A client of Weening Criminal Lawyers was fully acquitted by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on Aug. 14, 2019, of suspicion of receiving stolen goods.

Client, along with another person, was suspected of having healed a Roman-era statue of inestimable cultural value. This was a portrait of the Roman empress Julia Domna who lived between 170-217. This statue was allegedly stolen from the Villa adriana in Tivoli, Italy, between 2012 and spring 2015. This theft remained undiscovered all this time. Only after the figurine was offered by the co-defendant at a reputable auction house was the figurine found to be missing from the Villa Adriana. The return of the statue by the Dutch police to the Italian authorities was widely reported in the media at the time.

Client was prosecuted for receiving stolen goods. This means that he was accused of acquiring the figurine while he knew, or should have suspected, that this figurine was stolen. For this, on May 29, 2017, our client was sentenced by the District Court of Amsterdam to 1 year in prison, 6 months of which were suspended. On appeal, Mr. A.L. Rinsma took on the defense. On July 31, 2019, the criminal case was heard on appeal by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The issue on appeal was not so much whether the figurine was stolen, but rather whether client knew or should have known this at the time he received this figurine. Client has always denied knowing that the figurine was stolen. Client has stated that he received the figurine from a family member and that he wanted to investigate whether the figurine was genuine. To this end, the figurine was also offered at a reputable auction house.

It was argued on appeal that it was impossible for a layman to see that the figurine was a genuine Roman figurine, let alone a stolen figurine of considerable value. In addition, it was argued that the client and his co-accused had done enough research into the origin of the figurine. This investigation also could not show that the figurine had been stolen because the theft had not been discovered at all at that time. The Court of Appeal agreed with the defense and acquitted client because further investigation into the origin of the figurine could not be required of him.

Client and the defense are satisfied with the acquittal. Client is pleased that the Court of Appeal has judged the case correctly and carefully. Since the prosecution did not appeal to the Supreme Court, this verdict has become irrevocable.

The defendant(s) in this case are assisted by: