Translation from Romanian

File no. 5646/1986

LAW COURT OF SECTOR 4 – BUCHAREST CITY

Criminal sentence no. 1905

The instance consists of:

Chairperson Neagu Ruxandra

Judge Robescu Florica

Prosecutor Pantea Paula

Court clerk Danciulescu Georgeta

On the docket is the pronunciation on the criminal suit initiated against defendant Brandl Nicolae.

The debates took place in the public hearing of … November 1986, being recorded in the conclusion of that hearing which is integrant part from this sentence, when the instance needed time to study the documents and the file papers, as well as to enable the defendant’s defence to submit the written conclusions and therefore deferred pronouncing to 17 October 1986, 25 October 1986, 30 October 1986 and today 4 November 1986, when it has decided as follows:

THE INSTANCE:

On the criminal cause here present:

By the General Prosecutor’s indictment no. 60/6/19 of 26 June 1986 defendant Brandl Nicolae was sent for criminal judgment because he infringed the law according to the provisions of article 27 para 2 from Law 63/1974.

From the evidence given in this case, namely: minutes concluded by militia bodies- statements of witnesses Oprica Angela, Predescu Sorin, Stroescu Ion, Bizin Paula, Popovici Ruxandra, Chisculet Constantin, Romeliu Copilas, corroborated with the defendant’s statements the instance will retain the following:

Defendant Brandl Nicolae inherited from his parents several art objects, among which the Torment sculpture made by Constantin Brancusi.

Upon the demand of the defendant’s mother, namely Lucia Brandl, sculptor Onofrei executed a copy of the Torment sculpture in 1967-1969.

The original Torment sculpted by Constantin Brancusi was declared to the Office for the National Cultural Heritage and registered under no. 4905/3.III.1975.

At first defendant Brandl Nicolae attempted to sell the sculpture to the Art Museum but eventually gave up.

Being in possession of the original sculpture and of the copy executed by sculptor Onofrei (copy of artistic value as well) the defendant got in touch with witnesses Predescu Sorin, Chisculet Constantin, Oprica Angela in order to put such works to value.

Such circumstances date back after the defendant’s mother’s death.

Thus the defendant entrusted in 1985/6 the original piece to witness Oprica Angela (till then he had left it either with Predescu Sorin or with Bizin Paula, to whom he finally left the copy and took the original piece) and in her house discussed one-to-one with the American citizen Chiripus Marius about the sale of Torment, authored by Constantin Brancusi.

Marius Chiripus sent to Oprica Angela his countryman Herman Adam who was introduced to the sculpture and verified the catalogues, stating he would buy it; purchase and payment were to take place in May 1986.

Witness Oprica Angela communicated all this to defendant Brandl who stated he agreed to sell the original, and when the witness asked what was he going to sell to the one called Raceanu Nicolae (American citizen) whom he had previously negotiated the same deal with, the defendant answered he also had one copy of the Torment (page 35 of Oprica Angela’s statement).

The defendant in his statements acknowledged he offered for sale the original of the Torment sculpture and the deposition of witness Oprica Angela provides he has also negotiated this issue with the American citizen Marius Chiripus whom he also showed the art catalogues in order to assure him of the sculpture originality.

In March 1986 the defendant sold the sculpture copy to the American citizen Raceanu Nicolae against 340,000 Lei (this happened before 21 March 1986, when the defendant was retained) and for such deed the General Prosecutor ordered the end of the criminal pursuit according to article 242 and article 10 letter g) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the infringement provided in article 215 para 1 of the Criminal Code was amnestied, as per Decision 185/1986 (settlement given with the bringing to court under this indictment). In this respect the prosecuting bodies ordered also to seize a part of the price cashed by defendant Brandl Nicolae.

Mention should be made that before selling the copy to Raceanu Nicolae the defendant had taken from Oprica Angela the original piece and entrusted it to witness Predescu Sorin, where the militia bodies found and took it away.

Article 27 para 2 of Law 63/1974 provides: “This punishment (2 to 7 years) sanctions the attempt to estrange or the estrangement of assets from the national cultural heritage to foreign natural or legal persons”.

Taking into account the above the instance deems the constituent items of the infringement provided in article 27 para 2 from Law 63/1974 (in the first mode provided in the text) are met so the defendant will be condemned to imprisonment as well as civil rights ban as provided in article 64 letters a), b) of the Criminal Code for a determined time interval.

Article 27 of Law 63/1974 does not require the attempted estrangement to be immediate.

To individualise the criminal sanction the instance took into account the provisions of article 72 of the Criminal Code, the seriousness of the deed, the manner in which it was perpetrated but also the following circumstances that characterise the defendant who has no criminal antecedents, his trade is electro mechanic, he is divorced having 2 children and has been partly sincere during the criminal suit.

In accordance with article 2 from Decree 185/1986 the instance will ascertain as fully pardoned the penalty to be applied to the defendant as per the provisions of article 13 of the decree.

In accordance with article 27 para 3 of Law 63/1974 the instance will decide seizing the Torment sculpture by Constantin Brancusi, already deposited to the Art Museum of the SRR according to the minutes, pages 86 and 77 of the criminal pursuit file.

It will ascertain the defendant Brandl Nicolae was arrested from 21.III.1986 until his effective release.

For self-defence the defendant also requested furthering the criminal suit for the estrangement offence since he is innocent and does not understand to benefit of amnesty provided in article 1 of Decree 185/1986 and to be returned the seized monetary amounts.

It is true under the indictment elaborated by the General Prosecutor the defendant was sent for criminal judgment for the infringement provided in article 27 para 2 of Law 63/1974 and at the same time according to articles 242 and 10 letter g) of the Criminal Procedure Code the end of the criminal pursuit was ordered for fraud provided in article 215 para 1 of the Criminal Code, deed amnestied according to Decree 185/1986.

The instance cannot continue a criminal suit for an infringement not invested to it and cannot order to seize the monetary amounts resulting from the sale of the Torment copy.

The defendant can refer a complaint to the prosecutor’s office according to article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Based on article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code the instance will compel the defendant to pay 1,000 Lei juridical costs to the state.

FOR SUCH REASONS

IN THE NAME OF THE LAW

IT D E C I D E S :

Based on article 27 para 2 of Law 62(!)/1974,

Condemns defendant Brandl Nicolae, son of Nicolae and Lucia, born on 15.04.1946 in Bucharest, high school education, electro mechanic for trade, divorced, 2 children under age, and no criminal antecedents, domiciled in Bucharest 4, Str. Ion Budai Deleanu 4 to 3 years’ imprisonment and civil rights banned as per article 64 letters a), b) according to article 65 of the Criminal Code.

According to article 2 of Decree 185/1986 the instance ascertains as fully pardoned the punishment applied to the defendant according to the provisions of article 13 of the same decree.

In accordance with article 27 of Law 63/1974 the instance orders seizing in favour of the state the Torment sculpture already taken and deposited to the Art Museum of the SRR according to the minutes from pages 86 and 77 in the criminal pursuit file.

It ascertains the defendant was arrested from 21.III.1986 until his effective release.

According to article 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code compels the defendant to pay 1,000 Lei as judiciary costs to the state.

Appeal right

Pronounced at public hearing today 4 November 1986.

Court Chairperson Judge Court clerk

Ss Neagu Ruxandra MINUTES ss Danciulescu Georgeta

For comrade judge Robescu Florica transferred

to the Bucharest City Tribunal the court chairperson

will sign

illegible signature

(Excerpts from the appeal)

The original piece made by Constantin Brancusi was declared to the Office for the national Cultural Heritage and registered under no. 4905 on 3 March 1975.

At first the defendant attempted to sell the sculpture to the Art Museum of the SRR but he eventually gave up.

Being in possession of the original sculpture and of its copy the defendant got in touch with witnesses Predescu Sorin, Chisculet Constantin, Oprica Angela in order to put the pieces to value.

Thus in 1985 the defendant entrusted the original piece to witness Oprica Angela (the sculpture had also been handed over before to Predescu Sorin and Bizin Paula) and in her house he discussed person-to-person with the American citizen Chiripus Marius the sale of the sculpture made by Constantin Brancusi.

Marius Chiripus sent to Oprica Angela his fellow countryman Herman Adam who was shown the sculpture and the catalogues and he stated he would purchase it, such purchase and payment to take place in May 1986.

Witness Oprica Angela told this to defendant Brandl who stated he agreed to sale the original sculpture, and when the witness asked what was he to sell to the one called Raceanu Nicolae (American citizen whom he had previously negotiated the same deal with) the defendant answered he had a copy of the Torment that can be estranged.

As a matter of fact the defendant actually sold to the one called Raceanu the sculpture copy against 340,000 Lei, of which 300,000 Lei were retained by the defendant and the rest was handed to witness Oprica Angela.

Mention should be made witness Raceanu was not informed the piece he purchased is one and the same with the sculpture he saw in 1985 when he discussed the sale - purchase with Brandl Nicolae.

Also mention should be made witness Chisculet Constantin had no idea there was a sculpture copy, he always negotiated the sale purchase of the original.

The defendant filed appeal against the sentence claiming he was wrongly condemned for committing the attempted estrangement of an art objet found in the records of the Office for the National Cultural Heritage, since he intended selling only the sculpture copy.

He also claimed about the second criminal deed, namely fraud with respect to the estrangement of the sculpture copy that the criminal deed does not exist and requested being acquitted.

The appeal filed is groundless and will be denied.

As per all the evidence in the file it certainly follows that, after the death of his mother Lucia Brandl who opposed estranging the Torment sculpture made by Constantin Brancusi the defendant began negotiating the estrangement of this art object in respect to which he claimed, as resulting from his statements in the file, to be worth 2,000,000 US dollars.

The attempted estrangement took place with intermediation by several Romanian citizens liaising with Chiripus Marius who also made the required verifications to be certain the piece is original.

The first instance has correctly established the defendant’s guilt for committing this criminal deed.

As a matter of fact the defendant acknowledged committing this infringement during the criminal investigation.

As regards the penalty applied to him for such infringement, it was correctly individualised according to the provisions of article 72 of the Criminal Code, taking also into account the defendant’s insincere behaviour before the first instance after he had previously shown in great detail during the criminal investigation the manner in which he attempted to sell the Torment sculpture by Constantin Brancusi.

With respect to the so-called second infringement, namely fraud, mention should be made the defendant was not sent to trial for such criminal deed, as it was amnestied according to Decree 185/1986, and so the first instance has correctly retained.

Finding out the appealed judgment is legal and solid and there is no cassation reason in the sense of the provisions from article 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, based on article 379 pt. 1 letter b) of the Criminal Procedure Code the filed appeal will be denied, and the defendant in appeal will be compelled to judiciary cost to the state.

FOR SUCH REASONS

IN THE NAME OF THE LAW

DECIDES

Denies the appeal filed by defendant BRANDL NICOLAE against the criminal sentence no. 1905 of 4 November 1986 pronounced by the Law Court of Bucharest 4.

Compels the defendant in appeal to pay 100 Lei judiciary costs to the state.

Other related articles

Contact

For any questions, contact us here.

Follow us

Subscribe

info@brancusi-brandl.com

© 2025. All Rights Reserved.

Terms and Conditions -

Privacy Policy -

Legal Notice