Qatari Royal Loses Legal Battle Over $27 Million ‘Idol’s Eye’ Diamond

A cousin of Qatar’s ruler, Sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Al-Thani, has lost a legal battle at London’s High Court over ownership of the 17th-century “Idol’s Eye” diamond, a gem worth millions of dollars.

The case, which involved two branches of Qatar’s royal family, was decided on Thursday, with Judge Simon Birt dismissing Sheikh Hamad’s claim against Elanus Holdings, a company linked to the family of former Qatari culture minister Sheikh Saud Bin Mohammed Al-Thani.

A Disputed Heirloom

Sheikh Saud, who served as Qatar’s culture minister from 1997 to 2005, was one of the world’s most renowned art collectors. He purchased the 70-carat diamond in the early 2000s and later lent it to Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Company (QIPCO), where Sheikh Hamad serves as chief executive.

Shortly before his death in 2014, Sheikh Saud gave QIPCO the option to buy the diamond, but the purchase required approval from Elanus Holdings, which represents the interests of Sheikh Saud’s widow and three children.

The Courtroom Battle

QIPCO’s lawyers argued that a 2020 letter from Al-Thani Foundation’s legal team confirmed an agreement to sell the diamond for $10 million. However, Elanus countered that the letter was sent in error and did not constitute a legally binding sale.

Elanus also disputed the diamond’s valuation, with their legal team presenting expert testimony that valued the gem at $27 million, significantly higher than QIPCO’s proposed price.

After reviewing the case, Judge Simon Birt ruled in favor of Elanus, dismissing QIPCO’s claim to force a sale.

A Diamond with a Mysterious History

The Idol’s Eye diamond has a storied past, with historical accounts suggesting it was originally discovered in Golconda, India. However, the judge noted that the gem’s exact origins remain uncertain.

The diamond is also believed to have once belonged to Sultan Abdulhamid II, one of the final rulers of the Ottoman Empire.

Following the ruling, neither QIPCO nor Elanus provided immediate comments on the verdict.