New Allegations Raised in Sotheby's Forfeiture Case: Cambodian Statue Stolen in 1972 - Trafficked through Thailand with Head Removed - Scientist Fired [UPDATED]

Federal prosecutors on Friday filed a motion to amend their forfeiture complaint in the case of United States of America v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture, Currently Located at Sotheby's in New York, New York.  The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York filed the petition in Manhattan federal district court following a September 27 hearing on the claimants' motion to dismiss.

The government's case is an attempt to seize, forfeit, and repatriate a statue (the so-called Defendant in rem) offered for auction by Sotheby's this past spring. Sotheby's and Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa are the claimants who want the Duryodhana sculpture to remain under their legal control.  Both claimants have vigorously contested the civil forfeiture action.

Federal lawyers, in their memorandum asking the court to accept the amended complaint, write that "[at the September 2012 hearing] the Court repeatedly inquired as to the facts the Government expected to be able to prove at trial with respect to the theft of the Defendant in rem from Prasat Chen, and Sotheby's knowledge that the Defendant in rem was stolen."  The proposed amended complaint and the supporting memorandum filed on November 9 contain the government's response to the court's inquiry, supplementing information provided by prosecutors in their initial April 2012 court complaint.

The  Duryodhana is alleged by prosecutors
to have passed through Bangkok (above).

The government's latest memorandum contends that the Duryodhana statue "was stolen from Prasat Chen in 1972, with the head removed first and the torso afterwards, and acquired by a well­ known collector of Khmer antiquities (the "Collector"), via an organized looting network. (Am. Compl. ¶  17-18). The Amended Complaint further alleges that the 1975 sale of the Defendant in rem was conducted for the Collector by an auction house which had full knowledge of its illicit origin. (Id. 19-20)."  The amended complaint specifically claims that the Duryodhana and a companion piece, termed "the Museum Statue," were transited through Thailand. "The heads of the statues were removed and transported first, followed by the torsos, and ultimately delivered to a Thai dealer based in Bangkok (the 'Thai Dealer'). The Defendant in rem and the Museum Statue were then obtained by a well-known collector of Khmer antiquities ('the Collector'). At the time of this purchase, the Collector knew that the statues had been looted from Koh Ker," write the government's lawyers.

[Author's sidebar: A companion statue to the Duryodhana, a Bhima sculpture, has been identified at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California.  Meanwhile, two other related statues are reportedly located at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.  See e.g., PRI's The World.]

The government's memorandum further avers that the "Amended Complaint ... alleges additional facts regarding Sotheby's knowledge that the Defendant in rem was stolen. Among other things, the Amended Complaint alleges that (1) Sotheby's and Ruspoli were aware that the Collector had been the seller of the Defendant in rem in 1975; (2) that Sotheby's consulted with the Collector prior to the importation of the Defendant in rem and throughout the 2010-2011 sale process; (3) that Sotheby's never included information about the Collector's pre-1975 acquisition of the Defendant in rem, or his role as the seller in 1975, in the provenance information it disclosed to the public, potential buyers, the Kingdom of Cambodia, or United States law enforcement; and (4) Sotheby's provided inaccurate provenance information to potential buyers, the Kingdom of Cambodia, United States law enforcement, and others, specifically that the Defendant in rem had been seen in the United Kingdom in the late 1960s, at least three years prior to its actual removal from Prasat Chen. (Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 21, 29-30, 37, 43-44.)"

The proposed amended complaint specifically claims that "in or around 1974, representatives of [a United Kingdom] Auction House conspired with the Collector and the Thai Dealer to fraudulently obtain export licenses for the Defendant in rem and other antiquities to be shipped to the Auction House in the future."  The proposed complaint asserts that "prospective buyers were unwilling to purchase the Defendant in rem due to its lack of legitimate provenance and missing feet. The Auction House, however, ultimately succeeded in selling the Defendant in rem in 1975, with the torso and head now reattached, to a Belgian businessman, on behalf of a Belgian corporation he controlled. After a transfer to a second corporation, and the death of the businessman, the Defendant in rem was ultimately transferred to his widow, Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa (“Ruspoli”), in 2000."

The amended complaint continues with allegations that an officer in Sotheby's Indian and Southeast Asian Art section "retained a[] professional art scientist (the 'Scientist') to prepare a report on the authenticity of the head of the Defendant in rem and the condition of the work done prior to the 1975 sale to rejoin it to the torso. The Officer informed the Scientist that the head had been separated from the torso 'in antiquity,' rather than in 1972."  The proposed complaint cites an internal Sotheby's email that purports to describe the scientist's observation regarding "the perfect condition of the head compared to the distress suffered by the body." The email allegedly offers the scientist's explanation "that the sculpture was either forcibly broken for ease of transport from the find site and then put back together later OR that the head and torso do not belong together." The government writes that Sotheby's later"terminated the Scientist's engagement."

The government also alleges that Sotheby's agreed to contact the Cambodian government about the sale of the sculpture but advised that "this communication should not come from the senior Sotheby's officer" so as not to attract attention.

The claimant's will have an opportunity to respond to the pleadings filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

_________________
UPDATE 11/15/2012

The New York Times reports that Sotheby's denies the claims made by federal attorneys.

The news outlet also writes, "Prosecutors say that in 2010, when the statue was being imported into the United States, the owner submitted an inaccurate affidavit to American customs officials, at Sotheby’s request, stating the statue was 'not cultural property' belonging to a religious site."  This statement has prompted some confusion in the blogosphere, which is important to address here.

By way of background, federal prosecutors allege in both their original complaint and their proposed amended complaint the following:

"In or about late April 2010, Sotheby’s imported the Defendant in rem into the United States in order to offer it for sale at auction. In the commercial invoice prepared in connection with the importation, the Defendant in rem is identified as a 10th Century 'Khmer stone guardian' from Cambodia. The Defendant in rem arrived at JFK Airport on or about April 23, 2010.

"On or about April 26, 2010, at the request of Sotheby's, Ruspoli executed an affidavit that was submitted to United States Customs and Border Protection stating, among other things, '[t]o the best of my knowledge, the [Defendant in rem] is not cultural property documented as appertaining to the inventory of a museum or religious or secular monument or similar institution in Cambodia.'"

This information is not new to the proposed amended complaint.  But some readers may have thought otherwise, given that the latest news in the forfeiture case is the government's petition to file a newly amended complaint.  The New York Times story did not report that prosecutors petitioned to file a new complaint.

Meanwhile, The New York Times' description of the Ruspoli affidavit differs from what is reported by federal prosecutors in their proposed complaint quoted above. The newspaper's truncated description may have opened speculation that federal prosecutors might be attempting to build their forfeiture case on the basis of false statements made to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  But government lawyers thus far have not presented this argument either in their initial complaint nor in the proposed amended complaint.

Of the several legal grounds on which prosecutors seek forfeiture of the Cambodian sculpture, none is based on the contention that anyone entered false information on customs paperwork in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542.  That federal statute prohibits the import of goods by means of false statements, and that statute can serve as the basis for a forfeiture of illegally imported goods as it did in the famous case of United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold.  While the government intends to support its forfeiture case by referencing the Ruspoli affidavit, it has not argued clearly how the affidavit should be weighed by the court.  Prosecutors have been careful to not explicitly characterize the Ruspoli affidavit as either false or true. The government, nevertheless, strongly implies that the affidavit in some way supports its legal theory of forfeiture of the Duryodhana statue, but not under 18 U.S.C. § 542.

A final observation. Federal prosecutors are likely aware that the language contained in the Ruspoli affidavit parrots the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) at 19 USC § 2607, which states, "No article of cultural property documented as appertaining to the inventory of a museum or religious or secular public monument or similar institution in any State Party [to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on cultural property] which is stolen from such institution after the effective date of this chapter, or after the date of entry into force of the Convention for the State Party, may be imported into the United States."  It is important to observe that the government does not argue forfeiture of the Cambodian statue based on a CPIA violation.


This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2012 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Cassirer Case Stays the Dispute Between The Getty and Armenian Church over the Zeyt'un Gospel Pages

The Los Angeles County Superior Court has agreed to follow a joint stipulation filed by the Getty Museum and the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America by ordering a suspension of the court case between the parties.

In June 2010 the Armenian Church sued the J. Paul Getty Museum for the return of seven missing pages from an illuminated Bible created in 1256.  The court last year ordered the parties to mediate the dispute. As recently as August 8, the parties told the court that they needed additional time to mediate. The parties earlier informed the court that they were discussing a possible solution to the Zeyt'un Gospel pages controversy, saying that a May 10, 2012 mediation session resulted in "substantial progress . . . toward a potential voluntary resolution of this dispute . . . ."

In their stipulation to stay the proceedings filed on October 19, the litigants both conclude that the case should be placed on hold pending the outcome of Claude Cassirer et al. v. Thyseen-Borne Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation.

Before he died, Cassirer filed a lawsuit in 2005 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for the return of a painting titled “Rue Saint-Honoré, Afternoon, Rain Effect.” Cassirer's attorneys argue that the painting, now in Spain, was taken unlawfully from his grandmother.

The Cassirer case focuses on the the same statute of limitations relied on by the Armenian Church in its dispute with The Getty, specifically Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. §338(c). Signed into law in 2010, the statute was primarily designed to allow lawsuits for the recovery of Nazi looted art by extending the time period that stolen art claims could be filed--from a six year statue of limitations to a statute of limitations that begins from the time of the actual discovery of the elements of a claim.  The federal district court struck down this statute in May 2012 because the law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the federal government’s exclusive power to conduct foreign affairs, according to the reasoning of the lower court.  The matter is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Given that "the resolution of that appeal may determinethe outcome of this case," the Armenian Church and The Getty have agreed in writing to suspend their court proceedings so as "to avoid potentially unnecessary litigation efforts and expenses pending the outcome of that appeal."


This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2012 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Rigorous Due Diligence: Tax and Appraisal Forms May Supply Important Information to Museums Regarding Antiquities

Object donated to the Walters Art Museum.
Source: AAMD Object Directory

Donated cultural artifacts listed in the annual reports of museums or on the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) Object Registry do not always report the same information that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) demands when a donor files for the tax deduction offered.  Sometimes the gift of a cultural object is made by a donor to his or her nonprofit foundation first and then to a qualified nonprofit museum, and sometimes the gift is made by the donor directly to the museum.  In either situation, there should be appraisal and tax records available upon request to a museum, which can examine these sources of information when conducting a rigorous due diligence collecting history investigation to determine whether to accession the cultural artifact.

IRS Publication 526 discusses charitable contributions in general and explains how donating property such as art and antiquities to a qualified organization can provide an income tax deduction to the donor.  A donor may also steer clear of capital gains taxes on appreciated assets by donating antiquities.

IRS Publication 561 discusses paintings, antiques, and other art objects.  Any antiquities that are worth $5001 or more "should be supported by a written appraisal from a qualified and reputable source." An appraisal is mandatory for any cultural object valued at $20,000 or more. The IRS writes, "If you claim a deduction of $20,000 or more for donations of art, you must attach a complete copy of the signed appraisal to your return. For individual objects valued at $20,000 or more, a photograph of a size and quality fully showing the object, preferably an 8 x 10 inch color photograph or a color transparency no smaller than 4 x 5 inches, must be provided upon request." The determination of authenticity for tax purposes is made by a qualified appraiser.

The IRS gives examples of what information should be included in a description of donated property, including:

• the name of the artist or culture,
• the approximate date of creation,
• the cost of acquisition,
• the date of acquisition,
• the manner of acquisition,
• a history of the item,
• proof of authenticity, and
• the facts on which the appraisal was based.

The donation information is placed by the donor on IRS Form 8283, submitted with the donor's regular income tax form.

These appraisal and tax forms may supply important authenticity and collecting history information to a museum's provenance curator or other official as a museum determines whether to accept the gift of an antiquity from a donor.

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2012 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Grand Jury Hands Up Indictment in Matisse FBI Sting

A federal grand jury in the southern district of Florida (Miami) handed up indictments on Tuesday against a pair with alleged ties to the stolen Henri Matisse painting, Odalisque in Red Pants.  The grand jury charged Pedro Antonio Marcuello Guzman and Maria Martha Elisa Ornelas Lazo with a three count indictment.

The indictment alleges that on or about December 1, 2011, Guzman met with an undercover  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent an agent and a confidential informant (CI) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation "to discuss the sale of the Henri Matisse painting 'Odalisque in Red Pants' which had been reported stolen from the Caracas Museum of Contemporary Art (Museo de Arte Contemporaneo de Caracas (MACCSII) in Caracas, Venezuela in or around December 2002." Guzman allegedly gave the CI a password four days later to access an email file containing photographs of the artwork.

Talks continued to work out the payment and transfer of the painting, and Lazo allegedly agreed to transport the stolen artwork from Mexico to the United States. A transaction date of July 17, 2012 was set up where both cash and a wire transfer totaling $740,000 would purchase the painting.

Lazo flew from Mexico City to Miami International Airport on July 16 carrying a red tube that contained the Matisse painting.  She then met with the undercover FBI agent and a second one "posing as an art dealer" in order to close the deal.  Arrests followed.

A July 19, 2012 press release issued by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and the FBI Miami Field Office reported that the painting is valued at $3 million.

Guzman and Lazo are each charged with conspiring to transport and sell stolen property (18 USC 371), interstate transportation of stolen property (18 USC 2314), and possession of stolen property (18 USC 2315).  They face potential maximum penalties of five years in prison on the conspiracy count, ten years on the transportation count, and another ten years on the possession count.

Prosecutors also filed a criminal forfeiture action under 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C) in order to gain custody of the painting.  Both the criminal and forfeiture cases are docketed at 12-CR-20559.

An indictment is simply a process of bringing persons into the court process.  The defendants in this case are presumed innocent unless the government proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2012 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

American Museums and Subhash Kapoor's Artifacts

Inside the Art of the Past gallery in New York.
Source: Google Local

The arrest and extradition of Subhash Kapoor has made headlines in India and garnered the attention of several cultural heritage observers.  He stands accused by Indian police of allegedly participating in an antiquities trafficking ring.  Artifacts from Kapoor are reportedly located in American museums' collections.

Kapoor is an American citizen and antiquities dealer who last year celebrated 35 years on Madison Avenue in New York City. Kapoor is the owner of the Art of the Past, Inc. gallery in Manhattan as well as Nimbus Import Export, a corporation formed on August 17, 2005 and bearing the same address as Art of the Past according to New York Department of State records.

Kapoor wrote in his March 2011 Art of the Past catalog, “There have been some obstacles and hardships during the past thirty-five years, but there have been many more rewards.” A hardship currently faced by Kapoor is his arrest in Germany on October 30, 2011, which resulted in his extradition to India on July 14, 2012.

Kapoor is presumed innocent. India follows the common law system where the burden is on the prosecution to show a crime has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt before a person is judged guilty.

The Art of the Past web site, now shut down, once described how its gallery’s artifacts could be found in the collections of major American cultural institutions. The “About Us” web page noted that “[t]he gallery has sold to some of the most celebrated public and private collections in the world. These include The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City; Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Washington D.C.; Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, San Francisco (sic); The Art Institute, Chicago; and Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond; Honolulu Academy of Arts, Honolulu ....”  An internet search shows that the Birmingham Museum of Art in Alabama and the Norton Simon Museum in California list objects from Kapoor.

The Toledo Museum of Art, in its fiscal year 2007-2008 annual report, catalogs the accession of many Indian pieces from Kapoor in 2007.  A representative sample of the 44 objects gifted to the museum include:

• Indian, Gupta Period, Seated Mother, 5th century, terra cotta, terra cotta, Gift of Subhash Kapoor, 2007.107

• Indian (Chandraketugarh), Mithuna Plaque, 1st century B.C.–1st century A.D., terra cotta, Gift of Subhash Kapoor, 2007.109

• Indian (Chandraketugarh), Fertility Goddess Sitting with Star, 1st century B.C.–1st century A.D., terra cotta, Gift of Subhash Kapoor, 2007.116

• Indian (Uttar Pradesh), Gupta Period, Head, 5th century, terra cotta, Gift of Subhash Kapoor, 2007.147

• Indian (Western India), Female Head, Gupta period, 5th century, terra cotta, Gift of Subhash Kapoor, 2007.158

It is unknown if any museums are currently examining the provenances of their collections.

Sources:
http://www.artofpast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/March11_Cataloge.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20080828191430/http://www.artofpast.com/AboutUsPage.html
http://blog.al.com/mhuebner/2011/04/callahan_lecture_to_feature_ar.html
http://www.nortonsimon.org/collections/browse_title.php?id=P.1997.1.1
http://www.toledomuseum.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/AnnualReport07081.pdf

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Rubin v. Iran: Harvard Art Museums and Boston Museum of Fine Arts File Appellate Briefs in First Circuit

"The order of the district court should be affirmed."  That is the simple conclusion written in the Harvard Art Museums' appellate brief filed yesterday in the case of Rubin et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard University et al.  The appeal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Boston Museum of Fine Arts
Source: Alex Feldstein.  CC.

The Boston Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) also filed an appellate brief. The museum argues that "[a]llowing Plaintiffs to execute on property long held and owned by an innocent third party, the MFA, does nothing to punish Iran," they write.

Jenny Rubin and other appellants filed an appeal with the First Circuit in March, contending that a federal district court in Massachusetts was wrong when it dismissed their attempt to attach Iranian cultural artifacts located in Boston area museums. The objects include eight stone reliefs from ancient Persepolis and two Luristan bronzes now at Harvard, as well as 977 artifacts acquired by the MFA through scientific expeditions during the 1930s at Rayy and Persepolis. Nearly 2000 artifacts in total are at issue in the First Circuit case.

Rubin and others filed a lawsuit in 2001 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and won a court judgment against Iran for its sponsorship of a terrorist attack in Jerusalem in 1997.  In order to collect the money owed to the appellants, the Rubin parties sought to attach Iranian assets in the United States.  They attempted to seize ancient Iranian artifacts housed at Harvard's museums as well as the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) in Boston, but the effort failed in the district court. That is why the appellants filed an appeal.  Harvard and the MFA object.

Harvard's attorneys say this case "should never have been brought" against the Busch-Reisinger Museum, the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, the Harvard University Art Museums, the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, the President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Sackler Museum and the Semitic Museum.  They argue in a lengthy brief that the Rubin appellants "failed to prove that any Harvard artifact belongs to Iran." Harvard asserts that the claim by Rubin and others "fails because it rests on a meritless legal premise—that Iranian law ever gave Iran title to any object."

The MFA, meanwhile, criticizes the Rubin appellants/plaintiffs because they "have conceded that they have no evidence at all that Iran owns a single object at the MFA. Rather, Plaintiffs effectively contend that the possibility that some of the objects may have been illegally removed from Iran decades ago somehow allows Plaintiffs to attach the objects now as if they were property of Iran." "Allowing Plaintiffs to take property from the MFA to which Iran has no valid claim would force the MFA, not Iran, to pay for Iran’s misdeeds," the museum's lawyers complain.

The MFA's legal counsel argues that "the District Court correctly ruled that Iranian Law does not vest Iran with ownership of any of the objects" in its collection. The museum adds that cultural objects specifically not subject to attachment are at least 319 artifacts found outside Iran before November 3, 1930; 107 cultural objects excavated outside Iran's borders; at least nine artifacts made after 1779; scientifically excavated material dug up from Rayy as part of the Joint Expedition to Iran funded by the MFA and the University Museum at the University of Pennsylvania; and items from the Persepolis Expedition sponsored by the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, and the MFA.

Both Harvard and the MFA take the appellants to task for claiming that Iran maintains a "regulatory" interest in Persian cultural objects.  The lawyers opine that a mere regulatory interest in property is not enforceable in an American court.  To enforce a regulatory interest would amount to "an unconstitutional taking of property," Harvard's counsel writes.

Harvard's attorneys add that the lower district court "correctly ruled that Iranian law does not vest Iran with ownership of the artifacts."  The MFA make a similar argument.  The two institutions maintain that the Rubin appellants cannot bring a legal action to dispute the ownership of ancient Iranian artifacts because such a claim is barred by a three year statute of limitations.

Harvard and the MFA, in any case, claim that they own the artifacts in their collections by adverse possession. "Even if Harvard did not acquire ownership of the objects by gift or purchase—and it did—Harvard acquired title to the objects by adverse possession."  The MFA says as well: "Here, because Iran has never made any claim of ownership to works in the MFA, despite knowledge for many decades that the MFA’s collection included numerous antiquities that originated in Iran, any such claim is time-barred. And because of the MFA’s well-known possession of such antiquities for those decades, the MFA has acquired title to the objects under the doctrine of adverse possession, also barring any claim of ownership by Iran."

Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that awards title of property to a possessor who maintains hostile, open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession of the property over a specified period of time. "Harvard’s possession has undisputedly been open and notorious, adverse, and exclusive and continuous for the three-year statutory period," argue its lawyers.

Alternatively, Harvard's attorneys maintain that "if the antiquities belong to Iran, they are immune from execution under" the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA).  The MFA joins Harvard's argument. Harvard's attorneys point out that FSIA's "commercial activity" exception does not apply.   They write that "the objects are not subject to the FSIA’s 'commercial activity' exception, because Iran never used them for a commercial activity in the United States."

The FSIA exception states:

"A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case . . . in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States."

[Author's sidebar: there has been much discussion recently about legislation to clarify the meaning of FSIA's "commercial activity" provision when applied to foreign art and artifacts in the United States.  See "The Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (S.2212) Should Be Passed" and "U.S. House Passes Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act"].

Harvard's lawyers also write that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) does not put the objects in the hands of the appellants:  "Nor are the [cultural] objects subject to execution under TRIA’s limited authorization of execution against certain 'blocked assets' of terrorist states." "Congress provided that only blocked assets owned by a terrorist party may be used to satisfy judgments against that party," and the cultural artifacts at Harvard are neither owned by Iran nor "blocked assets," the attorneys argue.  The MFA further argues that the appellant's "interpretation of TRIA leads to a constitutional takings problem."

UPDATE August 2012: The plaintiffs-appellants filed their response to the museums' briefs.

For more on the parallel Seventh Circuit / U.S. Supreme Court case, click here.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Blue Star Museums Offer Free Admission to Military

More than 1500 cultural institutions throughout America will now offer free admission to active duty military and their families from Memorial Day through Labor Day.  These "Blue Star" museums and science centers include institutions such as the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan, The Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, and the Currier Museum of Art in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The Blue Star Museums program is a collaboration between the National Endowment of the Arts, Blue Star Families and the U.S. Department of Defense.  Find a complete listing of participating cultural institutions here.

The Latest State Department Cultural Objects Determinations

Given the discussion about the law known as Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display and the current bill on Capitol Hill to clarify that law, it is worth noting the kinds of items from abroad that receive immunity consideration from the U.S. Department of State.

The Federal Register published the latest cultural objects determinations yesterday.  The notice issued covers items destined for New York's Museum of Modern Arts's forthcoming exhibit titled "Quay Brothers: On Deciphering the Pharmacist's Prescription for Lip-Reading Puppets."  MoMa's web site explains that "[f]or over 30 years, they have been in the avant-garde of stop-motion puppet animation and live-action movie-making in the Eastern European tradition ... and have championed a design aesthetic influenced by the graphic surrealism of Polish poster artists of the 1950s and 1960s."

The determinations made by the State Department under the federal immunity law are that the imported objects are of (1) of cultural significance, (2) intended for temporary, nonprofit exhibition, and (3) in the national interest.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Rubin v. Iran Cases Move Forward in First Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court

Photo credit: Alborzagros.  CC.

Jenny Rubin and others hurt by a 1997 terrorist attack in Israel filed a 92 page brief yesterday in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  Rubin et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard University et al. is a case where the appellants seek to enforce a judgment awarded to them under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) by acquiring cultural artifacts claimed to be owned by Iran.  The objects sought are located in Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Meanwhile, Rubin et al. have also filed an appeal of their Seventh Circuit court case with the U.S. Supreme Court. That case involves an attempt to attach objects located at museums in Chicago.

Hamas carried out multiple suicide bombings on September 4, 1997.  The Rubin plaintiffs sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Iran, and the court found that Iran supported Hamas’ terrorist efforts.  It ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and awarded money damages.

To collect the judgment against Iran, Rubin et al. sought to attach Iranian assets located in the United States.  They attempted to attach artifacts held at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (MFA), Harvard’s several museums, the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, and the Chicago Field Museum.  The museums in the Boston and Cambridge objected, fighting the case in federal district court in Massachusetts.  The Chicago based institutions battled the case in the federal court in the northern district of Illinois, and later the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Circuit on March 29, 2011 sent the case back to the district court in Illinois for review.  But the Rubin appellants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (i.e. a review by the higher court).  Briefs were filed in the Supreme Court (docket 11-431) by both the University of Chicago and Iran on January 6.  Jenny Rubin et al. filed a reply brief on January 18.  There was a waiver of the Field Museum’s response filed on January 4.  The Supreme Court on February 21 invited the Solicitor General to file the U.S. government’s position in the case.  It has not been submitted to the court thus far.

In Massachusetts, meanwhile, the district court ruled on September 25, 2011 to grant the MFA’s and Harvard’s motions to dismiss the case.  Jenny Rubin et al. then brought the matter before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  They filed an appellate brief on March 28, 2012, arguing three primary issues.

First, the appellants argue that TRIA preempts all other federal and state laws because the case involves the enforcement of judgments by victims of a terrorist attack.  Their brief states:

“Pursuant to TRIA, and Treasury Regulations set forth at 31 CFR §535.201, governing collection actions on behalf of victims of state sponsored terrorism, any interest that Iran retains in the Iranian objects in Harvard and the MFA’s collection is subject to levy by the Appellants. Due to federal preemption by TRIA and 31 CFR §535.201 of any inconsistent state laws, neither Harvard nor the MFA can rely on any conflicting state laws such as those imposing statutes of limitation or governing adverse possession claims to bar or otherwise defeat the Appellants’ right to attach and levy on objects of Iranian origin in each of their possession in which Iran retains any interest.”

Second, the appellants say that Iran maintains an interest in the artifacts at the museums in Massachusetts.  The appellants claim that “[t]he Iranian government has always retained a private ownership interest in artifacts from Persepolis, the former capital of the Persian Empire. For the thousands of years beginning in the reign of Darius, this historic site has never been privately owned and always has been the sole property of the government of Persia and subsequently Iran. In addition, pursuant to the Persian Law Concerning the Preservation of National Antiquities (the “1930 Law”) enacted and in effect since November 3, 1930, all antiquities in Iran, whether movable or immovable, created up through 1794, the end of the Zand Dynasty, fall under the protection, control and ownership of the Iranian government.”

Third, the appellants argue that Iranian law gives Iran an interest in its antiquities unless that country gave a specific license.  They allege that the museums cannot demonstrate that any licenses were given.  The appellants’ brief argues:

“With the exception of objects removed from Persepolis . . .which have always been owned by the Persian government, other antiquities removed from Persia prior to November 3, 1930, were not recognized as owned by Iran. Accordingly, the Appellants always have indicated that the order of garnishment against the MFA and Harvard does not encompass any artifacts of Persian origin, other than those from Persepolis, that provably were exported from Iran prior to November 3, 1930. Nor do the Appellants assert any claim to any artifact from Iran acquired either by Harvard or by the MFA or on loan to either obtained from excavations by scientific expeditions to Iran occurring on or after November 3, 1930, if the holder Museum’s documentation as to the artifact establishes that the Museum acquired each such antiquity as part of the share of a “division” of finds assigned to a scientific archeological expedition as approved by the Persian/Iranian government and as required by the 1930 Law. Similarly, with respect to antiquities exported from Iran as a seller’s purported private property, the 1930 Law vests the government of Iran with an automatic 50 percent interest in all objects found in Iran on or after November 3, 1930. As to antiquities provably in private hands as of the enactment of the 1930 Law, the government is vested with a right of first refusal to acquire the object and a right to seize and confiscate the object if the seller attempts to circumvent his obligation to secure an export permit from the government, which if obtained, requires payment of an export duty equal to five percent of the value of the object as calculated by government appraisers.”

“Without documentary proof that an artifact was assigned to the scientific expedition or that the Iranian government approved the export of purportedly privately held property, Iran retains an interest in all objects under the 1930 Law that is subject to levy by the Appellants pursuant to TRIA.”

The appellees in the case are expected to file their reply shortly.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

State Department Grants Seizure Immunity to Mexican Artifacts

The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs last week granted immunity from judicial seizure to artifacts on loan from Mexico.  The pieces will be part of a 2012 exhibition called "Children of the Plumed Serpent: The Legacy of Quetzalcoatl in Ancient Mexico," which will take place at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in California and at the Dallas Museum of Art in Texas.

Under the federal statute known as Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display (22 USC § 2459), foreign lenders are encouraged by Congress to lend cultural objects to museums without risk that those objects will become targets of litigation while on American soil.  The statute protects imported objects determined to be (1) of cultural significance, (2) intended for temporary, nonprofit exhibition, and (3) in the national interest.

Museums importing objects for temporary display must apply for this legal protection.  The notice of immunity is then published in the Federal Register.

Xochicalco temple of the plumed serpent. Photo: Giovani V; CC.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Museums at Risk - Results of the 2011 ICCROM-UNESCO International Storage Survey

Museums are at risk. That is the conclusion of the 2011 ICCROM-UNESCO International Storage Survey conducted between June and September by the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The published summary below shows significant deficiencies in museum storage, museum administration, risk management, and loss prevention.

Strategic planning, resource development, and risk preparation are crucial to maintaining first-class cultural institutions. Museums in need of assistance can contact the International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection (IFCPP) http://www.ifcpp.com/, RE-ORG http://www.re-org.info/, or other professionals who support cultural institutions.  The public, meanwhile, is encouraged to lend a hand to their local museums, libraries, and historical societies--both financially and by volunteering--so that history, art, science, and culture can be preserved and transmitted.  Many volunteer opportunities can be found at http://www.volunteermatch.org/.

A larger version of the report is available here.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Ninth Circuit Sends Custer Battlefield Museum Case Back to Lower Court - Lawsuit Seeks Unfettered Public Access to Search Warrant Affidavits

With no charges filed in a case targeting the Custer Battlefield Museum in Montana, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that sealed search warrants and affidavits may be accessible to the public. Law enforcement officers from the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies searched the museum in 2005 and 2008. Court records reveal that the investigation focused on attempts to sell migratory bird parts as well as misrepresentation of provenance surrounding the sale of cultural artifacts.

Christopher Kortlander, owner and operator of the museum, has complained in lawsuits and public statements that the law enforcement raids were excessive and that he was unfairly targeted. As a result, he made seven Freedom of Information Act requests for investigative information regarding himself, Historical Rarities, Inc., Elizabeth Custer Museum and Library, Inc., Custer Battlefield Museum, and local stores. In 2010, Kortlander requested copies of search warrant affidavits. These affidavits normally contain the details of a police investigation.

The US Attorney’s Office in Montana eventually assented to the release of the material, but prosecutors urged the court, as reported in the Ninth Circuit opinion, to “’limit dissemination of the material to Kortlander’s personal review and/or for inclusion in any future court filings,” citing privacy interests of third parties.’ The government said: [C]oncerns have been raised that information collected by Kortlander may be posted on web sites. The Ninth Circuit has explained that ‘the privacy interests of the individuals identified in the warrants and supporting affidavits’ supports the conclusion that warrant-related material not be made available for public dissemination. Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 1989).’” (quoting the government’s legal brief).

The lower court originally sided with the government. The federal district court authorized the release of the documents to Kortlander in particular, but restricted them from further public view. The court of appeals, however, overruled the district court and sent the case back to the district court, ruling: “We hold that the public has a qualified common law right of access to warrant materials after an investigation has been terminated. . . . [T]he matter is remanded to the district court to reapply the common law standard to Kortlander’s request. We decline to decide whether the public has a qualified First Amendment right of access to warrant materials after an investigation has been terminated. In the event that the court denies Kortlander unrestricted access to the warrant materials under the common law, the court should decide in the first instance whether the First Amendment right applies to post-investigation warrant materials and, if so, whether Kortlander is entitled to unrestricted access under the First Amendment . . .”

The full opinion can be found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/09/30/10-30222.pdf.


CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Art on Temporary Loan from Foreign Lenders - Immunity from Seizure and the Brogan Museum

According to a story published in The New York Times on October 11, 2011, the US Attorney for the Northern District of Florida requested that the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Florida retain a painting on loan from Italy while it is determined whether Girolamo Romano’s “Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rogue” was unlawfully taken from a Jewish family during World War II. The news article suggests that a federal immunity law might have been used by the museum to protect the artwork from any possible seizure.

Because the information presented by newspaper could be misconstrued—as noted by some members of the American Bar Association’s Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee—it is worth discussing what the federal law is and how it works.

Congress passed a statute in 1965 entitled Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display (22 USC § 2459). Lawmakers wished to promote the importation of fine art for the benefit of Americans by encouraging foreign art lenders to feel confident that their cultural works would not become entangled in litigation once on American soil. The statute protects from judicial seizure imported objects of cultural significance intended for temporary, nonprofit exhibition. The law prevents a civil litigant from seizing temporarily imported fine art to satisfy a judgment in a lawsuit, for example.

The immunity protecting an object of cultural significance is not automatic, which is why museums that accept foreign art on temporary loan should always consider applying for it. Any immunity that is granted is specific to the artwork; the immunity does not apply broadly to the museum as the Times article reports.

In order to acquire this immunity for an artwork, a museum should submit an application to the US Department of State at least six weeks prior to its importation. The application should contain ten pieces of information that include a description of the item covered, its provenance, its exhibition location, a description of the object’s cultural significance, and a description of why the temporary exhibition is in the national interest. By Executive Order 12047, the President of the United States has authorized the Director of the US Information Agency “(1) to determine that any work of art or other object to be imported into the United States within the meaning of the Act is of cultural significance, (2) to determine that the temporary exhibition or display of any such work of art or other object in the United States is in the national interest, and (3) to cause public notices of the determinations referred to above to be published in the Federal Register.” The USIA director must consult with the Secretary of State and may consult with others, including the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and the Director of the National Gallery of Art.

For the Brogan Museum to have taken advantage of seizure immunity for the Romano painting, it would have had to apply for it.

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/arts/design/for-florida-museum-dispute-over-romano-painting-is-a-boon.html?_r=1&src=recg

Photo of the Brogan Museum permitted to be used under Creative Commons license.
Description: Tallahassee FL Brogan MOAS01.jpg
Tallahassee, Florida: The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science
Date: 24 May 2011(2011-05-24), 14:10:25
Source: Own work
Author: Ebyabe


Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Historical Documents Returned to UVM - Documents Linked to Indicted Pair - Library Loss Prevention Recommended

The University of Vermont (UVM) has recovered historical documents that disappeared from its library. The Burlington Free Press reports on October 4, 2011 that 67 documents were returned to UVM after officials at the National Archives in Washington, DC reported that they had the papers in their possession. “The papers were found after investigators recovered hundreds of items from Barry Landau, 63, who with Jason Savedoff, 24, is accused of conspiring to steal rare documents to sell at a profit, according to government allegations,” the Burlingotn Free Press writes. Source: http://www.blogger.com/www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20111004/NEWS0213/111004005/-1/NEWS/Federal-probe-finds-missing-UVM-documents

A federal grand jury in Maryland handed up a two count indictment on July 28, 2011 against the pair, charging them with Conspiracy to Commit Theft of Major Artwork and Theft of Major Artwork. The indictment alleges that the co-defendants stole from the H. Furlong Baldwin Library at the Maryland Historical Society, the New York Historical Society, and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum in Hyde Park, New York. The indictment also asserts that they took dozens of items in order to sell, including historical documents of FDR, a letter from Benjamin Franklin to John Paul Jones, and a land grant signed by Abraham Lincoln. An indictment is not a finding of guilt.

In order to secure a conviction of Theft of Major Artwork under 18 USC 668, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants “did steal and obtain by fraud from the care, custody, and control of a museum objects of cultural heritage.” An object of “cultural heritage” is defined by law as one that is under 100 years old and valued at $100,000 or more or an object that is over 100 years old and valued at $5000 or more.

The latest development in the case is a petition filed by Landau to sell assets. The motion, filed on September 23, 2011, asks the court for permission to sell antiques, letters, jewelry, art (including two Andy Warhol prints) so that Landau can raise money to pay for day-to-day expenses. Landau is under court order to not to sell assets without judicial authorization. See a further update on this recent filing at http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-10-07/news/bs-md-landau-asset-sale-20111007_1_barry-h-landau-warhol-print-andy-warhol.

10/25/11 UPDATE: The court granted Landau's motion .

One inexpensive way to help prevent the loss of irreplaceable documents is to maintain historic documents in closed stacks. When a patron requests particular information, a librarian or staff member can obtain the materials in limited quantities (such as three items at a time) and place them at the patron’s table. Some institutions may feel comfortable asking for the patron’s ID, some may not. Regardless, a librarian or staff member should always be visible to the patron and should retrieve the items when the patron is finished, making an inventory of the items. A process like this one can be part of an effective loss-prevention program because it compels a patron to interact with a librarian or staff member directly so that the patron knows he or she has been identified, allows for the librarian or staff member to observe the patron for any signs of suspicion, permits the institution to control the quantity of materials provided to a patron at any one time, and allows for a librarian or staff member to ensure that the materials retrieved are the same ones returned. There are other methods that a certified insitutional risk management consultant can suggest.


Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Seizure of Mexican Figurine Prompts Question of CBP's Legal Authority

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced in a new(s) release on July 28, 2011 that it seized a Pre-Columbian artifact en route from Indiana to British Columbia. A buyer in Canada reportedly purchased the small orange Nayarit figure of a woman through an auction, and CBP agents intercepted the package in April during routine checks at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. CBP said that the shipment was "manifested as containing an artifact."

CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement-Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) had the Chicago Field Museum examine the object, concluding it "to be an authentic Pre-Columbian artifact of West Mexico dating to the early first millennium AD." The Consulate General of Mexico, meanwhile, claimed that the object was unlawfully exported from that country.

CBP seized the four inch tall Nayarit figurine under Title 19, Chapter 14 of the customs laws. The statute is commonly referred to as the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), meant to implement the well-known 1970 UNESCO Convention that covers cultural property. Federal agents in Chicago took the ancient Mexican artifact into their possession under Section 2609 of the CPIA, which permits seizure of protected cultural artifacts covered by import regulations promulgated under section 2606 (as well as stolen objects that had been documented in the institutional collection of a state party to the convention). Import restrictions enacted under Section 2606 result when the United States enters into an agreement with another nation under the authority of the CPIA. Many readers of this blog are familiar with the CPIA process and know that several nations have bilateral agreements with the United States pursuant to CPIA. Mexico, however, is not one of those nations.

So how can CBP take away an ancient Mexican cultural object from its possessor by using the CPIA? I called CPB to find out. The agency's representatives were polite and responsive to calls, but the replies were not helpful. A CBP Associate Chief Counsel said that "we don't comment on anything like this," adding that "we limit any of our comments about the law and our interpretation on the law to our client itself, which is, of course, the agency." Such a closed response from a government agency that actively sought public attention to this seizure and freely declared the legal basis for the seizure is unsatisfactory. CBP issued a public press release announcing the taking of the Nayarit figurine and broadcasted that "[t]he artifact will be returned to the Mexican government in an upcoming CBP and ICE-HSI repatriation ceremony." And while the agency claims the matter is under investigation, CBP's desire to return potential evidence to Mexico, coupled with its early public release of information relevant to the case, does not signal a meaningful commitment to maintain the integrity of the investigation.

We are left to speculate about what CBP may have been thinking when it seized the object. Federal officials could not have seized the Mexican artifact under a legal theory involving the National Stolen Property Act because the NSPA requires an item to have a value of $5000 or more before it is considered stolen under that law. The Mexican artifact was purchased at auction for $550, far less than $5000. So CBP had to look for other legal authority to take the artifact into custody.

Perhaps they erringly looked to a treaty for legal authority? The United States and Mexico entered into a Treaty of Cooperation on March 24, 1971, which provides for the recovery and return of stolen archaeological, historical, and cultural properties. The treaty, which is in force today, permits the United States "to employ the legal means at its disposal to recover and return from its territory stolen archaeological, historical and cultural properties that are removed after the date of entry into force of the Treaty from the territory of the requesting Party." But this agreement was not enacted into law under the terms of the CPIA, meaning there are no import restrictions on Mexican cultural property that derive from Section 2606 of the CPIA to justify a Section 2609 seizure of the Nayarit figurine by CBP.

So what exactly was CPB's legal authority to seize the Nayarit figurine? We have no explanation about why a Section 2609 seizure was the proper legal basis to take away the ancient Mexican artifact.

Federal officials must take great care when using unexplained interpretations of the law to promote seizures of property. While CBP may be commended for taking action to detect trafficked cultural heritage, federal authorities should exercise their authority in a reasonable, intelligent, and open fashion. No citizen should be left guessing about how exactly he or she can comply with the law so as to avoid the loss of property. Clear and reasonable applications of the customs laws, and plain explanations to back them, can build public support for America's effort to protect and secure at-risk cultural property. By contrast, offering questionable or undisclosed legal positions in cases where property may be seized—particularly in cases involving potentially innocent possessors—does little to garner confidence in public authorities.

Photo: Chicago CBP

Protecting Against Internal Theft at Museums and Cultural Institutions

Earlier this month a grand jury charged Laura Phillips, the former treasurer of the Alabama Museum Association, with felony theft. The indictment alleged that she stole from the association. In February, a grand jury also charged her with stealing over $57,504 from the Carnegie Visual Arts Center where she was director. Such allegations should remind institutions to maintain vigilance over their purse strings.

From my experience as a former prosecutor and as an attorney dealing with nonprofits, the vast majority of people who work in museums and cultural institutions are honest and hardworking. When there is a problem with theft of funds, the crime typically is committed by someone inside the organization. A person who works with cash and who remains unsupervised may be tempted to "borrow" funds to cover personal expenses. As time goes by, the amount of funds stolen can grow.

 

Some tips to reduce internal theft include:

• ensuring board oversight of operations,
• creating an audit committee,
• involving at least two officers in money transactions,
• watching unusual behavior of the person who handles money (e.g. frequently staying late at the office to perform money transactions),
• imposing a term limit on the treasurer's position.

Good risk management involves taking time to review organizational best practices and policies that protect against internal theft.

US Attorney Takes the Offensive in SLAM Litigation by Seeking Forfeiture of Egyptian Mask

Last month the St. Louis Art Museum (SLAM) sued the US government to claim ownnership of the ancient mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer. The US government yesterday sued to forfeit the mask.

Fearing that federal authorities could seize the Egyptian mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, SLAM filed a preemptive complaint on February 15 to have a federal district court declare that the mask is the museum’s property. US Attorney Richard Callahan responded on March 16 by initiating a lawsuit against the mummy mask.

In a complaint titled United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, Callahan petitions a Missouri federal court for forfeiture of the ancient object pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1595a. That statute permits officials to seize and forfeit items that have been illegally stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely imported into the United States. Callahan also asks that a restraining order be placed on the mask so that it remains available while the court case progresses.

In its petition for declaratory judgment, SLAM argues the following points:
• The museum conducted thorough due diligence before purchasing the mask on April 3, 1998.

• “The Museum’s investigation revealed no evidence that the Mask was owned by Egypt under applicable Egyptian law at the time of excavation, that the Mask was stolen from Egypt, or that the Mask had unlawfully entered the United States.”

• “The United States government cannot show probable cause the Mask was ‘stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely imported or introduced’ into the United States.’” Therefore, the mask cannot be seized or forfeited under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a.

• If the mask was stolen, the United States government is barred by the statute of limitations from seizing or forfeiting it because federal authorities had information more than five years ago “sufficient to discover the alleged theft of the Mask from Egypt.”

It should be noted that SLAM’s court complaint is hesitant to admit that the mask is stolen property. At best SLAM remarks that the mask may have been “allegedly stolen.”

The US Attorney’s complaint, by contrast, argues a more forceful claim, detailing why the mask is known to have been stolen. An excerpt from the government’s complaint is reproduced below:

“In 1952, Egyptian archaeologist Mohamed Zakaria Goneim, working for the Egyptian Antiquities Service, excavated the mat burial of a 19th Dynasty noblewoman named Ka-Nafer-Nafer inside the funerary enclosure of the 3rd Dynasty king Sekhemket at Saqqara. The Mask was placed in storage in the Sekhemkhet magazine, also located at Saqqara, where it was registered as the property of the Egyptian Antiquities Service and where it remained until 1959. In July of 1959, the Mask and four other items from Saqqara were packed for shipping to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in preparation for an exhibit in Tokyo. The packing list identified the Mask as registration number 6119 and packed in box number six. The Mask was received by police guards at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo on July 28, 1959. Ultimately, the Mask did not travel to Tokyo for the exhibit. The Mask remained in Cairo, Egypt until 1962 at which time the Mask was transferred back to Saqqara. In 1966, the Mask and other objects from the same burial assemblage were removed from packaging in Saqqara and given to the Egyptian Antiquities Organization Restoration Lab located in Cairo in preparation for future display. The Mask traveled to Cairo from Saqqara in box number fifty-four. This was the last documented location of the Mask in Egypt. In 1973, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo took an inventory of all the objects that traveled in 1966 from Saqqara to Cairo in box number fifty-four. It was discovered at that time that the Mask was missing. The register did not document that the Mask was sold or given to a private party during the time frame of 1966 to 1973. In or around 2006, the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities became aware that the Mask was accessioned by the Saint Louis Art Museum located in Saint Louis, Missouri for approximately $500,000.00 in 1998. Subsequently, the Secretary General for the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities sent letters and documentation to the Saint Louis Art Museum detailing the history of the Mask and requesting its return to Egypt. To date, the Saint Louis Art Museum has refused to return the Mask.”


The US Attorney’s office describes the mask’s source of discovery and its subsequent provenance. Should these claims be proven by the government, SLAM may find it difficult to maintain its dual and nuanced positions that either the mask may not have been stolen, or that the museum's investigation “revealed no evidence that the Mask was owned by Egypt under applicable Egyptian law at the time of excavation, that the Mask was stolen from Egypt, or that the Mask had unlawfully entered the United States.”

If evidence of the mask’s stolen character is proven by the government, SLAM might also have to revisit its February 14, 2006 position, reproduced in the museum’s legal complaint, “expressing its willingness to return the Mask to Egyptian authorities upon verifiable proof the Mask was stolen.” Any thought about returning the mask may have vanished, however, now that SLAM has argued that the statute of limitations forbids authorities from seizing or forfeiting the mask.

Knowing the statute of limitations claim asserted by SLAM, the US Attorney’s recent legal action does not address the issue at all. SLAM’s court petition points to episodes where federal officials directly or indirectly possessed knowledge to take action to investigate the possible illicit provenance of the mask. It remains to be seen how the federal government will take on this argument when SLAM inevitably raises the claim in its response to the government’s forfeiture action.

Video Showing Egyptian Army Inside Egyptian Museum

The video currently being shown on CNN to illustrate the current situation inside the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is posted at the following link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h5taeUh0aM

[Update November 9, 2011: Associate Press video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTOf0x-eGU0].

Stealing From Inside the Museum - Egyptian Artifacts Theft in Long Island Proves the Point

Loss prevention at a museum starts by examining internal practices. When pieces are missing from a museum, the first place to look for a suspect is inside. Fortunately, a museum's risk can be reduced by performing thorough background checks on prospective employees and by creating moderate institutional oversight practices.

While the vast majority of museum employees are honest and trustworthy, there are many unfortunate instances where missing objects turn up in the hands of museum workers. Last week the New York Post reported that a federal court sentenced the director of the Long Island University Hillwood Museum to a year and a day in prison plus a $5000 fine for stealing Egyptian artifacts from his own museum. Barry Stern admitted to exacting revenge on his employer when his contract as museum director was not renewed. He worked 22 years for the university.

The Post describes how Stern stole the artifacts from the museum, brought them to Christie's for auction, and claimed they came from the Barry Stern collection. Records of the objects' existence at the Hillwood Museum were wiped out. The pieces earned Stern $51,500.

(As a side note, one wonders how the auction house failed to conduct enough due diligence regarding the provenance of the objects, particularly where the pieces presumably had accession numbers associated with the objects.)

The International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection helps cultural institutions minimize the risk of theft. Any of our colleagues can assist museums with internal loss prevention. www.ifcpp.org


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/li_museum_director_sentenced_for_m8ewK4q1OIOWlINeCC4BRN#ixzz13BvQpl1L