Thursday, April 29, 2010
In 1991, Hodges stood trial at the Knightsbridge Crown Court, now known as Blackfriars Crown Court, accused of stealing from London Sotheby's two pieces of antiquity (a 1st century BC bronze helmet and a 6th century BC terracotta bowl), of forging a release note (which allegedly allowed him to have these objects at his home with the approval of the auction house) and eighteen separate charges of false accounting (where he set up two different bank accounts, using false names, and regularly paid himself little by little, but over time, it definitely added up).
Days before Christmas 1991, Hodges was found guilty of stealing both objects along with forging the release note. However, he was acquitted of all false accounting charges. Throughout his trial, Hodges defended his actions. His defense was that antiquities smuggling and clandestine financial dealings were rampant at the auction house; basically, he thought: everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't I profit as well? The Knightsbridge Crown Court of London sentenced Hodges to nine months...but was out in five.
While in his late twenties, Hodges held numerous positions at Sotheby's. One of those included serving as an administrator in the Antiquities Department. Working in this capacity required Hodges to be in charge of antiquities paperwork ,with regard to buying and selling pieces, as well as all the financial transactions between the auction house and its customers.
After the bronze helmet and the terracotta bowl vanished from Sotheby's in 1989, Hodges was routinely questioned by law enforcement officials as to their whereabouts. Naturally, Hodges denied all knowledge and any involvement in the missing antiquities. His conscience must have gotten the best of him, however, because he later sent an anonymous note to the detective-in-charge. The note eventually led police to a luggage locker located at Marylebone station and the objects were, thankfully, recovered.
One possible reason as to why Hodges was only sentenced to nine months could be due to the fact that England is not a "culture rich nation." That being so, it could be entirely possible that the laws in England are not as stringent as the laws of nations in which cultural property and cultural heritage play a significant role in the lives of the people of Italy or Greece, for example. A short sentence, such as this, also conveys the message to the public that thefts of antiquities or cultural property will not produce a heavy sentence, at least in "culture poor nations."
I personally feel as though nine months for stealing two objects of antiquities was way too lenient of a sentence, regardless of the culture status of a nation. Uniformity in this area throughout the world would fare better for the protection and preservation of all cultural property and antiquities, known and not yet discovered, in all nations. And then, shortening Hodges original sentence by four months, it was basically a slap on the wrist. What would prevent him, or someone else, from stealing antiquities again? Especially if he knows the sentence could just as easily be reduced the second time around. Thankfully, after his arrest and prison sentence, Hodges turned his life around. Prior to his official release from Sotheby's, he had the bright idea of taking (or, stealing - which he apparently couldn't get enough of doing) internal documents that displayed the auction house in a bad light, as acting dishonestly and unethically. Hodges saw it fit that a publication of the wrongdoing of Sotheby's was the sweet revenge he needed after his five months of "hard time."
Randall, C. (1997, February 7). Reports of Cultural Property Incidents. From Museum Security Network: http://www.museum-security.org/97/artcrime6.html
Unknown. (2010). Blackfriars Crown Court. From London SE1 Community Website: http://www.london-se1.co.uk/places/blackfriars-crown-court
Watson, P. & Todeschini, C. (2007). The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities From Italy's Tomb Raiders to the World's Greatest Museums. New York: Public Affairs.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Almost one month ago, a Long Island Judge decided to allow the children of Holocaust survivor, Riven Flamenbaum, to keep the small, inscribed gold tablet he got from a Russian soldier in post-war Berlin. Estimated to be worth around $10 million, the ancient Assyrian artifact rested for thousands of years in the remains of the temple of Ishtar, about 150 miles outside of Baghdad. It was discovered in 1913 and eventually found its way into the storerooms of the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Germany during World War II. Officials believe that the item was stolen from the museum by Soviet troops in 1945.
How did Flamenbaum come into possession of this valuable artifact? He bartered for it with a Russian soldier in Berlin, following his release from Auschwitz. He gave the soldier a few packs of illegal cigarettes, and the soldier handed him the gold tablet.
A few years later, Flamenbaum moved to New York City. Meanwhile, the museum never placed the tablet on its list of missing items. This is quite understandable given the volume of artifacts looted in World War II. Though some note that the museum never made reasonable attempts to recover the item, even after receiving a tip in 1954. This is also understandable when one considers the number of hopeless leads and tips the museum must have received for many years following the war. Nevertheless, the Flamenbaum family benefitted from owning the item, by using it as collateral to purchase a business on Canal Street. An appraiser even told them it was worth a mere $100. It was not until the family contacted the museum that they learned of its true value and the museum sued for its return.
The Flamenbaum attorney, Schlesinger, argued that under the spoils of war doctrine, anything that the Soviet troops took from the museum during the war became their lawful property. Therefore, Flamenbaum’s ownership is legal as well. They also argued that the doctrine of laches, which essentially states that someone who is lax in pursuing their rights can lose those rights, applies against the museum since they did not reasonably pursue avenues to recover the item. Indeed, they did not even list it as stolen after the war. There are many issues surrounding this legal theory in the case of antiquities, however. Primary among these is the fact that publicizing this kind of theft can serve to push the item further underground. Also, it should be taken into account that there were so many items stolen during World War II, and the flood of “tips” and false leads that were being pursued following the war.
Personally, I feel that this was an incorrect application of the law under the circumstances. I do not presume to know, as a first year law student, the intricacies of the relevant law, but this offends my sense of justice. I understand that the judge insisted the doctrine of laches apply, due to the fact that Flamenbaum has died and the case is being fought by his children. Since he cannot testify as to exactly how he got the piece, prejudicing the trial against his family. However, holding the museum in fault for their actions hardly seems right. It was not feasible, or even really recommended, for them to publicize the theft and pursue it, particularly in post war Berlin.
Moreover, though Flamenbaum is no longer here to tell the story before the court, he always told his children that he got the tablet by trading some black market cigarettes for it. He obtained the tablets through a black market trade deal and I frankly feel that this fact should have been taken into account. I also feel that the spoils of war doctrine was incorrectly applied here due to the fact that there are numerous international laws in place to prevent plundering during times of war.
Kieran Crowley and Chuck Bennett, “Holocaust Survivor’s Kin Can Keep $10M Relic.” New York Post. April 6, 2010.
Vesselin Mitev, “German Museum Loses Attempt to Reclaim Artifact From Estate.” New York Law Journal. April 6, 2010.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
"In addition to depriving Iranians of their cultural property, a decision to turn over the artifacts to the Rubin plaintiffs would have grave effects for the museums involved and cultural institutions in general. Four American institutions could be divested of objects currently in their collections and unable to use them for research purposes. In the case of the Oriental Institute, an opportunity to complete a ground-breaking research project that has been in process for over 70 years would be lost. The fallout from this case will also politicize art pieces and perhaps make countries think twice before sending their national treasures abroad for the purpose of scholarship – a potential problem for the entire museum and university community.
The use of the Iranian antiquities to satisfy the Rubin judgment could also put American cultural property at risk and cause foreign policy complications for the United States. The U.S. Government has filed several statements of interest with the court expressing these concerns. On June 6, 2006 Abbas Salimi-Namin, the former head of Iran’s Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization sent a letter to the United Nations that illustrates the potential for problems. The missive demanded the immediate return of the tablets. While the Oriental Institute had previously enjoyed a good relationship with Iran based on a shared interest in gleaning knowledge from the tablets, the letter accused the museum of keeping the objects “on various grounds and pretexts” and ominously suggested that if the antiquities are turned over to the terror victims, American museums with objects in Iran would “face a similar measure from Tehran.””
I will try to stay abreast of this case as it is futher resolved. In the meantime, for more details, peruse the following links: