Con artist protected by privacy

A group of people in Canada have found themselves in a Kafkaesque scenario where the law is protecting the individual who they allege sold them fake artworks, swindling them out of thousands of dollars, thereby preventing them from taking any action to recover their money.

24 hours Vancouver reports:

Starting more than two years ago, the five people say they were taken for more than $80,000 by a man claiming to sell original Chinese art, which on appraisal turned out to be fake.  

[One individual] Mr. Wu...said his frustration reached its zenith when police denied him the name of the swindler so he could sue him.  

Wu took the man to civil court for $27,000 only to discover the art dealer’s name he had filed in the lawsuit was also fake.  

Despite the art dealer’s son — also named in the suit under his real name — standing in the court, a judge told Wu in order to get the real name he could file a police report and then request a copy of it under the Freedom of Information Act, which he did.  

But when Wu received the report the real name of the mystery art dealer was blanked out, citing privacy concerns.

...The Vancouver Police Department concluded there was not enough evidence a crime had been committed, again leaving Wu and the four others to seek redress through the courts, which they can’t do without the name.  

“If I had his name I could take him to court,” Wu said.  

The VPD said it understands Wu’s frustration, but spokesman Sgt. Randy Fincham said the department’s hands were tied.  

“The man is more than entitled to inform the privacy commissioner of his lack of satisfaction with the FOI process,” Fincham said in an email. “Unfortunately, as a police agency, the law restricts our ability to release information about an individual, unless that person is charged with a criminal offence.”  

Wu said he has no idea what his next step will be, explaining a lawyer told him it could cost thousands to continue pursuing the case with no guarantee of getting his money returned. 

This seems like ridiculous situation to be in - knowing who conned you (albeit not their name), but without recourse to any remedy. Surely if there has been a wrong committed, whether civil or criminal, privacy law should not protect the wrong-doer.

 Source: 24 hours Vancouver, 23 July 2013

A question of fraud

A new report of art fraud, this time in Portugal, where last month a police raid uncovered almost 130 fake paintings together with forged certificates of authenticity.

The paintings were claimed to have been painted by some huge name artists including; Chagall, Kandinsky, Matisse, Miro, Modigliani, Monet Picasso, Munch and Toulouse-Lautrec. However, rather than direct copies of known works from these artists, the forgeries consisted mostly of paintings in the style of the artists.

The Portuguese police are said to have set up a special investigation into the case, due to the wide range of artists whose works have been faked and the specialist knowledge that would have thus been required. Indeed, there were also forgeries recovered for the works of Leonardo da Vinci, which would have required extremely specialist knowledge of how to artificially age pictures as well as artistic skill. Further, such was the skill involved that according to some experts who have seen the forged paintings, they could have been sold for sums in the millions to unsuspecting buyers.

A Norwegian woman is under investigation in connection with the investigation and her husband is being sought by the Portuguese police.

However, given the scale of the works and the variation in artists' styles which have been reproduced in the forged paintings, it is doubted that one forger could have produced all the works.

It remains to be seen whether the investigation bears any fruit.

What is interesting from an strictly academic legal point of view is that fact that a large number of the forgeries were not copies, but paintings in the style of the artists. Would this amount to copyright infringement? Or could it be argued that the paintings were therefore copyright works in their own right, in which sufficient original skill and labour had been invested? Obviously, if the paintings were being passed off as authentic, copyright is not a defence to fraud. But if those artists were alive today, whether they had a copyright claim against the forgers would require a close examination as to whether the copyright in an artwork can be infringed by another work which merely imitates the style of the first work.

Which are the true works?

(Top left, a fake Chagall wedding scene. Bottom left, a real Chagall.
Top right, a fake reclining nude by Botero. Bottom right, a real Botero.)

Source: The Wall Street Journal, 24 November 2010

Art Scam backfires

An American art auctioneer who sold fake artwork on a national auction TV show was this week sentenced to five years in jail after pleading guilty to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, interstate transportation of stolen property and failing to file a tax return.

James Mobley sold the forged art in association with the Fine Art Treasures Gallery, located in Pasadena CA. The owners of the Gallery had already been sentenced to a total of eleven years jail, having also pleaded guilty to numerous charges including conspiracy, interstate transportation of stolen property and filing false tax returns. $3.8 million had also been seized from their bank accounts.

The way the scam had worked was that fake or forged art was bought from suppliers or created by the Gallery owners and then passed off as the authentic works of artists such as Picasso and Dali. Forged certificates of authenticity or fake appraisals were often drawn up for these pieces. Also, to make it seem more plausible that the art was real, the Gallery claimed that they sourced the worlds from worldwide estate liquidations. The scam did not stop there, however. Mobley then auctioned the works live on TV in an art auction show, where the auction bidding process was also rigged such that fake bids were announced on the program to falsely drive up the prices.

The scam operated for 4 years and over that time more than $20 million is said to have been conned from thousands of people.

This case serves to confirm the old adage that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

So, if you are thinking of investing in some art, try and get the opinion of a professional appraiser or qualified authenticator beforehand. After all, you wouldn’t buy a house without a survey. The purchase of art, especially as an investment, should be treated in the same way.




<------For future reference: a fake picasso


















Source: Los Angeles Daily News, 26 October 2010.

Thirty(ish) Forgeries found

This weekend the Observer reported on the art world shaking news that more than 30 paintings which were thought to be by artists including Max Ernst, Raoul Dufy and Fernand Léger are, in fact, artifice. The forgeries have collectively fetched up to £30 million across various auctions in the last few years.

The likely forger is a German man in his late fifties, who was assisted by his wife and sisters in both creating and selling the works. They employed two successful tactics, firstly creating compositions based on documented but lost works of art whose current location was unknown. Secondly, they created convincing back stories for each of the works including fake gallery labels and even a fake first attempt at a painting on the back.

This has left the art owners and auctioneers in a somewhat sticky situation as they attempt to unravel what is and isn’t genuine and who should be liable for the multi-million pound bill. One can only hope that suitable indemnities as to authenticity were included on the sale and that, given some of the works were sold up to 15 years ago, they are not out of time for bringing a claim.