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.
by ADA | Jan 16, 2025 | Views |
Impending enforcement of a new EU law that is not fit for purpose risks creating serious human rights breaches
The UK Post Office scandal has been a landmark of injustice that has outraged the public and politicians alike. Sub-postmasters were convicted of theft and even jailed – and one even committed suicide – when the real problem was the faulty Horizon computer system. For years the Post Office pursued the innocent while burying evidence of the true cause.
As victims have fought back, one of the aspects that has arisen time and again was the fact that the Post Office and its lawyers demanded that sub postmasters prove their innocence by demonstrating that the Horizon system had a problem. As The Law Society Gazette summed it up in the case of Lee Castleton from 2006, “the Post Office’s strategy was to put the burden on Castleton to prove that the Horizon IT system was not working properly – effectively reversing the burden of proof”.
Richard Moorhead, Professor of Law and Professional Ethics at the University of Exeter and Honorary Professor of Law at UCL, is a consulting expert on the scandal and has written extensively about it.
He concluded: “Our analysis of Lee Castleton’s case shows how misaligned the desire to win and justice can become. The problems are particularly acute when one side is unrepresented. There is a question here whether the lawyers were overly influenced by a legitimate, if opportunistic, strategy. The courts need to think long and hard about allowing artful legal argument to shift evidential burdens onto those least able to prove their case.”
As Doughty Street Chambers reported: “In Hamilton & Others, Tim Moloney KC and Kate O’Raghallaigh were appointed lead advocates by the Court of Appeal and represented 29 of the 39 appellants for whom the Court found that the investigative and disclosure failings of Post Office Limited were “so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the ‘Horizon cases’ an affront to the conscience of the court” and that, in their conduct of the prosecutions, the Post Office “reversed the burden of proof”.”
Reversal of the burden of proof an aggravating factor
Clearly, the Post Office’s tendency to reverse the burden of proof to cover its tracks and shift the blame to sub-postmasters was a very serious aggravating factor in the scandal.
When ITV screened Mr Bates vs the Post Office, a drama series based on the scandal, it became the most celebrated show of the year and transformed the debate at the highest level, most specifically because of the reversal of the burden of proof aspect that led to such injustice. After more than a decade of fighting to clear their names and get recompense, it was this that finally galvanised the authorities and led to a public inquiry.
So, when is it reasonable to reverse the burden of proof under the law?
Being found in possession of a deadly weapon such as a knife now comes with a presumption of intent to use it under English law – an understandable development.
In 2021, the Council of Europe’s Warsaw anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing convention committee called on its States Parties to effectively apply the reversal of the burden of proof regarding the lawful origin of alleged proceeds or other property liable to confiscation in serious offences.
The 2021 report of the Conference of the Parties looked at the 2005 Council of Europe’s Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism. It evaluated the extent to which 34 States Parties have legislative or other measures in place for the burden of proof to be reversed, a possibility provided for in Article 3 (4) of the Convention.
That stipulates that “Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to require that, in respect of a serious offence as defined by national law, an offender demonstrates the origin of alleged proceeds or other property liable to confiscation to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of its domestic law”.
The key words here are “in respect of a serious offence as defined by national law” – in other words, where a serious offence has been identified as having taken place.
Mission creep: from serious offence to casual risk prevention
The problem the art market faces in dealing with regulation and the authorities now is mission creep. Application of the reversal of the burden of proof has moved far beyond the test of whether a serious offence has occurred and into the realm of what is effectively casual risk prevention.
It is now becoming the norm to apply the reversal of the burden of proof for provenance within the international art market and for those importing their possessions, even where no evidence at all exists of a risk of money laundering or terrorism financing.
As with the sub-postmasters, it is not possible to provide evidence that either does not exist, or that you cannot gain access to, to prove your innocence – in which case you are assumed to be guilty. Just as the courts were scandalised by this attitude and approach in the Post Office scandal, so should they be in the treatment of the art market and private citizens with regards to their property.
The imposition of the ‘reversal’ standard across the board on a huge range of imports under EU Reg 2019/880 relating to cultural goods is utterly disproportionate, proportionality being the international legal test for whether such measures are reasonable, as well as a prerequisite of the European Commission President’s official policy on lawmaking.
A key pledge on page 7 of the EC President’s new political guidelines reinforces this concept: “Future legislation must also be simplified and designed with small businesses in mind and in a spirit of subsidiarity.”
Wise words that fly in the face of what is actually happening.
Violation of the presumption of innocence
Let’s not forget that the European Commission’s own research, in the form of two studies commissioned to show, among other things, the level of terrorism financing across all its member states, found no evidence at all. So no evidence, and yet the enforcement of the ‘reversal’ policy as though evidence had been found.
As the UK Appeal Court noted in the Supreme Court of Canada, Dickson CJC said that “[i]f an accused is required to prove some fact on the balance of probabilities to avoid conviction, the provision violates the presumption of innocence because it permits a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the guilt of the accused.[60]”
That level of proof will soon be applied to importers of cultural property to the EU. Without any evidence showing that terrorism financing, which initially prompted this law, is a problem, the application of such a standard when no offence – serious or otherwise – has been identified appears disproportionate. As such, it is in breach of Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which stipulates that individuals should be able to enjoy possession of their private property without arbitrary interference.
If evidence of terrorism financing had been clear, then raising the breach of 2019/880 rules to the level of serious crime might be justified on the understanding that serious crime is largely defined by the severity of harm caused by the offence. Without that evidence, however, reversing the burden of proof risks becoming a violation of human rights, just as it was in the cases related to the Post Office scandal.
Photo caption, above: ITV’s Mr Bates vs the Post Office, the drama series that transformed the debate on the Post Office scandal. The scandal’s reversal of the burden of proof aspect outraged the public and politicians.
by ADA | Dec 6, 2024 | Views |
It is astonishing that so many of the high level art market seminars and conferences being held across the world – and notably in the UK and Europe – fail to address what is likely to be the biggest issue for those concerned next year.
For all the talk of AI, the rise of the Middle East as an art hub and the role of art advisors, no one seems interested in the one thing that might bring the whole transnational market across Europe to a juddering halt: the enforcement of EU Reg 2019/880 on the import of cultural goods.
Nominally introduced to fight terrorism financing (for which there has been no evidence) and money laundering, the unrealistic demands of the regulation when it comes to import documentation mean that honest market professionals will find themselves unable to send works they have bought or sold to the EU.
The law also applies to private citizens, thereby undermining the European Convention on Human Rights as it applies to property rights.
By now, member states within the EU should be on top of this law. They need to know what impact it will have on their resources when it comes to assessment and Customs, and they need to have a clear idea of exactly how they will enforce the law so that the roll-out across the 27 EU countries will be uniform or at least harmonised so that they do not unwittingly create weak spots for entry that might attract criminals.
Guidelines promised in September have still not appeared. Behind closed doors, industry professionals are horrified at the state of affairs and find themselves unable to submit to the legal liabilities that signing off import documents will bring.
Advice from the authorities in Brussels has been conflicting – and those receiving it do not know if what they are being told is simply the interpretation of officials or binding law.
Too many questions remain unanswered as we approach the New Year, with an enforcement date of June 28. We are promised a set of guidelines before Christmas, but will they be enough?
Key questions that need answers now
Here are some key questions that still need to be settled:
– Who must sign off on the terms and conditions of import? The buyer? The seller? An intermediary such as an auction house?
– How can a buyer who has not personally inspected the goods they are importing, or does not have absolute knowledge of the accompanying documentation and its reliability prior to import, accept legal liability for its validity – to the point of risking criminal prosecution if it is not?
– Why would an auction house expose itself to such liability on behalf of a buyer or seller?
– Will the EU and its member states, including their Customs teams, accept third-party affidavits as sufficient evidence of legal export in order to solve the issues set out above?
– The regulation separates antiquities from archaeological artefacts and applies differing rules to each. However, it does not define how they are different. Will it accept the standard difference as set out in the complementary EU export law (116/2009)?
– How does the regulation distinguish between antiquities and antiques? This also remains unclear.
– Existing Customs codes do not distinguish between non-EU origin items, to which the new regulation applies, and EU-origin items which are exempt. How will Customs officers, who do not have relevant expertise in this area, decide what to do?
While some of the above may seem fairly technical, these questions go to the heart of the import process. The lack of clarity means deep uncertainty over whether goods will be blocked or even seized at the border, or delayed, in some cases for up to five months.
Just as uncertain will be the costs involved, while the administrative burden for those completing the paperwork is daunting. As one leading insurance broker concluded: “This would be a total non-starter for the art market.”
Already some members of the trade have said they will not import to the EU. While that may mean more business for non-EU art market centres like London, it would be a disaster for Paris, which has seen an uptick in its global share since Brexit. Ultimately, though, as a global industry, a law that proves insurmountable in a leading market jurisdiction will be bad news for us all.
Recent Comments