It was a dark and stormy night...

It’s London, July of 2007, and something has just happened that will shake the jewelry industry to its very core. And today, almost five years later, its effects are still being felt. How’s that for an intro, all I’d have to do is throw in “it was a dark and stormy night” and you’d have one heck of a mystery thriller. Although, the story that I’m about to tell you could have been ripped right out of the pages of a Sherlock Holmes novel. But it wasn’t dark and stormy, it was a quiet afternoon in the middle of a London Summer. 

It all began when a Bentley Continental Flying Spur sedan drove up to the well-known London Jewelry store. Now, hearing the name Bentley, as well as all of the names after that, one assumes luxury. And one would be right, as this car has a base retail price of $184,200, and I’m pretty sure no one buys a base model Bentley. Anyways, the luxury sedan pulls up to the curb and two well-dressed men step out. The car leaves as they walk into the building. The two men then start a conversation with a sales clerk who assumes that they are serious customers. It would be an obvious assumption to make with them being chauffeured to their destination in a Bentley, but the two looked the part as well. But all pretense of normalcy was shattered when the clerk unlocked the case and began to reach for the expensive items within. The men immediately drew their guns and announced that this was a robbery. They walked out of the store that day with over $20 million dollars in jewelry consisting of earrings, necklaces, pendants, and rings. They were suave and debonair and I’m sure that they looked nothing like this. Because he just looks silly.        

Over four years later, no one has been arrested and charged with the theft and the case remains open. Sgt. Sarah Staff of the London police remembers the day vividly saying “It is not every day that people use a Bentley to arrive at a premises they intend to rob.” But as much as the theft captured the attention of the world, no one knew what had happened to the jewels. Some speculated that the gems had been spirited away into Belgium, but with the reality of worldwide travel, the loot could have been smuggled anywhere in the world in 24 hours. It seemed that the case of the London Jewelry Heist would forever remain unsolved and left to a fate of bad made-for-TV movies and idle office gossip. 

But then, two of the jewels turned up, one in Hong Kong, and one in the possession of an Israeli diamond consolidator. Now the London jeweler is trying to prove ownership of the two stones, one 4.20 carats and the other over 16 carats. And to bring even more confusion into the mix, both stones are being held “hostage” at the GIA who had certified both stones before they were stolen. 

It turns out that the larger stone had come into a pawn shop in Hong Kong who, upon seeing documentation from the seller, purchased the stone for $387,000. The London jewelers claim that the stone was the recut version of the stone that had been stolen from them in 2007. Now it’s important to note that stones are routinely recut when they are stolen in order to hide their origins. The Hope diamond is one example of this as it was recut when it was smuggled out of France during the revolution. However lawyers are questioning the pawn shop’s credibility saying that they must have known that the stone was being purchased for an amount far below its current market value and that the buyer “should have been aware that the diamond was sold to it in violation of the rights of the true owner. 

The second stone’s story is a bit murkier. No one knows how the Israeli consolidator, identified as Gabriel Jana, came about owning the smaller diamond. And at first it appeared that Jana would be cooperative with London jeweler’s lawyer Michael Bono. Jana agreed to send the stone to the GIA so that its ownership could be resolved “without litigation”. However, things quickly went downhill as Jana disappeared. It is thought that he is currently living under a different name in his native Israel.

The GIA is refusing to comment on the issue saying that the institute’s policy was to “seek direction from the court in regards to any ownership disputes that arise. So now we wait, and judging how slowly courts seem to run we could be waiting another four and a half years before we see any resolution to this issue. But you can be sure of one thing, we will be right here to tell you all about it when it happens!