incident - rolex watch indicated as stolen by RSC

[triton]

recently i met a friend who is a rolex enthusiast/collector and he shared with me his recent purchase on a rolex vintage 1675. he purchased the watch from an online reputable seller. upon receiving the watch, he visited rolex service centre in his country of residence because he wanted to have some external parts. the staff took in the watch to examine and he was advised to send in the watch for a full service (similar to that of SG RSC), which he politely declined. second time he visited the rsc, to purchase additional links, again the staff took in the watch and advised him that the parts will only be sold to him if the watch undergoes a full service, again he politely declined.

fast forward couple of weeks later, he visited SG with the watch and decided to visit SG RSC to purchase links and replace external parts. the staff took in the watch and after 5 mins he was told by the staff that the watch he just sent in was reported in Rolex Geneva database. he was shocked to hear that and ask the staff to produce a document indicating that it is a stolen watch. this is because he wanted the document to show to the seller and ask for a refund. however, the staff informed that if the document is generated, the watch will be retained by RSC. however, if the document is not generated, the watch will be returned to him. my friend chose the latter option as he wants to seek a refund.

he has since contacted the seller and the seller will be refunding him the money upon receiving the watch.

i will try to ask my friend for part of the serial number and will post it here (if he is willing to share).

as i have mentioned before to many new buyers, please do not save the authentication fee after all it is for peace of mind to know that your watch is authentic and not stolen.

[lausai88]

recently i met a friend who is a rolex enthusiast/collector and he shared with me his recent purchase on a rolex vintage 1675. he purchased the watch from an online reputable seller. upon receiving the watch, he visited rolex service centre in his country of residence because he wanted to have some external parts. the staff took in the watch to examine and he was advised to send in the watch for a full service (similar to that of SG RSC), which he politely declined. second time he visited the rsc, to purchase additional links, again the staff took in the watch and advised him that the parts will only be sold to him if the watch undergoes a full service, again he politely declined.

fast forward couple of weeks later, he visited SG with the watch and decided to visit SG RSC to purchase links and replace external parts. the staff took in the watch and after 5 mins he was told by the staff that the watch he just sent in was reported in Rolex Geneva database. he was shocked to hear that and ask the staff to produce a document indicating that it is a stolen watch. this is because he wanted the document to show to the seller and ask for a refund. however, the staff informed that if the document is generated, the watch will be retained by RSC. however, if the document is not generated, the watch will be returned to him. my friend chose the latter option as he wants to seek a refund.

he has since contacted the seller and the seller will be refunding him the money upon receiving the watch.

i will try to ask my friend for part of the serial number and will post it here (if he is willing to share).

as i have mentioned before to many new buyers, please do not save the authentication fee after all it is for peace of mind to know that your watch is authentic and not stolen.

Thanks for sharing

[amitabh]

Thanks for sharing

similar incident in Singapore I witnessed, this was with a Deep blue. Luckily the buyer got full refund with apologies from the person who sold the watch to him .

I agree , that always always good to get the authentication done ...no matter what the source

[Ian Limm]

My understanding :
a person(s) who in good faith paid monies to a fraudulent seller for a watch are protected from another person (alleged owner) who claims that the watch belongs to him.

The alleged owner of the stolen watch only has legal recourse against the fraudulent seller and Not the end buyer.

With the above understanding in mind, I am puzzled with RSC(singapore)'s handling of the case mentioned above.

Why is there a pre-condition by RSC that they have to keep the watch if they release the report?

Another point to consider is if A said B stole his watch and A makes a police report, the police will not do anything to B unless A can show evidence (1) A is the owner (2)theft by B.
(amongst other things) and sometimes it is an uphill tasks because unlike e.g cars where there is a LTA you can determine who are the previous owner(s).There is no registry for watches.

Another point to consider is cross border / jurisdiction...

[Neverland]

Thanks for sharing the info.

[Ender]

recently i met a friend who is a rolex enthusiast/collector and he shared with me his recent purchase on a rolex vintage 1675. he purchased the watch from an online reputable seller. upon receiving the watch, he visited rolex service centre in his country of residence because he wanted to have some external parts. the staff took in the watch to examine and he was advised to send in the watch for a full service (similar to that of SG RSC), which he politely declined. second time he visited the rsc, to purchase additional links, again the staff took in the watch and advised him that the parts will only be sold to him if the watch undergoes a full service, again he politely declined.
fast forward couple of weeks later, he visited SG with the watch and decided to visit SG RSC to purchase links and replace external parts. the staff took in the watch and after 5 mins he was told by the staff that the watch he just sent in was reported in Rolex Geneva database. he was shocked to hear that and ask the staff to produce a document indicating that it is a stolen watch. this is because he wanted the document to show to the seller and ask for a refund. however, the staff informed that if the document is generated, the watch will be retained by RSC. however, if the document is not generated, the watch will be returned to him. my friend chose the latter option as he wants to seek a refund.
he has since contacted the seller and the seller will be refunding him the money upon receiving the watch.
...

Thanks for sharing!
Learnt something new, and reminded of certain good practices.
Disturbed that 1st service center did not pick up that watch was stolen.


Ender

[Oceanklassik]

Yes, tx for sharing. Hope to see how this develops.

[archangelfire]

My understanding :
a person(s) who in good faith paid monies to a fraudulent seller for a watch are protected from another person (alleged owner) who claims that the watch belongs to him.

The alleged owner of the stolen watch only has legal recourse against the fraudulent seller and Not the end buyer.

With the above understanding in mind, I am puzzled with RSC(singapore)'s handling of the case mentioned above.

Why is there a pre-condition by RSC that they have to keep the watch if they release the report?

As long as the buyer acts in good faith without notice that it is stolen, he is without reproach.

However, once RSC generates the report and it becomes on record that they are in possession of an allegedly stolen item, RSC can no longer be said to be acting in good faith should the watch turn out to be stolen property and they pass it back to the "owner". Thus, they retain the watch as a matter of prudence.

[Ian Limm]

As long as the buyer acts in good faith without notice that it is stolen, he is without reproach.


However, once RSC generates the report and it becomes on record that they are in possession of an allegedly stolen item, RSC can no longer be said to be acting in good faith should the watch turn out to be stolen property and they pass it back to the "owner". Thus, they retain the watch as a matter of prudence.

RSC is not the buyer of the watch so the "acting in good faith" point does not apply to RSC.

as you have correctly stated in the first sentence, the buyer gets to keep the watch even if it is stolen as long as the buyer bought the watch in good faith.

RSC is a private business entity, like any other business entity my view is they have no right to take any of our watches even if they generate the "document" (we have no idea what this document or report is but let's assume it is a police report).

a simple example.

A makes a police report to say B stole his watch which B later sold to C ( C purchased the watch in good faith).

if A gives D a copy of the police report, D having the report does not give D the right to take the watch away from C.

A can only claim against B (again provided the police confirm the theft by B).

i think bro triton may not have been told the full facts about what transpired at RSC.

[Caliber]

Ok.......... I'm reading.........

A is VICTIM1
B is alibaba aka THIEF
C is VICTIM2

Who the fcuk is D? rsc?

[Ian Limm]

Ok.......... I'm reading.........

A is VICTIM1
B is alibaba aka THIEF
C is VICTIM2

Who the fcuk is D? rsc?

haha yes D is RSC in our example.

4 parties involved here ...owner, thief, honest buyer and RSC as an example. can be anyone or company or dealer.

[Oceanklassik]

My understanding :
a person(s) who in good faith paid monies to a fraudulent seller for a watch are protected from another person (alleged owner) who claims that the watch belongs to him.

The alleged owner of the stolen watch only has legal recourse against the fraudulent seller and Not the end buyer.

With the above understanding in mind, I am puzzled with RSC(singapore)'s handling of the case mentioned above.

Why is there a pre-condition by RSC that they have to keep the watch if they release the report?

Another point to consider is if A said B stole his watch and A makes a police report, the police will not do anything to B unless A can show evidence (1) A is the owner (2)theft by B.
(amongst other things) and sometimes it is an uphill tasks because unlike e.g cars where there is a LTA you can determine who are the previous owner(s).There is no registry for watches.

Another point to consider is cross border / jurisdiction...

As long as the buyer acts in good faith without notice that it is stolen, he is without reproach.

However, once RSC generates the report and it becomes on record that they are in possession of an allegedly stolen item, RSC can no longer be said to be acting in good faith should the watch turn out to be stolen property and they pass it back to the "owner". Thus, they retain the watch as a matter of prudence.

This is somewhat similar to how those pawn/goldsmith shops are being dragged into a criminal case like this. Both the two victims, ie the OWNER of the watch (V1) and the BUYER of the stolen watch (V2), will have legitimate claim over the stolen property, ie THE watch. In this case, the RSC more or less acts like the Police or Court, where they will hold custody of the stolen property and if a Police report is lodged, to hand over to the Police for investigation.

I think why RSC had reacted in that manner because they seemed to be giving leeway for V2, which I feel, is criminally wrong. Why? If no document is generated by RSC, V2 can simply take back the watch (stolen property) and go away. What is left of V1 then? Well, his/her watch remains stolen. Despite the fact that it has been discovered but yet taken away again (by V2)! So it is up to V2 to return the watch to the "thief" (seller) for a refund or whatever he deems fit. Will V1 ever know this? I doubt because RSC "encouraged" a crime to continue developing.

And if RSC churned a document for the watch, it means they will have to take it into custody and trace the owner (V1) to inform him/her that the watch is found and located at some place. V1 will alert the Police and the Police will have to recover the watch from RSC and continue with the investigation to track down the perpetrator, through RSC and subsequently V2. This should be proper and legal. Otherwise what's the point of reporting your loss/stolen watch to RSC?

Hope I got it correct

[topaz]

This is somewhat similar to how those pawn/goldsmith shops are being dragged into a criminal case like this. Both the two victims, ie the OWNER of the watch (V1) and the BUYER of the stolen watch (V2), will have legitimate claim over the stolen property, ie THE watch. In this case, the RSC more or less acts like the Police or Court, where they will hold custody of the stolen property and if a Police report is lodged, to hand over to the Police for investigation.

I think why RSC had reacted in that manner because they seemed to be giving leeway for V2, which I feel, is criminally wrong. Why? If no document is generated by RSC, V2 can simply take back the watch (stolen property) and go away. What is left of V1 then? Well, his/her watch remains stolen. Despite the fact that it has been discovered but yet taken away again (by V2)! So it is up to V2 to return the watch to the "thief" (seller) for a refund or whatever he deems fit. Will V1 ever know this? I doubt because RSC "encouraged" a crime to continue developing.

And if RSC churned a document for the watch, it means they will have to take it into custody and trace the owner (V1) to inform him/her that the watch is found and located at some place. V1 will alert the Police and the Police will have to recover the watch from RSC and continue with the investigation to track down the perpetrator, through RSC and subsequently V2. This should be proper and legal. Otherwise what's the point of reporting your loss/stolen watch to RSC?

Hope I got it correct

My opinion is it will always be one fellow losing out...
If V1 got back, V2 will lose out,
If V2 takes back, V1 will lose out,
If V1 got back, V2 file police report against seller, maybe seller will lose out, and
V2 still will lose out cos the investigation will take a long time.
Furthermore, the seller might not be the one stealing it, and might also be a victim
in this whole episode and who knows how far up the chain this watch originally got
stolen man!

In the end, think will make perfect sense not to part with our money before verification
by RSC. Once verified, at least buyer will have piece of mind on his ownership and part with
our hard earn money.

[Oceanklassik]

Ok, noted. But we are discussing the role of the ROLEX Service Centre (RSC) in such a scenario. In any crime case, mostly, there are bound to be victim(s), informant(s), witness(es), etc. So how can the RSC help their customers in such circumstances?

[Ian Limm]

IMO when you send the watch to RSC, the purpose is to verify if the watch is authentic.nothing else.


consider this:

Owner's watch is stolen by thief and sold to Buyer No 1 who then sells to Buyer No 2 who in turn sells to Buyer No 3 (all 3 buyers bought the watch in good faith).

as I mentioned in my previous posts, the owner only has legal recourse against the thief and not against any of the 3 buyers, certainly not the last buyer.

It is impossible to trace all the owners of the watch because in the first place, no one knows who is the owner because unlike land or cars, there is no central register.so IMO you can't bring a watch to RSC for verification that the watch is not stolen.