On the third day of the hearing of the false furniture sold in Versailles and private collectors, it was Laurent Kraemer’s turn to come to the bar and explain. Throughout the day, the president interviewed for a long time the defendants – Laurent Kraemer, Bill Pallot the sponsor of the false furniture and Bruno Desnoues the cabinetmaker who made them – in order to apprehend whether the antique dealer knew or not that the furniture was false.
Two sets are concerned: a pair of garnished chairs, supposed to be from the Mme du Barry Company Show and stamped Louis Delanois and a pair of chairs supposed for the Belvedere Pavilion. The Kraemer gallery acquired them to the expert Guillaume Dilée (who held them from Bill Pallot). He sold the first pair (Delanois) at the Palace of Versailles in 2008 for € 840,000 and the second (foliot) to a cousin of the Emir of Qatar in 2008 also, for € 2 million, after Versailles refused it.
The defense of Laurent Kraemer was first undermined when the president recalled that the antique dealer had lied (he “Was wrong”) During the custody on the origin of these furniture which he said that he had bought from the Bolloré family and the Guerlain family who both disputed. Subsequently, the court, in the absence of material elements on the degree of knowledge of the gallery owner on the inauthenticity of the furniture, brought the debates on its diligence, its obligations of means.
Laurent Kraemer, with a modest mine and tone, has never ceased to remember that his gallery has always been “Serious” And that she examined the furniture presented to her with absolute rigor, but without really demonstrating it. He also highlighted his expertise and competence: “I had to sell at least 150 Delanois chairs” He claims, referring to the pair sold in Versailles.
He relied on the good reputation of the expert who had sold him the furniture (in cash and with whom he is not used to working) and especially on the ranking “National Treasury” attributed by the State when he asked for export certificates for the two pairs, indicating that this type of certificate “Vait all the certificates of authenticity in the world”. An argument strongly disputed by Me Alexis Fournol, lawyer for the National Company of Experts (civil party). The same lawyer was also surprised with the president of the absence of a file of presentation of the works sold (description, provenance, restorations …), to which Laurent Kraemer replied that it is not useful.
Laurent Kraemer was taken in two contradictory injunctions: showing that he is a serious and competent antique dealer but admitting that he was fooled, repeatedly repeating that “These fakes were absolutely very well done, I have never seen this”. “I must be a bad antique dealer” Did he drop in emotion.
But then why did he not have other opinions? For example, why didn’t he go to compare the Delanois chairs with those that Versailles already has? “I never do it and no antique dealer does it” he replied. ” Fake “ replied Bill Pallot citing the galleries Aron, Ségoura or Aveline, customary because. The prosecutor asked him about the absence of a written protocol to ensure the authenticity of a hollow pointing piece of furniture that there was a lot of opacity and orality for transactions that amount to hundreds of thousands of euros.
Why did he also have kept in reserve since 1985 of non-garnished Louis Delanois chairs belonging to the same continuation as the pair he sold in Versailles which has others? “We can keep furniture up to 80 years” he replied.
Why did he not wondered more about the origin of these Delanois chairs? Because Dillée offered him one and a few months later a second similar. Because Dilée’s explanations seemed logical to him replied the antique dealer who tended to confuse the historic origin of the furniture and identity of recent owners.
President Angélique Heidsieck, who since morning led the debates with great finesse and precision thus testifying to her good knowledge of the file, most often sporting a little corner smile, seemed a little more tired in the afternoon, when the discussions became more technical. Were the errors of the counterfeiters visible for a wise antique dealer? Is artificial wear detectable with the naked eye? Because the expertise carried out during the investigation showed that many clues should have put the chip in the ear of the merchant, such as the different retraction of the woods. “We are not good counterfeiters because we have not managed the withdrawal of wood well” Amused Bill Pallot.
There is no audience on Friday March 28. The debates resume Monday, March 31 and will relate to the tax aspect.
