The plot thickens
Jim Watt
Controversy grows over location of underwater treasure
Julián Méndez
Satellite tracking of the Odyssey Explorer in the Gibraltar Straits
heightens looting suspicions
The vessel was detected at the same coordinates as the shipwreck of
the “Sussex”
The Odyssey Explorer, a deep sea trawler converted for underwater
exploration by the American treasure hunting firm Odyssey Marine
Exploration Inc., spent the best part of the winter in the Straits of
Gibraltar, according to satellite location controls carried out by
private individuals, suspicious of the firm’s intentions.
Spanish citizen Pipe Sarmiento used the AISlive tracking service,
developed to help control piracy, to confirm the position of the
Odyssey Explorer, which, he maintains, remained at the spot where the
firm claims it found the shipwrecked HMS Sussex, between March 1st and
17th. The Sussex went down in 1693 with its load of gold and silver
that was meant to buy the support of the Duke of Savoy in the war
waged by the League of Habsburg against the France of Louis XIV.
Odyssey Marine Exploration recently announced the discovery of 500,000
gold coins recovered from an undisclosed shipwreck at an undisclosed
location in the Atlantic Ocean with the help of their ROV underwater
robot. Pictures were released of the boxes of coins being loaded onto
a plane. The firm claims that the shipwreck in question, code-named
the “Black Swan”, was not the HMS Sussex and was located beyond the
territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of Spain or any other
country. Nevertheless they have not revealed what shipwreck they have
found because “we are not sure ourselves”.
Nevertheless if the treasure, estimated to be worth 371 million euros,
was found at the point revealed by the satellite, the treasure hunters
would have been working in Spanish waters and thus subjected in theory
to the strict controls exercised by the Spanish authorities in the
area to avoid drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
The Spanish Minister for Culture, Carmen Calvo, announced on Monday
that the Government would take action if it was found that the
treasure was taken from waters under Spanish jurisdiction. The British
Government has also shown an “interest” in knowing the name of the
shipwreck and its exact location.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Daniel
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:g15c53lontvcvurup...@4ax.com...
> Costa del Sol News
>
> Controversy grows over location of underwater treasure
> Julián Méndez
I was wondering how they managed to get the gold into Gibraltar and then fly
away with it.
Was it smuggled or were the Gibraltar authorities informed?
Is there any record of the treasure getting into Gibraltar and then leaving
the place or the Gibralta legislation does not really bother about such an
ammount of gold coming in and coming out?
Just curious. I think that in many countries, companies have to report their
cargos to the authorities and normally, the authorities would somehow try to
check the origins of this type of cargos to avoid the smuggling of
antiquities.
I assume that there is no legislation against antiquity traffic in
Gibraltar. Is that so?
Daniel
Jim Watt
wrote:
The official answer was that it was shipped legally
from Gibraltar and that all paperwork was in order.
Ken
"Daniel" <dan...@daniel.com> wrote in message
news:f3f9ee$7tm$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
I have no idea about what was and what was not filed, though that's not the
ONLY thing that I question about the whole issue - and it worries me.
The treasure was found, supposedly, 40 miles S of the Scilly Isles. Despite
there being many nearer runways they could have used, Odyssey chose to fly
to the USA from Gibraltar. Why? Had they landed the stuff in the UK, the
Receiver of Wreck would have impounded it pending an investigation BUT we're
told that a Floridian court had previously granted the company rights over
the wreck and its contents - despite international law being quite clear on
this. A wreck remains the property ofg the person or company who owned it
(or their successors) at the time of sinking, or of the insurance company or
its successors in the event that an insurance settlement was entered into as
a result of the wreckage. In this case, the wreck being a UK naval vessel,
the UK has rights over the treasure - which explains why they took it to Gib
and sprited it away before anyone knew it was there.
Something other than the treasure smells a bit fishy here UNLESS there was a
pre-existing agreement between HMG and the salvagers - IMHO, I have no
professional knowledge on these matters.
The Sp position is (as always) opportunist and duplicitous here, purporting
to have a claim on the treasure as it MAY have been intended for the payment
of Sp troops OR have been plundered Sp treasure intially. Well, in the first
case it had not yet been handed over and was therefore not theirs yet, and
in the second if it WAS Sp treaure it was merely because they had previously
relieved several S American peoples of it earlier! Also rich coming from
them, having some years previously successfully argued in a Floridian court
that a wreck that went down in what is now US territorial waters while
flying the Sp flag remains the property of the Sp state.
One good thing that might follow on from this and the Sussex affair is thet
lie it or not, the UK might have to defend AGAINST Sp the notion of Gib's
territorial waters.
K
Daniel
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
That means they must have some kind of agreement with the Gibraltar
government.
I imagine that you cannot get to Gibraltar an a ship with tons of gold of
unknown origin, unload them and have them flown abroad without some kind of
aproval.
That's what I find most strange.
I mean, it is not yet known for certain from what ship they got the treasure
or where it was exactly. Nobody can really claim (yet) anything but still I
found it surprising that the treasure could go via Gibraltar with permission
of the authorities...
Daniel
Jim Watt
>> The official answer was that it was shipped legally
>> from Gibraltar and that all paperwork was in order.
>
>That means they must have some kind of agreement with the Gibraltar
>government.
No, it simply means their paperwork to ship the goods was in order.
>I imagine that you cannot get to Gibraltar an a ship with tons of gold of
>unknown origin, unload them and have them flown abroad without some kind of
>aproval.
Why not ? Theres no law against it, providing its not going to
a destination proscribed by UN sanctions. All sorts of things
are shipped in and out, money, cruise missiles, dead IRA members
- you just need to have the correct paperwork.
Daniel
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Exactly, that's my point.
This people reach Gibraltar on ship with a few tons of gold they just got
from the sea.
They don't have any papers for that. They don't have any invoice of
purchase, they just got it from the sea.
The Gibraltar authorities, I guess, authorise that this gold is disembarked
and then exported from the country without any checking of where the gold
comes from.
I you try to get into Spain (or the UK, I guess) with some tons of gold you
got from the sea, wihtout any document proving ownership, it is likely that
the gold would get confiscated until the matter is clarified. It could be
product of a robbery.
BTW, same goes for cruise missiles. You can't enter Spain or the UK with
cruise missiles if you don't have some documents explaining why you have it.
What would happen if I try to get into Gibraltar with a ton of ivory? Would
it be the same, no questions asked? It can't be...
Now you are telling me that Gibraltar legislation is actually quite lax on
what you bring into Gibraltar, no matter if it's gold of unknown origin,
weapons or corpses.
You are really making Gibraltar look like a smugggling centre!!! It can't
really be like that. :D
Daniel
JimmyGibby
in the same sentence.
However I'm sure the village bobbies of Gib have it all under control ;-)
Perhaps you're Spanish Daniel after all it's ALL their fault!
Jim Watt
The goods would have been in transit and whatever paperwork covering
their export was in order, according to the Government. Laws vary
from place to place, for instance you can export any amount of money
in a suitcase from the UK but there are restrictions from Spain.
There is some prohibitions, like:
Caravans or any other structure devised or adapted for human
habitation
Raw and worked ivory
At one time the regulations used to prohibit ice from Spain.
persumably on health grounds. Now its just Unpasteurised
goats milk cheese thats a no-no.
Under the customs tariff
COLLECTIONS AND COLLECTORS' PIECES OR ZOOLOGICAL,
BOTANICAL, MINERALOGICAL, ANATOMICAL, HISTORICAL,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL, PALAEONTOLOGICAL,
ETHNOGRAPHIC OR NUMISMATIC INTEREST
9705.00.00 - free of duty
ANTIQUES OF AN AGE EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED YEARS
9706.00.00 - free of duty
But I do find the Spainsh running round like headless
chickens worrying about someone stealing gold which was
lost at sea and originally taken from South America so
amusing.
Of course like the MT Prestige, its all the fault of the
Gibraltarians :)
The most likely senario is that its off HMS Sussex and the
property of the British, and the yanks are trying to pull
a fast one. Never mind, Gordon Brown would squander it
anyway.
Jim Watt
>I wonder why people use the words, money laundering, smuggling and Gibraltar
>in the same sentence.
because they are bitter little shits ?
JimmyGibby
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 02:53:46 +0100, "JimmyGibby" <s...@you.jimmy> wrote:
>
>>I wonder why people use the words, money laundering, smuggling and
>>Gibraltar
>>in the same sentence.
>
> because they are bitter little shits ?
Foul mouthed abuse means you have lost the argument.
It is not just me or the Spanish that wonder why people use the words, money
laundering, smuggling and Gibraltar in the same sentence.
It's the OECD, the EU etc etc......
Ken
> news:n46163119lbd2r2al...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:00:18 +0200, "Daniel" <dan...@daniel.com> wrote:
>> Why not ? Theres no law against it, providing its not going to
>> a destination proscribed by UN sanctions. All sorts of things
>> are shipped in and out, money, cruise missiles, dead IRA members
>> - you just need to have the correct paperwork.
>
> Exactly, that's my point.
>
> This people reach Gibraltar on ship with a few tons of gold they just got
> from the sea.
>
> They don't have any papers for that. They don't have any invoice of
> purchase, they just got it from the sea.
>
> The Gibraltar authorities, I guess, authorise that this gold is
> disembarked and then exported from the country without any checking of
> where the gold comes from.
>
> I you try to get into Spain (or the UK, I guess) with some tons of gold
> you got from the sea, wihtout any document proving ownership, it is likely
> that the gold would get confiscated until the matter is clarified. It
> could be product of a robbery.
In the UK the Receiver of Wreck must be informed of all and any artefacts
removed from the sea, unless there is prior clearance from her (nice lady
actually - v pleasant) to do otherwise, as might be the case of a known,
declared, approved salvage operation.
The Odyssey people migt not have declared the goods, and decalared there was
nothing to declare. Or they might have had prior clearance from GoG for the
gold.
I agree there are too many unknowns, which merely adds fuel to
conspiracists' theories.
K
Ken
"JimmyGibby" <s...@you.jimmy> wrote in message
news:CMOdnbF4iqAAUP3b...@pipex.net...
It is a well-established principle that a wreck, unless abandoned, remains
the property of those who ownwed it when it went under. We cannot know what
applies to this particular wreck if we don't know where it is or what wreck
it is. In the event that the wreck cannot be identified (and this may well
be the eventual legitimate case) then it IS a case of finders-keepers - but
the inability to identity has to be independently verified, not just on
Odyssean say-so!
What I find off is that apparently acourt in Florida sanctioned this. Why
should it? How could it? If in international waters, out of their
jurisdiction (except of course that as far as the US is concerned, they
consider the whole planet their jurisdiction I suppose!). Unless they KNOW
the wreck cannot be identified (and what independent evidence did they have
for this?) then the ship remains the property of its owners - and what we do
know for sure is that the ship was certainly not American.
K
Ken
"JimmyGibby" <s...@you.jimmy> wrote in message
Go to the website indicated, and read all the documents contained therein;
http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_depts/finance/finance_reports.htm
Take note of the provenance of those documents, and then repeat those
accusations with a clear conscience.
Ken
JimmyGibby
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f425h...@news1.newsguy.com...
I'm also not using foul mouthed abuse as a substitute for argument.
Ken
"JimmyGibby" <s...@you.jimmy> wrote in message
Neither are the various international organisations, only Sp makes them.
K