Posted on 04/25/2016 3:44:56 PM PDT by SMGFan
federal appeals court has ruled a New Jersey couple can't sue to keep a stolen 7.35-carat diamond, even though it was given as a gift from mother to daughter, the couple's attorney confirmed on Monday. The pear-shaped diamond was stolen in 2003 and made its way through various sellers before ending up purchased for $175,000 by Saddle River resident Frank Walsh, according to previous reports.
In 2012, Walsh's wife gave the diamond as a gift to their daughter, Suzanne, and son-in-law Steven Zaretsky.
When the Zaretskys tried to have the diamond insured, a jeweler discovered the gem had been stolen in 2003 by celebrity stylist Derek Khan, according to reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Quality glass is relatively inexpensive.
gee, doesnt seem fair. we let the children of criminals who have broken into our country stealing benefits meant for citizens keep the spoils.
Truly does suck for them, but why should the original owner from it was stolen not get his property back?
*from whom
Wonder if they knew that it was stolen.
Or if a deal is too good to be true, then it probably is... too good to be true.
Black letter property law: the purchaser of stolen property gets no better tiitle than the original thief. Good for the court.
Sucks for them, but they don’t have legal title to it. It was stolen
If they bought it from a reputable channel, they need to sue the seller for selling them a stolen gem
Probably going to be the insurance company that ends up with title to the stone. The original owner probably got the insurance payout more than 10 years ago. If it was underinsured, the original owner might have some claim to the excess over what the payout was.
Diamonds aren’t forever.
federal appeals court has ruled
When the Zaretskys tried to have the diamond insured, a jeweler discovered the gem had been stolen in 2003 by celebrity stylist Derek Khan, according to reports.
Khan borrowed the diamond for a fashion shoot and pawned the gem instead of returning it, according to court documents.
Khan, who made his name by borrowing high-end jewelry in exchange for it being worn by celebrities, was eventually arrested and charged with stealing $1.5 million in jewelry. He spent two years in prison and is now working as a jeweler and personal shopper in Dubai, according to various news reports.
In 2014, a federal judge sided with the Zaretskys, ruling that they were the stone’s rightful owners, despite the diamond having been previously stolen.
But last week a three-judge panel serving on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan decided the lower court erred because Khan was a stylist and not a merchant under New York’s commercial code.
Therefore, he could not legally sell the diamond and the Zaretskys could not legally hold title to it, the judges ruled in a 32-page decision.
Also, why should the person who sold it to them, get to keep the money they got from it?
And here is the thief: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/fashion/17CROOK.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
" purchased for $175,000 by Saddle River resident Frank Walsh, "
I haven't priced 7.35 carat diamonds lately, but $175K doesn't sound "too good to be true" to me.
If it’s a quality diamond it’s an incredible price.
For a diamond that large it would have to be a yellowish fair cut diamond to go for that price.
I’ve only owned one investment quality stone in my life time. It was described by the appraiser as I think, a brilliant fancy since it had an extra facet. It was about 1 carat. We indexed it. It was stolen. We got the money from the insurance company. Used the money for more important stuff. I do miss it but hey. Not too much.
Receiving stolen property is...well, illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.