Governments are increasingly cracking down on money laundering in the art market through stricter transparency requirements for auction houses and other art sellers. But a recent dispute over a nearly million dollar painting in France shows the difficulty of balancing the need for transparency with the desire for client confidentiality.
In November, the London art dealer Patrick Mathiessen bought a painting attributed to Laurent de la Hyre entitled Narcissus (circa 1640) at the auction house in Paris Artcurial for €918,400 ($985,000). The provenance of the work was thin, with a single line stating: “Anonymous sale; London, Christie’s, July 19, 1929, No. 111.
Mathiessen tried to get more information from Artcurial, but hit a wall. “I’ve never had anything like this face to face with the French,” he told Artnet News.
Mathiessen said he would like to obtain a certificate from the Art Loss Register, which indicates that a work has not been reported stolen, in anticipation of a possible sale, possibly to an institution in the United States, Canada or Australia. “I said, ‘We don’t need a name and phone number, but we need some basic data on where this painting is. was and by whom it was sold, enough so that in the future we can identify the person in the event of a problem. Because a painting that hasn’t had a provenance for 100 years could have been stolen.
Mathiessen said he was still getting nowhere with Artcurial, even when he offered to keep the information confidential through lawyers acting as intermediaries who would have the details of the property in case a conflict or dispute arose. in the future.
He said he had written to the European Commission in Brussels, but was told they could not intervene directly and recommended that he approach the French regulator TRACFIN. Matthiessen said he kept Artcurial informed of his efforts, but never received any additional disclosures.
“Artcurial is very attentive to laws and regulations (AML, Tracfin…) and we check the information on our sellers very carefully,” said Matthieu Fournier, associate director of Artcurial, in an email to Artnet News. “If something is not clear enough about the identity of the seller or the provenance, we refuse to be entrusted with the works. Once we have obtained all required guarantees from our seller, the least we can do is protect their identity and not disclose it to other customers. Reliable confidentiality is key to our business and one of our most important values.
Through his own research, Mathiessen learned that the painting had at one time been donated to Italy, and as recently as last year, because a label on it read “scuola Francese” or “French School” in Italian.
Artcurial responded by claiming that the painting came from a “bourgeois” family in Brussels where it had been for “at least a generation”.
“All the alarm bells went off in my mind,” Mathiessen said. “Did I say Brussels? The only country in Europe where there are no import/export laws? Matthiessen said his gallery eventually reported Artcurial to London Serious Fraud Office.
Last month, Artcurial canceled the sale to Mathiessen, believing that the payment deadline had expired. “The winning bidder failed to honor its commitment and did not pay,” Fournier said. “The matter is now closed and leaves us bitterly disappointed.” The photo was returned to the seller, the auction house said.
Mathiessen said he still intended to buy the picture. “The reason I was fighting was because I desperately wanted the picture,” he said. “I put six months into this image and was willing to go the extra mile to get it.” He added, “the money was there for it but I wasn’t going to pay more than a million dollars for an image whose title I couldn’t pass on to an American institution later.”
Ultimately, Artcurial failed to provide enough information for the Art Loss Register to issue a certificate for the work. Julian Radcliffe, president of the Art Loss Register, told Artnet News that the organization requires at least “san indication of what the person is, such as “a French collector”.
“Because if there’s a problem later, we have to be able to go back to the auction house,” he added. “We don’t do it out of curiosity. There is no conceivable excuse for an auction house not to make this clear to a shipper.
Susan Mumford, CEO of ArtAML, a notice that helps arts businesses comply with anti-money laundering (AML) laws, noted that France, as an EU member state, is regulated by AML. “This will incorporate the provenance of transactions in the secondary market, as an important element of money laundering risk is prior ownership,” she said. “Overall, AML’s move toward transparency in artistic transactions will, eventually at least, change the culture of the industry. Indeed, we talk to small art businesses every week who scoff at the suggestion to do customer due diligence on auction houses (which they are asked to do). Will the norm of not submitting provenance records change? Time will tell us.”
Ivan Macquisten, art market analyst and adviser, is currently reviewing the EU import licensing regulation for cultural goods, which is due to apply from June 2025, on behalf of art market trade associations. art. “I foresee serious problems with this,” he said, “particularly to the detriment of the European art market.”
“Making a law is one thing. Ensuring that everyone subject to it – and those tasked with applying it – has a clear view of how the legislation is interpreted and works in practice is another.
Follow Artnet News on Facebook:
