmental director.
PAUL BURRELL PAUL Burrell, 44, grew up in Derbyshire in the former mining village of Grassmere. The son of a lorry driver, he settled on a Royal career at an early age, following a trip to see the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace. Mr Burrell entered the Royal household in 1976, as a trainee footman and, within a year, was appointed personal footman to the Queen. In 1984, he married Maria, a maid to Prince Philip, and they have two sons, Alexander and Nicholas. Mr Burrell stayed with Diana, Princess of Wales throughout her divorce.
PRINCESS DIANA
FOR 16 years, the image of Diana, Princess of Wales flooded the world, setting fashions and outshining the Windsor family after her divorce from Prince Charles. She died on 31 August, 1997, in Paris, with the Harrods heir Dodi Fayed. More and more graphic illustrations of Diana’s bizarre and manipulative behaviour were to be unveiled in the years since her death. Five years on, her ghost still haunts the Royal Family, and the trial of her former butler has cast a shadow over the Queen’s Golden Jubilee year.
HAROLD BROWN
HAROLD Malcolm Brown was born in Australia on 9 August, 1952. He moved to Britain after leaving school and took casual work before joining the Royal household as a page to the Queen. During 30 years of service, he worked for the Prince of Wales and went on to serve Charles and Diana when they married. After leaving Diana’s service, Mr Brown became Princess Margaret’s butler. As the princess’s most senior domestic servant, he probably earned about £30,000 a year. He was among ten members of staff who faced being made redundant until he was taken on by Lord Linley.
The Royal Jeweller
JAN Havlik, a society jeweller, was introduced to the Royal butler Harold Brown by Lord Snowdon at a party hosted by Cartier, who were Mr Havlik’s employers at the time. Mr Havlik also told police in an interview how, in what he described as the "ultimate glory", he and his wife were introduced to Diana, Princess of Wales. The introduction came at another party in December 1995, where Paul Burrell was "doing the honours and taking various people around". Mr Burrell had described him as "our man at Cartier". Mr Havlik left Cartier in April 1996, and went to Spink & Son as a departmental director, working there until July 1998 . William Boyce, QC, prosecuting, said records recovered from Spink & Son showed Mr Brown deposited a diamond daffodil motif on 11 November, 1997, to be offered for sale. On 1 December, he deposited an emerald and diamond bangle and matching 18ct gold earrings and the silver gilt dhow. Spink & Son paid £3,700 for the bangle and earrings and £1,200 for the dhow, which was without its plinth and the jewel-encrusted flag, the most valuable part. Mr Havlik had signed the acknowledgements of receipt forms for the items and bought them on behalf of Spink & Son. He later sold the bangle and earrings on behalf of the company, with the usual trade mark-up, to Anthony Landsberg, a Hatton Garden jeweller. He, in turn, sold them in the course of normal trade to an unknown private customer. Mr Havlik admitted he must have sold the jewel-encrusted flag separately from the dhow. The daffodil motif was not sold and was recovered from Mr Brown after his arrest. In his police interview on 15 November, 2000, Mr Havlik said he relied on Mr Brown and assumed he was acting within his authority. Mr Havlik allegedly told police: "This is just one, this a grain of sand compared to what I have to shift." He also told police he would not risk his reputation for a few hundred pounds. After the case was dropped, Mr Havlik said he was delighted his ordeal was over. His solicitors said: "Mr Havlik has always maintained his innocence. He answered all questions put to him in interview and provided a very full defence statement at an early stage dealing with all the issues in the case. He has always had a complete defence to all the charges he faced. "From the time he was charged, we have urged the prosecution to reconsider. "He is delighted that this matter is now at an end. He and his family have endured over two years of stress and anxiety. He will now be able to concentrate his attention on rebuilding his business ." http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/
disclaimer: the Museum Security Network does not accept any responsibillity for product infrmation
From: "Johan Pronk" jthpronk@yahoo.com To: securma@museum-security.org
Subject: Prevention from flooding damage by early warning
Date sent: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:51:11 +0100
Dear Sir/Madam,
We do represent the company YM Electornics Ltd. in the Benelux. This company produces a unique kind of flooding detection system. This system exists of a central unit and detectors on flooding sensitive places. The system is unique in the respect that there is no comparable system with regard to quality. Just some examples of this quality: the system detects up to 80 different liquids, it detects already 1 mm flooding and the Mean Time Between Failure is 16000 hours.
The system is already used on a wide scale.
We are currently setting up the marketing ans sales programm for the Benelux. We are sure that the system is able to prevent archives and musea from possible flooding damage. Just a couple of weeks ago we had an exemple in the Netherlands of an archive which flooded because the pumps didn't work properly. The damage is millions of euros.
For more information, please see http://www.pronktrade.com or contact us.
Kind regards, J.Th. Pronk Veerstraat 18 4698 RM Oud-Vossemeer The Netherlands +31 166 677157 j.pronk@pronktrade.com