Hacker News Reader

Comment by Molitor5901 | Hacker News Reader

In this case the buyer of the print is out of his money, the hotel got the print back, the criminal apparently caught, but really should not the auction house be on the hook for the money? Unless it comes back via the criminal, it would have been the auction house's job to verify this was not stolen. Not always possible, I understand, but.. ?

View on HN

The theft of it wasn’t even noticed for months. It got sold some months before they realized it was stolen.

I can’t find the article, but the buyer had stated that Sotheby’s mostly reimbursed him. Maybe he was out shipping or VAT? It also said, the buyer, an Italian lawyer, technically could have kept it, but chose not to.

I wonder if the fact that he was a lawyer had a significant impact on the decision. It is my understanding that in some jurisdictions lawyers are held to high ethics standards. I could see the local bar association taking disciplinary actions had he chosen to keep a painting he knew was stolen.

He wanted a conversation piece and he got one!

If it were me, I would have made the exchange contingent on eventually getting the forgery in return once the case was closed.

Presumably it technically was “given” to the hotel.

>> it would have been the auction house's job to verify this was not stolen.

The auction house is a facilitator of a transaction between the parties. Unless they purchase the object from the seller first, they are not even a middle man. They are akin to ebay, a platform rather than a dealership. I'd bet that somewhere in the fine print is even a statement that any appraisals remain the opinion of the individual appraiser and are not the responsibility of the auction house.

A report in The Globe and Mail indicated that the buyer was re-imbursed for most of the purchase cost. So very likely Sotheby's insurance provider is ultimately on the hook.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-italian-who...

Yeah, that's a fishy claim. You could perhaps say it's technically true he currently holds title... until a court rules otherwise. Which is certainly would, unless Italy is doing something very unusual.

I expect that's the statement of a lawyer in CYA mode; at some point he goes from unknowing victim to knowingly holding stolen property, which can start to cause legal issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com