Princess could be fined after refusing to reveal location of £50m Gauguin
Socialite told she may face contempt of court claim over ‘hidden’ painting as family feud rumbles on
A SOCIALITE and princess has been told she could be fined “millions” for contempt of court after refusing to reveal the whereabouts of a £50 million Gauguin painting.
Princess Camilla Crociani de Bourbon des Deux Siciles appeared at the Royal Court on the Channel Island of Jersey accused of hiding Paul Gauguin’s Hina Maruru, in the latest hearing of a 10-year dispute. The family feud began when Italian film star Edoarda Crociani set up a trust fund called the Grand Trust for her two daughters – Cristiana and Princess Camilla – when they were teenagers in 1987.
Mrs Crociani was the widow of a wealthy Italian industrialist, Camillo
Crociani, who died in 1980. He had amassed wealth, including a collection of fine art. But when £100 million of investments and art was taken from the fund in 2010 and transferred into Mrs Crociani’s name, Cristiana feared she was being blocked from inheriting the family’s wealth. Cristiana began legal proceedings in 2011 and told of how her upbringing had been a “golden hell” and that she had been ostracised by her mother, who was obsessed with her marrying into royalty.
In 2017, the Royal Court ordered Mrs Crociani and bank BNP Paribas Jersey Trust Corporation Limited, who were both trustees, to rebuild the fund, which includes Gauguin’s oil on canvas creation f rom 1 893 i nsured f or £49.9 million. Cristiana’s sister Camilla Crociani – whose title became Princess de Bourbon des Deux Siciles following her marriage to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro – was ordered to disclose details of her mother’s wealth to BNP.
But Princess Camilla, who lives between Monaco, Paris and Rome with
her husband and t wo daughters, refused to disclose the location of the painting, alongside other valuables, the court heard – and has now been warned she faces a fine of “millions”.
Advocate William Redgrave, acting on behalf of BNP, outlined that an exam
ple of assets not submitted was expensive jewellery owned by Mrs Crociani.
Advocate Olaf Blakeley, on behalf of the princess, said she did not know the location of many of her mother’s assets and had submitted items “highlighted” as a priority. “It would be quite wrong
to say she failed to purge her contempt of court if she did not provide documents that are not in her power or possession,” he said. “The vast majority of documents that were requested were provided by Princess Camilla and all those highlighted were provided.”