Perché alla fine "tutto il mondo è paese e siamo milioni" (come cantava Irene Grandi)

[grigioviola]

Scorrendo le inserzioni in vendita da Lanz in scadenza fra pochi giorni, mi sono imbattuto in alcune galliche simpatiche di Postumo tra cui questa:

e siccome la mia conoscenza del tedesco è pari a quella del sanscrito, ho googlato e quel "aus sammling" l'ho tradotto più o meno come "dalla collezione di...".

Lo step successivo è stato cercare chi è tale Alexander Krombach e così ho avuto modo di apprendere la sua storia che tanto differente non è da quella di altri collezionisti nostrani che hanno dovuto vedersela con la norma che regola il collezionismo (sebbene in maniera indiretta e di riflesso come derivato di un altro intento ovvero la tutela del patrimonio) qui da noi.

Questo è quello che si trova in rete: http://www.coinsweekly.com/en/Coin-collecting-in-Hesse/4?&id=176 una storia "comune" di un collezionista "comune" incappato in un controllo "comune":

Cita

A chronicle of the Krombach "case".

June 17, 2010 – It all started with a preliminary investigation against the 47 year-old installer Sylvio Müller. The police suspected him of fencing in 711 cases. He had purchased coins to clean them and sell them on eBay afterwards. 
The inquiries of the police prompted 347 preliminary investigations against all those people who had bought coins from Sylvio Müller. They, too, were accused of fencing. Alexander Krombach was one of them. 

May 15th, 2008
The logogram 2963alexanderk is identified as one of the eBay customers who had bought coins from Sylvio Müller. 

July 28th, 2008
The Kriminaldirektion Gießen requests eBay to disclose the account 2963alexanderk including name, bank account and email address plus all connections with other eBay accounts. The reasoning reads as follows: “Using that account, goods are acquired and sold, perhaps other persons were deceived…” 

July 28th, 2008
eBay provides all auction data on 2963alexanderk. 

August 8th, 2008
The district court Wetzlar issues a search warrant on suspicion of fencing. The search shall serve to find evidence. The reasoning reads: „The defendant is accused of acquiring cultural artefacts (coins) on eBay without expertise. That act is punishable according to § 259 StGB. The suspicion is based on hitherto inquiries. A hearing of the defendant in advance remains undone because that would endanger the investigation purpose...” 

September 22nd, 2008
The search scheduled for September 18th, 2008, cannot be undertaken because the defendant has moved. The new address is ascertained and a second date for a search is scheduled. 

October 1st, 2008
The district court Wetzlar confirms the search for the new address. 

December 4th, 2008
The search is undertaken by the Kriminaldirektion Gießen. The entire coin collection comprising 821 coins is saved as evidence. The owner estimates the value of his collection at Euros 8.000 to 13.000. The protocol records that the owner states to have no “proof of origin”. Of course, single objects are accompanied by notes of the coin houses they were bought at. For some pieces invoices of well-known German coin dealers (Künker, Lanz, Ritter et al.) are preserved. 

December 17th, 2008
Dr Noeske, J. W. Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Ancient Coin Finds, renders a first opinion. He states the coins’ authenticity. They were commodities of lower and medium quality – he refuses to make a statement on the financial value. They were “solely coins” that “were discovered during excavations in so-called archaeological finds“. The major part of the coins came from the east part of the Roman Empire, only a few from the west parts. Because of the coins’ “diversity” he refuses to make specific statements about their provenance. Apart from that, Mr Noeske admits that “the diffusion of single coins…was very varied, even in those days”. 
The police record stated that a more thorough examination of every single coin was omitted to leave the decision to the prosecution. According to the documents CoinsWeekly has at hands there was no more detailed opinion furnished. A basic overview listed in tabular form shows, in contrast, that the pieces’ provenance from the east cannot be asserted per se. 
The material is Roman for the most part, from Roman Imperial Times with a focus on the 2nd-4th centuries. 

December 23rd, 2008
In the preliminary report of the police the case handler POK Beisheim suggests to seize the coins and provide the Institute for History and Archaeology of the Roman Art and Subsidiary Science of Archaeology, more specifically Prof Dr Hans-Markus von Kaenel, with them for “reasons of study and education”. The coins were not allowed to be handed over to the owner since “that might provide the opportunity to resale them and commit another crime”. As reasoning of the start of judicial proceedings the following aspects were stated: the accused had acquired five historic coins without the necessary proof of origin an March 8th, 2005. In addition, he had bought another 358 historic objects, mainly coins, of which he did not have any proof of origin. “The coins’ provenance could not be clearly ascertained so far. With a probability bordering on certainty they were purchased illegally. According to § 259 StGB, there is suspicion of receiving stolen goods.” 
The further procedure is at the prosecution’s discretion. 

January 15th, 2009
On the basis of the named evidence the prosecution suggests the closing of the proceedings against the fine of Euros 1.000 and the release of the coins. 

February 3rd, 2009
The accused refuses to accept the suggestion. 

February 13th, 2009
The prosecution closes the preliminary proceedings on the following reasoning: “After all investigation approaches are exhausted, the accused cannot be evidenced wilful misconduct with a probability bordering on certainty necessary to a conviction because the Numismatic Commission of the Federal States has clearly stated on the acquisition and the resale of ancient, historic coins that a proof of origin is not required for the single coins. Hence, the accused was to assume – non disputable – that the resale and the purchase of ancient coins as well is not punishable.” 

February 24th, 2009
Alexander Krombach asks for his coins to be returned. 

April 3rd, 2009
Alexander Krombach asks a second time for his coins to be returned. 

June 26th, 2009
The prosecution asks Alexander Krombach whether he renounces the return of his coins. 

July 2nd, 2009
Alexander Krombach declines. 

July 18th, 2009
The Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts, represented by Dr Reinhard Dietrich, issues a directive for the 821 coins to be seized for averting of a danger according to § 40 HSOG with the aim of preventing receiving stolen goods. 
Dr Dietrich has no doubt that the owner did not legally own his coins: “After the fact established by the police and following the opinion furnished by Dr Noeske … it has been proved that the coins come from the east Balkans (Bulgaria, Serbia). Only very few coins may come from Germany and France and might be authentic, ancient coin finds that could – according to their kind, amount and composition – come from archaeological finds from different excavations.”
Dr Dietrich states the detailed reasons why a closing of the proceedings by the prosecution does not contradict a seizure of the evidence. His main argument is that the suspicious facts against the accused were not cleared up. The reasoning for the actual expropriation is: “The act of seizure is justified since the community’s interest of being protected against dangers for the public safety outweighs the interest of the accused to be given back items he does not possess. … Your rights have not been infringed because you were not able to prove any authorisation for proprietary possession.” 

July 29th, 2009
The expropriated suits before the administrative court Wiesbaden the Federal State of Hesse, represented by the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts. He claims the verdict to be unlawful, the laws referred to inapplicable. His lawyer, Dr Diethardt von Preuschen, stresses that regulatory agencies and police authority can only issue a directive for averting of a danger if it were impossible for other authorities to do that at all or in time. However, there was no emergency since the prosecution had already decided. 

August 12th, 2009
The lawsuit is committed to the administrative court Gießen. 

August 17th, 2009
The court assesses the amount in dispute at Euros 20.000 and charges a general procedural fee of Euros 864 to be paid by Mr. Krombach. 

February 24th, 2010
The court hearing is scheduled for May 6th, 2010. 

April 28th, 2010 
The Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts present the administrative court Gießen with a six-page reasoning of its position. 

May 6th, 2010
In the matter of Alexander Krombach against the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts the following verdict is reached: “The decision of the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts from July 15th, 2009, is abolished. The procedural cost will be paid by the respondent.” 

It is to be hoped that that is the drama’s final act.

L'atto finale tuttavia è arrivato un anno dopo http://www.coinsweekly.com/en/Archive/Final-Act-in-the-Krombach-case--Coins-Restituted/8?&id=747&type=n:

Cita

August 25, 2011 – In 2005 Alexander Krombach bought 5 coins on eBay. So he became one of 338 German coin collectors, who were accused of fencing, because the objects they bought at eBay had no “certificate” giving a proof of origin. In December 2008 Mr Krombach’s house was searched and his whole collection, comprising 821 coins, seized for evidence. February 12th, 2009 the prosecution closed the preliminary proceedings, but the coins had not been returned.

The Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts, issued a directive for the 821 coins to be seized for averting of a danger according to § 40 HSOG with the aim of preventing receiving stolen goods. May 6th, 2010 the administrative court Gießen delivered a verdict in Mr Krombach’s favor. Nevertheless the Hessian Ministry did not restitute the collection but appealed the next instance. Now a final verdict has been spoken: on Friday 19th August, 2011 the collection has been restituted to its legal owner finally.

Tutto questo per ricordare ai frequentatori della baia che l'acquisto da privati, anche non italiani, può sempre riservare sorprese nonostante le più limpide e cristalline intenzioni dell'acquirente di turno.

[bizerba62]

Ciao.

Caso interessante, fra l'altro  risalente nelle sue fasi iniziali al 2008 e cioè ben prima che la Germania si dotasse della nuova legge in materia di circolazione dei bb.cc.

La procedura adottata dall'Autorita tedesca è esattamente quella che caratterizza la maggior parte degli analoghi casi italiani, ivi compreso il suo epilogo.

Se Atene piange, Sparta non ride......

M.

[vitellio]

 Carissimi,

ecco anche qualche altra considerazione finale e specifica sul punto dell'onere della prova:

"CoinsWeekly already reported in detail on the Alexander Krombach “case”. In the course of investigations against Silvio Müller the coin collector got in search’s sight. Contrary to many of the 347 further victims of that police action, Krombach did not agree on voluntarily abandon his coins although prosecution proposed that after proceedings were closed.
Ever since the owner of 821 coins, that the investigating official liked to be handed over to Prof Dr Hans-Markus von Kaenel of the J. W. Goethe-University in Frankfurt for reasons of study and education (so much for investigation’s neutrality), quarrels with the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts that requested a seizure of the 821 coins for “averting a danger” and, despite the decision of the Administrative Court Gießen, feels right.
On behalf of the Ministry, the assessor iuris formulated a nine page request for allowing an appeal where she keeps repeating: “The owner of a legally traded antiquity can always present a corresponding permission.” Unfortunately, the lawyer, who by now surely has gained profound insights into numismatic practice, thereby is at odds with the (national) Numismatische Kommission der Länder (Numismatic Commission of the Federal States) which has signed a paper in conjunction with several associations: “Ancient coins without proof of provenance do not necessarily come from illegal actions. In Germany coins are systematically collected for 600 years. Millions are in the possession of private owners. They probably come from old finds, were brought home from travels abroad ages ago or simply got in the relevant country by exchange of goods. Legally speaking, all coins found in Germany prior to the introduction of the treasure regals belong to the founders and their heirs. The same holds true for foreign pieces that got into collectors’ possession before the relevant legal regulations were implemented. Millions of coins are concerned that found their way into private possession over the course of the centuries. The number of contemplable illegally acquired objects is comparatively low. The plaintiff has to prove in each case that the object was acquired illegally.”
The Krombach case is astonishing not only for the way in which the Hessian Ministry questions the competence of German courts. As tax payer one is amazed by the sums of tax money the government is entitled to squander in order to eventually enforce an official’s private legal opinion at a German court."

 

anche queste considerazioni e fatti relativi all'originario venditore  hanno un loro significato:

 "October 15, 2009 – On September 21st, 2009, 47-year-old installer Sylvio Müller stood trial for dealing in stolen goods in 711 cases. Reason for that was his hobby that the Hessian police deemed suspicious: after work, Mr Müller cleaned coins which he had bought on eBay and resold single pieces, then cleaned, likewise on eBay. "There is more to it than meets the eye", thought the police and carried out an investigation proceeding involving a house search and the taking possession of all coins and cleaning utensils.
This police action triggered 347 investigation proceedings against people that had bought coins from Sylvio Müller. The relatively low values involved notwithstanding, no one was afraid to request house searches which were in part even carried out. From single defendants entire coin collections were seized. In most cases a settlement was reached: the defendants divested themselves of the coins - in turn, the proceedings were stopped. A Bavarian police chief superintendent accused of dealing in stolen goods since he had bought ten Roman coins at the price of 6 Euros from Mr Müller for his son refused the closing of the proceeding because he didn't want an endorsement in his personal file. His was proven right after all. On the persecution's request, he was acquitted of all charges.
Exactly the same happened when Sylvio Müller stood trial. Within an hour, the prosecution pled for unconditional acquittal. According to the Wetterauer Zeitung from September 22nd, 2009, Judge Franske put her estimation of the case this way: "Rest assured - you are entitled to further pursue your hobby."
If the former defendant still feels like it?
This second verdict reassures us coin collectors once again that in Germany no proof of origin is necessary in the coin trade - be it acquisition or sale. That holds true even if some police forces don't want to hear it."

Un caro saluto,

Enrico

[grigioviola]

@vitellio e @bizerba62 avete centrato i punti interessanti della vicenda, motivo per cui ho riportato il fatto 

C'è da dire comunque che all'epoca dei fatti nessuna prescrizione normativa imponeva la dimostrazione della provenienza legittima delle monete. Da noi lo scenario normativo su cui si muovono eventuali procedimenti è differente, quindi certi ragionamenti, sebbene ineccepibili dal punto di vista logico e di pensiero, non sono applicabili.

Modificato 19 Luglio, 2017 da grigioviola

[bizerba62]

Sarebbe interessante sapere se esistono in Germania altri casi analoghi e come si sono conclusi.

Indubbiamente, a quanto pare, anche in Germania c'è lo stesso problema che viviamo qui: le Procure indagano e sequestrano le monete....ma poi i giudici assolvono e le restituiscono.

Comunque....mi dispiace dirlo.....ma ormai mi sono persuaso che da questo perverso meccanismo non se ne esce.

Si può unicamente esercitare la prevenzione; ma sperare che le cose possano essere cambiate è una pia illusione.

M.

 

[Arka]

Le Procure si muovono in base a un'ipotesi di reato, i Giudici, dopo le opportune verifiche, applicano la legge.

Arka

[bizerba62]

55 minuti fa, Arka dice:

Le Procure si muovono in base a un'ipotesi di reato, i Giudici, dopo le opportune verifiche, applicano la legge.

Arka

Giusto.

Però se un'ipotesi di reato si dimostra quasi sempre infondata, e sistematicamente per le stesse ragioni, forse sarà opportuno che venga preventivamente meglio circostanziata e valutata dagli inquirenti.

Anche le ipotesi di reato, seppure, appunto "ipotesi", devono pur fondarsi su un quadro probabilistico che tenga conto della concreta rilevanza penale del fatto.

Altrimenti diventano esercizi sterili (e costosi per tutti) di nessuna utilità, ma buoni solo a creare statistiche fondate su un'apparente operatività degli inquirenti che viene poi frustrata dalle sentenze.

Disponiamo infatti dei dati relativi ai sequestri operati in un dato periodo ma non disponiamo dei dati relativi a come si siano conclusi i relativi processi.

M.

[417sonia]

5 ore fa, bizerba62 dice:

Giusto.

Però se un'ipotesi di reato si dimostra quasi sempre infondata, e sistematicamente per le stesse ragioni, forse sarà opportuno che venga preventivamente meglio circostanziata e valutata dagli inquirenti.

Anche le ipotesi di reato, seppure, appunto "ipotesi", devono pur fondarsi su un quadro probabilistico che tenga conto della concreta rilevanza penale del fatto.

Altrimenti diventano esercizi sterili (e costosi per tutti) di nessuna utilità, ma buoni solo a creare statistiche fondate su un'apparente operatività degli inquirenti che viene poi frustrata dalle sentenze.

Disponiamo infatti dei dati relativi ai sequestri operati in un dato periodo ma non disponiamo dei dati relativi a come si siano conclusi i relativi processi.

M.

Ciao Michele!

.....Disponiamo infatti dei dati relativi ai sequestri operati in un dato periodo ma non disponiamo dei dati relativi a come si siano conclusi i relativi processi.

Oh bella ... singolare; sarebbe come dire che un commerciale di una data azienda, tiene conto di quante telefonate fa ai potenziali clienti o quanti ne visita, ma non tiene conto di quante vendite poi effettua.

In un'economia industriale, non è così che funziona ... ma non dovrebbe essere così in nessun campo, c'è la necessità di sapere - sempre - qual'è il risultato di una data azione.

saluti

luciano

[bizerba62]

9 minuti fa, 417sonia dice:

Ciao Michele!

.....Disponiamo infatti dei dati relativi ai sequestri operati in un dato periodo ma non disponiamo dei dati relativi a come si siano conclusi i relativi processi.

Oh bella ... singolare; sarebbe come dire che un commerciale di una data azienda, tiene conto di quante telefonate fa ai potenziali clienti o quanti ne visita, ma non tiene conto di quante vendite poi effettua.

In un'economia industriale, non è così che funziona ... ma non dovrebbe essere così in nessun campo, c'è la necessità di sapere - sempre - qual'è il risultato di una data azione.

saluti

luciano

Ciao Luciano.

Esatto. Il problema è proprio questo.

Ora, anche se il lavoro delle Forze dell'Ordine non può essere valutato alla stregua dei parametri utilizzati per stimare la produttività del "dipartimento vendite" di un'azienda commerciale, tuttavia non sarebbe fuori luogo valutare quante sentenze di condanna e quante confische di monete conseguano ai sequestri operati in sede in indagini preliminari.

E, ripeto, non solo per valutare la "produttività" dei Reparti della Polizia Giudiziaria (che come già detto non è un Sales Department...) ma quanto meno per verificare quali e quante attività di indagine vengano poi "finalizzate" nel senso prospettato da chi tali indagini ha avviato.

Se a fronte di 100 indagini (e dunque 100 sequestri) emergesse, ad esempio, che 90 si concludono con assoluzioni e restituzione delle monete, forse sarebbe opportuno chiedersi se le "ipotesi investigative" da cui si parte abbiano davvero un fondamento tale da giustificare il notevole dispendio di uomini e mezzi che esse richiedono.

Anche perchè i costi (a questo punto, evidentemente fini a se stessi), sia per la collettività che per i privati che rimangono coinvolti in quei 90 casi di cui all'esempio sopra indicato, sono ragguardevoli e meriterebbero un'approfondita riflessione.

Certo che se invece quello che conta è solo sciorinare statistiche, numero di sequestri, persone denunciate e procedimenti avviati, ma non c'è  poi il "pendant" con la conclusione dei procedimenti, le statistiche che si forniscono rischiano di essere un tantino di parte. 

Lo dico senza polemica...ma sarebbe davvero interessante sapere come davvero vanno a finire queste vicende giudiziarie, magnificate inizialmente da articoli di stampa e TV, conferenze, interviste, valori iperbolici delle monete sequestrate, ecc. ma delle quali poi, sovente, non si sa più nulla o si sa che sono finite in una bolla di sapone.

M.