Da Vinci theft: court told of 'ruse' to recover painting

Published on Thursday 4 March 2010 20:48

A RUSE to bring in undercover police swung into action after a lawyer's "deceptive" offer to assist in the recovery of a £20 million work of art, a court has heard.

Marshall Ronald, a solicitor in Lancashire, had written to an insurance loss adjuster about the stolen Leonardo da Vinci painting Madonna of the Yarnwinder and negotiations over a reward.

The loss adjuster, Mark Dalrymple, told a jury that any information as to the whereabouts of the masterpiece should have been revealed and he regarded the letter as "deceptive".

He said he immediately contacted the police, with whom he had agreed a strategy for introducing an undercover officer pretending to be working for the painting's owner, the Duke of Buccleuch. A few weeks later, he received a call from the officer who was outside the offices of a law firm in Glasgow.

"The painting had been recovered … they were certain it was the stolen painting and it was in good condition," said Mr Dalrymple.

The work was stolen in 2003 from the duke's Drumlanrig Castle in Dumfries and Galloway, and Mr Dalrymple, who had worked on several previous high-profile art thefts, was immediately brought in by the insurer Hiscox UK.

"It does seem to beggar belief why somebody steals such an important painting, because we can have the information around the world in the day. It can never be bought and sold publicly, and anyone who chooses to buy it for any significant amount must be foolish, with no checks on its provenance," said Mr Dalrymple.

He suggested that people who wanted to hide works of art and allow no-one else to see them belonged in the world of James Bond and not reality. He said an undisclosed but "substantial" reward was offered for the picture's return.

A figure of 10 per cent was often reported by the media in such cases, but paying 2m would have been irresponsible and reckless.

The sum was 50,000 to 100,000, which would have been payable after recovery of the painting and with the approval of the police. No-one involved in any criminality could receive a reward for returning the stolen item.

Mr Dalrymple said that in August 2007, he received a letter from the accused solicitor, Ronald, saying his firm had been instructed to act for clients who could assist in recovering the painting.

It added: "Our concern is to negotiate the safe repatriation of the painting and the reward/finder's fee on behalf of our clients."

Mr Dalrymple was asked to attend a meeting at the Glasgow offices of solicitors HBJ Gateley Wareing.

He said: "The involvement of solicitors to 'repatriate' a stolen item I felt was deceptive, because there was nothing to negotiate. They had no rights, neither did their clients or their clients' clients, so there was nothing to negotiate.

"The obvious route would simply have been either to go to me or the police and say, 'We have information where the object is, please note we are giving you information and if there is recovery, we would obviously be glad to receive a reward'."

Mr Dalrymple said he phoned a senior detective and he was asked to contact Ronald and "perpetuate" a previous agreement with the police.

It was a "ruse", whereby he was to pretend to Ronald he was no longer involved in the case and that "John Craig", supposedly a former colleague now working privately for the Duke of Buccleuch, was handling matters.

He phoned Ronald, who said he had seen a video recording of the painting with a newspaper dated 26 July, 2007, next to it.

"I asked, 'Why don't you go to the police?' The answer was that Mr Ronald felt it was too complicated ... the answer seemed that they felt there was a legal way to repatriate it," said Mr Dalrymple.

Ronald, 53, of Skelmersdale; Robert Graham, 57, and John Doyle, 61, both of Ormskirk, Lancashire; Calum Jones, 45, a solicitor, of Kilmacolm, Renfrewshire; and David Boyce, 63, a solicitor, of Airdrie, Lanarkshire, deny conspiring to extort 4.25 million from the duke and Hiscox.

The trial continues.