Memorandum submitted by Mr Edward Dolman,
Chief Executive, Christie's
1. Christie's is one of the leading international
fine art auctioneers and art businesses with offices throughout
the world. Its two principal salerooms are in London and in New
York. I was appointed Chief Executive of Christie's in December
1999, having previously worked as managing director of Christie's
in London and then in New York. As auctioneers Christie's act
as an agent for the sellers of works of art and offers their property
for sale in public to those who wish to bid.
TRADE IN
STOLEN AND
ILLEGALLY EXPORTED
ART
2. I should say at the outset that Christie's
is opposed to the trade in illegally exported and stolen art and
is a signatory to the 1985 Code of Practice For The Control of
International Trading in Works of Art(See Appendix A). I have
also read and endorse the submissions of the British Art Market
Federation, of which Christie's are members, to this Committee.
3. It is however, important to put the problems
of the illicit art trade in the context of the open and legitimate
art trade. It is relatively rare, bearing in mind the very large
number of items sold by us each year, that art which has been
illegally exported or has been stolen is consigned to Christie's
for sale. Of the 168,704 lots offered for sale through Christie's
in 1999 in the United Kingdom about 69 were the subject of a claim
arising from an alleged theft or illegal export. I believe that
not only is this because of the transparent public nature of auction
sales, but also because we have put in place a number of measures
aimed at preventing such items being offered for sale. These include
the following:
(i) We always require our sellers at the
time of consignment to sign a contractual warranty confirming
that they have good title to the artworks consigned to us and
a warranty that all export regulations have been complied with
in relation to the item;
(ii) From the moment of consignment to us
of an artwork Christie's specialists undertake academic research
in order to establish, wherever possible, its history;
(iii) Christie's Security Department is headed
by a former senior police officer with many years of experience
of the art market and who liaises closely, when necessary, with
police forces both in the UK and abroad;
(iv) Christie's has issued to all its staff
internal rules concerning Exported Works of Art and Stolen Art
(Appendix B). Christie's staff are required to sign a document
confirming their understanding of these rules. They are backed
up by internal disciplinary procedures, presided over by a Compliance
Committee;
(v) Christie's was a founder member of the
Art Loss Register which has compiled a database of stolen art.
Christie's submits copies of all its sale catalogues to the Art
Loss Register, which screens them against its database; and
(vi) At a cost to Christie's of approximately
£500,000 per year almost 3,000 institutions worldwide including
Museums, Embassies and National Police forces are sent complimentary
catalogues for their information. As an example, our Antiquities
Department alone routinely circulates its catalogues to the British
Museum, the Jordanian, Egyptian, Greek, Cypriot and Turkish Embassies
and museums, including the National Museum of Archaeology in Athens.
4. In the unlikely event that these safeguards
fail to identify stolen or illegally exported items the auction
process itself provides an additional safeguard. The process is
of its nature very public and details of the works of art to be
put up for sale are widely publicised, eg in our high quality
illustrated catalogues which are distributed throughout the world
through advertising and the Internet. The catalogues are also
available for inspection by the public, the police and by specialist
buyers and collectors who have an intimate knowledge of the history
and provenance of items within their sphere of interest. If any
of these individuals or bodies identify a Lot where the ownership
is in doubt or which may have been illegally exported they are
invariably quick to point it out to us. We will assess such matters
on their individual merits but where there is a genuine question
mark over title, or the legality of export, the object will be
withdrawn from sale pending settlement between the disputing parties,
or, ultimately, the decision of the Courts.
5. In all of this I think it is important
to bear in mind that Christie's and the other auction houses occupy
a sometimes difficult position. While we may have temporary possession
of the works which are the subject of the dispute, we do not own
them. We are only agents for the owners. This limits our freedom
of action.
WARTIME SPOLIATION
6. The issue of Wartime Spoliation is a
familiar one for Christie's. We were asked in 1996 to organise
the Mauerbach auction of heirless art to benefit the Jewish communities
in Austria. More recently we have sold important private collections
after their restitution to their rightful owners including the
Rothschild Collection and pieces from the Frederico Gentili de
Guisepe collection.
7. As a major auction house with a long
history, we have become increasingly involved with issues surrounding
the identification and resolution of Holocaust-related claims.
We have learned that this is not only a highly sensitive matter
but also one of great complexity. We join in the unequivocal condemnation
of the theft of art by the Nazis from their victims, but that
does not itself lead to the resolution today, 60 years later,
of complex issues of title and provenance.
8. We realise that each case has to be considered
individually. For each work of art that we handle, there is a
specific history that has to be identified as fully as possible
and there are sometimes conflicting rights and legitimate interests
held by people who have acted in complete good faith and with
no connection whatsoever with the original crime of despoliation.
9. In order to resolve those issues and
arrive at the point where restitution claims can be resolved access
to facts and information is needed. Among the considerations to
be taken into account are:
(i) under what circumstances was the art
lost by the family—was it sold or stolen: if sold, was the
sale voluntary or forced?
(ii) is the object the same as the object
that was stolen or is it another version of the same subject by
the same artist?
(iii) was the piece restored to the family
at any stage and then re-sold—perhaps without the knowledge
of the current claimants?
(iv) was the work subsequently purchased
in good faith by an innocent purchaser, unaware of its provenance?
10. The search for these facts also takes
place under enormous time pressure. One of the distinguishing
features of the auction house is the sheer volume of property
that passes through our doors. Typically we have access to and
custody of the property for only a few weeks. During that time
our specialists research the history and authenticity of the art
as far as they can.
11. Provenance is clearly a valuable tool
in resolving such issues. Researching the history of a Lot not
only serves to identify potentially stolen property but can also
add to its value. We therefore routinely carry out research into
the history of Lots consigned to us. It is often the case however
that because provenance has only relatively recently become an
important consideration, or because the historical information
has been lost over the passage of time, there are limited or no
records or information available.
12. To the extent that a provenance exists
our specialists in the appropriate departments review published
materials and lists culled from public sources to determine if
anything in the history suggests that the property may have been
expropriated during the war. Where cause exists we engage further
research. This may involve sending specialists to libraries and
archives or contacting experts like the Art Loss Register and
scholars such as Hector Feliciano, author of The Lost Museum—one
of the recently published accounts of the wartime looting by the
Nazis. All of these steps are designed to satisfy ourselves that
there are no legitimate outstanding claims to the property.
13. It is however also important to bear
in mind that the resolution of restitution issues takes place
in a complicated legal arena, and where competing claims are received
Christie's cannot properly act as judge and jury in seeking to
determine those issues. Works of art may have changed hands many
times in the 50 years since the end of the war, and those transfers
may have taken place in different countries. As a point of legal
analysis it matters if, where and when such events took place.
Many legal jurisdictions recognise the rights of bona fide purchasers
for value and apply varying statutes of limitation. Christie's
position as an agent for the owner, which I have referred to above,
is also a factor.
14. In this context we welcome the formation
by the Government of the Spoliation Advisory Panel as a dispute
resolution mechanism to help resolve these complex issues of title.
CONCLUSION
15. Christie's has a direct interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the art market. We have no legal
or commercial interest in selling stolen property of any kind.
The illicit market clearly exists but only very rarely does it
come into contact with the open and legitimate art market in which
Christie's operates. In the conclusions to its evidence to the
Select Committee, the British Art Market Federation placed great
emphasis on practical steps that can be taken to make it even
more difficult for criminals to dispose of property through the
legitimate market. Among these is the development of an international
database of stolen and smuggled art and greater resources for
the police and customs officials both here and abroad. We believe
that the Art Loss Register forms an appropriate basis for the
development of this database.
16. We believe that the rules, procedures
and codes of practice followed by Christie's and outlined in this
evidence make a significant contribution towards preventing criminals
profiting from the trade in stolen and illegally exported works
of art. We would urge the Committee to consider all practical
measures to eliminate the illicit market without, at the same
time, undermining the competitiveness of the legitimate market
in the United Kingdom by imposing burdensome regulations which
would add to the administrative costs and complexity of doing
business here.
| 
