Blog Subscription via Follow.it

Showing posts sorted by date for query center for art law. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query center for art law. Sort by relevance Show all posts

January 7, 2024

The Judgement of St. Paul or The Capture of Saint Peter? A tail of theft and perhaps too many coincidences


February 2013 

Castello di Buriasco
A large format oil painting is stolen from the Castello di Buriasco (Pinerolo).  The painting was owned by Margherita Buzio and had been on display inside the castello,  which for many years was a restaurant and events venue previously open to the public. 

The theft was discovered by Margherita Buzio after it was noticed that a lock on the castello's external gate had been tampered with, allowing unknown individuals to gain entry to the estate.  

Following the theft, Buzio registered a complaint with the Carabinieri Comando Stazione Vigone noting that she believes the thieves gained entry at night. The stolen painting depicts its protagonist, with his hands clasped and his face turned upwards as a sign of supplication, as he is forcibly brought, by two guardsmen, before a judge who is depicted pointing with his right arm raised. Other individuals, perhaps the apostle's followers, are painted into the background as witnesses to the unfolding events depicted. 

According to her report to law enforcement officers, the painting's owner recounted that at some point, an unknown person or persons had apparently entered the castle she owned and had cut the painting in question from its frame, removing it at an undetermined date.  In its place, the resourceful thief or thieves are said to have replaced the removed canvas with a large photocopy of the work, re-stapling the reproduction back into the original frame.

At a much later date, it will later be determined that the thief or thieves, who cut the artwork from its frame, accidentally left behind a small triangular fragment from the painting's original canvas.  This painted scrap will later be found, stuck between the replacement image and the painting's frame which was rehung at the crime site. 

According to the victim of the theft, a person by the name of Paolo Bocedi, identified from open source media on the internet as an entrepreneur in Lombardia who founded S.O.S. Italia Libera together with Tano Grasso in 1991 had twice visited the Castello di Buriasco in an attempt to purchase the painting, however Signora Buzio declined to sell. 

Date Unknown

Following the report of theft filed with the Carabinieri in Vigone, a theft notice regarding the painting stolen from the Castello di Buriasco is sent by Italy's National Central Bureau to the Interpol Works of Art Unit.   The identikit details of which are uploaded to Interpol's ID-Art App, making the image of the stolen artwork searchable by the general public. 

The INTERPOL stolen works of art database refers to the stolen painting as a 17th century painting of The Judgement of St. Paul by the School of Francesco Solimena, (L'Abate Ciccio).

Spring 2013

According to later journalistic investigations made public in December 2023 by investigative reporters Thomas Mackinson it is claimed that Vittorio Sgarbi, Italy's Undersecretary of Culture in the Meloni Cabinet, contacted Gianfranco Mingardi in the Spring of 2013 telling the Brescia-based restorer: 

"I'll send you a painting to fix".  

Sgarbi has worked extensively with Mingardi periodically in the conservation of artworks from the 1980s until quite recently.

8 May 2013

According to one of Mackinson's article regarding this evolving story, the restorer Gianfranco Mingardi recounted that three months after the theft of the painting from the Castello di Buriasco, on May 8, 2013 he received a painting requiring restoration which was the purported to be property of Vittorio Sgarbi.  Like the artwork stolen from the Castello di Buriasco and uploaded to the Interpol database, the painting requiring restoration depicted its protagonist, with his hands clasped and his face turned upwards as a sign of supplication, as he is forcibly brought by two guardsmen, before a judge, who is depicted pointing with his right arm raised.  

Mingardi told newspaper reporters that he had picked up this painting at the exit of the A4 motorway, in central Brescia in the northern Italian region of Lombardy, adding that he met a delivery truck, along with Paolo Bocedi, who arrived by  motorcycle.  It should be noted that this is the same individual who was was mentioned by Margherita Buzio as the person who had previously contacted her about the purchase of her painting before the artwork was stolen.

At the handover, the restorer Mingardi stated that the painting was delivered to him "without a frame, cut, and rolled up like a carpet".  Once laid out and spread open, the restorer says he observed several parts of the artwork which showed breaks and canvas losses.  

Having taken photos of the artwork at the time it was delivered, Mingardi was able to demonstrate to the journalists that at the time he received the canvas, the painting was rolled up like a scroll and appeared to be in poor condition.  His documentation also showed that at the time the painting was under his care, it did not yet depict a torch in the top left quadrant of the painting's imagery.  

This purported augmentation is thought to have been added at some later date.  

 Photo of rolled atwork
taken by restorer Gianfranco Mingardi 

Also of note in the restorer's photographic documentation is a prominent horizontal line that runs along the entire length of the painting at the point where the two canvases are cojoined at the ground layer,.  This is a common system or merger which allowed artists of the period to create larger format paintings.  Lastly, Mingardi's records identify a series of losses, including a hole in the canvas at the height of the dog's collar, as well as a crack along one tunic and other similar losses. 

10 December 2018

Gianfranco Mingardi tells news journalist Thomas Mackinson that he returned Vittorio Sgarbi's painting to the art critic on 10 December 2018, a full five and a half years after it was received. 

“I realised that that canvas was hot, so I asked him [Vittorio Sgarbi] for a certificate of ownership...He said he would send it to me but he didn't, and when I protested he said not to worry, he could say that it was in Villa Maidalchina..." 

April 2019 

Vittorio Sgarbi's painting depicting its protagonist, with his hands clasped and his face turned upwards as a sign of supplication is now said to be at the studio of Valentina Piovan, an established restorer from Padua. 

Why the artwork was taken to a second restorer is unclear.  What should be noted is that by this time period, Sgarbi's painting now contains an added element, a lighted torch which serves to illuminate the top left quadrant of the painting's imagery. 

October 2020

Samuele and Cristian De Pietri, the owners of GraphicLAB s.n.c. di De Pietri Cristian & Co., collect Vittorio Sqarbi's painting from the studio of restorer Valentina Piovan at the beginning of October 2020 

13 October 2020

Samuele and Cristian De Pietri, the owners of GraphicLAB s.n.c. di De Pietri Cristian & Co create a digitised, contactless scan of Vittorio Sqarbi's painting using a high quality, large format scanner capable of scanning large format works of art and then cloning them. 

22 November 2020

Vittorio Sgarbi visits the laboratory of GraphicLAB s.n.c. di De Pietri Cristian & Co in person, who, according to the owners "was interested in understanding the potential of our machinery, how far it could go. From there we then do many other jobs, for various museums and around Italy." 

Photos and videos are taken where Sgarbi can be seen discussing the original painting left in G-Lab's care, alongside the cloned work created by the business associates.  Both images appear to closely resemble the stolen painting from the Castello di Buriasco. 

These images and video are later shared with the journalists working for Il Fatto Quotidiano and the Rai television program "Report" who release them to the public in 2024.  In the film, Sgarbi can be seen wandering between the original version of the Capture of Saint Peter and its digital clone, examining each of them closely, with a flashlight in his hand moving over key areas of the artwork.

On 12 January 2021 

Vittorio Sgarbi pays a €6100 invoice issued by GraphicLAB s.n.c. di De Pietri Cristian & Co. which labeled their service as a "consultancy."  According to the business owners, the original version of Vittorio Sgarbi's painting and its digital clone were subsequently transferred to the care of the Cavallini-Sgarbi Foundation (Ro Ferrarese, Ferrara). However, their original 3D scan file, which digitally captured the scan of the 17th century painting at 1600 DPI resolution (meaning that for every inch of mouse movement, the cursor moves 1600 pixels), and weighing 52 gigabytes, remained with the digitisation company's owners, Samuele and Cristian De Pietri.

8 December 2021 through 2 October 2022

The art exhibition I Pittori della Luce. Da Caravaggio a Paolini, curated by Vittorio Sgarbi and produced by Contemplazioni takes place at the Padiglione Panini - Ex Cavallerizza in the historic center of Lucca.  At this exhibition, Sqarbi exhibits the painting he had commissioned to be cloned earlier at GraphicLAB s.n.c. di De Pietri Cristian & Co. 

According to the accompanying exhibition catalogue, written by Sgarbi and Professor Ciampolini, the 235 x 204 cm, oil on canvas painting is now titled The Capture of Saint Peter (Italian: Cattura di San Pietro) and is written up as a previously "unpublished" artwork, believed to have been completed by the artist Rutilio di Lorenzo Manetti (c. 1571 – 22 July 1639), sometime between 1637 and 1639.  Manetti being an Italian painter of late-Mannerism or proto-Baroque, active mainly in Siena.  

Sgarbi's catalogue as well as accompanying exhibition documentation lists the artwork as being the property of the Cavallini Sgarbi Foundation.  Regarding its provenance, the exhibition's catalogue states that the painting was found at the Villa Maidalchina, which in the 1600s was owned by Olimpia Pamphilij, sister-in-law of Pope Innocent.  The previously abandoned villa is located near La Quiete, in the La Pila district, near Viterbo.  Built between 1615 and 1625 this once abandoned villa is now the property of the Cavallini Sgarbi Foundation. 

Sgarbi's catalogue goes on to state that his painting "is remembered, generically among others paintings, in the inventory of 11 October 16-49, drawn up by the notary Cosimo Pennacchi, of the assets of Andrea Maidalchini, Olimpia's brother. The works of art, including the famous Bust of Innocent X by Alessandro Algardi, then passed to Giulio Bussi and the Gentili counts."  

According to research conduced by journalists, there is no affirming documentation which concretises these attestations.  In fact quite the contrary, Angelo Allegrini, the Director of the State archives of Viterbo, failed to identify any record of any works of art by the artist Manetti in the bound 1649 records of Pennacchi.  And while there is a record of a painting depicting Saint Peter recorded, that work of art describes the presence of a handmaid, who is not depicted in the work of art in Sgarbi's hands.  

The catalogue further describes the paintings light source as follows: 

"a precise light source, coming from the top left, emphasising the dramatic tone of the agitated scene, enhancing the material values of the clothes and skin and creating suggestive light and backlight effects. A torch, remembered by Honthor Stano, illuminates a room to the left of Herod, creating a symmetry with the scenographic background of the road on the right. There is an evident Caravaggesque origin, which the painter combines with a pursued theatrical taste, in the general layout, as in the individual characters, unnaturally elongated to emphasize their 'dancing pace' way of acting."

Late 2021/Early 2022

By late 2021 Vittorio Sqarbi's painting depicting the Capture of Saint Peter has drawn the attention of investigative journalists Thomas Mackinson and Manuele Bonaccorsi working for Il Fatto Quotidiano and the Rai television program "Report" based upon its similarities to the painting stolen from the Castello di Buriasco (Pinerolo), owned by Margherita Buzio and publicly searchable via the Interpol Id-Art app for stolen artwork. 

Driven by demand from patrons and commissions it was not unusual for artists of the 16th and 17th century to have created multiple versions of a particular theme or to emulate aspects of one another's artist's style.  While each of those are highly plausible, it would have been quite impossible for artists of that period to have matched brush stroke for brush stroke, precisely the proportions as you see below, in this ARCA's overlay of both the stolen painting and the one exhibited at the early exhibition I Pittori della Luce. Da Caravaggio a Paolini, in Lucca.

Aside from the lighted torch element, which illuminates the architectural backdrop on the upper left side, the painting owned by the Cavallini Sgarbi Foundation is objectively identically proportioned character by character to the painting stolen from the Buriasco Castle.  

One could argue, as Vittorio Sgarbi later does, that the stolen painting was a much later replica of his painting,  however that still would not explain the absence/occurrence of the lit torch, and again, how the artisan who replicated the work would have precisely matched the brush strokes in such an extracting way. 

By December 2023

By December 2023 GraphicLAB s.n.c. di De Pietri Cristian & Co., owned by Samuele and Cristian De Pietri, have invoiced undersecretary for cultural heritage Vittorio Sgarbi for a reported 20 thousand euros for the high end cloning and printing of "material reproductions" of paintings.  

These include not only the Capture of Saint Peter, but five other cloned artworks. The latest invoice, paid by Vittorio Sgarbi is dated December 2023. 

After 08 Dicembre 2023 

Stopped outside the Lucca exhibition, Antonio Canova e il Neoclassicismo  journalists investigating the similarities between the stolen painting a the Sgarbi foundation artwork attempt to speak with Undersecretary Vitttorio Sgarbi abouthis foundation's painting and the similarities to the artwork stolen in 2013.  Caught on tape, reporters ask the politician to explain the torch depicted in the Manetti artwork, and the fact that experts state that this is a more recent addition not previously found in the painting when it was worked on by the restorer Gianfranco Mingardi. 

At first Sgarbi hurriedly brushes off the reporters questions, hurling various insults before seating himself in a waiting car with driver.  Very shortly after however, he steps out of the vehicle and reengages with the journalists and camera man somewhat aggressively.  

Speaking in a frustrated or angry tone, he provides further statements regarding the artwork in question while still continuing to hurl colourful vulgarities at the journalists.  He also tells the reporters dismissively that he has sold the painting in question.  At the conclusion of their exchange, Sgarbi takes his leave wishing the journalists a premature death, then denouncing them to the police for stalking.

NB: It should be noted that the PDF for the Lucca exhibition two years earlier already stated that the artwork, at the time of the exhibition, was owned by the Cavallini Sgarbi Foundation. 

15 December 2023

In the first of multiple news articles journalists with Il Fatto Quotidiano begin reporting on their questions regarding the seventeenth-century painting in the Cavallini Sgarbi Foundation collection which they suspect matches the one stolen in 2013 from the Castello di Buriasco.

17 December 2023

The seventeenth-century Cavallini Sgarbi Foundation painting, titled the Capture of Saint Peter is highlighted in the investigative TV program "Report" in Italy, appearing in the first of multiple episodes on the 17th of December ".  In this first reporting, TV journalist Manuele Bonaccorsi walks his viewers through the story of the theft of the artwork from the Castello di Buriasco (Pinerolo) owned by Margherita Buzio as well as its similarities to the artwork titled The Capture of Saint Peter by the artist Rutilio di Lorenzo Manetti owned by Vittorio Sgarbi's foundation.  

The episode covers the paintings passage from restorer to restorer and the digital scanning firm where it was cloned.  It also discusses the curatorial text listed for the artwork when it was presented at the Lucca exhibition which stated the presence of the work in Villa Maidalchina and that the painting would be certified by a notarial deed from 1649. 

The episode goes on to show that a cross check of the State archives of Viterbo, which contains an inventory of Andrea Maidalchini's assets, drawn up in 1649, and which details various paintings from the collection, makes no mention of any work of art by Manetti.  While this inventory does mention, a painting of Saint Peter, the description does not match the paintings under consideration. 

7 January 2023

By comparing an image obtained by a visitor to the Lucca exhibition of the seventeenth-century Cavallini Sgarbi Foundation painting, the investigative TV program "Report" demonstrates that the purported Manetti painting exhibited in Lucca in 2022 appears to be one of the digital clones created by GraphicLAB s.n.c. di De Pietri Cristian & Co. in 2020, after the original artwork was scanned on behalf of undersecretary Vittorio Sgarbi.

High resolution screenshon of G-Lab scan of Sgrabi's artwork

The news program and the newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano publish high resolution images of the scanned artwork, which, by increasing the magnification shows their respective audiences Sgarbi's painting's craquelure, the fine pattern of dense cracking that develops over many decades or centuries, exhibiting irregular patterns. 

Conservators and appraisers of fine art will recognise that the pattern of craquelure on the surface of paintings are one of many factors which can be used to determine the age, the authenticity, and the restoration works conducted of a painting.  In this case, the fine irregular pattern of dense cracking from the drying oil paint can be seen across Sgarbi's entire painting, but is absent from several of the areas where the artwork has been retouched or overpainted during its restoration.  These changes can be visualised in both the area where the torch appears, indicating it may have been added, as well as in areas where losses were documented earlier while the painting was with the Brescia restorer. 

Loss and Restoration Comparison to Sgarbi painting

Comparing the very high resolution image preserved at GLab's studio, alongside the corresponding images of the artwork without the torch previously obtained from the Brecia restorer Gianfranco Mingardi, along with the other details uncovered or contradicted throughout this journalistic investigation, it seems to be quite possible that the Cavallini Sgarbi Foundation painting of the Capture of Saint Peter could very well be the same stolen painting, with subsequent enhancements, which had from Castello di Buriasco.


Key to this investigation may be a tiny triangular shred of canvas that the reporters found at the castello in Buriasco, stuck between the plastic replacement photo and the frame left at the "crime site".   Turned over to the Caravinieri TPC in Rome on December 20th, this small, seemingly inconsequential scrap, appears to have once been attached to the bottom right portion of the painting, around the area where the three tipped halberd is depicted placed on the ground.  If this proves to be true,  the reporters' journalistic  hypothesis that Sgarbi's painting is the one stolen in 2013 may proven to be true. 

Sgarbi, in his defense, has claimed that multiple copies of this theme were created by Manetti and that Mingardi, who also did work for his mother and had previously completed a job badly and perhaps, as a result, was harbouring revenge against the family.  He has given no explanation as to why, if their relationship was so acrimonious, that he still elected to entrust this rare 17th century artwork by Manetti to the restorer who held the artwork for more than five years given the claim that his restoration work was deemed so problematic in the past that the art critic had refused payment. 

Regardless, even if we play devil's advocate and assume, through some incredibly rare and almost unbelievable stroke of good luck, that the art critic Sgarbi truly was smiled upon by the luck of the Irish and found this valuable 17th century painting in his foundation's previously abandoned villa near Viterbo, one still has to ponder following questions, including: 

Why would an important art critic, and undersecretary to Italy's Ministry of Culture not provide any concretised evidence that substantiates his claim that the artwork was found at Villa Maidalchina.  As an art historian well-versed in the need for provenance, one has to ask why there are no witnesses named as being present at the time of the discovery, or are we to assume Sgarbi was working on his mother's villa renovations personally?

Why is it that Sgarbi considers the St. Peter mentioned in the inventory of 11 October 16-49, drawn up by the notary Cosimo Pennacchi, of the assets of Andrea Maidalchini to be the painting he now possesses, when that inventory description  describes an artwork which depicts the presence of a handmaid when there are no female figures in the Manetti owned by Sgarbi.  

Why has Sgarbi repeatedly stated that the artist Manetti made multiple copies of this work, yet failed, in his detailed telling of the artwork for the Lucca exhibition, failed to document any of these additional copies be they by Manetti himself or a 19th century copiest as he now claims the stolen artwork to be.  All this notwithstanding that fact that Sgarbi himself admitted to having firsthand knowledge of the one hanging at the Castello di Buriasco and having seen it when he lunched at the restaurant and commented on the painting. 

Update: First week of January 2024

The Italian New services now state that Undersecretary of Culture Vittorio Sgarbi is being investigated by Italian authorities as a suspect in the crime of Self-Laundering of Cultural Assets referred to in Article 1(1)(b) of Law No. 22 of the Criminal Code (C.C. art. 518-septies) .  This investigation seems to fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Macerata and was confirmed via public prosecutor Giovanni Fabrizio Narbone.  

This is unrelated to another investigation, originally opened in 2023 by Alberto Lari, the Imperia prosecutor's office in relation to an earlier investigation into the illegal expropriation of another artwork, the Concerto con Bevitore by Valentin de Boulogne to Monaco. 

January 10, 2023

A timeline of a convicted seller of Andy Warhol forgeries, who now faces an investigation into the disappearance of his wife


Brian R. Walshe came onto the art crime radar after pleading guilty to the sale of two fraudulent artworks which were purported to have been painted by American visual Pop artist Andy Warhol.  In 2023 his life got a whole lot more complicated. 

This is a timeline of the two Washe investigations.


1994
Brian Walshe meets a Korean friend while attending Carnegie Melon University in Pittsburg, PA for a year.  He does not graduate but the two remain in touch, even after this friend graduates and returns to South Korea.

A later affidavits will claim that Walshe left university due to mental health issues, checking himself into the Austin Riggs Center, a psychiatric in-patient treatment facility. 

Beginning on/around approximately 2004 through 2011
Brian Walshe's Korean friend is now known to be collecting art.  This friend subsequently purchases:
two Andy Warhol Shadow paintings, 
an Andy Warhol silk screen print of a dollar sign on a handkerchief and two Keith Haring prints

Through an arrangement with Walshe, who tells his friend that he can sell his artworks at a profit, Brian's friend hands over the two Andy Warhol Shadow paintings, the Andy Warhol silk screen print of a dollar sign on a handkerchief, the two Keith Haring prints, and a Tang Dynasty porcelain statue so that Walshe can find buyers for the pieces.

3 May 2011
Brian Walshe attempts to consign an Andy Warhol artwork to Gagosian Gallery in New York City, who declines on the basis that Walshe did not have the bill of sale for the artwork.  

At this same time, Walshe is known to have still possessed the Andy Warhol silk screen print of a dollar sign on a handkerchief and the two Keith Haring prints, as well as possibly the Tang Dynasty porcelain statue.

21 September 2011 
Brian Walshe consigns an Andy Warhol silk screen print of a dollar sign on a handkerchief to Christies who sells the artwork at auction for $40,000 

2012 and later 
Brian Walshe is known to have visited his university friend in Korea on several occassions.  His last visit was in 2012 to attend his friend's wedding but to date, and despite his claim to be able to sell the art works handed over previously, no payments for the works have been forthcoming.   

When pressed for answers, Walshe eventually begins to avoid his friend's calls.
 
After several failed attempts at communication and attempts through two different  intermediaries, Walshe is forced to hand over the two Keith Haring prints and the Tang Dynasty porcelain statue when confronted at his home during an impromptu face to face meeting with an intermediary who is a friend to the Korean owner. 

The Andy Warhol Shadow paintings are not recovered at this time. 

March 2015 - July 2020 
According to Brian R. Walshe's Linkedin Page, he is now employed as an International Business Strategist for Ten Sail Consulting. brw@tensailconsulting.com   

21 December 2015
Brian Washe marries Ana Knipp, who maintains her maiden name.  The family go on to have three children. 

Early November 2016
Los Angeles gallery owner Ron Rivlin notices two Andy Warhol paintings for sale via the online auction site eBay via a seller with the user name:
ancili2012:

The eBay listing, on Ana Knipp's seller account, sets the price for the paintings in the advertisement at $100,000 and reads as follows: 

"We are selling 2 Andy Warhol paintings from our private collection. We are parting with these pieces only because we need the money for renovations to our house. Our loss is your gain. Pieces bought from a former Martin Lawrence art dealer in California. We over paid terribly in 2007 for the art. Price paid $240,000. We have enclosed the Christie's estimates as of 2011 for the art as well.  Auction range $120,000 to $180,000. We are trying to sell on Ebay because it is much cheaper and because Christie's won't be able to auction our pieces till May 2017. The pieces are numbered and registered with the Warhol Foundation. Pieces are from 1979. Size 14 inches by 11 inches. Synthetic Polymer Paint and Silkscreen ink on canvas. Warhol Foundation # PA65.049 & PA65.032."

As part of the advertisement, the eBay seller included a picture of an invoice from Fleishman Fine Art for both of the Warhol Shadow paintings with Warhol Foundation numbers and a purchase price of $240,000. 

The eBay seller also included photographs of a label on the back of the painting from the Jablonka Gallery with the number PA65.049; and a photograph of a Christie's document listing the two paintings and two other works by Keith Haring.

The BillTo/Ship To: Name of the purchaser was a family member of Brian Walshe's friend in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea.

Between 3 and 5 November 2016
California art dealer Ron Rivlin is interested in the two Andy Warhol "shadow" paintings and contacts the Walshe's using eBay's messaging service, inquiring about the work and requesting that "Ana" call him, providing the seller with his number. 

Rivlin speaks directly with Brian Walshe – the seller – between 3-5 November 2016 and works towards negotiating a purchase for the Warhol artworks for $80,000.  Walshe in turn negotiates to complete the sales transaction outside of eBay platform so that he can avoid the eBay seller fees. 

After an agreement is reached, Rivlin draws up a DocuSign contract on 3 November 2016 in which both parties sign-off agreeing that the purchaser has three days to terminate the contract and get a full refund if the buyer fails to accept the artwork.

7 November 2016
Ron Rivlin’s assistant flies to Boston to meet with Brian Walshe and to take possession of the two Andy Warhol "shadow" paintings.  

After taking a cursory look at the paintings and forwarding digital photos to Rovlin the buyer's agent takes possession of two artworks during a meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel in Boston and provides Walshe with a cashier’s check for $80,000. 

As the paintings are in frames, the backs of the paintings are not inspected on this date.  According to bank records, reviewed as part of the subsequent investigation into Walshe's activities, this cashier’s check was deposited on the same day into an account controlled solely by Walshe.  

Rivlin's assistant flew back to Los Angeles with the art works. 

Between 8 and 21 November 2016
Brian Walshe makes a series of withdrawals and payment transactions from the same bank account where he deposited Ron Rivlin's payment of $80,000.  In total he withdraws or makes payments for outstanding depts totalling $33,400 in the span of 13 days. 

8 November 2016 and later
Ron Rivlin’s assistant brings the two purchased paintings to the Rivlin for his inspection. In examining the two paintings, Rivlin removes the paintings’ frames and discovers that neither artwork has the Warhol Foundation authentication stamp on the back.  He also ascertains that both of the canvasses and the staples appear to be new. 

When Rivlin compares the paintings to the original photographs of the Andy Warhol "Shadows" from the eBay listing, he realises that the artworks delivered to him after his purchase do not appear to be those previously depicted in the photos for the sale on eBay.   He concludes that the two paintings he purchased and which were delivered to his assistant by Brian Walshe are not authentic.

Subsequent to this realisation, Rivlin repeatedly tries to contact Walshe, by telephone, text message and email, but initially receives no replies.  Rivlin then contacts Brian’s mother, whose name was on the title to Brian Walshe and Ana Knipp’s home, as well as Knipp's place of employment in Boston demanding that Brian return his calls or risk legal action. 

16 November 2016
According to the 2018 complaint charging Brian Walshe with wire fraud, Rivlin received a email reply from the Walshe on November 16, 2016 which makes excuses for the delay in refunding the California dealer's money.  Walshe claimed both that he didn’t have access to his phone  and that the time difference between Boston and L.A. made it difficult to call.  He promised Rivlin that he “would like to return your $80,000 ASAP.”
 
See transcript of the email from the court document here:
"Hello [redacted], Thank you for calling my wife. She said you were very kind and respectful, which is how I remembered you from our first interaction. I was going to call on Tuesday (election day) to ask about the 'shadows', but because of the time difference I was unable. I was in meetings and buildings all that day which did not allow me to have my phone. Once I saw your messages, things had already escalated to an uncomfortable level. Mr.  [redacted] is our family lawyer. He was trying to resolve the matter without unnecessary litigation. He was not going to represent me formally in any civil or criminal proceedings, but was hoping to satisfy you as a client. On Friday he did offer a full refund to your lawyer, but from your Saturday email it seemed it was too late to resolve this matter without a drawn-out court case. The information you explained to my wife is very troubling. If the photos I sent you are clearly different then the ‘Shadows' you have now, then that is a serious problem. However, regardless of the problems with the 'shadows', you have a right to a full refund according to our written agreement in section 9.3. I have no reason to believe that you would mis-represent any information. When I spoke to you last I had the impression that you were a fair and honest businessman. My wife has the same impression since your conversation yesterday. I was just surprised with how quickly things escalated. I am traveling this week, but I would like to return your $80,000 ASAP. Please send me your Bank of America information and I will send you the money. Once you receive your money please send me the 'shadows'. I need to investigate what happened on my side of this transaction. Once I have the ‘shadows' and can confirm your information, I will also refund the cost of sending [redacted] to Boston. I don't want you to suffer financially from this transaction. Especially, if the fault is on my side. Thank you again for reaching out to my wife. I will be in touch directly with you later this week. Best Brian".

22 - 28 November 2016
After continued excuses and delays, Brian Walshe has only made two partial payments totalling $30,000 to Ron Rivlin via Ten Sail Consulting LLC. 

8 December 2016
Ron Rivlin informs Brian Walshe that he has spoken with the FBI regarding the the lack of total refund for the purported Andy Warhol "Shadow" paintings. 

May 2018
Brian Walshe is arrested on a criminal complaint filed in the US District Court in Massachusetts following the FBI's investigation into his sale of two fake Andy Warhol paintings. 

Investigations by state and federal authorities allege that Walshe initially gained access to authentic Warhol paintings through a second victim, his Korean friend, who was known to have purchased Andy Warhol artworks.  Walshe had also been present with the aforementioned friend on one occasion when that individual purchased one work of art by Warhol.  Later, this same friend also purchased the two authentic Warhol Shadow paintings.

According to the criminal complaint, afterwards, while visiting the victim in South Korea, Walshe told his friend that he could sell some of this individual's art for a good price and an agreement was made to let Walshe take possession of the two Shadow paintings by Warhol and other fine art pieces.

After Walshe took the items however he became unreachable to the victim. 

The FBI investigators allege that Brian or his wife Ana Walshe subsequently used her eBay account to advertise the two Warhols.  

The Federal complaint did not charge Walshe's wife, but documents that she had a somewhat active roll in as much as it was her eBay user account and she fielded phone calls from Ron Rivlin.

September 2018
Brian Walshe's father,  Thomas Moorecroft Walshe III, dies at age 71 in India.  

At some point thereafter, the father's lawyer contacted the deceased man's son to inform him of the news, at which point, according to legal documents presented during the probate dispute, it is alleged Walshe asked for a key to the $710,000 beachfront property in Hull, Massachusetts, after the attorney went himself and took pictures of the original will – dated May 2016.

October 2018 
Brian Walshe is formally indicted by a federal grand jury on four charges in the paintings fraud case, including wire fraud, interstate transportation for a scheme to defraud, possession of converted goods and unlawful monetary transaction.

December 2018
Three months after his father’s death, Brian Walshe had himself appointed as personal representative of his father’s estate on the grounds his father had no will, a document filed by federal prosecutors in the Warhol theft case states.

By July 2019
Brian Walshe is involved in a legal dispute in Plymouth Probate and Family Court with family members regarding his father's estate in which family and friends allege that he has been estranged from his father for more than ten years and that after his father's death, arranged to destroyed at least one document, his deceased father's will, before wrongly took over management of his father’s estate, despite family members claiming that his father had left his son out of his 2016 will,  stating only his “best wishes but nothing else from my estate,” as per the words of his will.

Relatives allege Brain Walshe stole $100,000 from his father's bank account and stole/sold artwork and luxury items – including paintings by Salvador Dali and Joan Miro – as well as a car and attempted to sell the house in the period where his father's estate was being contested. 

A friend of the father Jeffrey Ornstein, stated in a 2019 affidavit that Walshe's father relayed to him that his only son had been a “long-term patient” at the Austin Riggs Psychiatric Center in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and had been diagnosed as a “sociopath.”

The dates of this hospitalisation and diagnosis have not been confirmed. However after the disappearance of his wife in 2023 varying news outlets report on this earlier hospitalisation.

November 2019 
In his own affidavit submitted to the Probate Court, Brian Walshe alleges that in the years prior to his father’s death, the two of them had reconciled, especially after the birth of his son in 2016.

He also claimed, somewhat ironically, given the charges he was facing, that the digital photo of his father's 2016 will “is a possible forgery” because his father's medical condition would have prevented him from writing it at the time it was dated. 

August 2020 - May 2021
According to Brian R. Walshe's LinkedIn Page, he is now employed as the Chief Financial Officer of Capital Letters Consulting. 

1 April 2021
Acting United States Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell and Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Office announces that Brian Walshe has plead guilty on this date to three of the four counts in exchange for a recommended sentence from prosecutors of incarceration, supervised release and fines.  

He also agreed to either return the artworks or pay for them.

The counts Walshe plead guilty to are:
one count of wire fraud, 
one count of interstate transportation for a scheme to defraud, 
one count of possession of converted goods and an unlawful monetary transaction. 

He is subsequently scheduled for sentencing on 2 August 2021. 

May 2021 - Present
According to Brian R. Walshe's LinkedIn Page, he is employed as the CFO and Co-Founder of LETS: Leadership & Effective Teamwork Strategies.

March 2022
Ana Knipp is hired by a Washington, DC, real-estate firm Tishman Speyer.Her new role requires her to work in DC so she commutes back and forth while her husband (who remains on home confinement) and kids remain in Cohasset, Massachusetts.

June 2022
The 2 August 2022 date that U.S. Senior District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock was scheduled to sentence Brian Walshe in connection with his conviction is postponed.  US District Court Judge Douglas Warnock orders a hearing on Brian Walshe’s role in managing his father’s will and to allow time for the US Attorney’s Office to investigate Walshe’s current finances after Walshe failed to inform US Probation about two IRA's at Fidelity – one of which he contributed $91,000 – and left off a 2014 Fiat and 2015 Maserati, which his wife Ana drove.

In the interim, Walshe is placed on federal pre-sentencing probation with conditions which require home confinement with GPS monitoring.  Under these release conditions Walshe is required to request permission to exit his home via his supervising officer at the US Probation and Pretrial Services.  To do so he must specify precise times, locations, and necessity for being outside of the residence before authorisation can be granted. 

October 2022
Brian Walshe files an affidavit In probate court stating that he had prepared an inventory and is "in the process of organizing a full account of the estate and intend to file it with the court as soon as it is complete."

A pretrial conference in the probate case is subsequently scheduled for April 19, 2023.

27 December 2022
Having made plans to visit a friend near Washington, D.C., Ana Knipp (Walshe) texts her friend to say that she has to work late and will be delayed.  After two hours, Walshe responds to her friend stating that her phone died and she could not use GPS to get directions, so she returned home. 

The two friends reschedule their visit to Jan. 5, 2023.

28 December 2022
Ana Knipp (Walshe) texts a friend and tells her that she now has a new SIM card for her phone.

4 January 2023 and later
Ana Knipp (Walshe) is formally reported missing by her employer, real estate company Tishman Speyer after she fails to show up for work in Washington DC.   

The Walshe’s are known to now have a residence in the District, in addition to their Cohasset residence.

4 -5 January 2023
Shortly after Ana Knipp (Walshe) is reported missing, law enforcement question Brian Walshe regarding his wife's movements prior to her disappearance, and his movements after her disappearance. 

When interviewed by the police, Walshe claimed that his wife, who regularly commuted between Massachusetts and Washington, had been  heading out early on January 1, 2023, to take a flight into Washington, D.C.

According to the later-filed charging document, Brian Walshe told law enforcement investigators that he last saw his wife at their home in Cohasset early on January 1 when she had briefly woken him up to kiss him goodbye before she ordered a vehicle from a rideshare service to pick her up to bring her to Boston's Logan Airport.

Walshe also told officers that on the same day he had driven to the house of his mother in Swampscott, a 40-mile drive from Cohasset, but didn’t take his phone and “got lost,” making the trip take longer.  That same day he stated he visited Whole Foods and CVS in Swampscott to run errands for his mother. 

Knowing that his home confinement only allowed him out of the house during school drop-off and pick-up times to get his kids from school,  Walshe also informed law enforcement that on the morning of January 2nd, during the authorised morning release window for school drop off, he took one of the family's sons out for ice cream, on a day when school was closed. It is unclear where the other two children were at this time. 

5 January 2023
Cohasset police publicly announce that Ana Knipp (Walshe) is missing.  Police also do a preliminary search of the Walshe family home. 

6 January 2023
A fire breaks out and causes heavy damage to a resident located at 725 Jerusalem Road in Cohasset.  Ana Knipp (Walshe) bought this property for $800,000 in 2020 and sold it for $1.385 million in March 2022. 

Authorities later state that the fire was accidental and is not considered suspicious.

6-7 January 2023
Massachusetts State Police, trained in search and rescue, begin a comprehensive search for Ana Knipp (Walshe)'s whereabouts, canvassing the areas around her home in Cohasset, 20 miles southeast of Boston, utilising drones, dogs, and K-9 units.  

8 January 2023
Following up on the statements made during the interview, investigators find no record of Ana Knipp (Walshe) having taken an Uber or Lyft ride share or arriving at Logan Airport in Boston on January 1st as planned.  They also document that her cell phone pinged at the family's home address overnight on January 1st into the 2nd.

During the investigation, neither receipts, nor surveillance video, at Whole Foods or CVS corroborate Brian Walshe's reported visit to the two stores. Surveillance video footage does show, however, that Walshe visited a Home Depot Rockland on January 2 (a detail he withheld from officers).  There he bought $450 worth of cleaning supplies, including mops, a bucket and tarps.  During this trip he wore a surgical mask and gloves and paid in cash – visiting the store during his authorised time out of the house to pick up his kids from school in the afternoon, which was not open that day. 

As a result of the numerous discrepancies identified to the statements made by Brian Walshe, investigators request and obtain authorisation to further search the family home on January 8, 2023. 

In the home's basement, officers from crime scene services find both blood and a damaged, bloody knife.  They also find search queries on Brian Walshe’s internet records which include “how to dispose of a 115-pound woman’s body” and how to dismember a body. 

Brian Walshe is taken into custody and charged with misleading a police investigation. 

9 January 2023
Brian Walshe, is arraigned in Quincy District Court on a charge of misleading investigators who are searching for Ana Knipp (Walshe).  In reviewing the criminal affidavit Prosecutor Lynn Beland discussed the inconsistencies found in Brian Walshe's statements regarding his movements on the days of Sunday, January 1, 2023, and Monday, January 2, 2023.

A plea of not guilty is entered on Brian Walshe’s behalf by his counsel, Tracy Miner and with the Court ordering a $500,000 cash bail.  

Today, officers collected trash bags with blood, a hatchet, a hacksaw, a rug and used cleaning supplies, at a waste transfer facility in Peabody, about an hour from the family's home Cohasset home.  No information from police has been released as to if this evidence provides more information on what happened to 37 year old Knipp (Walshe).

Brian Walshe remains in custody after he fails to meet the $500,000 bail requirement set by the judge.  His next hearing is scheduled for February 9, 2023.  

The couple's three boys, ages 2, 4 and 6, are in state custody at the present time. 


September 3, 2022

Restitution: A timeline of one black stone stela of Durga


The Supreme shakti, Maa Durga, an incarnation of Goddess Parvati, the daughter of Himavan, the lord of the mountains. She is the mother-goddess -- Shakti -- the power that runs the universe and is worshiped with utmost devotion in Hindu religion.  According to legend, Durga was created for the slaying of the demon Mahisasura by Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and the lesser gods, who were otherwise powerless to overcome him. Embodying their collective energy (shakti), she is both derivative from the male divinities and the manifested representation of their power and fought Mahishasura over a period of fifteen days during which he kept changing his shape to become different animals and misled her.


She is perhaps the most important goddess of the Hindus, often depicted triumphantly as the destroyer of evil – with her ten mighty arms carrying lethal weapons. Through all her forms, she encompasses the essence of salvation and sacrifice so it is fitting to try and outline here the passage of one venerated sculpture that has recently gone home thanks to the work of the New York District Attorney's Office in Manhattan and their Antiquities trafficking unit. 


On/around 1960s
A 14th century black stone stela of Durga, an object of reverence and worship, venerated in a shrine in the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal is stolen.


The stolen stela features the story of the Goddess Durga's battle with the asura Mahishasura who roamed the universe destroying everything that blocked his way framed within an aureole with beaded rim and flaming border. At the center Durga stands with one leg resting on the tigerish Dawon, offered by gods to serve as a her mount. She is sculpted with her many arms radiating around her holding a conch, a discus, a lotus, a sword, a flame, and her trishula, a trident used to strike down Mahishasura as he transforms into a buffalo. 

Here is a simplified overview of her journey following her plunder in Nepal, through the hands of corrupt dealers and a very wealthy collector in the United States.   The hard and attentive work of law enforcement agents, public prosecutors, trafficking analysts and anti-trafficking advocates combined successfully brought this endangered cultural and religious sculpture back home to the people of Nepal. 

Established Chronology

After its theft in the 1960s and by 1969
The 14th century black stone stele of Durga from Nepal surfaces in New York with numerous Nepali statues handled by "dealer and trafficker Doris Wiener during the 1960s" before being sold to Asian art collector and longtime partner at Wall Street investment house of Lehman Brothers, Paul E. Manheim, who in turn donates and loans many artworks to the Hofstra University Museum of Art in Hempstead, New York in Long Island.  

For two decades Manheim was a fundamental contributors and advisors of loans and donations to various other museums including the Brooklyn Museum, the Fralin Museum of Art at the University of Virginia, the Hood Museum, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, the Smithsonian, and the Snite Museum of Art at the University of Notre Dame.  He also advised Robert Lehman on his own multi-million dollar collection which is now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  

20-21 September 1985
Sotheby's hosts its "Indian, Tibetan, Nepalese, Thai, Khmer and Javanese Art, Including Indian Miniatures"sale in New York. 

A rather hefty with 710 lots, the property included pieces with Paul Manheim, Robert Ellsworth, George Bickford, the Hagop Kevorkian Fund, and the late Mr. Robert Payne.  50 sculptures were consigned by Paul E. Manheim. 

16 September 2009
Christie's New York offers over 200 selected works in the sale of Indian and Southeast Asian Art, including exceptional bronzes, stone sculptures and Indian miniatures. This auction too includes a selection from the collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul E. Manheim, as well as various other private collections.

13 September 2011

The listing states that the artefact was on loan to the Hofstra University Museum of Art, New York since 1969 and lists its provenance as: 

Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul E. Manheim, New York, on loan to Hofstra University Museum of Art, New York, since 1969

The artwork sells for USD 6,250.

12 September 2012

The listing states that the artefact was once on loan to the Hofstra University Museum of Art, New York from 1969-2010.

Its provenance, like with the September 2011sale, is listed as: 

Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul E. Manheim, before 1969.

The artwork sells for USD 16,250.

23 March 2022
The 14th century black stone stele of Durga from Nepal is scheduled for auction at Christie's for a third time, listed as coming from a distinguished Chicago collection and estimated to sell for 12,000 - 18,000 USD.   The stela is withdrawn in advance of the sale.

6 June 2022
Based on an investigation conducted by Assistant District Attorney Bradley Barbour, Investigative Analyst Daniel Healey, Hilary Chassé, and Apsara Iyer; and Special Agent Igor Gamza of Homeland Security Investigations, under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos, Chief of the Antiquities Trafficking Unit and Senior Trial Counsel, with investigative support by Dr. Erin Thompson, the black stone stele of Durga from Nepal is formally seized. Its seizure was made possible by the evidence from the Manhattan Office’s investigation into Nancy Weiner, the daughter of Doris Weiner, who was convicted in September 2021 for her role in trafficking and selling millions of dollars’ worth of stolen antiquities in New York County.

24 August 2022
The New York District Attorney's Office in Manhattan returns of the 14th century black stone stele of Durga to the people of Nepal.  In a formal handover ceremony held at the Manhattan District Attorney's office, acting Consul General Vishnu Gautam received the black stone stele of Durga from Nepal from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg Jr.


In closing, and as ARCA has said (repeatedly) in the past, buying and selling ancient art requires a prudent purchaser, one willing to research the provenience (country of origin) and provenance (history of ownership) of an object they intend to own, and to evaluate the available information in the context of the current legal framework.  

When details of an object's past are omitted, by the seller, by an antiquities dealer or by an auction house, either intentionally or accidentally, and/or when a buyer knowingly turns a blind eye, each are complicit in facilitating the illicit market and the destruction of cultural heritage.  In the 21st century churning trafficked antiquities through the legitimate marketplaces, buying, selling, and donating,  intentionally mislabeled pretty things while still conveniently clinging to the negligent “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach is inexcusable. 

May 26, 2021

Theft to Restitution: a timeline of two 9th and 10th century architectural lintels returning to the Thai people after 50 long years

Tatum King, Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations with Mungkorn Pratoomkaew, Consul-General of Thailand

While everyone is celebrating the long-overdue restitution to Thailand of the two stolen Khmer lintels, ARCA thought a bit of context might add some additional points to ponder when taking in the carefully-worded, announcements of cultural diplomacy and restitution.

Starting with this work in progress chronology:

25 October 1926
During the reign of King Rama VII, the first law on the export of antiques and objects of art in the country of Siam comes into force. 

The preamble to this law states that in advanced countries the government has the responsibility to conserve antiques and objects of art for the benefit and education of the people. 

This law defined terms for antiques and objects of art, as follows:

Antique, referred to any ancient moveable article, whether originating in Siam or elsewhere, which has value for knowledge or for studying the chronicles and archaeology.

Object of Art referred to a rare article created by craftsmen of special skill.

The Siam Act banned the export of antiques and objects of art without permission from the Royal Institute, and imposed penalties of imprisonment of up to three months, or a fine up to 3,000 baht, or both to violaters.  The Act also set out procedures for applying for permission to export, including presenting the article for inspection, and authorising the search of vehicles, and empowering the court to seize suspect objects without compensation.

23-24 June 1932
A bloodless coup d'état takes place in Siam in a rebellion led by Pridi Phanomyong and Colonel Plaek Phibunsongkhram (Pibul Sonngram) against King Prajadhipok's government.  This event transforms the country's absolute monarchy into a new constitutional monarchy.

30 June 1932 - 20 June 1933 
Phraya Manopakorn serves briefly as prime minister until he is deposed in a subsequent military coup. 

3 April 1933
King Rama VII suspends the constitution and establishes a Council of State.

20-21 June 1933
Three months later, Colonel Phraya Phahon Phonphayuhasena leads a successful rebellion against the Council of State and is appointed as Prime Minister.

1934 written, 1935 comes into force
The country of Siam enacts its first somewhat comprehensive Act on Ancient Monuments, Objects of Art, Antiques and National Museums, which will come into force in 1935.

This act introduces new definitions of antique, ancient monument, object of art, and museum and commands the director-general of the FAD to draw up a registry of ancient monuments, including Buddhist wat (temples) and other religious buildings, both those that have existing owners and those that are ownerless. The heritage act further requires that the director-general has to inform owners in writing of the requirements for registration and if the owner objects to said registration, the matter is to be taken up and adjudicated by a minister. 

Once a monument was entered on the register, it could not be transferred, repaired, modified, altered, or destroyed without written permission from the director-general, and then within conditions imposed by the director-general.  The Act further prohibited the removal of property from Siam that is culturally and/or historically significant except under limited circumstances. 

2 March 1935
King Rama VII abdicates in favour of his nephew, Prince Ananda Mahidol.

24 June 1939
The country of Siam, called Mueang Thai by its citizens, is officially renamed Thailand according to the decision of Field Marshal PlaekPhibunsongkhram, the Prime Minister of Thailand during the Pacific War.

1943
An amending heritage Act is passed by Thailand which removes the requirement for the director-general to gain approval from the minister for the movement of objects between national museums, for disbursements from the central fund, and for the payment of rewards. 

1946 to 1948
Thailand is renamed Siam again for a brief period of two years, after which it again reverted to "Thailand".

1958
The Society for Asian Art is incorporated as an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded by a group of individuals dedicated to winning Chicago industrialist, Avery Brundage's art collection for the city of San Francisco.

Among the early organizers active in courting Brundage in hopes that he will donate his extensive art collection to San Francisco are Elizabeth Hay Bechtel, Jane Smyth Brown, Katharine Caldwell, Dorothy Erskine, Gwin Follis, Martha Gerbode, Edwin Grabhorn, Alice Kent, Kitty and Charles Page, Marjorie Bissinger Seller, Mrs. Ferdinand Smith, Wallace B. Smith, Marjorie Stern, and Joe Yuey.  

1959
After considering a number of other major cities, including Chicago, the donor's hometown,  Avery Brundage agrees to donate 7,700 Asian artworks to the city of San Francisco on the condition that the California city builds a museum to house the artefacts and agrees to details outlined in the draft contractual agreement.   Once executed, Brundage's donation ultimately forms the primary core of the collection eventually held by the proposed San Francisco museum.


1960-1961
Black and white photo documentation from a site survey by Manit Wallipodom conducted sometime between 1960 and 1961 shows that a lintel, dating from 1000-1080 CE depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld, remains in situ at Prasat Nong Hong, a Khmer sanctuary in Buriram Province, Thailand which dates to the 16th Buddhist century, and is comprised of three brick pagodas built on the same laterite base and surrounded by a laterite wall with a moat.

1961
The 1961 Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums, B.E. 2504 comes into force in Thailand deeming cultural objects such as temple lintels, state property.  This law specifically forbids the unlicensed export of archaeological artefacts from registered archaeological sites.

An amendment of Clause 24 extends coverage to, “Antiques or objects of art buried in, concealed or abandoned within the Kingdom or the Exclusive Economic Zone,” where the Exclusive Economic Zone includes the territorial waters of Thailand.

Date Unknown, possibly on/around 2508 Thai (1965) 
The architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld, spanning a doorway at Prasat Nong Hong in Buriram Province is looted.

Date Unknown
The architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld, which once spanned a doorway at Prasat Nong Hong in Buriram Province is illegally exported out of Thailand without the benefit of an export license.

1966
The lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld, from Prasat Nong Hong in Buriram Province is purchased by Avery Brundage in London, UK.  In the Verified Complaint for Civil Forfeiture In Rem, filed in the US Courts in the Northern District of California - San Francisco Division, the name of this auction house/gallery is not revealed and is cited simply as "Gallery 1."

Subsequent to its purchase in the UK, the architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong in Buriram Province is imported into the United States in violation of Thai law, and as such constitutes stolen, smuggled, and/or clandestinely imported or introduced merchandise pursuant to Title 19, United States Code, Section 1595a(c)(1)(A).

August 1966
Scholar Michael Sullivan estimates that the Avery Brundage's private collection includes at least 5,000 objects, of which three-fifths are Chinese, 500 are Japanese, 300 are Korean, and the remaining being from the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia.  

Later in 1966
After its import, the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong also joins the promised collection to be gifted by Avery Brundage to the future Asian Art Museum of San Francisco.

"With respect to the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong, the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco had several letters documenting exchanges between Brundage and representatives of "Gallery 1" concerning the purchase of art.  Among other things, one of the representatives of "Gallery 1" and Brundage exchanged letters concerning the potential that at least one lintel that Brundage had purchased had been stolen from Thailand and that another artefact had been taken out of Thailand illegally. 

These records also included archaeological surveys from Thailand, indicating that the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld had been removed from Prasat Nong Hong temple. These communications concretise that the museum's donor was at least peripherally aware that at least a portion of his collection had been illegally exported from Thailand and that the museum itself had records that concretised the suspect nature of the artefact. 

1967
Photo documentation from a survey done by M. C. Subhadradis Diskul shows that a lintel, depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland, dating from 975-1025 CE, remains in situ at Prasat Khao Lon, a brick temple in Khmer architectural style, built approximately in the early 11th century, located in Charoensuk Village, Taprach sub-district, Tapraya district, Sakaeo province.

Date Unknown
The architectural lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland spanning a doorway at Prasat Khao Lon in Sakaeo province is looted.

Date Unknown
The architectural lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland, which once spanned a doorway at Prasat Khao Lon in Sakaeo province, is illegally exported out of Thailand without the benefit of an export license.

Between 1968 and 1969
Negotiations are underway with Avery Brundage regarding the city of San Francisco receiving the second part of his collection.   Talks are started at the end of John Francis "Jack" Shelley's tenure as the city's mayor and continue through Mayor-elect Joseph L. Alioto who began the first of his two terms of office in 1968. 

In furtherance of this goal, Mayor Alioto and the Board of Supervisors draft a municipal ordinance that will formally establish the museum, then called the Center for Asian Art and Culture.  This independent municipal entity is to be governed by the Asian Art Commission. In addition, the Asian Art Museum Foundation is created to function as the institution's principal fundraiser. 

Once registered, the new museum is initially opened as a wing of the  M. H. de Young Memorial Museum in Golden Gate Park.

1968
The lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland is purchased by the Asian Art Museum from a Paris gallery with the advice of Avery Brundage.

Subsequent to its purchase the architectural lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland is imported into the United States in violation of Thai Law, and constitutes stolen, smuggled, and/or clandestinely imported or introduced merchandise pursuant to Title 19, United States Code, Section 1595a(c)(1)(A).

1968
The lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland is accessioned into the collection of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. 

According to the Verified Complaint for Civil Forfeiture In Rem, filed in the Northern District of California - San Francisco Division, letters between Avery Brundage and representatives of an again unnamed gallery, cited simply as "Gallery 2" concerning the lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland indicate that a Thai lintel in Brundage's possession has been reported as stolen by the Thai government and the Thai government had asked Avery Brundage to return said lintel. Avery Brundage subsequently seeks the advice of a representative of "Gallery 2" regarding the situation. 

The records included a copy of an article published in the Bangkok Post which describes the lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland as being present in the United States and indicated that, according to the leader of a Thai archaeological conservation group, Thai officials want to recover the lintel as it had been improperly looted from Thailand. 

1973 
The Center for Asian Art and Culture is rebranded as the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco

June 1973
Avery Brundage marries Princess Mariann Charlotte Katharina Stefanie von Reuss, daughter of Heinrich XXXVII, Prince of Reuss-Köstritz.  She is 37 years old.  He is 85. 

8 May 1975
Avery Brundage dies. 

3 March 1977
According to the Royal Gazette no 52, The Fine Art Department announces that Prasat Nong Hong has been listed as a national historic site.

1987
San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein proposes a plan to revitalize Civic Center which includes relocating the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, which has outgrown its Golden Gate Park location, to the stately beaux-arts library building designed in 1917 by architect George Kelham.

1988
San Francisco’s Main Library is slated to move to a new facility and the city begins to redesign the 1917 library facilities into its new state-of-the-art home for the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco collection. 

16 July 1989
According to the Royal Gazette no 106, chapter 112, The Fine Art Department announced that Prasat Khao Lon has also been listed as a national historic site.

2003
Renovations orchestrated by Italian architect Gae Aulenti are complete on the former San Francisco library and the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco moves into its newly designed 163,000 square-foot museum space located at Civic Center Plaza.  It is now the largest institution of exclusively Asian arts in the United States.

By 2010
Of the approximate18,000 objects held by the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, approximately 40% are derived from donations made by the museum's founding collector Avery Brundage.


Late July 2012
Activists with the Asians Art Museum's Samurai Blog create edible tortilla art which features a graphic representation of Avery Brundage as a severed Buddha head.  They distribute these food treats to museum-goers at the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco along with a highly critical flyer about the founding donor's collecting ethics surrounding his acquisitions and his subsequent donations to the museum. 


At this point, the San Francisco museum's administration should have no doubt, that not just art historians, but members of the local Asian community in San Francisco have begun to have concerns regarding the acquisition practices of the museum's founding donor as well as the ethical responsibility of the museum to address the city taxpayers' concerns. 



2 August 2016
The Facebook Group สำนึก ๓๐๐ องค์ publishes its own concerns regarding Avery Brundage's acquisitions.  Activists post photos of the architectural lintel depicting  Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong on their group's Facebook page which is dedicated to identifying looted Thai heritage. The series of photos depict the temple, with the lintel in situ prior to its theft.  The social media post further records that the artefact is on display at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco.  

NB, This Civil Society Organization will go on to raise awareness and identify a series of suspect Thai sculptures and architectural artefacts in various museums around the globe.

August 2016
A Peace Corps member based in Thailand emails the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco imploring the museum to return the lintel depicting  Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong to the local community. 

on/around 24 September 2016
The Consul General of the Royal Thai Consulate General in Los Angeles, California visits the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco and observes both looted lintels on prominent display in the museum. 

Subsequently, the Royal Thai Consulate General speaks with the lead curator of the museum and expresses his desire for these two artefacts to be returned to their country of origin. 

The museum, however, made no further communication with the consul general or any Thai official until nudged into action by the formal US federal investigation. 

31 May 2017
The Thai Minister of Culture meets with the Chargé d'affaires at the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand along with a Special Agent from Homeland Security Investigations.  During this meeting, the Thai Minister informs the Chargé that Thai officials had reviewed the evidence regarding the architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld illegally removed from Prasat Nong Hong and the lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland, illegally removed from Prasat Khao Lon, both of which are held at the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco.  After their review, the Thai authorities conclude that the artefacts have been illegally exported from the country while both architectural elements were protected under the laws in place in Siam/Thailand since 1935. 

In making their case for the objects' return, the Fine Arts Department of Thailand had commissioned two archaeological surveys outlining the provenance of the lintels. One survey placed the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld at the Prasat Nong Hong Temple in Non Din Daeng District, Buriram Province, Thailand in place at least until, at least up until 1959. 

Subsequent archaeological photos record the lintel in situ until the survey season of 1960/61. 

The second archaeological survey placed the lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland at the Prasat Khao Lon Temple, Ta Phraya District, Sa Kaeo Province where the object was photographed in situ as late as 1967.

13 June 2017
Thailand forms a restitution committee with the established mission of reclaiming Thailand’s plundered historical artefacts from foreign nations. 

2017
The US Government informally brings the issue of the plundered architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld illegally removed from Prasat Nong Hong and the plundered lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland to the attention of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco informing them of the rights of the Thai government as a potential claimant to the artefacts.  Subsequent to this meeting, both artefacts are removed from public view but no statements are forthcoming from the museum's management regarding any decision to voluntary restitute the stolen artefacts.

November 2017
The US Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) sends Thailand photos of 69 ancient artefacts for examination and verification as possibly suspect as having been illegally brought into the US.

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Thailand,  HSI sent the photos to the Thai Consulate in Los Angeles and requested the Thai authorities to examine and verify if they were from Thailand.

October/November 2018 
Following a one-year investigation by a ministerial committee, assisted by experts from the National Museum in Bangkok, the Kingdom of Thailand’s culture minister announces the Thai government’s demand for the return of 23 antiquities, including the two lintels at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, as well as other objects in the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art all parts of collections since the late 1960s.

January 2020
Another two years go by and the US. attorney's office in the Northern District of California sends the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco a list of national archaeology sites that were appended to Thailand’s 1935 law.   Listed among the sites are the two temples where the two contested lintels in the museum's collection come from.

June 2020
Facing increasing criticism surrounding Avery Brundage's well-documented antisemitic, racist, and sexist views, pervasive throughout his career, as well as questions around restitution, Dr. Jay Xu, director of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, advises the press that the museum plans to eventually move Avery Brundage's commemorative bronze bust, created by artist Jean Sprenger and on display in the museum's lobby, to “a discreet space” where the public can learn about museum's donor and “where the core of our collection came from.” 

Xu also indicates that the museum will hold public programs to critically examine Brundage and his legacy, “as well as questions around provenance and restitution.”

July 2020
The Asian Art Museum of San Francisco is formally notified that the U.S. attorney’s office is planning civil litigation to ensure the return of the plundered architectural lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld illegally removed from Prasat Nong Hong and the plundered lintel depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland from Prasat Khao Lon.


6 July 2020
The Asian Art Museum of San Francisco places a white box over Avery Brundage's commemorative bronze bust.

on/around 13 July 2020

August 2020
The Bangkok Post reports that according to the Thai Department of Fine Arts (DFA), the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong and the lintel, depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland from Prasat Khao Lon in the collection of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco are predicted to be returned to Thailand in March 2021.

24 August 2020
The Thai Public Broadcasting Service  (องค์การกระจายเสียงและแพร่ภาพสาธารณะแห่งประเทศไทย produces a documentary (in Thai) outlining the facts surrounding the stories of the contested lintels removed from Thailand.


22 September 2020
The Asian Art Museum of San Francisco releases a statement saying that the museum's board is noted to have begun the deaccession process for the lintel depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong and the lintel, depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland from Prasat Khao Lon.  Note that this decision only seems to have moved forward four years after attention was drawn to their suspect status.


In its press release, the museum further stated:
"The museum’s study found no evidence that these lintels were removed from their sites contrary to the laws of Thailand, but the museum was also unable to locate copies of the export documents that the laws of that time required. With this information in hand, the museum felt it was appropriate to begin the process of deaccessioning the artworks from the collection and to move forward with returning them to the Thai authorities."

8 October 2020
Ahead of the upcoming civil filing, lawyers from the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco sends a letter to the U.S. attorney’s office, indicating the museum's surprise over the government's plan for legal action and that the museum had previously stated that it “would prefer to return the lintels without litigation.”  

In filing the complaint with the court, under Title 19, United States Code, Section 1595a(c)(1)(A) and Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1345 and 1355 it is believed that the lintels constitute merchandise that has been introduced into the United States contrary to law, as the property was stolen, smuggled, and/or clandestinely imported or introduced into the United States. 

30 October 2020 
Speaking with regards to the formal complaint in an Art Newspaper article, Robert Mintz, deputy director for art and programs at the San Francisco Asian Art Museum,  contends that the process for repatriating both lintels was already underway prior to the civil complaint.  Mintz tells the newspaper that “Deaccessioning requires two votes, separated by six months’ time,” indicating that this was the reason for the museum's apparently sluggish March 2021 date for potential restitution.   

Mintz doesn't seem to recollect that the museum was first informally notified by the US authorities of the problems with these Thai artefacts in 2017, and after having been queried by the Royal Thai Consulate General in 2016. Time enough to have allowed the board to meet a minimum of six times to address the deaccession of these problematic pieces prior to the filing of the US Federal Complaint.

10 February 2021
The United States and the City and County of San Francisco enter into a settlement agreement signed by U.S. District Court Magistrate Donna M. Ryu, in which San Francisco consents to the forfeiture to the United States of the Lintel with Yama, the deity of the underworld, 1000-1080 (Lintel 1) and the Lintel, 975-1025. Northeastern Thailand, Khao Lon Temple, Sa Kaeo province (Lintel 2).

Upon the completion of the San Francisco Asian Art Museum’s deaccessioning process for the Thai lentils in March 2021, their repatriation to Thailand should move forward.

The Thai lintels, according to the agreement, will be returned to Thailand through the U.S. Department of Justice’s victim remission program. Upon their return, the lintels will be placed on exhibition for the religious and cultural appreciation of the people of Thailand.   


25 May 2021
The Thai lintels depicting Yama, the deity of the underworld from Prasat Nong Hong and the lintel, depicting a deity or devata sitting over a Kala face that is disgorging garland from Prasat Khao Lon are handed over to Thai authorities in Los Angeles during a formal handover ceremony attend by Mungkorn Pratoomkaew,  Consul-General of Thailand and carried out by Tatum King, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Francisco.

In an interview with the Star Tribune David Keller, the Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent who oversaw this case over the last four years said that officials believe that European dealers illegally exported the lintels out of Thailand.

28 May 2021 (Thai 2564)
The two Thai lintels are expected to fly back home via Korean Air and to arrive at Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok, Thailand on Friday evening local time.  Once back on Thai soil, they will be received by officials from the Fine Arts Department and then put on public display at the National Museum until July.