ABC Radio Australia and Other News Reports on Cambodian Statue's Repatriation

Credit: Ante Vecik

Last week's agreement between the U.S. government and Sotheby's auction house to repatriate a 10th century sandstone sculpture continues to be widely publicized.

Chasing Aphrodite has a recent informative report, which supplies commentary by cultural property experts Tess Davis and Simon MacKenzie. The Phnom Phen Post, meanwhile, provides an update on repatriation plans for the statue. And readers should take note of Tom Mashberg's and Ralph Blumenthal's original news breaking article in The New York Times.

CHL provided commentary on the federal district court case to ABC Radio Australia yesterday. Listen to the broadcast by ABC's Liam Cochrane by clicking here: Sotherby's agrees to return 10th century statue to Cambodia | Asia Pacific | ABC Radio Australia

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

UPDATED: Cambodian Statue Forfeiture Agreement: Prosecutors Succeed, Sotheby's Gains Concessions. What's Next?

After a bitter court battle flared to new heights in September, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Sotheby's today proposed an agreement to repatriate a 10th century Duryodhana statue to Cambodia.

If today's proposal is signed off by district court Judge George Daniels, it marks the end to a prolonged legal fight that began in 2012.

Prosecutors have consistently maintained that the sculpture was stolen from the Prasat Chen temple at Koh Ker. In fact, the statue's feet remain in Cambodia. They asserted in court papers that it had been looted from Prasat Chen during the 1960s and 1970s and that a private collector in Belgium purchased the Duryodhana from an auction house in the United Kingdom in 1975. They claimed that the statue was the property of Cambodia since at least 1900.  They also alleged that Sotheby’s imported the Duryodhana into the United States in April 2010 and made arrangements to sell the statue in 2011, despite knowing that it was stolen from Koh Ker.

By contrast, Sotheby's and Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suas, the claimants, have disputed the government’s assertions. They have maintained in pleadings that Ms. Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa’s husband bought the Cambodian statue in 1975 in London in good faith and that they did not know the statue may have been stolen. They have also contended that colonial laws from 1900 and 1925 claiming to vest ownership of the statue in Cambodia remain ambiguous.

The proposed Stipulation and Order of Settlement of December 12 wipes away both sides’ arguments and awards the parties something each wants.

Under the proposed order, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and Asset Forfeiture Chief Sharon Cohen Levin will successfully seize and forfeit the statue in order to return it to the Cambodian people. Sotheby's and Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suas, meanwhile, will end the protracted litigation and receive legal guarantees.

The agreement gives federal prosecutors their victory by declaring “that the Statue is forfeitable to the United States as … property brought into the United States contrary to law.” It also gives the claimants protective legal concessions, memorialized in the proposed Stipulation and Order this way:

… Sotheby's and Ms. Ruspoli maintain that at all relevant times Ms.. Ruspoli had clear legal title to the Statue and deny ever knowing or believing that the Statue belonged to the Kingdom of Cambodia, or providing anyone any provenance information about the Statue known or believed to be inaccurate;  

… Sotheby's and Ms. Ruspoli have a good faith disagreement with the United States regarding whether the Kingdom of Cambodia owned the Statue;  

… the United States does not contend that Sotheby's (or any of its lawyers, executives, officers, or employees) or Ms. Ruspoli knew or believed that the Statue was owned by .the Kingdom of Cambodia or knowingly provided false or misleading provenance information about the Statue;

Legal observers of the case, docketed as United States Of America v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture, Currently Located at Sotheby's In New York, New York, will no doubt take notice that the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan is willing to aggressively tackle cultural property repatriation cases, even if its prosecutors must engage in litigation with one of the world’s largest auction houses.

Moreover, given today’s proposed resolution by the parties, lawyers may ponder whether similar results might be reached through negotiations, or perhaps even mediation, in future cultural property contests. And that question may be answered sooner than expected in the case of the Norton Simon Museum, which displays the companion statue of the Duryodhana.

UPDATE: Where earlier this year Hon. George Daniels denied Sotheby's motion to dismiss, the NY federal judge has now approved the parties' Stipulation and Order of Settlement. That order, dated December 12 and electronically filed on December 13, may be viewed here.

Photo credit: intuitives

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited.  CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

U.S. v. Cambodian Sculpture Case Heats Up: Prosecutors Accuse Sotheby's of Stalling the Discovery Process and False Information; Sotheby's Accuses the Government of Burdensome Conduct and Invented Legal Theories

A letter filed by prosecutors before today's scheduled pre-trial conference in the case of United States of America v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture Currently Located at Sotheby's criticizes Sotheby's for trying to halt the discovery process. Lawyers for the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan submitted the letter to the court on Wednesday. It restates more forcefully arguments made in May, saying

Both before and after this action, Claimants have sought at every turn to prevent the Government from unearthing the facts about the theft and sale of the Duryodhana. At every stage of this proceeding they have invented a new reason why going forward with discovery would be inappropriate. Discovery has already been halted for nearly a year while they fought first the motion to dismiss, and then their request for a hearing on the Cambodian law. Now they seek to stay discovery yet again. The Court should not permit them to do so.

Meanwhile, Sotheby's and Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa, the claimants in the government's forfeiture case, filed a Motion for Judgment in federal district court on September 9. They argue that the Cambodian government did not believe that its national ownership laws gave it ownership to the sculpture; that the U.S. State Department "had invented a theory of Cambodian ownership, which the government then asked Cambodia to confirm;" that the government interfered with a potential resolution to the case; and that the government's request for discovery is "broad and burdensome."

In the claimants' memorandum of law, Sotheby's introduces Professor Alexandre Deroche to the court, saying that "he provides the expert evidence the Court sought, and it establishes that the Government’s case is wrong. Professor Deroche is an expert in the very area of law on which the Government based its case: French colonial property law in Indochina."

Sotheby's sharply criticizes the government for its latest attempt to push for discovery, saying "The Government served deposition notices on Wednesday, September 4, 2013. Several of the noticed witnesses are overseas. Three are members of Sotheby's legal and compliance departments, presumably in an effort to discover whether Sotheby's somehow intuited a theory of Cambodian ownership based on defunct French colonial decrees, even though the newly produced documents show the theory was invented by the State Department and was previously unknown even to the Cambodian government itself."

Federal prosecutors dispute the claimants' arguments.

"As for the notion that the Government was the obstacle to an amicable resolution here, the Government deferred bringing any action in this matter for more than a year after learning of Sotheby's attempted sale of stolen property to allow Cambodia and Claimants to attempt to resolve the matter without litigation," the prosecutors counter. "That attempt failed not due to the Government’s intervention, but because Claimants rejected the offer of a third party to buy the Duryodhana for $1 million and return it to Cambodia."

Arguing against a halt of the discovery process, the federal lawyers rail against Sotheby's conduct. They explain that the auction house Spink and Sons sold the Duryodhana in 1975, and that a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent was informed that Christie's--owner of Spink after 1975--currently had the records. But the prosecutors contend that Sotheby's "discouraged [the HSI agent] from contacting Christie's, assuring [the HSI agent] that Sotheby’s had 'identified two individuals who presently have no financial interest in the property and who personally saw the piece in London in the late 1960s.'" The prosecutors claim that this information "was simply false." They explain, "As shown by the Spink records ultimately obtained by the Government from Christie's, the Duryodhana was only stolen from Prasat Chen in 1972. Moreover, the sources with no financial interest 'presently' were in fact the original seller of the piece, who conspired with the looting network to steal it from Prasat Chen (the “Collector”), and Sotheby’s own retained art expert, who was herself was a longtime associate of the Collector."

Update September 13, 2013: Sotheby's submitted a letter to the court stating, "Any suggestion that Sotheby's provided information it knew to be inaccurate is demonstrably not true."

U.S. authorities seek forfeiture of the Duryodhana sculpture in order to repatriate it to Cambodia. They allege that the cultural object is from the Prasat Chen temple at Koh Ker and that it's feet remain in Cambodia. The U.S. government says that it cannot be auctioned by Sotheby's because it stolen property.

This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com