43

I have a watch from Blancpain that I bought in 2014 from an individual in Poland (I have a written contract). I've sent the watch to Blancpain in Switzerland for periodic inspection and they seized it, explaining the watch was stolen 10 years ago in Germany.

In Poland, there is a law that when you bought a thing in good faith, you become the owner after 3 years even if seller was unauthorized to sell, didn't have rights to sell the item, or the item was stolen, etc.

Is there a similar law in Switzerland? Or, if the item was stolen, it doesn't matter when and you bought it in good faith (a written contract, no special price, so no suspicion of unlawful possession by seller), do I have to give it back? Or is Blancpain wrong and they can't seize it?

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 1
  • 1
  • 17
Wojciech
  • 431
  • 1
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
    Also interesting what happens if the watch company returns the watch to the original owner. Since they have never sold, lost, or abandoned the watch, I would think they own it. Now someone else has a reasonable claim to own it as well, but I suppose nobody has the duty to hand it over to the other. – gnasher729 Mar 07 '23 at 00:28
  • 4
    Was this your first contact with Blancpain ? Because otherwise you bought a 10k+ watch from an individual (and not an official retailer) and didn't check with the manufacturer at the time to see if it is real and not counterfeit ? Can you clarify ? Because otherwise the "good faith" looks a bit shaky. If on the other hand Blancpain has serviced the watch before and this issue only recently came to light, the situation is very different. – Marianne013 Mar 07 '23 at 12:08
  • 2
    @Marianne013 do you have statistics on hand to show that ~99% of legitimate watch buyers check with the manufacturer? It might be a poor decision but it doesn't necessarily prove one's malice. People make poor decisions all the time, otherwise various scams would be completely impossible. – JonathanReez Mar 07 '23 at 22:28
  • 3
    There is always the possibility that an employee is attempting to steal your watch. – Monty Wild Mar 08 '23 at 04:41
  • @JonathanReez And poor decisions come back to haunt you. The guy who sold it to him was probably the fence laughing all the way to the bank.. – Marianne013 Mar 08 '23 at 15:27
  • 1
    @Marianne013 that may well be true but this make OP a scam victim, rather than a fraudster. – JonathanReez Mar 08 '23 at 16:02

5 Answers5

46

"Gutgläubiger Erwerb gestohlener Dinge" (buying of stolen goods in good faith) is a big topic in law. Different jurisdictions handle it differently, but most European (civil law) systems have some kind of rule that accept the ownership of a buyer in such a case. Here is a good article that compares different jurisdictions on exactly such an issue. Luxury watches are a kind of art.

According to Swiss law (Art 934 ZGB), the item must be returned when discovered within 5 years of the theft. However, the rightful owner must pay for any expenses you had. Since the theft was more than 5 years ago, the watch is, in my opinion, rightfully yours.

Since Blancpain is in Switzerland, they are obviously bound to Swiss law. Also, they are not the police, so they cannot seize an item. They can only safekeep it and report to the authorities.

I would also contact a lawyer for help. It seems to me like a case you should win.

Peter Mortensen
  • 191
  • 5
PMF
  • 5,583
  • 2
  • 19
  • 41
  • 7
    As I read the OP, the sale may or may not have been within 5 years of discovery. I would presume that the company isn't doing this for the first time, and that they have procedures which first and foremost shield the company from liability ... – o.m. Mar 05 '23 at 14:48
  • @o.m. That's what confused me to. But you have a point there. The OP should clarify when exactly what (allegedly) happened. – PMF Mar 05 '23 at 15:34
  • Thanks for quick answer, I've bought it in 2014 from individual person in Poland, so well more than 5 years ago and they wrote me that watch was stolen 10 years ago in Germany. So I assume they are doing wrong, I will contact now lawyer in Switzerland to pursue litigation. – Wojciech Mar 05 '23 at 15:46
  • 10
    @Wojciech, first you might contact the company and state that you purchased the watch in 2014 in good faith (and that you are prepared to give documents to the authorities). Ask them which laws and time limits they are applying here. – o.m. Mar 05 '23 at 17:45
  • 3
    The ownership of the watch is not determined by swiss law - why would it be? Most probable seems to be Polish law, maybe German law. But swiss law? – DonQuiKong Mar 05 '23 at 20:22
  • 18
    @DonQuiKong The watch is physically in Switzerland, so Swiss law applies. It will dictate the legality of the seizure and to whom the watch is transferred to. After it's in Poland or Germany, the matter can be continued to be pursued there. – user71659 Mar 06 '23 at 03:28
  • 5
    Do also keep in mind that cross border crimes may trigger different durations for various things, usually increasing time limits because of (primarily) the slower processes when dealing with agencies in other countries. – jwenting Mar 06 '23 at 06:55
  • 1
    @user71659: Not only is it physically in Switzerland, it's also in the possession of a Swiss company. – psmears Mar 06 '23 at 11:43
  • 1
    The trick is here good faith. Good faith means, that the buyer had made reasonable effort to check if sold item is in rightful possession, eg. requesting and checking car documentation before buying a car. Luxury watches brands can have own registries, that they expect the buyer to check. Failing to meet that expectations may void good faith claims in their eyes. The court can decide otherwise. –  Mar 06 '23 at 20:12
  • 2
    @user71659 but the ownership has - or not - changed according to a contract underlying polish law. The contract, if valid, doesn't become invalid if the watch enters swiss territory, nor vice versa. As long as you don't make an actual legal argument based on international treaties governing applicable law your comment does sound a lot like "I know nothing about law." Forgive me if you happen to be right - then please present a reason. – DonQuiKong Mar 06 '23 at 21:55
  • 4
    @DonQuiKong If Swiss law believes the watch to be stolen then it would not respect any contract alleging to change its ownership. It's hypothetically possible that some portion of swiss law delegates that determination of stolen/not stolen to a foreign country, but I can't find it and it seems unlikely: those kinds of laws usually flow the opposite direction, where e.g. a cultural object (or funds) that would otherwise be legal to own in Switzerland is made illegal because a foreign country says it was stolen. – mbrig Mar 06 '23 at 23:24
  • @mbrig what about the Vienna convention? Doesn't that apply here? – DonQuiKong Mar 07 '23 at 05:54
  • 1
    @DonQuiKong domestic civil laws are not international treaties; if Vienna applies here you're going to have to explain how you think it might – Will Mar 08 '23 at 11:59
  • @Will let me reverse the question: if I buy an item legally in country A where property is transferred by whatever mechanism and then enter with that item country B in which said mechanism is not enough to transfer property - can the original owner seize the item via property laws of country B? It's not my item according to country B's laws, after all. If that's the case, ok, but it doesn't sound correct. And if it's not correct, why should it be different here? There's at least some argument missing here... – DonQuiKong Mar 08 '23 at 20:29
  • Since the OP bought the watch in Poland and apparently lives there, too, I agree that we might need to get the laws of Poland on this matter, too. But I think the important part for the case is that the company cannot just send the item to the alleged original owner in Germany on their own, because there is no law for this. – PMF Mar 09 '23 at 05:48
  • 1
    @DonQuiKong you seem to be missing the default condition of separate jurisdictions which is to be free to apply different conditions to persons present within them. Jurisdiction A's recognition of your ownership rights over a particular object cease to have primary relevance when you export the object into jurisdiction B. If instead of a watch we were talking about a drug that was legal in A but not B I don't think you'd be saying "ok, but it doesn't sound correct". – Will Mar 09 '23 at 10:49
36

You describe a case with two or possibly three affected jurisdictions, Poland, Germany, and Switzerland.

  • First, you can of course demand that the Swiss company should give you documentation about the theft in Germany. You can contact the German police and ask for confirmation. (The Germans might also want to look at your contract for fingerprints, etc. That's presuming you are interested that the true thief is caught.)
  • All three Countries have a rule that lengthy possession of an object in good faith leads to a transfer of ownership, but the length of of the waiting period differs. You don't have the watch long enough for Germany, you may have it long enough for Switzerland.
  • There are also special rules (longer periods) when it comes to works of art. I presume the watch isn't one ...

I expect that the watch is worth so much that you should consult a lawyer.

o.m.
  • 17,538
  • 3
  • 37
  • 64
  • 7
    swiss watches arguably do count as works of art - and many of them even are registered with their first sale... – Trish Mar 05 '23 at 14:53
  • 19
    @Trish The source here uses the term "Kulturgut" (cultural heritage item) as requirement for the longer term. Not every piece of art is cultural heritage. – PMF Mar 06 '23 at 05:59
  • 3
    @Trish the term "Swiss watch" has been diluted so much over the last few decades that that's hardly the case any more. – jwenting Mar 06 '23 at 06:52
  • 4
    @Trish The idea behind the special rules for works or art is that these are individual and cannot be replicated. I'm not sure this would apply for any non-historic watch. – quarague Mar 06 '23 at 09:27
  • 1
    @quarague I am aware of that (or the dilution of swiss watch as a term), but swiss watchmaking with jewel bearings and the precision is a cultural heritage craftsmanship. The question does not establish if the watch in question was a unique item orn unidentifiable one. A similar distinction can be on Katana in Japan: either it is a properly made handwork, a relic or work of art with cultural significance... or a tool like an iaito (training sword) or a Gunto (sp?) (WW2 officer sword) does barely get that protection. My point was mainly, that "watches are not works of art" can't be generalized. – Trish Mar 06 '23 at 10:02
  • three jurisdictions? Isn't this something that could vary by canton in Switzerland, and therefore potentially involve many different Swiss jurisdictions? – Tristan Mar 06 '23 at 10:37
  • @Tristan, the theft was in Germany, and German police are presumably investigating. If they do not get involved, would there be any case to retain the watch? – o.m. Mar 06 '23 at 16:59
  • @o.m. you raised Switzerland possibly getting involved. I just pointed out that if Switzerland did get involved that wouldn't necessarily involve just one extra jurisdiction – Tristan Mar 06 '23 at 17:44
  • @Tristan, a watch stolen in Germany currently held by a Swiss company, with a person in Poland claiming ownership according to a Polish statute of limitations ... at least Swiss and Polish law should matter, and possibly German law (or at least law enforcement agencies) as well. – o.m. Mar 06 '23 at 18:56
  • @o.m. ok? My point is that Switzerland is not a single unified jurisdiction, as there is substantial variation between cantons, and it's not clear that only a single Swiss jurisdiction would apply rather than potentially multiple Swiss jurisdictions (e.g. both that of the canton where the watch is, and that of the canton where the company is registered) – Tristan Mar 07 '23 at 09:38
  • After 5 years in germany nobody is intrested in prosecuting any cases of theft anymore... – PlasmaHH Mar 07 '23 at 10:01
  • @Tristan, I misunderstood that. Up to four jurisdictions, then? – o.m. Mar 07 '23 at 18:26
  • According to German law, it takes ten years to gain ownership of an object: "Wer eine bewegliche Sache zehn Jahre im Eigenbesitz hat, erwirbt das Eigentum (Ersitzung)." (BGB § 937) – Bernhard Döbler Mar 07 '23 at 22:04
  • @BernhardDöbler, that's my second bullet point. But the watch is no longer in Germany, it was in Poland when the Polish and Swiss period expired and it is in Switzerland now. – o.m. Mar 08 '23 at 07:34
  • @Tristan Switzerland is more unified than people think or many Swiss may proclaim. While cantons are given great freedoms in administrative organizations, substantive civil law in Switzerland has been more or less decided on federal level for more than a century, and civil and criminal procedural codes were finally unified a decade ago. – xngtng May 17 '23 at 08:11
11

Not directly applicable to the OP, but in England and Wales (and I suspect most jurisdictions), if the person that purported to sell/give it to you didn't have good title (because it was stolen), you don't have good title either. And it doesn't matter how long you and your ancestors have "owned" it.

Martin Bonner supports Monica
  • 5,511
  • 14
  • 28
  • 6
    Probably worth noting that there is still the concept of adverse possession, whereby someone who does not have good title can acquire good title after a certain period of time. It generally applies in much more restricted circumstances (especially for personal property, like a watch) than in civil law systems – Tristan Mar 06 '23 at 10:46
  • 5
    I've only ever heard of adverse possession in relation to land (and buildings) in England. Are you sure it's applicable at all to personal / portable property? – bdsl Mar 06 '23 at 14:24
  • 3
    @bdsl Yes, "adverse possession chattel" is what you need to search for. – Yakk Mar 06 '23 at 16:52
  • 6
    @Tristan Yeah, but the difference is that Adverse possession has to be, well, Adverse for the law to apply, i.e. the owner has to have the means to know about the possession and decide not to contest it at the time. Stolen property that neither the owner or possessor knows about, is by definition not adversarial and doesn't count. – Eugene Mar 06 '23 at 19:46
  • 1
    @Eugene I am aware. Adverse possession is still an important caveat to the claim in this answer that 'if the person that purported to sell/give it to you didn't have good title (because it was stolen), you don't have good title either. And it doesn't matter how long you and your ancestors have "owned" it' because you can in fact acquire good title after buying an item from someone without good title – Tristan Mar 07 '23 at 09:41
  • @Eugene, I think the general rule concerns limitation periods. I've always understood "adverse possession" to concern land not chattels, but the law has always sought to limit stale claims, if for no other reason than that innocent buyers can scarcely be expected to have memory (let alone evidence) of good faith purchases after many years pass. – Steve Mar 20 '23 at 19:42
  • @Steve look at it another way: artwork that was stolen doesn't becomes un-stolen, even after decades of possession by innocent buyers. Artworks looted during WW2 by the Nazis and even earlier by the communists are still being litigated over and returned to the rightful owner's descendants. A stolen watch isn't fundamentally different, just more pedestrian. – Eugene Mar 20 '23 at 20:12
  • @Eugene, there may be special regimes that apply to those artefacts. In general, theft offences have a limitation period of a few years, and I imagine tortious conversion is the same. – Steve Mar 20 '23 at 22:28
  • @Steve that's the statute of limitations for being prosecuted for the crime of (theft/tortious conversion), not a time period after which ownership legally changes. Unless specified by something like Adverse possession laws(and yes, Adverse possession also does apply to chattel, but with different rules than land), ownership doesn't legally change. – Eugene Mar 20 '23 at 23:26
  • 1
    @Steve for an example of common law interpretations of how adverse possession applies to chattel: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/68 - relevant quote: "Our decision begins with the principle that, generally speaking, if the paintings were stolen, the thief acquired no title and could not transfer good title to others regardless of their good faith and ignorance of the theft". In this case, the appeals court ruled that adverse possession didn't apply, because it wasn't adverse, like i said previously. The case is about artwork, but not decided on any law related to artwork. – Eugene Mar 20 '23 at 23:38
  • @Eugene, but you're begging the question of ownership. There may have been no prior finding that there was any crime, or by whom. At any rate, if the current owner's purchase was bona fide (and the passage of years may mean that most or all of the details of a purchase are forgotten, let alone supportable by independent evidence), I think the courts would be very reluctant to restore the goods. Artworks are not a good example because there was often known wartime looting, and because transferring art for large values, typically involves checks being made (on the genuineness, if nothing else). – Steve Mar 21 '23 at 11:34
  • In cases where art wasn't originally transferred for significant value (and therefore may have been transferred without checks), there is less a concern about depriving the new owner later who has only discovered an unearned windfall (rather than being deprived of the purchase price). – Steve Mar 21 '23 at 11:36
  • The case I cited is a painting that was stolen in peacetime from a gallery, sold for a significant amount of money to an innocent purchaser in the same country and successfully litigated over 30+ y later. How is an expensive watch any different, as far as the inapplicability of adverse possession is concerned? – Eugene Mar 21 '23 at 19:25
7

The key point here is the existence of good faith.

Written contract and usual price might be enough by common goods, but not by special or luxury goods. According to quick google search, Blackpain has service to check the watch authenticity before purchasing. Your failure to use that service might be interpreted as the lack of the good faith, and it looks like the reason why they feel entitled to seize your watch, because the 5 year period apply only if good faith is present.

Only court can decide if good faith on your account was present or not, and only a lawyer can advice you, what are the chances of winning, but in case of loosing, you'll have to add lawyer costs to your lost. If you have legal protection insurance, it's definitely worth to contact them, otherwise it's up to you if you need to fight or not.

  • 7
    Your failure to use that service might be interpreted as the lack of the good faith => unless Blackpain has some statistics to show that ~99% of legitimate watch buyers use that service, this seems like a huge stretch. Lots of people wouldn't even know such a service exists and just rely on their own gut judgement. I can certainly see myself buying such a watch and not bothering to check, assuming I trusted the seller. – JonathanReez Mar 07 '23 at 22:31
  • Danubian Sailor and @JonathanReez, please note that it's "Blancpain", not "Blackpain". – SQB Mar 08 '23 at 19:06
  • 1
    @JonathanReez It would be litigated at trial whether checking that database is something a "reasonable person who buys and sells watches which cost 5 digits" would do. Such people may be presumed to be legally sophisticated, and any peculiarities of that market would be taken into account. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Mar 08 '23 at 22:59
  • @Harper-ReinstateMonica sure and like I said, if indeed 99% of legitimate buyers use the Watch verification service, it might be a slam dunk case. But we shouldn’t speculate about this here and accuse OP of being a thief. – JonathanReez Mar 09 '23 at 11:59
3

The manufacturer isn't seizing it, but they're also not going to adjudicate this on their own. They're going to hold that watch in safe-keeping until a court of competent jurisdiction tells them to do something with it.

So somebody is going to have to file a lawsuit. The judge in that lawsuit is going to expect every party with a stake in the matter is served notice of the lawsuit. That will include the crime victim and the insurance company of the shop that sold it.

Everyone will make their argument, answers and replies will be written, and any arguments by any party will be cross-examined. The judge will rule, time will be given for dissatisfied parties to file appeals, and then the watch will go where the judge said, as will any other compensation that may be ordered.

Since some states provide good-faith buyers a limit to how far back theft claims can go, one of the things that will be litigated is which jurisdiction applies and whether the buyer or seller acted in good faith. That would be based on how a 'reasonable person' would behave given the norms of the high-end watch resale market, a sophisticated market by definition. These aren't cheap bicycles. I would expect things to be raised like

  • the use if available of stolen-watch databases.
  • the category of dealer the seller is in.
  • the price relative to norms and the degree to which a notably low price affects good faith.
  • the reason for buying such a watch from a non-shopkeeper if one could get the same thing from a reputable and insured shop at same price.
Harper - Reinstate Monica
  • 19,563
  • 2
  • 27
  • 81
  • What happens if no-one claims, presumably the manufacturer doesn't want to store it forever? Are they hoping that eventually they come into ownership of the watch via the same process of adverse possession and can use it for parts or? – ChrisFletcher Mar 08 '23 at 09:52
  • @ChrisFletcher the manufacturer knows who bought the watch initially and who reported it stolen. – Trish Mar 08 '23 at 13:48
  • Which court would hear the case - a Polish court (where OP lives), a Swiss court (where the manufacturer and watch are), or a German court (where the original owner presumably lives)? Or is there a court specifically to hear cross-country cases?
    • – moonman239 Mar 08 '23 at 18:15
  • @moonman Heard of the case where a guy tried to buy a Harrier jet with Pepsi points? (Netflix series on it). Pepsi won because Pepsi sued first. Thus they got to choose the venue to one notoriously favorable to big business. Same applies here, you have 2 parties who want the watch, and whoever sues first chooses the venue they think is most favorable to them. The others can file a motion objecting to the venue, of course. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Mar 08 '23 at 22:37
  • @ChrisFletcher the manufacturer has one interest here: avoid a situation where they choose party X, send the watch to party X, and then a court of law tells them they should've chosen party Y. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Mar 08 '23 at 22:43