Wealth manager pleads guilty to fraud over Edgar Davids' art collection
Nabila Habiby admitted two counts of fraud after allegedly securing loans on artworks belonging to the former footballer.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 6, 2026, 1:16 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 6, 2026, 1:20 p.m. ET
Wealth manager convicted of fraud over Edgar Davids' art collection
Nabila Habiby, a wealth manager, has pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud, according to the Daily Mail. The charges relate to artworks belonging to former footballer Edgar Davids. The government alleged that Habiby secured £31,500 in loans on 37 artworks after Davids gave her the keys to his home, and that she took the artworks to pawnbrokers instead of storing them. The Metropolitan Police investigated the case. Sentencing has not yet been announced; the statutory maximum for the offences is 34 months, the Daily Mail reported.
Sep 6, 2026, 1:16 p.m. ETFirst report
Wealth manager pleads to fraud charges over Edgar Davids' art
Nabila Habiby has pleaded to two counts of fraud, according to the Daily Mail. The charges stem from allegations that she secured £31,500 in loans on 37 artworks belonging to Edgar Davids after he gave her the keys to his home, and that she took the artworks to pawnbrokers instead of storing them, the government claims.
The case is at the pleading stage, and the statutory maximum sentence is 34 months, the Daily Mail reported. The Metropolitan Police is the investigating agency. The charges are allegations, and Habiby is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
The event was announced on September 4, 2026, according to the Daily Mail.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 16 Sept 2026, 17:20current
First published.
- Version 16 Sept 2026, 17:16current
First published.
- Version 16 Sept 2026, 17:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.