by ADA | Jan 21, 2026 | Views |
Lack of data, high costs, poor resources and risks to human rights continue to blight the mission to trace trafficked cultural property
Study on measures to increase traceability of cultural goods in the fight against cultural goods trafficking at the Member State level and at the EU level (Final report)
This report into what the European Commission believes should be done next to tackle the blight of cultural property trafficking is an eye-opener. It is telling that initial publication should take place just three months before the final enforcement of the previous mass enforcement measure, Reg 2019/880 on import licensing.
Nonetheless, this new report is fascinating because of what it reveals: specifically, the ongoing lack of data despite decades of study and multi-million euro funding for research; and high levels of self-awareness indicating an overwhelming lack of confidence in the viability of what is being proposed here. A continent-wide system linking up all existing databases (and adding new ones where needed) after they have adapted to a single standard could be a very effective means of combatting crime. However, as this 320-page report makes abundantly clear, too many obstacles persist to render this ambition anything but a fantasy.
Essentially the objective of the report is to pave the way for the introduction of a compulsory EU-wide registration and standardised due diligence system for reporting cultural property transactions. The idea is that this would allow national databases to interact with each other to create an EU-wide safety net and monitoring system.
EU-wide standardised network of databases
A continent-wide system linking up all existing databases (and adding new ones where needed) after they have adapted to a single standard could be a very effective means of combatting crime. However, as this 320-page paper makes abundantly clear, too many obstacles persist to render this ambition anything but a fantasy. Here are a few of the issues it raises:
– What would an effective single standard look like?
– Who would decide on what should be included?
– How do you define the parameters of what should be included on the databases?
– How do you get all Member States to comply when only nine of the 27 currently have databases and they are incompatible?
– What value threshold would you introduce if, as stated, the intention is to focus on high value goods (a wise course)? Matching the AML standard, as mooted, would mean €10,000, but that is very low and would risk overwhelming business, customs and possibly the databases themselves.
– Who would have access to the databases bearing in mind the historic protectionism exercised by existing databases? The report acknowledges that they would be ineffective if not publicly accessible.
– How do you persuade Member States to proceed when they have been unwilling so far and would largely have to fund the project themselves and set up support and enforcement teams? Initial estimated costs are €36.8 million, with an extra €383 million to link up Member States effectively.
– Why do we need further regulation when the same objectives are covered by existing measures such as EU Reg 2019/880 on import licensing?
– The report repeatedly emphasises the need for EU standards and human rights to be honoured, yet acknowledges just as repeatedly that what is being proposed risks breaching them.
As revealing is what comes in the preamble, where we discover the following:
– Data is hard to find and reliable data is largely non-existent, but art and antiques are seen as relatively high risk because they can be traded.
– Compliance value thresholds and claims of crime levels rely largely on guesswork.
– Law enforcement and others mostly extrapolate international crime levels from a few individual cases.
– Many of those cases involve art and criminals but not the art market.
– Risk categorisation for Terrorism Financing and Money Laundering are guesswork, with nation states acting on wish lists from law enforcement bodies and the belief that the risk must be high because it involves goods that can be traded.
Art Market input
As explained on page 277 of the report, apart from a few unspecified targeted interviews, consultation on this study with the art market was as follows:
An online survey targeting art market participants was launched in April 2024 and data was exported in July 2024. The survey aimed at gathering information about perceptions of the prevalence of trafficking, transaction recording practices and administrative costs and compliance costs incurred. A total of 32 replies were received from art dealers, galleries, auction houses, antique dealers and gallerists from Austria (1), Belgium (1), Czechia (1), Germany (11), France (2), Portugal (1), Sweden (6), Switzerland (1), the Netherlands (4) and the United Kingdom (3).
by ADA | Jan 5, 2026 | Views |
No questions asked; no curiosity – how the media deals with attacks on the art market
One of the most concerning aspects surrounding fake news as it applies to the subject of cultural heritage is the widespread failure of the media to address the issue properly.
While a daily stream of reports chide the international art market as a haven for criminals involved in theft, smuggling and money laundering, vanishingly few journalists ever seem to check the validity of claims being put out by governments, law enforcement, NGOs and others.
In 2022 and 2023, it appeared that we had turned a corner when European Commissioners and senior officials at UNESCO finally accepted that massively inflated claims regarding the value of illicit material being trafficked across the world were simply untrue.
One of the most important papers on the matter at the time was the Cambridge University Press published The illicit trade in antiquities is not the world’s third-largest illicit trade: a critical evaluation of a factoid. Its authors, Drs Neil Brodie and Donna Yates had long been critics of the trade, but had come to agree with the evidence-based arguments promoted by the industry that the claims were false and actually harmed the interests of heritage and culture because they risked encouraging further thefts.
Regulation that has the potential to harm legitimate trade has come into force on the back of false data promoted by those who wish to prevent that trade – the European Union’s new import licensing law 2019/880 is a case in point.
The false impression created by bilateral agreements
The rise of bilateral agreements, particularly between the United States and other countries (at least 35 now relating to cultural heritage) spreads a false impression that countries of origin are able to reclaim artefacts because US law enforcement is doing a great job of finding looted and trafficked pieces. The reality is that these agreements bypass the usual property rights cited under the US Constitution, as well as dispensing with the need for evidence, both of which would protect citizens under normal circumstances. Instead, they effectively wave through a kleptocratic system that allows the state to seize its people’s possessions and use them for soft-power purposes. Then the media, on a global basis, simply parrot the claims of the authorities rather than asking for evidence that the items in question were, indeed, illicit.
This is all bad enough, but the failure of the media to highlight the scandal, even when presented with the evidence, effectively makes it complicit. It’s almost as though reporters are simply reprinting the media releases from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and the State Department. No questions asked; no curiosity.
The same unquestioning approach has made gospels out of official reports which simply do not stand up to scrutiny, such as the deeply flawed February 2023 Financial Action Task Force report into money laundering, trafficking and terrorism financing related to art, Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in the Art and Antiquities Market.
It would be easy to blame the lack of training and resources for the media’s failure to examine these issues more robustly or even carry out basic fact checking. However, as all this has gone on, many leading media outlets have indeed taken a robust approach, but only where articles support the market position and expose the untruths leveled at it.
Articles supporting the market are ‘lost’ on submission
Antiquities Forum knows of numerous instances where articles pitched with every fact supported by detailed footnotes and/or embedded links to primary sources have been ‘lost’ by the commissioning editor – sometimes two or three times – with renewed submissions ultimately ignored or refused without reason. These are articles from expert writers and journalists who have had no problem securing publication with those same titles on other subjects.
At the same time, stories that are patently untrue or unsupported by evidence are published without question – clearly without any fact checking going on.
Comments under articles have been equally ‘mislaid’, ignored or simply censored if they challenge market critics. It seems no one in the media is interested in the widespread abuse of citizens’ rights, including the reversal of the burden of proof – now commonplace – when it comes to ownership, so that your property is considered stolen unless you have the paperwork to prove that it is not. Surely the media should be interested in something as fundamental as the decision to treat people as guilty rather than innocent as a basic standard of civilised society. But apparently not.
As a former member of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) that briefs Congress, lawyer Peter Tompa is a noted authority on the law as it applies to cultural heritage. A prominent campaigner among the coin collecting community, senior official of the Global Heritage Alliance and author of the Cultural Property Observer blog, as well as numerous articles in Cultural Property News, he is exactly the sort of expert that the media should be falling over themselves to interview, especially as he is hugely concerned with the attack on citizens’ rights. Instead, as he has just explained, he appears to have been blacklisted.
Market commentator blacklisted
Following a recent article in influential Washington publication The Hill by cultural property lawyer Rick Mr. St. Hilaire – no friend of the market over the years – Tompa found his own comments on the issue barred.
“The Hill Newspaper refused to publish this comment, supposedly because it violates their ‘community standards’,” he explained.
“Also, Mr. St. Hilaire disallows comments on his posts, except for people he is already connected with. So, here it is.” What Tompa explains, but The Hill did not, was that St Hilaire “is associated with an archaeological advocacy group that has received substantial State Department funding as a ‘soft power measure’”.
Among Tompa’s disallowed expert critique of St Hilaire’s comments was the following: “The major issue with his punitive approach is that it seeks to enforce confiscatory foreign laws here and assumes that even common items like historic coins purchased from legitimate markets in Europe are ‘stolen’ if they don’t have a long document trails proving ‘licit’ origins. Due process for American citizens should be the utmost consideration. Not using criminal law to threaten collectors on behalf of foreign governments, particularly authoritarian regimes in the Middle East which declare anything old State property.” Tompa goes on to explain how he then tried another version, complete with citations, but The Hill wouldn’t publish it, either.
“On reflection, perhaps that’s not all that surprising because The Hill has rejected other opinion pieces from me in the past (including the one quoted at the end that was ultimately published by the American Bar Association) and others representing collector interests. Meanwhile, the Antiquities Coalition and others with similar views seem to get what they want published in The Hill Newspaper. In any event, judge for yourself if this post violates ‘community standards’ or if it’s just another case where the views of collectors and the trade are being suppressed by a ‘woke’ press.”
And in a final challenge to The Hill, he adds: “If you are really interested in a conversation you will publish this comment. As archaeologists claim, context is important.”
Whatever the media’s reason for failing this challenge, from a journalistic perspective it makes no sense to duck what is really a sensational story of widespread collusion and apparent corruption at the heart of the State. Does no one want a Pulitzer Prize anymore?
by ADA | Oct 29, 2025 | Views |
Artificial Intelligence is undoubtedly useful, especially when carrying out research, but it is also a minefield of fake news if you don’t do your homework properly.
As an example, take a report inspired by the recent dramatic theft of Royal jewels from The Louvre and published by Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. Titled Lessons from The Louvre, it includes the following statement: “Organized crime groups are increasingly targeting art and antiquities held in European collections, drawn by the continent’s cultural repositories and art markets.”
Whether this claim is true or not, the article provides no supporting evidence. It does mention a series of crimes that have taken place within Europe in recent years that may have been – even probably were – carried out by criminal gangs. Two of those mentioned even involved antiquities, although the rest did not. What they do not prove in any way is the veracity of the statement about such crimes being on the increase in Europe.
Now comes the A.I. part.
As an experiment, the Antiquities Forum asked A.I. the following question: “Is it true that organized crime groups are increasingly targeting art and antiquities held in European collections, drawn by the continent’s cultural repositories and art markets?”
The response was unequivocal: “Yes, organized crime groups are increasingly targeting art and antiquities held in European collections. The continent is a key hub for the illicit trade due to its wealth of cultural artifacts and active art markets, which organized criminals exploit for profit and other illicit purpose.”
It then provided a series of paragraphs under the heading Key reasons for the increase.
This all looked very convincing until further investigation showed that the conclusions were based entirely on sources including the article mentioned above, where significant claims had been made but without giving the evidence to show they were true.
Checking out the sources
In fact, in the case of the headline claim about organized criminals increasingly targeting European collections, the top three sources quoted were:
Further sources include a 2022 European Union Action Plan against Trafficking in Culture Goods. Its claims that trafficking is a ‘lucrative’ business and that “increasing global demand from collectors, investors and museums” is driving looting and trafficking are based on the existence of UN Security Council resolutions, the size of the legitimate art market and estimates by Europol.
The problem here is that UN Security Council resolutions are preventive measures based on perceived risk rather than on evidence of actual crime; the size of the legitimate art market (which has been shrinking in recent years, not growing) sheds no light at all on crime levels, let alone showing that they are rising; and, at its own admission, Europol has no data to support the claim made on its behalf, despite all the headline figures on arrests and seizures (but not convictions or confirmation of the goods being illicit) relating to Operation Pandora and the rest.
In other words, as is almost always the case with such claims from the EU, they are not based on facts, but on supposition.
How the claims just don’t stack up
It’s a similar tale with Interpol, whose Cultural Heritage Crime page also features as an A.I. source in this context. There Interpol’s significant (but unsupported) claim is: “Trafficking in cultural property is a low-risk, high-profit business for criminals with links to organized crime. From stolen artwork to historical artefacts, this crime can affect all countries, either as origin, transit or destinations.”
In fact, not one of the sources given by A.I. to support the robust (but misleading) conclusions it comes to stand up to scrutiny.
Unfortunately, as reports from many sources have shown, researchers looking for confirmation of their suspicions when it comes to the international art market often fall victim to confirmation bias, failing to check the sources they cite through footnotes and embedded links because on the surface they seem to support what they believe.
Because of this, it has been surprisingly easy to debunk long accepted, but false, claims about the art market. And it also explains why the Antiquities Dealers’ Association (ADA) and the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA), who between them support the work of the Antiquities Forum, for years have operated a policy of checking primary sources for claims wherever possible.They provide those sources wherever possible in promoting their own views and arguments, and ask their audiences to check the sources given for their own satisfaction. Unfortunately, this is a highly sensitive and controversial arena where no one – no matter who they are – can simply be taken at their word. And A.I. is not going to fix that any time soon.
by ADA | Jun 26, 2025 | Views |
Supranational authority’s failure to join the European Convention of Human Rights – despite promising to 15 years ago – protects it from legal action by citizens unfairly suffering under import licensing law
Although every member state is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union itself is not.
It committed to joining as long ago as 2010, but concerns arose that submitting itself to the ECHR might cause conflicts between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Joining the ECHR would also lead to fundamental changes to EU powers.
Essentially, as an autonomous body, the EU would be ceding sovereignty to the ECHR, allowing individuals to challenge it legally over human rights in a way that they cannot do now.
While the EU remains committed to joining, 15 years after saying it would, the debate over resolving these conflicts continues.
This is important for those subjected to the EU import licensing regulation for Cultural Goods (2019/880), which comes into full force on June 28.
The fundamental driver for the legislation was the requirement to prevent illicit cultural goods that might have funded terrorism from entering the EU.
Finding evidence of this threat was essential to justifying the regulation under the terms of the European Commission President’s guiding principles for making policy. They stipulated that regulation had to be “targeted, easy to comply with and does not add unnecessary regulatory burdens… we must send a clear signal to citizens that our policies and proposals deliver and make life easier for people and for businesses.”
Ursula von der Leyen also ordered her commissioners to operate a policy of one-in-one-out so that “every legislative proposal creating new burdens” would “relieve people and businesses of an equivalent existing burden at EU level in the same policy area”.
“Proposals must be evidence based, widely consulted upon and subject to an impact assessment reviewed by the independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board. You will ensure that they respect the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity and show the clear benefit of European action.”
So, what happened here?
– No one-in-one-out. In fact, with additional anti-money laundering legislation, it has been at least two in and none out.
– No evidence of terrorism financing could be found, according to the two official reports (Deloitte and Ecorys) ordered by the European Commission.
– Data published by the European Commission to justify the regulation turned out to be wrong.
– The European Parliament concluded that the Impact Assessment conducted to see how the regulation would hit home lacked “sufficient and reliable background evidence” and “robustness and depth” in its analysis, and it dismissed it as “not always entirely convincing”.
– The Regulatory Scrutiny Board was highly critical of the regulation even as it passed it on the second review. Its recommendations were not followed up.
– Few dispute that the regulation will make life for citizens and businesses considerably harder.
Protocol 1. Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, meaning everyone is entitled to own property and have it protected. This right isn’t absolute; it can be limited in certain situations, but any interference must be lawful, serve a legitimate public interest, and be proportionate.
Likewise, Article 17.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”.
So, the ECHR recognises that such interference must be legitimately in the public interest and proportionate. The UDHR says interference must not be arbitrary. ‘Arbitrary’ here means without justification or in a way that is not proportionate.
Now, as the law was introduced to counter the threat of terrorism financing AND no evidence of such terrorism financing was found after extensive official and expert investigation, the measures brought in seem wildly disproportionate.
They:
– Do not make the lives citizens or businesses easier
– Do not honour the one-in-one-out principle
– Arguably breach human rights conventions to which all member states are signatories because they appear to be neither justified nor proportionate, and so could reasonably be termed arbitrary in their interference.
In addition, while they deprive ordinary citizens of fundamental human rights and blight honest business, they are unlikely to have any serious impact on crime, because this crime has not been identified as taking place in the EU, and criminals tend to smuggle illicit material, not submit it to customs. On top of that, other financial crimes such as fraud and money laundering are already addressed through alternative existing legislation.
The next few months will reveal just how damaging the new regulation is. Let’s just hope that dealers, auction houses, collectors and ordinary EU citizens can stay the course while this highly inadvisable experiment continues.
by ADA | Mar 31, 2025 | News, Uncategorized |
Despite myriad figures for illicit trade worth billions or even tens of billions of dollars, no one can point to any reliable source for claims
A survey of a dozen of the world’s top law enforcement agencies and government departments has revealed that none of them appears to have any accurate data regarding the value of cultural goods trafficking globally.
This is despite multiple claims going back years of an illicit trade worth tens of billions of dollars.
Indeed, in at least one case – Interpol – the only reference to the size of the problem comes in a ten-year-old video still prominent on its website, in which former Secretary General Jürgen Stock makes the claim that the black market in art is as lucrative as the illicit markets in drugs, weapons and counterfeit goods – a claim long since exposed as untrue.
Carried out on behalf of several art market trade associations, the survey sought responses from the European Commission, the EU Directorate for Culture, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the US State Department, Interpol, Europol, the FBI, Homeland Security, the Financial Action Task Force, the UK’s National Crime Agency, the World Customs Organisation and UNESCO.
Care was made to approach the correct source for such information in each case, and follow-up requests were made when advised by the relevant authority of a different source.
The aim was to get a clear picture of trafficking levels
The aim of the survey was to establish a clear picture of global trafficking data for cultural property.
“It is important to establish credible data to defeat the extensive misinformation and disinformation surrounding this subject, which plays a significant part in hampering effective policy making,” the authorities were told.
Each was asked the following: “Do you have any independently verifiable figures relating to the value of trafficking of cultural property, especially any global figures for the annual value of this risk area?”
And each was asked to supply the data and its sources if it was available. Not one did. More than one admitted that it didn’t have the information or that it simply did not exist. These included organisations producing extensive reports claiming cultural goods trafficking is a huge problem.
Others either did not respond or directed the request to another source. In one case, the UK’s National Crime Agency, the request was met with refusal to respond on the grounds that it was not a public body.
No relevant data from Interpol or Europol
Despite mass data being made available for associated issues and other categories of risk via the World Customs Organisation annual Illicit Trade Reports, together with arrests and seizure data from Interpol and Europol via Operations such Pandora, not one authority was able to provide any credible data on the size of cultural goods trafficking.
Having previously stated on its website that it had no data showing the size of the problem and adding that it never expected to have any reliable data on global trafficking in cultural property, Interpol says it is a “lucrative black market” and introduces its Cultural Heritage Crime section as follows: “Trafficking in cultural property is a low-risk, high-profit business for criminals with links to organized crime. From stolen artwork to historical artefacts, this crime can affect all countries, either as origin, transit or destinations.”
Requests to both Europol and the World Customs Organisation have proved equally fruitless.
Europol directed the request to its website, which gives no such data. However, it had responded to an earlier request, stating: “We do not have these figures. Europol is not a statistical organisation – Europol’s priority is to support cross-border investigations and the information available is solely based on investigations supported by Europol.”
Europol has since confirmed that it does not have the relevant data.
When emailed in February, asking why it no longer included any relevant data in its annual Illicit Trade Report on Cultural Goods, The WCO explained that global data on illicit trade “does not exist”.
When emailed again in March, it did not respond.
No relevant data available from Eurostat
The European Commission’s information service directed the request to Eurostat, but that does not have any relevant data.
The Financial Action Task Force directed the request to its 2023 report: Money Laundering and terrorist Financing in the Art and Antiquities Market. However, much of that report is based on historically inaccurate data and provides no credible figures for global trafficking at all. It also acknowledges that it does not have the data, stating on page 28: “The lack of reliable statistics concerning looting activities, especially from conflict zones, makes it difficult to assess the scale of the phenomenon. However, taking into account the volume of looted archaeological goods seized in certain international or national police operations, it appears that this is a large-scale activity.” This view does not tally with the global data published by the World Customs Organisation.
The US State Department directed the request to the Office of Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, providing two phone numbers. One had a voicemail, so a request was left for an email address, with no result; the other number did not work. The weblink provided by the State department gave no information on the ‘Office’. Extensive web searching came up with no contact details. No further response came.
A March 12 response from the FBI referred the request to an online request form, which was filled in the same day. To date, no further response has arisen.
No relevant data from the European Anti-Fraud Office
A follow-up request elicited a response from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). It welcomed the attempt to gather credible data but said its work did not relate directly to doing so itself.
No responses came at all from the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) (Cultural Heritage Unit); UNESCO’s Information Service (for all UNESCO data); or Homeland Security.
Readers will have their own views as to what this means, but the complete lack of any reliable data – or any data at all in most cases – raises the question as to what the unending slew of claims over global trafficking in cultural property are really based on.
A more detailed summary of individual responses is available.
- This article will be updated by any further responses of note.
Recent Comments