by ADA | Oct 29, 2026 | Views
Anyone who has been involved in the study of the looting and trafficking of antiquities over the past decade knows that no one has any real idea of the figures involved.
The response (or lack of, by some) to the Antiquities Forum’s March 2025 survey on the matter by global authorities involved is a useful snapshot of this state of affairs.
Other sources, such as the 2023 Brodie and Yates report, go into more depth on inaccurate claims that have done the rounds for years, and how those claims have embedded themselves in the international debate.
Clues to just how elusive these figures are can be found in the decision by the World Customs Organisation to abandon any attempt to mezasure them after years of trying to do so through their annual Illicit Trade Reports – arguably the source that has given us the most accurate picture so far because of its reach across multiple customs jurisdictions globally.
The single consistent attribute that most claims have shared over the years is that, when traced back to their primary source, they vanish in a puff of smoke.
The Museum of Looted Antiquities (MOLA), launched in 2024, has been striving to do something about it and has certainly come up with some interesting figures in its new report, titled The Great Giveback. The question is: just how accurate and useful are they?
Covering 76 years back to 1950, it has come up with a figure relating to the number of cases (1,870) and objects (1.2 million), and the value of antiquities ($2.15 billion) returned in repatriation cases. “Reported or estimated valuations are available for 58% of the objects and total $2.06 billion in 2024 U.S. dollars,” the report states.
Published data is ‘subject to revision or correction’
Helpfully, it also explains that its data is primarily open-source: “…court records, media reports, academic studies, and other sources available online in a variety of languages, all of which we cite”.
“We’ve collected financial data for over 655,000 looted antiquities – about 45% of the nearly 1.2 million objects we’ve tracked… We drew the values from museum records, auction sales, court records, and law enforcement seizures, and adjusted them for inflation.”
These figures come with the caveat that “many of these records are incomplete and may contain errors or distortions”, so the totals given “are preliminary and subject to revision or correction”.
MOLA notes that “measuring the size of any black market is indeed difficult. As with the trade in illicit drugs, guns, humans and wildlife, most looted antiquities are likely never identified, much less seized and repatriated.”
However, it also argues that because law enforcement extrapolates value estimates for other key areas of risk, such as drugs seizures – and that these are “essential to inform public policy” – it has done the same for antiquities.
“Even with those caveats, the data offer a more complete picture of repatriations – and the antiquities trafficking networks behind these returns – than has been previously available,” MOLA concludes.
Why the claims do not stand up to scrutiny
The data collected on repatriated antiquities allows MOLA to estimate a “lower bound for the size of the illicit antiquities trade”, it argues. “It is at least as big as the number and value of repatriated objects. While far from perfect, such figures are an improvement on what we have now – a collection of anecdotes.”
The problem with these claims is that they don’t stand up to scrutiny. The following analogy explains why.
Consider how much oil has been sold on the world’s markets since 1950. Now consider how much that might be worth. Without being able to name an exact figure, in today’s prices it would be safe to say that it must be at least in the hundreds of trillions of dollars – maybe more.
Now consider what the value of today’s annual global market for oil might be. According to Global Market Research, it is somewhere between $3.5 trillion to $8.4 trillion.
It is clear that these two figures are not related because they measure different things. If quoting the value of today’s global oil market, no one would measure it in terms of the hundreds of trillions of dollars that have been spent in the past 76 years. As with any market, they would quote the annual figures, as given by Global Market Research above.
The $2.06 billion dollars quoted by MOLA gives the 76-year total estimated value of trafficked antiquities, not the annual value, and so gives an impression of a vastly inflated current trafficking problem, especially if a significant percentage of what the report terms as ‘trafficked’ is not trafficked, as the following explains.
Thanks to the increasing number of bilateral agreements between (particularly) the USA and third countries, many objects have been repatriated without any evidence being produced at all of them being trafficked.
Concerns over Memoranda of Understanding
The agreements – Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) – simply give those countries a veto on items being imported to the United States, meaning they can be seized by Customs and sent back to wherever they originally came from. While this is a means of trapping trafficked antiquities, it can also include objects that have been legitimately in circulation for decades and more, but for which documentation demonstrating their original legal export from the source country is no longer available. Lack of complete documentation is the case with almost every antiquity and for perfectly legitimate reasons.
We also know that at least some of these countries operated state-sanctioned antiquities trades for lengthy periods. We know, too, that over the past decade, the New York District Attorney’s Office, through its Antiquities Trafficking Unit, has seized and repatriated thousands of antiquities and artworks, which it estimates to be worth $495 million by September 2026, to source countries or – bizarrely and extraordinarily in the case of Tibet, for instance – to their occupiers/oppressors. Yet, because the ATU’s chief, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos, has navigated this operation by exploiting what has been seen as a legal loophole, he has not had to show conclusively that many of these items were trafficked or even illicit. With the recent Intermediate Appeal Court ruling that his actions were themselves not legal, should these hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of items now be discounted from MOLA’s figures?
It should also be remembered here that the ATU has been extremely opaque over its valuations, refusing to confirm who has been undertaking them, other than to say ‘experts’, while trade estimates of items the ATU valued in the millions have been as low as $7,000. The MOLA report highlights the ATU’s work and the value of repatriations in its Principal Findings, so it is important that its commitment to reviewing all open-source information available about a case before publication be placed in this context.
Transnational operations also raise concerns over accurate reporting
Beyond these considerations are the international enforcement operations masterminded over the past decade and more by Interpol and Europol. From Operations Odysseus to Pandora, they result in the publication of figures showing how many items have been seized and how many arrests made. Photos of seized objects accompany every official report. However, we have never heard how many items later had to be returned as legitimate, nor how many arrests led to convictions. Europol has confirmed that it does not have this data, while Interpol has also never been able to say. Have those seizure and arrest figures contributed to MOLA’s data?
Such releases from Interpol and Europol are a small fraction of similar claims that make it into the media unchecked and unquestioned. Antiquities Forum monitors trafficking claims via the media. While increasingly the authorities in places such as Greece and Egypt are proving to be more effective at catching looting gangs red-handed, unverified claims and data reportedly relating to trafficking are legion and should be treated with caution. Seized objects suspected of being illicit are routinely reported as conclusively illicit in media reports and headlines, even when the context does not support that.
What is MOLA’s policy for dealing with such data when using open-source media reports, which it says form part of its research?
Source countries’ change in policy
None of the above accounts for the changing attitudes of source countries that happily parted with items under licensed antiquities trades in the past only to rule now that almost everything they sold off has since become national property and they want it back (without having to pay for it). Are items seized and returned on this basis counted as ‘trafficked’ under MOLA’s figures, as it would seem?
In all this, let’s not forget that vulnerable archaeological sites have been looted as far back as antiquity itself – as evidenced in some of the tomb discoveries in Egypt. Let’s not forget, too, that apart from the less than ethical practices of some authorities, archaeologists and culture tourists of centuries gone by, recent and current conflicts, especially in the Middle and Far East, have created opportunities for criminals to steal.
We all have to be on our guard, which is why the more we can learn about the provenance of objects and the methods of looters and traffickers, the better. The Art Market is only too well aware of this and has been working with UNIDROIT, the European Commission and others on how to solve the issue of what are commonly called ‘orphan objects’. Where MOLA contributes to this accurately, it should be applauded. With all the caveats above, however, it is impossible to tell if that is what it is doing.
The past decade has also taught us that when it comes to regulation and control, evidence is often ignored if it proves inconvenient to the authorities hoping to restrict legitimate trade. It can also be faked, or at least not checked for validity, where a data vacuum lies, as can be seen, for instance, in the ‘evidence’ put forward by the European Commission to justify the 2019/880 Import Licensing Regulation.
Involvement of the Antiquities Coalition
The involvement of the Washington-based Antiquities Coalition (AC), the leading anti-market lobbying organisation, in MOLA’s report, is not reassuring. Not only the funding sponsor, AC members also account for several contributors to the report. Deborah Lehr, Founder and chairman, has written the Foreword, in which she declares that she founded the Antiquities Coalition in 2014 to fill the gap when it comes to data and evidence relating to antiquities trafficking “to change the narrative around cultural racketeering and bring the issue to the attention of the policymakers best positioned to address it”.
She acknowledges the challenges over securing reliable data and declares this new report as “an important step toward addressing that evidence gap”.
The problem is that Lehr herself has been identified as a source of bogus data on the subject – and by the truly independent RAND Report of 2020 (see page 11).
The MOLA report sets out a list of recommendations for international bodies, governments, institutions and the art market. Much of what is recommended (especially for the Art Market) already takes place; other recommendations propose illiberal power grabs or are simply not practical unless all databases recording objects are open to public scrutiny.
What was trafficked and what wasn’t?
In its recommendations, the MOLA report recognises the difference betweenseizures, forfeitures, negotiated settlements, voluntary returns, and other repatriation mechanisms. Not all of these repatriation solutions relate to trafficking or other crimes. However, as explained above in relation to MoUs, serious concerns remain over the validity of ATU claims and other factors, but in its analysis of trafficking and the figures given for it, the report appears to ignore this distinction.
All this begs the question as to what MOLA’s objective is here. It argues that extrapolated data used by law enforcement is “essential to inform public policy”, so it is equally essential that policymakers take the full picture into account, including MOLA’s welcome commitment to correcting inaccurate or incomplete data, as well as the concerns set out above.
From the report’s concluding recommendations for the Art Market, it is clear that the $2.06 billion figure is going to be the headline statistic that anti-trade bodies like the Antiquities Coalition use in lobbying Congress, NGOs and others. Remember, that figure has nothing to do with current values for either the legal or illicit markets; it is the estimated/extrapolated figure (in 2024 values) for 58% of the objects MOLA has recorded as trafficked since 1950.
But as a super-inflated picture of current issues it could prove eminently useful in persuading Congressmen and women who don’t have time to check the figures that further regulation and restrictions are required. In her Foreword, Lehr declares that “one of the greatest obstacles to effective action has been the lack of reliable data”. It is difficult to see how this obfuscating report changes that.
• The image at the top of the article shows a section of the cover page of the new report by the Museum of Looted Antiquities.
by ADA | Sep 23, 2026 | Views
For years now, the art market’s trade associations and campaign groups have looked on with frustration and horror as the Manhattan District Attorney’s office has set about dismantling much of the New York trade. Collectors, dealers and museums within the city and far beyond have also lost their property and faced the intimidatory tactics of Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos and the Antiquities Trafficking Unit (ATU) in their crusade to seize cultural objects and hand them back to their countries of origin.
Much of the time, these seizures and handovers have shared a single feature: the lack of proof that the objects in question were illicit. What evidence may have been available to the authorities has seldom been shared with the public who pay for the ATU, even on request.
Instead, the threat of criminal prosecution, together with the knowledge that even if they prove their innocence they must still pay all the substantial costs involved, have persuaded those targeted to yield up their possessions to the authorities, leaving the ATU’s tactics unchallenged.
Beyond the seizures themselves, further concerns have arisen over the fate of artefacts, such as when the DA’s office proudly handed back a series of Tibetan items – not to Tibet but to its occupying oppressor, China.
Now, as the New York Times and expert cultural property lawyers have reported, the ATU’s inquisition may be over – at least for the moment.
Art Institute of Chicago proved the vital catalyst
The catalyst was the Art Institute of Chicago’s (AIC) decision not to cave in to the ATU’s demands but to fight back instead.
It went to appeal over a 2023 court decision to allow the seizure of a drawing by the artist Egon Schiele from its collection as a suspected Nazi-looted artwork.
The seizure was not based on proof of the drawing being illicit, but on claims from the heirs of the original owner coupled with what has been an effective legal loophole that paved the way for more than 100 such seizures by the ATU under Bogdanos.
The New York Intermediate Appeal Court gave no view as to whether the drawing was illicit or not but ruled that the ATU’s means of justifying the seizure – the legal loophole – were not valid.
That loophole is New York Criminal Procedure Law § 690.10 and New York Penal Law § 450.10. Law § 690.10 requires reasonable cause to believe the item under question is stolen or otherwise unlawfully possessed to justify seizure, which did not apply in this case, according to the Intermediate Appeal Court. As Cultural property lawyer Nicholas M. O’Donnell, who spoke to the NYT on the matter, explained in his nicksartlaw substack article, “Section 450.10 concerns property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding where ‘satisfactory proof of title’ can be shown”. In this case, such undisputed title could not be shown, and no criminal proceedings were involved.
Ownership rights disputed in the Schiele case
“The ATU and DA have long taken the view that ‘a civil-like proceeding’ may be carried out—with or without a pending criminal case—in order to ‘return’ the paintings to the ‘rightful owners’,” writes O’Donnell. “To do so, the ATU would apply to the criminal court for a turnover order, usually supported by a waiver by the current owner.”
Although the definition of ‘rightful owners’ can be highly subjective, this tactic has worked until now because, as explained above, the ATU’s targets have rolled over when faced with the possible prospect of criminal proceedings, leaving that prospect untested. The AIC effectively called Bogdanos’s bluff, and the Intermediate Appeal Court ruling is the result.
In the case of the Schiele, ownership rights are disputed, and the justification for its seizure and return to the heirs of the original owner is not clear, because it is claimed that title was transferred legally to the owner’s sister-in-law, and the drawing was disposed of later.
As O’Donnell goes on to explain, “The DA is wrong about the scope of Section 450.10. As the Appellate Division notes, ‘Penal Law § 450.10(5) was designed to provide an expedient means for the return of stolen property to the readily identifiable owner of that property; it was not designed to address complicated, disputed issues of ownership. Thus, Penal Law § 450.10 does not provide for adjudication of disputed property rights.’ This eliminates the vast majority of the ATU’s activity.”
O’Donnell also notes that with no associated criminal case (as well as the doubt over dispute over legal ownership) no criminal justification exists for the seizure.
Welcome check on reversing the burden of proof
“As a result, many of the kinds of retrievals the DA has secured in the past where he alleged only absent ‘conspirators’ or gaps in provenance information can no longer be brought.”
From the Antiquities Forum’s (IADAA and the Antiquities Dealers’ Association) perspective, the ruling is particularly important because it acts as welcome check on the spread of the reversal of the burden of proof, an insidious and highly questionable ‘ethical’ trend to assume guilt unless innocence can be proved. This may be convenient for the authorities in cases involving property where provenance is very often incomplete, such as with ancient art, but it has frightening implications for the long term interests of justice and human rights.
The DA’s office is currently keeping its own counsel on what to do next, and the Intermediate Appeal Court ruling may be subject to appeal itself – cultural property lawyer Michael McCullough also posting on Linked In sees this as inevitable.
O’Donnell is clear on the current outcome, calling the ruling “a deserved rebuke in a case that should never have been brought” that “may spell the end of the Manhattan District Attorney’s so-called Antiquities Trafficking Unit as we know it”.
Having said that, ADA Bogdanos is a highly determined individual, and it would be foolish to underestimate his resourcefulness. Nevertheless, this decision has been a sorely needed reassurance that museums, collectors and the trade do have rights under the law, and the courts will back them where justified. As McCullough posted: “The court was particularly concerned that AIC had been deprived of the protections ordinarily available in a civil action.”
by ADA | Aug 12, 2026 | Views
Scotland has published the 2024 review of its treasure trove system. A new scheme that promises a constructive way forward for preservation and record keeping, enthusiasts and the art and antiques industry, is the result.
One of the most important developments for collectors, dealers and auctioneers, concerns the treatment of what are now termed ‘Legacy Finds’.
For the purposes of the new policy, ‘Legacy Finds’ are archaeological objects recovered in Scotland on or before 31 December 1999 that may never have been assessed or recorded under the modern treasure trove system.
Archaeological finds discovered in Scotland are subject to a different system from that operating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under Scots common law, archaeological finds do not automatically belong to either the finder or the landowner. Instead, they fall to the Crown as ownerless property (bona vacantia).
It is essential to remember that under Scottish rules Treasure is not limited to precious metal or stones; it can include a very wide range of artefacts, including wood, glass and textiles, and even worked human and animal bones. Most finds that come under the rules will be over 100 years old, but more modern finds may also qualify.
Ownerless status of finds
In Scotland, finds by metal detectorists and others are not the property of either the finder or the landowner. Instead, they are considered ‘ownerless’ (bona vacantia) pending assessment by the authorities and a possible claim by the Crown.
Responsibility for managing ownerless property in Scotland rests with the King’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer (KLTR), while archaeological finds are administered specifically through the Treasure Trove Unit (TTU), based at the National Museum of Scotland, which operates on the KLTR’s behalf.
If the Crown does not claim the item, it is disclaimed and returned to the finder with a Certificate of disclaim, which forms part of its provenance.
Where the Crown does claim the find in the public interest, any museum wishing to acquire the object must raise the Finder Reward, from public funds, reserves or private donations.
Where a find is not claimed for a museum collection, it is recorded and returned to the finder together with a disclaim certificate, which confirms that the Crown will not exert its right to claim the find for the nation.
Compensation for finders
The Finder Reward is an ex-gratia compensation payment linked to the market value of the object. That value will be decided by the Treasure Trove Unit (TTU), a panel of experts comprising a team of archaeologists and finds specialists based at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh; it is thought that the panel will include a commercial valuer from the industry. Like the PAS in England, it is thought the value will be based on the hammer price of a similar piece being sold at auction, although this is not expressly stated. Commercial expertise will be of particular importance where similar items have not yet or rarely appeared on the market.
Before the modern reporting regime became widely established, some Scottish archaeological finds entered private collections and the art market without ever being formally assessed or recorded. While there is no statute of limitations on treasure trove in Scotland, the Review has provided a pragmatic way of dealing with these historic finds.
The ‘Legacy Finds’ concept addresses this and covers certain categories of Scottish archaeological finds found before 31 December 1999.
The aim is not simply to determine ownership but also to improve the archaeological record. Collectors, dealers and auctioneers who encounter finds that seem to come under Scottish treasure trove, but are not accompanied by a disclaim certificate, are encouraged to contact the Treasure Trove Unit (TTU) and provide information that will allow the object to be assessed and, where appropriate, recorded.
The TTU will usually require:
- Clear photographs;
- Dimensions and a brief description;
- Known provenance;
- Details of previous ownership, sales or publication history
The Review adopts a pragmatic approach to many older finds. In general, the KLTR will not normally seek to claim finds recovered in Scotland on or before 31 December 1999 where there is evidence that:
- Finds that were bought or sold before 31 December 1999;
- Finds that have demonstrably been outside of Scotland since before 31 December 1999;
- Finds assessed by the Treasure Trove Unit to have been public knowledge before 31 December 1999, whereby the Crown had already had an opportunity to exert its claim.
“Legacy Finds reported to the Treasure Trove Unit are assessed and recorded, with consideration given to their archaeological significance,” the review explains. “In most cases falling within the Legacy Finds policy, the KLTR will not normally seek to claim the object. However, where a find is claimed for a museum collection, the Treasure Trove system provides for the payment of a Finder Reward award, normally reflecting its market value. This helps ensure that significant objects can enter public collections while providing reassurance to collectors, dealers and auctioneers who come forward with previously unassessed material.”
What to do with a Find
Dealers wanting to sell a Legacy Find should first contact the TTU at least a month before the proposed sale to allow for the assessment to be conducted. Having said that, the review also states: “While the treasure trove system is not simply a service for finders, in our judgment the target of 12-month average completion times for straightforward cases, which is referenced as the norm in the Code of Practice, is a reasonable basis for expectation and delivery. It is understood that complex cases require more time.”
Where appropriate, the TTU may issue a Certificate of disclaim confirming the Crown has chosen not to exercise its rights over the finds.
For the trade, this potentially offers a route to obtaining greater certainty regarding provenance while also contributing valuable information to Scotland’s archaeological record.
The Treasure Trove Review, which includes additional investment in the system, hopes that before too long it will be possible to upload all this information via an app.
Currently, the system does not provide a detailed breakdown of reasons either for a claim or a disclaim, but this will be reviewed further.
A balanced system
“While participation in the treasure trove system is not voluntary, the Review recognises that the system benefits from meeting reasonable expectations on the part of those who experience it,” it concludes.
For museums, finders and the trade, the new approach to Legacy Finds seeks to balance protection of Scotland’s archaeological heritage with a practical recognition that many objects have circulated openly for decades. By encouraging their assessment and recording, the reforms should improve the archaeological record while providing greater certainty for collectors, dealers and auctioneers.
“We have come to the clear view that the resources available to the treasure trove system, specifically for operational funding of the Treasure Trove Unit, have not kept pace with the growth of the workload over the last 20 years, and that under-resourcing has had a negative impact on resilience in the system, confidence and participation,” the review explains. “Taken together, all our recommendations for reform rely on, and contribute to, a realistic plan for sustaining the system financially.”
In summary, the proposals are impressive and designed to improve consistency and transparency in rolling out the new regulations, thereby instilling increased confidence in the system among museums, the public and the trade.
More information can be found in the Treasure Trove Scotland: Code of Practice
Caption to the image shown above:
Artefacts covered by the new Scottish treasure trove rules can be of any age, from ancient to modern, and almost any material. Here are some examples. Clockwise from top left:
– An enamelled coppery alloy Roman Iron Age harness fitting, 1st or 2nd century AD.
– A late Medieval gilded silver heart-shaped brooch, c.1300-1500 AD.
– A Bronze Age tanged arrowhead of flint, set in a silver bezel, so-called ‘elf shot’ amulet charm, reuse in 17th/18th century.
– A gold zoomorphic annular Castellani brooch in the form a ram’s head, in the archaeological revivalist style, 19th/early 20th century.
– A gilded and enamelled copper alloy National Association of Women Workers badge, early 20th century.
by ADA | Jul 28, 2026 | Uncategorized, Views
After five years of dialogue, UNESCO has finally published its revised Code of Ethics for the international art market. The idea is that it should set improved standards of conduct that follow the latest ethical guidelines to protect national interests and prevent crimes such as looting and trafficking.
The Code is currently voluntary. Will it work?
The approach, tone and lack of precision leave it facing an uphill struggle to convince market professionals that it will also protect their interests.
The problems start in the first sentence: “Members of the trade in cultural property recognise the key role that trade has traditionally played in the dissemination of culture and in the distribution to museums and private collectors of foreign and domestic cultural property for the education and inspiration of all peoples.”
Yes, the trade does recognise this, but the question is whether UNESCO recognises it. No acknowledgement here.
Sentence two brings its own issues: “They [the trade] acknowledge the worldwide concern over the illicit trafficking of stolen, illegally alienated, clandestinely excavated and illegally exported and imported cultural property, in line with the MONDIACULT 2022 Declaration, and accept the following principles of professional practice intended to safeguard cultural property from criminal activities.”
Risk of undermining human rights
What does ‘illegally alienated’ mean in this context? No explanation appears. And the assumption that the trade falls in line with the Mondiacult 2022 Declaration is misguided. That Declaration makes a commitment to return cultural property to its countries of origin even if it was not removed illegally. The Declaration makes assumptions about ethics in relation to cultural property that are based on questionable current trends in ideology rather than a broader, long-standing moral and common-law principle. For instance, it stresses the importance of human rights but then sets out to undermine those rights when it comes to the private ownership of cultural property, by demanding an end to transactions where provenance documentation is incomplete. It appears to call on UNESCO to act beyond its remit.
The whole approach to how the trade should adopt and commit to the Code is unsettling. Far from being constructive and persuasive, the tone is menacing and manipulative. Traders who voluntary abide by the Code “should be recognised as having committed themselves to a set of professional standards”. This is unnecessary in the case of those who have already done so in becoming members of trade associations that have codes of practice – a stricter commitment than that required by a code of ethics.
Likewise, “Traders who have decided to abide by the principles of the Code will submit a declaration to that effect to UNESCO, as well as to their professional association. Professional associations of traders that support UNESCO in promoting their members’ compliance with the principles of the Code will submit a declaration to that effect to the UNESCO Secretariat.”
None of this sounds voluntary.
What a ‘living document’ might mean
What happens if they follow these directions? How long before UNESCO leverages this position to try to enforce its Code as national and international law by the back door?
The trouble with such declarations made in this way – and mentioning that they have consulted the art market – is that it suggests that the Code enjoys trade endorsement, which it doesn’t. Nor is it workable. The danger is that decision-makers will believe otherwise. And so the bar is raised ever higher, making trade professionals’ daily lives impossible.
Further enhancement along these lines seems likely in the context of Member States emphasizing that the Code should be considered as a ‘living document’, with UNESCO periodically assessing it with ‘relevant stakeholders’ to ensure its continued relevance in light of evolving challenges related to trafficking. This is nothing less than a blank cheque. It is not fair to ask the market to sign up to this.
Principle 1 distinguishes “illegally alienated” cultural property from that which may have been stolen… clandestinely excavated or illegally exported or imported. But what does illegally alienated mean here? As can be seen from the Member States’ caveat above, the goalposts are ever on the move. Goods legally sold and exported years ago are now being deemed national property and illicit in domestic law as nations update their cultural heritage legislation in ever more restrictive ways. Under the Code, this might well render such goods illicit internationally, even when they have been legally traded and owned privately for lengthy periods, and so might be subject to confiscation.
While Principle 2 reasonably commits traders to recording transactional information such as the identity of suppliers, any attempt to use that as a stepping stone to force them to reveal confidential information protected by contractual obligations would cause serious problems. This would be possible under a ‘living document’.
Further lack of clarity over terms
Principle 3 commits traders to conducting ‘proper’ due diligence without fully stipulating what that constitutes. Again it talks of ‘illegally alienated’ items, as well as checking “any other relevant information and documentation which they can reasonably obtain” and scrutinising ICOM Red Lists. What does ‘reasonably obtain’ mean? If due diligence is too burdensome, it would render much of the lower end of the market uneconomic. What measures have been put in place to prevent that?
Principle 4 describes a trader’s ‘reasonable cause’ to believe that an item might be illicit and what their commitment must be under those circumstances but does not define ‘reasonable cause’ in this context.
Principle 4 also states: “A trader who is in possession of the item, where that country seeks its return within a reasonable period of time, will take all legally permissible steps under the trader’s applicable national law to co-operate in view of the return of that item of cultural property to the country of origin.” This appears to commit a trader to return an item simply on the basis of a claim, regardless of whether or not they hold the item lawfully. Long experience has shown that countries of origin claim items whatever their status, so without qualifying that the item must be illicit, the Code would prove unacceptable to the market. Such a catch-all condition would also be inconsistent with pre-existing national or international laws or conventions, such as statutes of limitation endorsed by UNESCO 1970 and UNIDROIT 1995 which are routinely ignored.
Principle 5 repeats the demands of Principle 4, putting the burden on the trader to ensure the item is returned.
No clause addresses the rights of the traders.
An opportunity missed
In recent years, art market stakeholders have been included in discussions about the drafting of the Code, but in the final two meetings earlier this year, CINOA, the global trade federation representing 5,000 dealers – the largest trade group in the world and the vital market stakeholder – was inexplicably not invited to attend. How did that happen?
UNESCO’s new Code of Ethics is an opportunity missed. It appears to blur the line between ethical aspiration and legal requirement. It should have been drafted as a constructive agreement between stakeholders to improve standards and create more clarity; instead its tone and terms appear intimidatory and opaque. It is inconsistent with the laws of numerous countries in relation to property rights and good faith purchases. Market stakeholders approached this initiative in good faith. The result is far from what they could agree to.
by ADA | May 21, 2026 | Uncategorized, Views
In 2025 a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators pushed for new anti-money laundering regulation of the art market under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Already in force in the UK and Europe, AML laws as they apply to the art market may help fight crime and deter wrong doers, but the burden of compliance can come at a significant cost in terms of money and time.
A serious study of AML impact on the art market in the UK, which leads the world with regards to these measures in this sector, has yet to take place, but anecdotal evidence indicates that at least some would-be buyers are being put off by the requirements of compliance on their part, and by the intrusion into their privacy. This is not because they have something to hide but because the hassle has spoiled their enjoyment of the process of acquisition and they simply can’t be bothered to go through with it.
How do you balance the interests of crime prevention with those of the market?
The most obvious way would be to raise what appears to be an arbitrarily low value threshold for compliance: set at €10,000 for a single transaction or group of linked transactions (not always clearly defined), in the UK that is changing to £10,000.
Take a risk-based approach
Raising the threshold significantly can be argued from taking that vital ‘risk-based approach’ when one considers reporting in France, the European Union’s largest art market. The latest figures, as published in the Ministry of Economy & Finance’s 2024 report, show a total of 12 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) relating to art and antique dealers and intermediaries from 2022-2024 inclusive. For auction houses the number rises to 426 for the same period. Respectively, those figures account for 0.1% and 2.0% of reports across all sectors. No information is forthcoming about how many of those reports proved valid.
Some have argued that the low figures for the art market are the result of under reporting. Effectively, the logic of this argument is that art-related ML must be high under any circumstances, regardless of reporting, a standpoint that is simply not credible. If the reports are misleading, don’t publish them.
Another issue that has arisen in the UK is that although expert support from compliance companies has made things easier, interventions from enforcement teams working for HMRC have not where enforcement officers have not understood the law properly. Again, anecdotal evidence relates episodes of overreach, intimidation and damaging interference to legitimate business at inappropriate times.
Also challenging is the fact that after more than five years of enforcement in the UK, aspects of what is proving to be a complex regulation are still not clear. If the compliance companies and HMRC are still debating them, what hope have Art Market Participants (AMPs) of complying fully?
What Congress needs to consider
These factors must all be considered in the United States as Congress considers the proposed Art Market Integrity Act.
Some have argued that the art market is not bound by the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing standards set by the Bank Secrecy Act. However, their qualifying transactions are already subject to these standards via the banking process.
The Senate voted down a previous attempt at regulation in 2022. The proposed Enablers Act risked undermining fundamental principles of the rule of law and citizens’ rights, argued the American Bar Association.
Such fears are justified because these rights are already being extensively undermined in relation to the art market by the plethora of bilateral agreements (also known as Memoranda of Understanding) with third countries that effectively give them a veto on cultural property imports that belong to U.S. citizens. Article 1 of the MoU with Egypt, for example, demonstrates this clearly. The seizure and return of items for which no proof of illegality is forthcoming has become commonplace. The reversal of the burden of proof to ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is all but standard in this sphere today. Such arbitrary interference with citizens’ property is in direct contravention of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 17.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Current proposals under the Act are unworkable
Current proposals under the Art Market Integrity Act would be unworkable because they are far too wide in scope. Defining an AMP as “a person engaged in the trade in works of art, including a dealer, advisor, consultant, custodian, gallery, auction house, museum, collector, or any other person who engages as a business as an intermediary in the sale of works of art”, it allows for certain very limited exclusions. The key exclusion is someone who “has not, during the prior year, participated in total transactions valued at $50,000 that involved a work of art”.
To be clear, this is not a threshold of $50,000 for a single work of art, but a total sales value for all artworks sold over a period of 12 months of $50,000. This ‘mom and pop’ level of trade would not have the time and money to pay for compliance, meaning that the new regulation would simply put them out of business.
If Congress is to proceed with the Act, this section must be struck out or the result would be a disaster for ordinary U.S. citizens.
by ADA | Apr 15, 2026 | Views
Academic and cultural institutions, as well as governments, continue to look down on the art market – it’s unfair and is in no one’s interest
Provenance and Due Diligence have become the critical factors in assessing cultural goods in recent years. Theft, trafficking, unethical acquisition in colonial times, suspected links to money laundering and terrorism financing have all been presented as arguments for tighter controls and reversing the burden of proof so that items and people are deemed ‘guilty’ unless they can demonstrate their innocence.
The ardent pursuit of this ‘solution’ has brought its own problems: an embarrassing dearth of reliable evidence – hence the reversal of the burden of proof (initially under UNIDROIT 1995) – false data and fake news, failure to check facts and sources, overreach that risks breaching human rights and brings other ethical issues. The exploitation of the cultural sphere for soft power diplomacy includes further exploitation by those who wish to harness it for financial gain or political influence. State-backed programmes and institutional interests are where the real power lies: funding and ‘capacity building’ the self-interests at its core.
This is the environment in which the international art market finds itself the useful whipping boy of those who wish to justify their actions and budgets.
For many on the institutional side of the argument, however, the market really is the problem; they see themselves as being in conflict with – and better than – the trade, while positive actions on the part of the market are deemed merely incidental.
A conversation on…Provenance Research and Due Diligence in the Art and Antiquities World: Distinctions, Connections, Synergies, Challenges, held online on April 8 as part of the International Art Market Studies Association Law & the Arts course 2025–2026, attracted more than 140 attendees.
It addressed the increasing relevance of provenance research and the reasons for this, from the social responsibility of institutions, via the Washington Principles relating to Nazi-looted art to a wider moral responsibility to society and history.
Defining the difference between due diligence and provenance research
Attempts to define the difference between provenance research and due diligence were most usefully summarised as the following: due diligence is the checking of provenance to the extent of what a reasonable person should be expected to carry out related to a specific event, such as a sale or acquisition, whereas provenance research is a wider, ongoing investigation into the history, origins and circumstances of an object.
A higher standard of diligence should be expected from art market professionals as they have more knowledge of objects, it was argued. Presumably such a standard would also apply to museum experts for the same reason, but this was not mentioned.
An overwhelming number of attendees to the session work in the public or academic sphere, as curators, provenance researchers attached to institutions or as officials linked to museum organisations. This resulted in a largely uniform perception and opinion.
Despite this being a course staged by the Art Market Studies Association, art market representatives were extremely thin on the ground. None were included as speakers.
This is a chronic issue with much of the debate over ethics, standards and the law relating to the market. A good example came early on, when Sofia Bollo of the Ethnographic museum at the University of Zurich, who also serves on the Chair of the ICOM Italian section, discussed the working group on provenance research at ICOM. Set up in 2023, it includes more than 100 members: anthropologists, archaeologists, art historians, unemployed people, museum and research interest – but apparently no one from the international art market. This means that we have a body proposing a set of stringent rules for a market that it has not consulted and about which it has a limited understanding. While this may be fine for setting common standards among institutions such as museums, it is unfortunate when it is quite clear that for any measures to be effective in the market, they must address the market from a practical standpoint.
A useful summary of post Second World War initiatives addressing ethics and behaviour covered UNESCO (1970), UNIDROIT (1995), and various EU Directives. As market professionals have found, however, States Parties to the UNESCO Convention tend to cherry pick the articles that suit them, which means that most, if not all, have yet to submit essential lists of goods of national importance, and few are keen to offer the compensation they are committed to when reclaiming items from honest purchasers.
This trampling of a long-established moral right by a new and questionable ‘ethical’ standard is the whole cultural heritage debate in microcosm.
Bilateral agreements and the creeping recognition of domestic laws internationally (not all of them reasonable, notably US vs McClain – 1977) is increasingly creating a situation where honest owners are deprived of the valid title to their belongings. This trampling of a long-established moral right by a new and questionable ‘ethical’ standard is the whole cultural heritage debate in microcosm.
The Australian academic and specialist in cultural heritage law, Lyndel Prott, argued for ‘required diligence’ rather than ‘due diligence’, but that would also require very clear, globally adopted parameters that have yet to be defined. She took a realistic approach to historical norms, acknowledging that provenance standards today could not be applied retroactively to purchases of decades ago.
Alyssa Thiel, of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center, one of several attendees who have worked in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Antiquities Trafficking Unit (ATU), also considered historic norms. She noted the pressure on museums to acquire the best pieces at a time when their context was seen as more important than their history of ownership.
An enlightened approach, it is not shared by the head of the ATU, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos, who has seized many such items.
Prott also argued that private sellers were now more of a problem than market professionals because the latter were subject to greater regulation, including anti-money laundering laws, and many have professional compliance departments.
It is almost as though anyone outside the market refuses to believe that market professionals can act with anything other than dishonest or dishonourable intent.
Absent from the debate, however, was any recognition that just as museums and other institutions don’t want to find themselves handling illicit material, neither do auction houses or dealers – and for the same reasons. It is almost as though anyone outside the market refuses to believe that market professionals can act with anything other than dishonest or dishonourable intent.
The webinar also set out the list of checks that should be undertaken when carrying out due diligence, from checking stolen art databases and ICOM red lists to requiring sellers to provide written evidence and supporting paperwork or, in their absence, a notarised statement. While much of this is already the norm, how much would it cost to pursue all the avenues set out and how long would it take? If such checks are essential for all transactions, how much of the market would survive for lesser, cheaper objects?
As Daniel Healey, a Provenance Research specialist at Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts (and another former ATU staffer) noted, the work of provenance research can become very expensive for museums – sometimes they have to travel to check sources. It is a challenge to museums to fund such provenance research and it requires ongoing support, he advised. They have to rely a lot on colleagues in other institutions.
Again, attendees seemed to apply a double standard here: while Healey complained of the lack of time and resources facing museum curators as they tried to assess items coming up for auction – and blamed auction houses for this – no one considered that auction house specialists themselves, and dealers, faced the same challenges. Why should special consideration be given to one set of professionals but not the other?
Export certificates were another consideration. Now vital under the EU import licensing regulations, the fact that they rarely survive in any useful form continues to be overlooked.
Despite this, the UNIDROIT working group on cultural objects with significant gaps in provenance (usually known as Orphan objects) has been able to make some sensible contributions. Due Diligence is not just about compliance, it’s also about reducing costly mistakes and sustaining public trust.
France is attempting to standardise provenance research
A move in France to nationalise how provenance research is carried out includes a mandatory eight-page provenance form for any public acquisition that is already in place. How would this apply to the market? Who would pay for the compliance? Again, no consideration of the practicalities. Nonetheless, as with every forum of this type, a common complaint was the lack of resources and funding to support their work. Yet no one considers that market professionals face identical issues.
Engaging with the art market is an oft-quoted objective to justify what are usually predictable anti-market outcomes of projects and research. In practice, however, such ‘engagement’ is ignored, ineffectual or simply a fig leaf to cover an ideological approach. Until those in the public sector, together with those in the private institutional sector, recognise that the market faces identical challenges to them, it will be hard to move forward. You cannot expect to apply impossible rules to others while giving a free pass to yourself in the same context.
Recent Comments