Did Timeless Treasures owner commit embezzlement? Lawyer wants DA to drop charges
The attorney for a former San Luis Obispo consignment store owner has filed a motion to dismiss the embezzlement charges against her.
Patrick Fisher, who represents Timeless Treasures owner Andrea Bowen-Gardner, says the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office failed to present evidence of a crime at a preliminary hearing.
Bowen-Gardner was charged with 10 counts of embezzlement after 58 people told the District Attorney’s Office that the Timeless Treasures owner defrauded them.
The motion, filed Dec. 7, states that Bowen-Gardner signed contracts with her alleged victims that allowed the business to take ownership of and dispose of their property after 75 days.
“The District Attorney failed to meet their burden of showing probable cause as to each of the felony charges,” Fisher wrote in the motion.
SLO consignment shop owner charged with embezzlement
Former Timeless Treasures consignors claim that Bowen-Gardner sold items including unique paintings, dishes and furniture between December 2018 and June 2019, including at a May 2019 auction after the store closed.
The consignors argue they received bounced checks or no payment at all for their items after Bowen-Gardner liquidated her store at the auction.
One of the plaintiffs in the embezzlement case told the Tribune she lost an estimated $50,000 doing business with Timeless Treasures.
Beyond the criminal embezzlement charges, The Tribune identified seven lawsuits against filed against Bowen-Gardner, her husband Phil Gardner, or Timeless Treasures between 2016 and 2019. The lawsuits allege non-payment, bounced checks and breach of contract relating to the consignment business.
A federal lawsuit was filed by former consignors objecting to Bowen-Gardner’s declaration of bankruptcy in 2019 pending litigation, according to Tribune reporting.
“We are confident that the evidence will show that no crimes were committed and that Ms. Bowen-Gardner only acted in accordance with the contractual agreements involved,” Fisher wrote in an email to the Tribune in February.
Fisher has also argued that the case against Bowen-Gardner is a political move, stating that one of the plaintiffs is a substantial donor to District Attorney Dan Dow’s campaign. He declined to state the name of the alleged donor and plaintiff.
Timeless Treasures owner: No crime was committed
The motion to dismiss the embezzlement charges outlines the details of the agreement in which Bowen-Gardner allegedly entered with the majority of the plaintiffs.
When agreeing to sell property with Timeless Treasures, the consignors signed contracts allowing the business to take possession of the property after a certain time period, according to the motion
If the property did not sell within 60 days, the consignor was given 15 days to retrieve their property, according to the motion to dismiss.
If the property was not retrieved within 15 days, Timeless Treasures took ownership of the property and could sell or otherwise dispose of the property, the motion says.
Since the store had upward of 2,000 consignors, Bowen-Gardner and her business partners did not notify the consignors about when the property was in the 15-day retrieval period, the motion states.
Instead, consignors could access an online portal to track the status of their items, according to the motion.
Fisher argued in the motion that the District Attorney’s Office failed to present evidence that Bowen-Gardner acted outside the bounds of the contracts entered with the consignors-turned-plaintiffs in a way that would support the embezzlement charges.
The defense motion argues 46 of the plaintiffs reported in the preliminary hearing that they were unaware of whether their items were disposed of before the Timeless Treasures contracts allotted 75 days.
During the preliminary hearing, the District Attorney’s Office stated that evidence that a crime was committed “could be obtained later,” according to the motion.
Fisher cited case law arguing that the charges should be dismissed due to a lack of probable cause presented at the preliminary hearing.
What’s next?
A hearing to discuss the motion to dismiss the charges based on a failure to demonstrate evidence of a crime is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Monday in San Luis Obispo Superior Court.
This story was originally published December 16, 2022 at 3:45 PM.
