by ADA | Jun 24, 2026 | Uncategorized |
Out now for almost six months, the World Customs Organisation’s latest Illicit Trade Report (ITR) covers the year 2024. The introduction hails the report as offering “a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics and evolving trends of illicit trade. This edition underscores the complexity and adaptability of transnational criminal networks, highlighting impacts on public safety, global security, and sustainable development.”
So what does the highly detailed and analytical 305-page report have to say about cultural property crime?
Very little indeed.
On page 23, a bar chart provides The Number of Responses to the WCO Seizure Statistics. These appear to refer to the number of customs forces who have replied to a WCO survey asking for the number and volume of seizures in their jurisdiction. Responses concerning cultural goods rose from around 29 to 33 year-on-year to 2024.
A bubble chart on the following page appears to show a 75% rise in the number of cases involving cultural goods with a rise in the volume of goods seized somewhere below 5%. However, it also shows that the volume is tiny compared to any other form of illicit activity except for Explosive Precursors – chemicals that can be used in the creation of explosives.
On the following bubble chart showing year on year trends, cultural goods do not appear at all.
Chart 4 on page 26 illustrates priorities by commodity, with Cultural Goods listed as an Essential priority for around four out of 70 Customs administrations – the lowest score for any commodity. Around another eight administrations see it as a High priority, again the lowest score, and by some distance compared to most other commodities. These ratings remain almost unchanged from 2023, as the next bar chart shows us on page 27.
The attraction of fungible items
A key consideration making commodities attractive for money laundering is their fungibility, according to the introduction to the chapter on ML on page 37: “…the majority of these cases involve the illicit movement of bulk cash, but also include significant quantities of gold, rhodium, silver, and precious stones, including diamonds. These materials, due to their high value-to-weight ratio, fungibility, and ease of transport, remain attractive to criminal networks seeking to transfer or launder proceeds across borders while evading detection.”
As readers will know, a distinctive feature about artworks and antiquities is that they are not fungible.
Much of the Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing chapter is dedicated to currency and gold smuggling – by far the biggest problem it identifies when it comes to ML, with an additional issue involving agricultural equipment in Brazil.
Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh and India reported the most cases, with Japan, Turkey and Sri Lanka next. All countries on the list are in the Middle East, Far East, Balkans and eastern Mediterranean. On page 68, the report concludes re ML: “The consistent involvement of departure points like UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Hong Kong-China, and destination corridors into India, Türkiye, Japan, and Bangladesh, suggests entrenched regional laundering networks that demand multi-jurisdictional enforcement.” Note: ‘regional’.
Jewellery and the high-risk traveller
On page 63, it reports: “Jewellery smuggling via couriers remains a key modality: The high number of pieces seized in Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Japan indicates frequent interception of concealed jewellery worn or carried by passengers, underlining the importance of profiling high-risk travellers and body-worn concealment detection.”
Overall, the ITR is extremely detailed, providing numerous graphs, data sets, case studies and photographs of seizures on extensive chapters concerning ML and terrorism financing, drug trafficking, environmental crime, intellectual property rights, health and safety, revenue fraud and smuggling, and security breaches.
Cultural goods had their own chapter – albeit revealing just how small the problem is – for several years until the early 2020s. No more, however.
Considering the level of intelligence in every other sphere of interest across such a wide number of jurisdictions, it is hardly credible that the dearth of data when it comes to cultural goods can be explained entirely by under reporting. At no point in any past WCO report have cultural goods ever shown any significant contribution to illicit trade on a global scale in comparison to other spheres. Now they show even less, despite all the lobbying claims to the contrary.
Customs administrations have consistently ranked it as their lowest priority. Could this be because it is the smallest issue that they face in this context?
by ADA | Feb 25, 2025 | Views |
The World Customs Organisation (WCO) finally seems to have all but given up when it comes to an accurate and detailed analysis of trafficking and the art market, if its 2022 and 2023 Illicit Trade Reports are anything to go by. Several wild claims of trafficking worth billions when it comes to Cultural Goods are not only unsupported by evidence or any reliable sources – they even contradict each other.
Added to this is the WCO’s insistence on the art market being a haven for money laundering while quoting reports that say the opposite. Even its most important anti-money laundering initiative, Project Tentacle, demonstrates that the art market has little to do with what is going in this sphere of crime.
Most intriguing of all is that while it claims a 15% uptick in Cultural Goods trafficking in 2023, it produces no statistics whatsoever to demonstrate this. Also, unusually, no graphs, graphics or tables are included to demonstrate the problem despite many appearing for every other risk category covered in the 250-page plus report.
Almost a data-free zone
When it comes to Cultural Goods, the report is almost a data-free zone.
As the introduction on page 11 tells us, data for the 2023 WCO report comes chiefly from the Customs Enforcement Network (CEN), but this is supplemented by other sources: official government media outlets; international organisations; member surveys and open-source analysis. While these might be helpful, they also increase the risk of misinformation and propaganda. As the Antiquities Forum has discovered on numerous occasions, official reports are not necessarily robust when it comes to the reliability of their data.
Seizures under Project Tentacle, carried out in partnership with Interpol and the Financial Intelligence Units across multiple countries, amounted to $22 million worth of gemstones, currency and precious metals in 2023. The WCO details seizures in this area as follows:
Gold: 116 seizures – 266.3 kilos of golds bars, 153 gold coins and 122 pieces of jewellery
Currency: 153 seizures – US$3.36 million
Wildlife: 1 seizure – 69 Toucans and Macaws
Trade-Based Money Laundering: 1 case connected to high-duty consumer goods and alcohol
Watches: 29 including 4 Rolexes
Meanwhile, Ukraine understandably dominates reporting when it comes to Cultural Goods trafficking.
Of all the statistics published, the WCO’s priority list is perhaps the most interesting. It categorises each of the 11 risk categories for its priority status among WCO members: Essential, High, Moderate, Neutral, Somewhat, Low and Not a Priority. It presents an average priority score for each category, the highest being 5.06 for drugs, and the lowest 3.41 for Cultural Goods.
Despite this, the WCO claims that the annual global value of trafficked cultural goods is in the tens of billions of euros. It gives no source for this but seems to be confusing the figure with the value of the legitimate global art market in 2023, which it puts at $65 billion, using the Art Basel Report as a source.
The tens of billions claim also clashes with another claim, which reiterates the long debunked figure of $6 billion reported in the 2016 UNODC report as the value of the global “underground market” in cultural goods.
“As we will see below, the market has naturally attracted criminals, organized crime groups, and terrorists who seek to launder proceeds of crime and fund their activities,” the introduction to this section states – a claim not held up by what follows at all, especially as it immediately excuses the “low figures” for seized Cultural Goods as under reporting by WCO members as they have other priorities. The report says that although reported seizures of Cultural Goods are low, they have been “consistently trending upwards since 2019”, with a 15% increase year on year in 2023. What the actual figures are, we are not told.
The WCO quotes the IMF and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF February 2023 report) in damning the art market as a higher risk sector for money laundering than other sectors, even though studies such as the US Treasury Report of 2022 concluded it to be lower risk. The FATF report, a seriously flawed and heavily redacted piece of work, largely used case studies that, while involving art, did not involve the art market. In fact, the FATF report acknowledged that the art market was not attractive to money launderers, is regulated by AML laws as well as self-imposed compliance and “In addition, a large part of the transactions carried out in the sector are routed through the banking system, which generally has mature and long-standing AML/CFT controls.”
Ramping up the anti-market rhetoric
The WCO ramps up the rhetoric against the art market by quoting the case of Lebanon-based Nazem Said Ahmad, a man with suspected linked to Hezbollah, whose property was seized from storage near Heathrow in London in 2019 and became the subject of a major investigation. The WCO puts a value of $160 million on the seizures although the figure reported at the time was $1.3 million. How much this case had to do with the art market is unclear. Certainly at least one auction house, Phillips, was involved, but had frozen Ahmad’s artworks and banned him from doing business with them in 2019. The WCO does not name the nine co-conspirators who were charged in 2023, nor whether any of them were part of the art market.
In none of the limited number of cases of cultural goods trafficked from Ukraine mentioned in this report does the WCO mention any links to the art market.
This 2023 WCO Illicit Trade Report comes across as little more than a piece of anti-market propaganda. The failure to publish any hard statistics other than those that are wrong or have no source displays a degree of cynicism, while conflicting bogus claims as to the size of trafficking – $6 billion or tens of billions of dollars – show a lack of care or incompetence that simply undermines the WCO’s credibility.
Yet again, we are faced with an authority that appears to have a pre-set political agenda when it comes to the art market, making claims it cannot support with evidence, then acknowledging that the evidence isn’t there, then excusing this shortcoming by blaming ‘under reporting’. As figures from previous years have shown – and the pie charts of 2019 figures shown above demonstrate – by a very long way Cultural Goods make up the smallest contribution to trafficking by every measure. This is not just true for the number of cases and seizures, but also for the volume and value of items seized of any risk category. In the decade or so since such figures have been reported, this has always been the case, and this fact is supported by every other study published into the subject.
We have written to the WCO asking for the source of its figures and challenging its position on Cultural Goods, and it has informed us that the officer in charge of drafting this section of the illicit trade report no longer works for the WCO. The WCO also says that as the CEN is built for analysts, not statistics, the global data on illicit trade does not exist. If so, how can the WCO quote figures of “tens of billions of dollars” or “$6 billion”? And what about the 15% uptick claimed? This is clearly no more than gossip or guesswork, neither of which has any place in such a potentially influential report. We have now asked the WCO not publish data without giving its primary source, and for them to check that source to ensure it is accurate.
by ADA | Nov 2, 2022 | News, Uncategorized, Views |
The World Customs Organisation has finally published a new report following the 2019 report, covering two years from 2019-2021, probably delayed because of the Covid 19 pandemic. Its results once again show that global levels of illicit trade in cultural property are far lower than claimed.
In the press release we read: “This year, the analysis provided in this Report is based on data collected from 138 Member administrations. Previously composed of six sections, the Report now covers seven key areas of risk in the context of Customs enforcement: Anti-money laundering and terrorist financing; Cultural heritage; Drugs; Environment; IPR, health and safety; Revenue; and Security.”
It also states: “The analysis contained in this Report is mainly based on the collection of data from the WCO Customs Enforcement Network (CEN) — a database of worldwide Customs seizures and offences”….
“However, the CEN database relies heavily on voluntary submissions by Members hence the quantity and quality of the data submitted to the system has its limitations”…
“However, as part of this new methodology, the data and information sources used to elaborate this Report has been enlarged to include various open sources.”
While the rest of the report might be “mainly based on the collection of data from the WCO Customs Enforcement Network (CEN)”, in the introduction to the Cultural Heritage chapter on page 57, the WCO goes further, admitting: “Unfortunately, the data received through the WCO’s Customs Enforcement Network (CEN) in 2020-2021 being incomplete, the following analysis will be mostly based on open source information.”
Case studies based on media reports rather than primary research
The result for the Cultural Heritage section is that most of the case studies are based on newspaper articles, sometimes even on events that happened decades ago, and have nothing to do with recent trafficking activities. This is alarming as much of the problem with false data plaguing the cultural property sector stems from misreporting in the media. It is even more alarming when the misleading picture created by a surface reading of the chapter will undoubtedly be used as ‘evidence’ in future campaigns against the art market, as past reports have been.
The WCO is supposed to report recent and reliable figures, like figure 3 on page 35, showing that the number of worldwide reported cultural goods cases for 2021 is a mere 156, that is 1.1 case per reporting country….
A newly introduced graph (shown here) in the WCO report (Page 17, Fig. 4) reveals precisely what the ADA and its fellow association IADAA have reported over the past years: the illicit trade in cultural heritage is so small that it barely shows in the statistics. Not only is it the smallest category – so small that you have to look carefully in case you miss it – but the graph also shows that seizures have fallen by around 50% between 2019 and 2021.
Let’s not forget, too, that the Cultural Heritage category is not limited to antiquities, as so many mistakenly believe; it covers 13 distinct sub-categories, including: all forms of art, antiques and collectables, household items, flora and fauna, books and manuscripts. In 2019, the top three categories of recovered item sub-categories were: Fauna, Flora, Minerals, Anatomy & Fossils; Other; and Hand-painted or Hand-drawn articles and works of art. No mention of antiquities, which did not even warrant its own sub-category.
All of this begs the question as to why, in its chapter on Cultural Heritage, the WCO has chosen to focus exclusively on photographs of seized antiquities (at least one of which seems to be a fake) alongside fossils and coins. The choice appears politically charged.Consistent reporting of
The WCO has stated in the past and here that there is under-reporting of crime in the culture sector and that it only counts seizures and cases reported via the Customs Enforcement Network (CEN), the implication being that the problem is much larger.
Figures consistently show low rate of illicit trade in cultural property
However, the miniscule share of illicit trade represented in its reports over the years by cultural property has been consistent, only now augmented by media reports not sourced via the CEN.
It further boosts this chapter of the report with a summary of Pandora VI, the latest in a seven-year campaign of international operations involving mass seizures and arrests. What the WCO, Europol or Interpol have never done, however, is to provide data on how many of their seizures and arrests later prove to be justified and how many were shown to be related to terrorism financing. It is not just the trade asking for these figures, academic investigators want them too to see how effective these operations are.
Previously the WCO has attempted to rebut the ADA and IADAA’s analysis of its reports, stating that the figures cannot be relied on. As our analysis always provides transparent sources for the data emanating from the reports, however, the WCO’s case against our analysis simply does not stand up.
Ultimately, its figures must be indicative of the global state of affairs; if they are misleading, why publish them?
by ADA | Feb 27, 2020 | News, Uncategorized |
2018 Illicit Trade Report lists Cultural Property as just 0.08% of global illicit trade compared to other risk sectors
The World Customs Organisation’s latest Illicit Trade Report covers 2018, shows a decline in Cultural Property crime, while also demonstrating how it is dwarfed by other sectors of trafficking, such as drugs, weapons and counterfeit goods, accounting for just 0.08% of all reported cases and seizures.
Cultural Property crime includes at least 12 categories of Cultural Property, ranging from household goods to jewellery, books and manuscripts and even flora and fauna. Antiquities form a small part of this category and the WCO does not even record separate figures for them, but does do so for archaeological items.
In summary, the number of reported cases globally in 2018 was 98, down from 155 in 2017. Reported seizures globally fell from 193 to 123, while items seized fell from 15,865 to 15,689. Although currency items seized rose from 9,431 to 13,391, archaeological items seized fell by more than half from 703 to 314.
Spread of cases and seizures
In all, Cultural Property accounted for 0.08% of all cases and seizures across all categories of trafficking. By contrast, Drugs accounted for 39% of case and 32% of seizures, with other categories accounting for shares as follows: Counterfeit Goods (29%/39%); Alcohol & Tobacco (22.5%/20%); Medical Products (4.3%/3.7%); Weapons and Ammunition (2.4%/3.6%) and Environmental Products (2.1%/1.8%).
Published in December 2019, the report records cases and seizures reported through the Customs Enforcement Network (CEN) in in its statistical analysis, although it also includes case studies of other crimes. However, some of these are years old – one dates to 2002, for example.
Analysis of the report by the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) includes graphics to show the vast difference in sector risks.
With detailed WCO figures for several years running now available, it is clear just how inaccurate claims are of a multi-billion dollar international trafficking network in antiquities, despite such claims driving forward policy and restrictive new laws such as the new EU import licensing regulations.
by Antiquities Dealers' Association | Jun 7, 2019 | Views |
Having spent decades as a journalist and much of the past five years and more investigating fake news in relation to the international art market, I have made some fairly shocking discoveries.
Fake news is created in a number of ways:
• The deliberate dissemination of propaganda
• Marketing posing as news
• The accurate reporting of the above two without fact checking
• The inaccurate reporting of facts – journalistic error
As the internet has made reporters of us all, it is hardly surprising that untrained ‘news’ outlets unintentionally add to the fake news trail. Diminishing resources to fund proper journalism is another problem. Well-paid print journalists once had adequate resources to check facts and conduct in-depth investigations, funded by display advertising and – especially with local newspapers – a core income arising from classified, property, recruitment and motor ads. Those revenue streams have largely now gone online to specialist sites that do not fund the media, so journalism has suffered.
However, it is not just the public and the dying art of journalism that leads to fake news. The really shocking discovery is that, either by design, incompetence or complacency, other sources can include some of our most trusted and respected institutions, from parliament and international law enforcement to NGOs and academia.
My latest article, written for Cahn’s Quarterly and just published, lifts the lid on what has happened in one of the most sensitive corners of the art market, the international antiquities trade, and how fake news has even contributed to the formulation of new laws within the European Union.
You can read it here. see pages 4-6.
Ivan Macquisten
Recent Comments