Machold

[Flyboy]

From the various news sources, I gather Ms. Sator approached Machold with 7 instruments (cellos?). According to the various media reports Machold didn't want to pay her cash for those instruments, and suggested a trade for the 4 "Toifl" violins. Machold issued Ms. Sator a "Safekeeping receipt" for the 4 "Toifl" violins (http://www.fritz-reuter.com/theheist/safekeeping/all-pages-safekeeping-receipt.pdf)

Can someone familiar with Ms. Sator's criminal lawsuit against Machold provide a brief explanation of the following for the German language-impaired (me):

1. What exactly were Ms. Sator's allegations against Machold? (The media reports allegation was "theft." But theft of what? The 7 "Sator" instruments or the 4 "Toifl" violins?)

2. What was Machold's defense against Ms. Sators accusations?

I gather Machold declared bankruptcy during this trial, so the (criminal) court had to stop proceedings. Ms Sator subsequently tried to get a higher court to rule that criminal trial should proceed (despite Machold's bankruptcy). Her request to proceed with the criminal trial was denied (presumably because the higher court felt the simultaneous criminal trial & bankruptcy would be unfair to the defendant, not because of any lack of merit in Ms. Sator's case).

[robheys]

May I encorage you (AND EVERYBODY ELSE) to participate in the "inteligence test" that I set for "Flyboy"

There are simply too many unknowns to be able to answer this question. It's the sort of thing to keep the courts busy for years (oh! I see it has done already).

I'm not a lawyer, and although I spend a lot of my working time dealing with legal issues, my opinion is worth every eurocent you're paying for it, so here it is, free and gratis.

In general, if someone can prove they purchased instruments from Machold and that they had a genuine and reasonable belief that he had the right to sell them, they would probably be seen as the rightful owner.

The key would be of course, the reasonable belief. You could probably justly argue that if a world renowned violin dealer is offering you the instrument for a lot of money, it is reasonable to believe he has title, if, on the other hand, the seller is a dodgy looking man down the pub who's only asking for a tenner, probably not. In this scenario, if anyone has bought one of Sators violins from Machold, they would probably keep title. It is then up to Sator to get the money she is owed from Machold (especially as she appears to have signed a contract to give Machold the rights to sell them).

For the banks however, it might be a different story. They have accepted the instruments as collateral for a loan. The very first step they should have taken would be to ensure that he really had title. The second step would be to ensure that the collateral couldn't just vanish (might have been a good idea to get an independent valuation as well, but we won't go into that).

If it were a car or property both these steps are (relatively) easy, you have registration papers or a land registry to check and you can register an interest against them. If I were Macholds bank manager I would want to see some proof of ownership and to immobilise the collateral, so it can't get on a plane to North Korea tomorrow. Personally I would hope that any court would consider whether or not a bank which hasn't carried out these very basic steps is acting with due diligence.

What further complicates matters is that in a bankruptcy case, the banks usually are seen as preferred creditors, i.e. they get paid out first. HOWEVER, they can only get paid from assets which really belong to Machold, if Sator can prove she owns the instruments the banks would have no claim.

What really complicates matters though, is when Sators instruments are not what they seem. Imagine this. Sator says to the court, "I handed over my DelGesu to Machold for him to sell". The court says "is this your instrument" "yes" she says. Then Jacob comes along and says "Ah, but that's not a DelGesu! That was knocked together by Dodgy Bob the Barrack room Lawyer in his copious spare time". Sator then has the choice, either she admits she gave Machold a Dodgy Bob, worth 3cents as firewood (even if she thought it was a real DG), and she can have it back, or she says "no, sorry, my eyes deceived me for a moment, I definitely gave him a real DelGesu and here's the certificate to prove it, so it can't have been this one". The trouble is then, no-one can find a genuine DelG anywhere and Machold is bankrupt so she can't get any recompense from him. Either way I am afraid Ms Sator is going to be one of the big losers in this.

Rob

[jacobsaunders]

It strikes me that there might be a further possibility. Perhaps the cello that Frau Sator gave to Machold was not the same cello that went to the bank. I have personally seen a couple of Strads that were deposited by the man in a bank that weren't Strads in spite of Macholds own certificates stating that they were. In addition I know that Frau Sator has often been ridiculed, (by Machold and the press who were taken in by macholds stories all too often and too easily) but she is the one who like a terrier has held on to Macholds leg when no-one else was interested or too afraid to act. She has spent almost everything trying to get justice and she should be respected for that alone.

Ey opp Roger!

Yes, you are absolutely right of course. Three cheers for Frau Sator, who has been fighting for years, whereas we just walked away!

Dear Rob (posting # 127)

Yes I agree with everything you say (being just as legally unqualified as you are). Trouble is I think that it is even more complicated than that.

If an individual (or even another dealer) buys a violin in a violin shop from dealer X, it must belong to her/him. If the dealer X doesn’t subsequently pay the consignee as he should, then the consignee will be obliged to sue dealer X and not the purchaser.

A further complication to your 4th paragraph would be; what happens if Frau S refuses to believe that her DelG is in fact by Dodgy bob, however many experts tell her so?

I have a slightly guilty conscience now, setting “Fly-boy” (whom I don’t know personally) an “intelligence test”. With the benefit of hindsight, I could have caused offence. I don’t think I did, so thank-you “Fly-boy”. That, I suppose, is one of the dangers of a forum like this, if you write something, it’s out there and you can’t get the proverbial toothpaste back into the tube.

Perhaps we could pursue this question as a wholly theoretical brain gymnastic for violin-makers (and their friends), struggling against Altsheimer whilst fitting new pegs in Chinese fiddles, completely divorced from any living personalities

[Craig Tucker]

That, I suppose, is one of the dangers of a forum like this, if you write something, it’s out there and you can’t get the proverbial toothpaste back into the tube.

Ha ha!

Then, use it as an abrasive polish..., and post some photos!

There is an answer for every eventuality here.

[James M. Jones]

Less of an inteligence Quiz and more of a moral /legal ,violin history and ecconomics exam.

Nice to listen to you all.

It realy is to bad that some people get so greedy. Altough If I think about how I would feel if I were losing my villa in the alps.... To bad some people have to get so greedy.

Ways over means by all means, It matters how we make the journey ,as much as, if not more than, the destination it's self.

[Fellow]

[q

++++++++++++++

Why it is so complicated?

If I had a $5 milion violin, I would insure it throught a reputable insurance company. If any broker I trust to sell my intrument he is only an agent not the owner.

When I see my money paid to my satisfaction for the instrument then I release my ownership (sign my paper) . Before this happen it is a theft. The insurance will take of that. Any question?

By the way, it also takescare of any accidential damages too.

[jacobsaunders]

Ha ha!

Then, use it as an abrasive polish..., and post some photos!

Waste not - Want not!

I "Lent" my camera to a colleague about 4 years ago

[Craig Tucker]

I "Lent" my camera to a colleague about 4 years ago

Smart man.

[Craig Tucker]

Why it is so complicated?

Good question.

The prosecution;

"Yes, your Honor, we have the defendant on video committing the murder. The gun found on the scene is registered to the defendant, we have several eyewitnesses, a signed, written confession, and the DNA blood evidence is conclusive..."

Judge;

"But - the appropriate papers were not filed by the 8:00 deadline, therefore..."

(just kidding, the "justice" system isn't really like this)

[David Burgess]

[q

++++++++++++++

Why it is so complicated?

If I had a $5 milion violin, I would insure it throught a reputable insurance company. If any broker I trust to sell my intrument he is only an agent not the owner.

When I see my money paid to my satisfaction for the instrument then I release my ownership (sign my paper) . Before this happen it is a theft. The insurance will take of that. Any question?

By the way, it also takescare of any accidential damages too.

You might want to read the entire text of some insurance contracts. For example, a loss after "willful entrustment" of an instrument may not be covered, and may not be defined as theft by the insurance company. Not all kinds of losses are covered. Gotta read the contract to know what you have (which most people don't do). To really know, you'd probably need to have it reviewed by an attorney. Even then, what you get is the attorney's opinion, which may or may no be accurate.

[scordatura]

You might want to read the entire text of some insurance contracts. For example, a loss after "willful entrustment" of an instrument may not be covered, and may not be defined as theft by the insurance company. Not all kinds of losses are covered. Gotta read the contract to know what you have (which most people don't do). To really know, you'd probably need to have it reviewed by an attorney. Even then, what you get is the attorney's opinion, which may or may no be accurate.

Agreed. There are huge sums of money that are earned by the grey area of the law. It's all about billable hours. Grey area fuels billable hours. Beautiful system isn't it.

[skiingfiddler]

Agreed. There are huge sums of money that are earned by the grey area of the law. It's all about billable hours. Grey area fuels billable hours. Beautiful system isn't it.

The money you spend on a lawyer, ahead of time for your own enlightenment and protection, to understand your situation completely before trouble arises, is minimal and well spent funds, compared to the money you need to spend once trouble arises because you walked into a situation you didn't fully understand.

[jacobsaunders]

[q

++++++++++++++

Why it is so complicated?

If I had a $5 milion violin, I would insure it throught a reputable insurance company. If any broker I trust to sell my intrument he is only an agent not the owner.

When I see my money paid to my satisfaction for the instrument then I release my ownership (sign my paper) . Before this happen it is a theft. The insurance will take of that. Any question?

By the way, it also takescare of any accidential damages too.

I'm sure that that is, on the one hand, a perfectly reasonable attitude for someone selling a $5 million (or $500 for that matter) violin. On the other hand, what could the "perfectly reasonable attitude" of the person (who has possibly never heard of you) who walked into a high street violin dealership and bought and paid for you're (ex) violin be? Could the complications perhaps start there?

[David Burgess]

The money you spend on a lawyer, ahead of time for your own enlightenment and protection, to understand your situation completely before trouble arises, is minimal and well spent funds, compared to the money you need to spend once trouble arises because you walked into a situation you didn't fully understand.

Maybe. Lawyers don't necessarily know how a contract or agreement will be interpreted during litigation. In my experience, they're quite fond of saying, "Here's what I think, but you never know what a jury will do". If their advice is wrong, it doesn't carry with it a duty to defend, so they're off the hook, short of dropping all the way down to the standard of negligence. Good luck trying to sue your lawyer for bad advice.

And if a lawyer really wanted to cross all the T's and dot all the I's, which would probably involve contract negotiations and numerous back-and-forth revisions, you could be looking at megabucks. Then, you still might need to sue to enforce the contract provisions. More megabucks.

Sometimes, it can seem better advised and cheaper to do business on a handshake, versus what it costs to attempt to arm yourself legally.

[scordatura]

The money you spend on a lawyer, ahead of time for your own enlightenment and protection, to understand your situation completely before trouble arises, is minimal and well spent funds, compared to the money you need to spend once trouble arises because you walked into a situation you didn't fully understand.

Many lawyers will tell you what you want to hear. They know better than you that nothing is for sure. The lawyers always get paid no matter the outcome. Many will not tell you that a case is really a crap shoot. Contingency is the only exception. Those cases are hard to get and their percentage is significant. I will not hide my opinion that lawyers are bottom feeders. Granted they are necessary sometimes and some are better than others but...

[Flyboy]

Many lawyers will tell you what you want to hear. They know better than you that nothing is for sure. The lawyers always get paid no matter the outcome. Many will not tell you that a case is really a crap shoot. Contingency is the only exception. Those cases are hard to get and their percentage is significant. I will not hide my opinion that lawyers are bottom feeders. Granted they are necessary sometimes and some are better than others but...

That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold until the day comes when you realize you need the services of a lawyer.

[David Burgess]

That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold until the day comes when you realize you need the services of a lawyer.

It's also a reasonable position to reach, from having already experienced the services of some lawyers.

[scordatura]

It's also a reasonable position to reach, from having already experienced the services of some lawyers.

The saying once bitten twice scared comes to mind.

[skiingfiddler]

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

By that no doubt mathematically accurate proverb you can pay a lawyer X amount of money to avoid a problem, or you can pay a lawyer 16 times X amount of money to get out of a problem once you're in one.

[David Burgess]

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

By that no doubt mathematically accurate proverb you can pay a lawyer X amount of money to avoid a problem, or you can pay a lawyer 16 times X amount of money to get out of a problem once you're in one.

Yes, but if your situation is such that you experience a problem only once in 50 times, you come out ahead by not involving the lawyers, and the tort system.

I've been screwed a few times by handshake deals, but mostly not. If I'd hired a good law firm to make the same deals, I'd probably be millions in the red!

I do OK, but only by living rather simply and scrupulously. Carefully evaluating the cost/benefit ratio of legal services has been a major consideration in making it work.

[Jimbow]

David Burgess said:

"I do OK, but only by living rather simply and scrupulously."

Excellent judgment !

[CT Dolan]

Maybe. Lawyers don't necessarily know how a contract or agreement will be interpreted during litigation. In my experience, they're quite fond of saying, "Here's what I think, but you never know what a jury will do". If their advice is wrong, it doesn't carry with it a duty to defend, so they're off the hook, short of dropping all the way down to the standard of negligence. Good luck trying to sue your lawyer for bad advice.

And if a lawyer really wanted to cross all the T's and dot all the I's, which would probably involve contract negotiations and numerous back-and-forth revisions, you could be looking at megabucks. Then, you still might need to sue to enforce the contract provisions. More megabucks.

Sometimes, it can seem better advised and cheaper to do business on a handshake, versus what it costs to attempt to arm yourself legally.

This is exactly why I got out of doing benchwork for the high-end gun trade...zero protection. Overseas they have a system of proof (third-party, legally-recognized proof houses which must test and approve the work at various stages...provisional and final), but over here in the good ole' USA we're just a bunch of cowboys. Sure, the big firms proof their work and mark it accordingly, but for small shops the process is very much less formal. You, as a maker, will as a matter of good practice fire standard proof loads and inspect the outcome (visually and, more important, dimensionally), but when all is said and done, it's your word against that of another. Yes, documentation does exist, but it is not third-party and so not considered impartial. And, because the work is high-end everyone thinks the maker is rolling in $$$ and therefore represents an opportunity for profitable litigation. Of course, such is untrue, but that doesn't stop them (and it doesn't stop the maker from having to defend their reputation). It also doesn't help that the general climate is not very friendly to the toiling gunmaker (and the NRA has only made the situation infinitely worse).

Have I experienced this? No, but I know some very good makers who have and decided the effort wasn't worth the potential outcome.

[Flyboy]

What really complicates matters though, is when Sators instruments are not what they seem. Imagine this. Sator says to the court, "I handed over my DelGesu to Machold for him to sell". The court says "is this your instrument" "yes" she says. Then Jacob comes along and says "Ah, but that's not a DelGesu! That was knocked together by Dodgy Bob the Barrack room Lawyer in his copious spare time". Sator then has the choice, either she admits she gave Machold a Dodgy Bob, worth 3cents as firewood (even if she thought it was a real DG), and she can have it back, or she says "no, sorry, my eyes deceived me for a moment, I definitely gave him a real DelGesu and here's the certificate to prove it, so it can't have been this one". The trouble is then, no-one can find a genuine DelG anywhere and Machold is bankrupt so she can't get any recompense from him. Either way I am afraid Ms Sator is going to be one of the big losers in this.

Rob

I'm not clear on all the facts, but at least in some of the media coverage, it appears Ms. Sator says her instrument ultimately went to the NJSO. Or is this not relevant to your example?

I'm just thinking out loud here since I don't have all the facts.

Ms. Sator inherited a collection from her grandfather. She went to Machold and made some sort of deal (exact details of transaction aren't clear to me). One of these instruments we'll call S (for Sator). Let's for argument's sake, say it's by DG (or at least believed to be a DG by Ms. Sator).

Machold performs a switch (S is replaced by S'), Machold gives S' to bank to secure loan, and Machold sells S to NJSO (via Axelrod).

J. Sanders looks at S' and says "there's no way that's a DG, and it's not even good for firewood." Has J. Saunders (or Austrian authorities) taken a look at S? Maybe it turns out S is also not a "real" DG, but why should that matter as long as she can somehow demonstrate she had proper title to S?

Yes, the sticky wicket is that Ms. Sator needs to show she had proper title to S. If she had it insured, there would have been insurance declarations with descriptions (or even photos!) to aid her cause (well, unless she insured it with Mannheimer ). Who S is really made by or its valuation shouldn't be all that material to her case.

What am I missing?

[JimMurphy]

... Let's for argument's sake, say it's by DG (or at least believed to be a DG by Ms. Sator).

Machold performs a switch (S is replaced by S'), Machold gives S' to bank to secure loan, and Machold sells S to NJSO (via Axelrod).

Which modern marking/identification scheme is best to get the original instrument back to its original owner after some unscrupulous person pulls off the old switcheroo?

Thanks,

Jim

[Flyboy]

Which modern marking/identification scheme is best to get the original instrument back to its original owner after some unscrupulous person pulls off the old switcheroo?

Thanks,

Jim

Sufficiently decent photographs from the insurance declarations, evaluated by the two court appointed experts in Austria, supplemented by a (reconstructed) timeline of transaction events, should be enough to establish whether Ms. Sator's title in S holds water. Again it's immaterial who S is made by, as long as S and photograph/descriptions of S match. (Again asssuming she didn't insure S with Mannheimer, but some other insurer)