INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FORCULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION
News
Reposted from Inovonics
LOUISVILLE, Colo., September 17, 2019 – Inovonics, an industry leader in high-performance wireless sensor networks, announces the retirement of Dan Spark, Inovonics Northwest Regional Sales Manager, on October 1, 2019. Dan Spark has been an integral part of the Inovonics sales team for the last 22 years. His development and growth of northwestern regional sales pipeline fulfillment process, in addition to the creation of numerous sales presentations, are just a couple of the many contributions he will be remembered for. Eric Banghart, Manager of Global Sales at Inovonics, had the following to say: “Dan has been a hardworking and esteemed member of the Inovonics sales team. Although he’ll be greatly missed, we wish him well in his upcoming retirement”. Following his retirement, Dan plans to relax at home in Ogden, Utah, enjoy trips to Cuba, enroll in surf camp in Mexico, and of course to ski Snowbasin all winter long.
Although Dan is an important member of the team, Inovonics wants to assure current customers that they will continue to be in the best of hands moving forward. Customers will be contacted with their newly assigned Inovonics regional sales manager prior to October 1, 2019. We are confident that our team can and will effectively continue to serve our valued Inovonics customers in the Northwest territory. If you have any questions regarding this transition, please contact Eric Banghart, Manager of Global Sales, at ebanghart@inovonics.com or 303-209-7298. See Original Post
Reposted from Securitas Security Services, USA, Inc.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines civil unrest as an activity such as a demonstration, riot, or strike that disrupts a community and requires intervention to maintain public safety. During such events, employees and employers have a critical role and shared responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect themselves, their coworkers and organizations, and their properties.
Have a Plan
As with any potential emergency situation, it is best to have a plan of what you will do if something happens. By thinking ahead, you can save yourself valuable time in an emergency. All organizations should develop a workplace safety strategy and conduct practice drills. Make sure your workplace has a plan in place so that every employee knows what to do. A civil unrest preparedness plan can fit into your organization’s larger security plan that may already include plans for fire evacuation, severe weather, bomb threats, and other emergency events.
Depending on the situation, your workplace may need to be secured in case of civil unrest. Remember that your personal safety is the most important goal before securing the workplace. Know your role in your workplace safety plan for civil unrest. Always listen to the instructions of emergency personnel if applicable. Listen for instructions about whether your workplace is in “lockdown,” if you should move to shelter or shelter-in-place, or if you should evacuate the premises. Just as for fire safety, know the emergency exit routes out of the building and out of the area ahead of time. Know the locations of safe havens such as hospitals, public buildings, etc. Have a plan to account for all personnel and guests and set up pre-designated meeting points for yourself and your coworkers. Have a transportation plan for yourself in case you are separated from your car. If possible, always carry a small amount of cash on you. Employees should also consider their family’s emergency plan in tandem with their workplace security plan so they can ensure communication with their families.
If Civil Unrest Occurs
Emergency personnel, such as local, state and federal law enforcement, may not be available if civil unrest is occurring. Refer to your company’s security plan for guidance. Alert other employees and your supervisor. If you are responsible for securing your area, do so, and then follow your company’s plan of action, which may include emergency evacuation. Your safety is a priority so make sure you have taken all precautions to keep yourself safe. Make your way to your pre-designated meeting point, and if necessary, try to blend in while working your way towards a safe location. Do not draw attention to yourself and work your way out of the area.
Keep Calm and Act Quickly
As in any emergency, one of the keys to your safety is to remain calm. There may be a lot of confusion, and news and social media may give inaccurate or contradictory information. Remain observant and adaptable to the developing situation.
Be Prepared
Your workplace safety strategy and emergency plan should always be kept up to date and include communication with local, state and federal law enforcement. Your workplace should conduct regular safety drills and conduct both threat analyses and security audits regularly.
Make sure your workplace has an Emergency Plan and ensure everyone knows what they would do if confronted with a situation that involves civil unrest.
Be Informed
Property Conservation
For more information on this and other security related topics, visit the Securitas Safety Awareness Knowledge Center at: http://www.securitasinc.com/en/knowledge-center/security-and-safety-awareness-tip
Reposted from The Hill
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said on Sunday that mass shootings "absolutely are a homeland security threat" after seven people were killed and more than 20 wounded in West Texas one day earlier.
McAleenan told ABC's "This Week" that his office is monitoring the situation, saying "it's extraordinarily concerning to have that level, that length of an event, to have that many people injured and five killed at this point, it's devastating and, you know, 300 miles from El Paso, a region that's really felt the impact of mass attacks in recent weeks and we're very concerned and we'll be following up aggressively."
He added: "They absolutely are a homeland security threat. In our counterterrorism strategy and approach domestic terrorism has taken a frontline focus for us. Since April when I became acting secretary we set up a new office targeting violence and terrorism prevention, with an explicit focus on domestic terrorism including racially-motivated violent extremism, which we've seen too much of in the recent weeks and months."
Host Martha Raddatz also asked McAleenan if more resources should be devoted to fighting this form of domestic terrorism.
"That's a conversation we're having as an interagency team with the FBI, with the Office of Management and Budget, to see what the right resource level is going forward, to make sure we can continue our very strong focus on the international terrorism threat and prevention level we've achieved but also make sure we're balancing that out with effective efforts on domestic terrorism as well," McAleenan said.
Twenty-two people were also killed in a separate mass shooting last month at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas.
See Original Post
Reposted from Bothell-Kenmore Reporter
They’re most known for their appearances on PBS Television’s “Antiques Roadshow.” Russell Pritchard III and George Juno were experts on the show, giving bad and sometimes good news to people who brought their treasures and junk in for appraising.
But they used this reputation off-camera to gain the trust of unsuspecting owners of Civil War military-related artifacts. They defrauded people of their valuables by undervaluing their items, reselling them for higher prices and pocketing the profits. The scheme landed them in prison.
This was just one story shared by Lynne McKee, former manager of the FBI Art Theft Program, on Aug. 27. The Haynes’ Hall at McMenamins Anderson School in Bothell was filled to the brim and standing room only for those who wanted to hear McKee talk about her dealings in recovering stolen pieces. McKee coordinated the investigations into illicit trafficking and recovered more than $300 million in art and antiquities during her eight years as manager.
The talk was part of Pub Night Talks, a free monthly lecture series cosponsored by the University of Washington Bothell and McMenamins.
Based on McKee’s presentation, it’s easy to see that art theft comes in many shapes and forms. And the thieves of fine art are of all backgrounds.
Stéphane Breitwieser managed to steal 239 artworks from 172 museums around Europe, from 1995-2001. His most valuable stolen piece would fetch more than $6 million at auction.
He was also a waiter who lived with his mother.
Breitwieser and his girlfriend, in tandem, worked to take the artworks he was enamored with — that was until they got caught.
While Breitwieser was arrested, his girlfriend called his mother, alerting her that the police had detained the art thief. In response the mother began to destroy the fine works. Some of the art was recovered while some never was.
In the United States, it’s not typically waiters committing theft from museums, McKee said. Most museum theft in the country is not committed by hardened criminal, but rather internal people who take advantage of storage units where works are stored for years before being put on display.
McKee also spoke on the many fakes and forgeries she comes across. They’re often offered on the market as being “stolen from a museum in France,” McKee said. “It’s always the same story.”
Reposted from Buildings
Internet of Things (IoT)-enabled HVAC systems are more energy efficient, reliable and user-friendly for your occupants. But because of those cloud-enabled features, they’re also a target for hacking into.
Since it’s likely less protected, attackers might use any vulnerabilities in your HVAC system’s network to infiltrate your building’s larger network, therefore potentially affecting or disrupting physical operations. This hypothetical situation demonstrates how physical security and cybersecurity can overlap.
Many companies today still treat their physical security and cybersecurity departments as separate entities. But as more building systems become digitized—from HVAC to access controls—experts agree that it’s time to consider converging on a departmental level to keep up with the technical level.
“People have been talking about [converging departments] for at least 10 years—having one person responsible for the whole thing,” says Michael Gips, chief global knowledge officer for ASIS International. “The advantages there, they say, are cost savings; more efficiency having one department, one leader, one common mission; and you have cross-training, so physical security personnel is learning about cybersecurity and vice versa.”
Understanding the difference and what it means is important.
When experts say physical security, they are referring to protecting occupants, equipment, infrastructure, etc., from physical harm. This could include fires, theft or a physical attack such as an active shooter event.
Also referred to as logical security, cybersecurity refers to preventing unauthorized access to your building or company’s network and data.
Physical security and cybersecurity have long been treated as separate systems.
“It used to be years ago that corporate IT departments didn’t want security departments hogging bandwidth—like with alarms and [closed-circuit television] footage,” says Gips. “It would slow everything down. Now with cyber being so vast and storage being much cheaper, it’s not that big of a deal anymore.”
But what’s more addressed these days, Gips adds, is the convergence of security departments, processes and cultures.
“The decision-making process within an enterprise has moved away from the traditional facilities or real estate team to IT and the [chief security officer] position—they’re thinking about physical and logical security and combining those with a comprehensive strategy,” says James Segil, co-founder and president of Openpath, a mobile access control system.
Gips says there are many reasons why many companies today aren’t interested in converging their physical security and cybersecurity departments, including:
“We’ve found when [companies] do converge, there are far more positives than negatives,” Gips says. “It’s just getting over that hurdle.”
Matthew Bohne, vice president and chief product security officer at Honeywell, reiterates the idea that a departmental convergence revolves around changing the workplace culture.
“There is culture that we all need to drive, which is inclusivity versus exclusivity,” he says. “Over the years, [physical security and cybersecurity] have been independent of each other. You have to be open minded and drive that inclusive behavior to bring those communities together and share information.”
“The answer oftentimes is: Are you allowing good communication? Are you effectively sharing information between those two communities so that things happen correctly? Because there are good reasons why you have a physical team and why you have a cyber team. Sometimes there are challenges with saying, ‘Let’s make them all report to one person.’ That may not work in every case.”
Bohne recommends these steps when starting the process of convergence.
Does the physical security team have awareness of who the members of the cybersecurity team are, and vice versa? You might find key players don’t want to share information because they don’t know the other team well enough.
Have a kick-off meeting where the two teams are physically together. They might see they have similar credentials and be more willing to accept security confidence. This can form a sense of trust between the two.
After the initial kick-off meeting, make sure the two teams are meeting regularly to work through how they prefer to better communicate.
“What I’ve seen happen is that they may start off with an informal meeting, but then will leave it at that and never go back to having those interactions or conversations,” Bohne says. Keep teams accountable.
With an ever-evolving digital world, Bohne says companies have an obligation to help teams with training and education. Help physical security personnel better understand cybersecurity best practices and the digital components of your building. Or have cybersecurity personnel do rounds with a physical security team member to see a different perspective.
“You can get some really exceptional talent out of that,” Bohne says, adding: “That helps glue the communities much closer together.”
Imagine that one of your security guards is patrolling the corridors at night, and he or she sees a door open that shouldn’t be. And the doors are controlled digitally.
If the security guard is in tune with that digital access control system, then “if they see something unusual, they can act accordingly,” Bohne says.
Benefits of converging the two realms include streamlining processes for potential cost savings. Streamlined processes, as well as symbiotic relationships between physical security and cybersecurity leaders, can also cover any vulnerabilities that were there before convergence.
It can also lead to happier occupants. Building IoT devices and systems bring convenience, and knowing they’re safe and their data is protected brings peace of mind.
Convergence “improves the user experience, which I think is what we all want at the end of the day when we go to work,” Segil says.
As buildings become smarter and more digitized, it’s important that security personnel and procedures keep up with the technological changes.
“We need to understand that the world is changed,” Bohne says. “There is a changing workforce, which sometimes can make one group or another hesitant to grow this knowledge or expand into that area.”
People are key. A culture of inclusivity is vital to successfully converging your physical security and cybersecurity sectors, or to just foster more efficient communication between the two. Bohne describes it as a team sport.
Honeywell took that to heart as it joined the Global Cybersecurity Alliance, created by the International Society of Automation. The goal is to “build awareness, provide education, share best practices and accelerate the development and adoption of cybersecurity standards,” according to a press release.
At the Global Security Exchange 2019 conference and expo, Gips plans to share with attendees a survey conducted by ASIS International that polled 1,000 chief information security offices, chief security officers and business continuity professionals in the U.S., Europe and India.
The survey asked, among other questions, if their companies had converged, and if not, why not? If they had, what were the results?
Gips will reveal the survey results in more detail at the conference, but tells BUILDINGS that the data shows most companies aren’t converged—though many have worked together collaboratively but have not formally converged.
He adds that it depends on the building or company’s circumstances—the two sectors might be so different that it doesn’t make sense to converge. But effective communication can still bolster security measures and bring a holistic perspective to protecting a building and its occupants and data.
Reposted from Allied Universal
Clients often ask, how much is enough and how much is too much to spend when designing a security program?
My usual, tongue-in-cheek short answer is, depends on your tolerance for risk.
Without question there is always a pressure on reducing the cost of security spend. More and more frequently, enterprises are looking to technology to provide cost-saving solutions for risk mitigation. It is prudent to be cautious when implementing technology because the science is far from exact.
By the time you realize you’ve underspent it is often post incident.
Out Factoring Ourselves
In the span of just over a decade we have gone from the novelty of smart phones to smart houses to now depending on smarter than us virtual assistants named Alexa and Siri to make our lives easier. And, as of July 1, 2019, Florida joined the handful of states that allow self-driving cars on their roads. In the midst of this rapid, ever-evolving tech, we are still nowhere close to approaching the apex of the digital age.
As AI and adaptive processes streamline our busy lives and revolutionize every industry by enabling businesses to do more with less, it is also, at the same time, eliminating the need for a person to do it. Most of the tech solutions we encounter today fall under the category of the Internet of Things (IoT), but just around the corner is the “Internet of the Body and Mind.” The merging of human and machine is evidenced in recent announcements that 3D printing will soon print artificial hearts and, as Elon Musk hinted in April of this year, a brain-machine interface that hooks human brains to computers is “coming soon.”
No longer is it so far-fetched to wonder if by creating machines that can learn, are we making humans irrelevant? Competing with machines for jobs is more than pause-worthy. AI combined with machine learning and 5G will unlock data at warp speeds, generating analytics that will overwhelm humans, but not machines.
Balancing the Products
While technical solutions can certainly be less costly than employing people, most industries still prefer the thinking human over the well-oiled teaching-thinking machine. Considerations of compatibility, knowledge and skills necessary to help to optimize deployment of new technologies must be prioritized.
The ideal approach, in this middle stage (possibly golden age) of the digital evolution, especially for corporate security programs, is striking the right balance between technology and people. Understanding the limitations and strengths of each is key. For example, integrated systems help to reduce the delay between data collection, automate analysis and make recommendations that help humans make better decisions. This is technology that serves to improve productivity and enable security professionals to be more responsive and accurate in emergency situations. In another scenario, using mobile robots for monotonous patrols and leverage security personal for engagement and personal customer service delivery is a married solution that capitalizes on what each does best.
How Much Technology is Enough? How Much is too Much?
As these new technologies develop there arises a concurrent need for governance that must be consistently, even globally applied. If not humans, who will enforce that? Bill Gates posed an interesting perspective on the notion of robots taking over humans’ jobs: When we work, we pay taxes and generate revenue to support infrastructure and our governments. How will machines replace this revenue source?
At some point, we may reach the boundary where technology is too invasive and the pendulum will undoubtedly swing back and humans will resist machines. For now, the trick is in finding the equilibrium of people and technology.
Reposted from Toronto Life
The film adaptation of The Goldfinch, a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, releases in theatres on September 13. Anyone lucky enough to have been wrapped up in the odyssey of the book will be understandably jazzed: the epic tale follows the journey of Theo Decker, a 13-year-old boy who visited the Metropolitan Museum with his mother the day it was bombed. His mother was killed, and Theo abandoned the building with a painting of a tiny goldfinch. The tragic incident altered the course of his life and sent him on a winding path of guilt, grief, reinvention and, ultimately, redemption. It’s both a touching coming-of-age story and an enthralling drama.
The film was directed by BAFTA winner John Crawley (who also directed Brooklyn) and stars Ansel Elgort and Nicole Kidman. To celebrate the film’s opening across Canada this fall, and the fact that it will have its world premiere here in Toronto during TIFF, we thought we’d share a handful of nearly-as-riveting stories of real-life works of art that have gone missing.
Leonardo Da Vinci, Mona LisaIn 1911, Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia and his two helpers were hired to craft some glass casings for the Louvre. They hid in a closet overnight and strolled out the door with the Mona Lisa. The painting was found two years later, after Peruggia attempted to sell it to an art dealer in Florence. The suspicious dealer turned him in, though Peruggia claimed he was merely trying to return the painting to Italy, the land of its birth, and only served eight months in prison. The media attention from the search for the painting is part of what catapulted it to its iconic present-day status—before the theft, it wasn’t even the most famous painting in the museum. Visitors can still see the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, though probably only over the tops of many heads and iPhones.
Rembrandt Van Rijn, Landscape With CottagesAnother huge unsolved art heist, one of the largest in Canadian history, happened in 1972 at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. The scheme was like something from an Ocean’s movie: around midnight, thieves clad in ski masks and hoods crept onto the roof of the museum, cut a hole in a skylight and shimmied down a rope. They threatened the guards, tied them up and made off with about $2 million worth of art. The whole thing took about 30 minutes, and they managed to snag a Rembrandt drawing worth about $1 million. It has yet to be recovered, and the thieves were never caught.
Paul Cézanne, View of Auvers-sur-OiseWhoever stole this Cézanne had a flair for the dramatic: the painting was taken moments after the world rang in the new millennium in 2000. It all went down at Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum just after 1 a.m. While the rest of the city was distracted by fireworks and revelry, someone hopped roof to roof before landing above the museum, then lowered themselves down through a skylight (a popular move, apparently) and set off a smoke bomb to obscure camera footage before triggering a fire alarm. The only piece stolen was the Cézanne, and the thief climbed back up the rope and escaped off the roof while the fire department was still en route.
Vincent van Gogh, Poppy FlowersVan Gogh’s paintings are some of the most frequently stolen—at least 13 of them have been taken and recovered, and another 85 remain missing. One of the most famous is Poppy Flowers, which was stolen from the Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil Museum in Cairo in 2010. That was actually the second time the painting had been stolen from the same museum: the first was in 1977, and it was found two years later in an undisclosed location in Kuwait. The Egyptian government released very few details on the theft and the subsequent recovery, although the culprits are said to be a trio of Egyptian bandits. Since 2010, police have been unable to locate the masterpiece, which is currently worth at least $50 million.
On September 13, we highly recommend hitting up your local theatre to be enchanted by the haunting world of The Goldfinch, which could have been inspired by any of the actual events in this article.
Reposted from Emergency Management and Response - Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EMR-ISAC)
Organizations, agencies and businesses are at risk from insider threats, employees who may use their position within the workplace to cause the organization or other employees harm through negligence or malicious intent. Examples can include workplace violence, sabotage, theft or unintentionally clicking on an email containing a phishing or ransomware attack. September has been deemed “Insider Threat Awareness Month” by a partnership of federal agencies. The goal of this campaign is to raise awareness of insider threat risks and educate people on how to recognize indicators and report suspicious activities. While many federal agencies and the military may need to focus on espionage, emergency responder agencies could focus more on cybersecurity phishing and ransomware education and employee morale. Unhappy or disenfranchised employees are more likely to commit acts consistent with what is considered an insider threat, including violence. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) offers free insider threat training through its National Insider Threat Task Force. The free training could be incorporated into a staff briefing or internal company training program. ODNI also offers a host of other guides, multi-media and links to other federal resources. During this month, emphasize the importance of safeguarding our workplaces, fellow employees and our nation from the risks posed by insider threats and continue to work diligently to mitigate these risks.
Reposted from The National Law Review
New York Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit by the London-based The Mayor Gallery (The Mayor) against the owners of the Pace Gallery based on allegations that defendants “unlawfully declared that thirteen authentic Agnes Martin artworks are fakes, resulting in a loss … of more than $7 million.” The lawsuit asserted that defendants were financially motivated to exclude the works from their catalogue raisonné. In a 16-page decision dismissing the lawsuit, Justice Andrea Masley called the claims “vague” and “speculative.” The Mayor’s initial complaint was dismissed in 2018 as lacking merit; now, the court found that the new complaint did not assert any new facts to avoid dismissal. The Mayor reportedly anticipates appealing the decision.
Artist Cady Noland has filed her third complaint in a lawsuit alleging that a German collector’s unauthorized restoration of her famous Log Cabin Blank With Screw Eyes and Cafe Door (1990) sculpture “amounted to the creation of an unauthorized copy of the original.” Her lawsuit was dismissed twice before, with leave to re-plead, on the grounds that Ms. Noland’s complaint failed to state legally viable copyright infringement claims under the U.S. Copyright Act. Her latest complaint needs to demonstrate that an act of alleged infringement occurred in the United States and not abroad in order to survive another motion to dismiss. The defense has filed yet another motion to dismiss, arguing that the third complaint does not state that the alleged infringement first took place in the United States, but rather in Germany, and as such, Ms. Noland’s challenges in this case are not actionable under the U.S. Copyright Act.
A “part time art handler” who frequents second-hand shops purchased a sketch from a New York Habitat for Humanity thrift store that he believed to be an original by the expressionist Egon Schiele. The sketch now has been authenticated by Jane Kallir, owner of the Galerie St. Etienne, leading expert on Egon Schiele and the author of his catalogue raisonné. Ms. Kallir believes that Schiele sketched the work in 1918, the same year he died. The work appears to be a study for Schiele’s final lithograph, Girl, which also was completed in 1918. The sketch is now for sale and the owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, announced plans to donate a portion of the sale proceeds to Habitat for Humanity.
Timothy Sammons, a British art dealer who operated from offices in London, Zurich and New York, was sentenced to up to 12 years in prison by a New York court after pleading guilty to grand larceny, a scheme to defraud and other counts. It was alleged that Sammons misappropriated the proceeds from sales of art on behalf of his clients and used art that did not belong to him as collateral to obtain personal loans. District Attorney Cyrus Vance noted that besides suffering monetary losses, victims lost “valuable pieces of artwork that had been in their families for generations.” Sammons will reportedly serve his sentence in a New York state prison.
The Baltimore Museum of Art is expanding its campaign to minimize diversity gaps by focusing on women in the coming year. The program, called 2020 Vision, begins in October 2019 by focusing on American Women Modernists such as Georgia O’Keefe. The program also will include a large-scale installation by Mickalene Thomas that will transform the museum’s East Lobby into a “living room.” Other highlights reportedly include “an exploration of Candice Breitz’s socio-political video works, a Joan Mitchell retrospective, an exhibition of beaded works by 19th-century Lakota women and African Art and the Matrilineage, a show documenting the role of maternal power in African art in the 19th through mid-20th centuries.”
Exceeding last year’s record-setting allocation of $198.4 million with this year’s $212 million budget, the New York Department of Cultural Affairs is poised to expand on the success of its CreateNYC Action Plan, a program with the goal of having “a vibrant, diverse, and sustainable cultural sector with access to the arts for all citizens of New York.” This year the program expanded its tenets to include commitments to increase funding to underserved communities, emphasize inclusive practices, solidify its relationship with the city government, address the affordability crisis, and improve public school art education. Since 2017, New York City has distributed more than $1.1 billion in arts and culture financing, more than any other U.S. city.
Reposted from Arts & Collections
Arguably, the legal issue causing most concern in the art world at the moment is the introduction of the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5 AMLD), which is expected to be implemented into UK law by the 10th January 2020, regardless of Brexit.
The art market is perceived as an easy target for criminals wishing to purchase art as a means of laundering the proceeds of crime. This directive applies to dealers, auction houses and other entities transacting in art and aims to tighten up the current requirements on money laundering and tackle the risks that are commonly associated with the trade. The directive will affect all non-EU buyers purchasing works of art at galleries, fairs and auction houses in the UK and thus requiring the seller to undertake the same level of risk-based due diligence enquiries on purchases, or a series of related purchases, amounting to €10,000 or more, that are currently undertaken by the legal and financial sectors.
Collectors should therefore expect to be asked for up to date photo ID, proof of current address and the source of funds being used for the new year’s transaction.
ID itself, however, is not enough. Sellers are additionally required to do a risk analysis for “high risk” transactions, which will include items of “archaeological, historical, cultural and religious importance”. This includes scrutinising linked transactions, irregularities and suspicious transactions and keeping records evidencing compliance with their money laundering obligations.
Any knowledge or suspicion of money laundering must be reported to the national crime agency (NCA) and sellers cannot “tip-off” their buyer that a report has been made. Sanctions for failure to comply with the regulations are similar to those, in relation to other service-based industries and will include a civil financial penalty or criminal prosecution, that would result in an unlimited fine and/or a prison term of up to two years.
This concept is wholly alien to many who operate in a world where deals can be conducted on the basis of reputation alone and where the trade is renowned for its secrecy, trust and relationship-based transactions. What effect it has on the market remains to be seen.
We live in a time of immense political uncertainty. We have a new Prime Minister, no Withdrawal Agreement, and no assurance that we will leave the EU on 31st October, with or without a deal in place.
The impact in the art market of Brexit, or a no deal Brexit, remains to be seen, but what is clear is that a weak pound has already attracted more foreign collectors to the UK markets and auctions themselves have been strong over the last 12 months.
Regardless, concerns are raised in relation to the restriction of the free movement of people in a no deal scenario and how new bureaucratic requirements will affect artists and employees of art and cultural organisations, who regularly travel to the EU for work including travelling exhibitions and art loans. EU nationals currently residing (and working) in the UK will need to register under the EU Settlement Scheme, which should secure their status in UK law. Travelling to the UK post a no deal Brexit is likely to impose new Visa requirements, documentation at the borders and information on driving and use of mobile phones.
The UK current import tax is only 5%, which is one of the lowest in the EU. If the UK leaves the EU Customs Union, then imports from the EU will be treated in the same way as from outside the EU. The UK government could, in theory, lower the input tax below 5% as there will be nothing to then limit it, which would again attract more collectors to the UK art market.
Collectors would be well advised to allow more time for exporting and importing consignments in the event of a no-deal Brexit and should use experienced carriers and professional agents to deal with the formalities. Export licences are not likely to be affected by a no-deal Brexit, but collectors will be more reliant on shippers to ensure the correct documentation is in place before exporting, as customs clearances or transit documents will be required to take stock into the EU post-Brexit.
All art related businesses or organisations must ensure that they are compliant with the relevant data protection laws, if they send personal data outside the UK or receive date from the EEA. Cross border copyright is also likely to be affected in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal. Correspondingly, organisations may need the copyright holder’s consent to export intellectual property-protected goods, that have been legitimately put on the market in the UK to the EU.
In the event of a no deal Brexit, the government have warned that CITES-related animal or plant species (and their parts) will no longer pass through Dover or the Euro tunnel. If Britain leaves the EU without a deal, then new specimens will need a permit to be transported between the UK and the EU and will only be able to travel through designated ports.
The art market has generally reacted with dismay to the Ivory Act 2018, which was expected to come into force later this year. It will introduce a ban on “dealing” in elephant ivory, which includes buying, selling and hiring ivory, offering to arrange or buy, sell or keep it for sale or hire. This extends to exporting it from or importing into the UK for sale or hire.
The small number of exceptions to the ban include objects containing less than 10% of ivory by volume and which were made prior to 1947, the “rarest and most important” objects pre 1918, and musical instruments pre-1975 that contain less than 20% of ivory by volume and portrait miniatures pre-1918.
The prohibition applies to buying, selling or hiring elephant ivory and will not affect private collectors to the extent that they already own, inherit, gift, donate or bequeath items made of or containing ivory. Nonetheless, it will affect collectors wishing to sell ivory items and their collection, which means they will be restricted to selling to a qualifying museum.
Dealers will be most affected by the Act and whilst many agree that the poaching of elephant ivory must be stopped, a blanket restriction on the sale of antique ivory works is not seen a solution. Activists also argue that a ban on elephant ivory only creates demand for other forms of ivory and are campaigning for an extension of the Bill to cover hippos, warthogs and narwhals.
Recently a small group of dealers and collectors have mounted a challenge in the High Court claiming that the Ivory Act should not focus on antiquities, but instead ensure that ivory objects that are traded are in fact antiques rather than modern fakes. The argument that trade in pre-1947 worked ivory is already covered in EU legislation has resonated with the court, and an application for a Judicial Review of the Act has been granted will take place later this year while the UK is still part of the EU. Watch this space.
The issue of repatriation/restitution of art and cultural property is one that has attracted much recent press attention. Historical plunder and request for its return has always been a contentious and emotional subject and one, which has been addressed by the UK government in relation to Nazi-looted art and the issue of holding human remains in publicly funded museums and collections.
Recently there have been calls for return of artefacts of African cultural heritage both in France and the UK, and German museums are also analysing their collections with a view to returning artefacts acquired in the colonial era. The issue of consent to the removal of the artefacts is a key theme. The Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People in 2007 legislates to restore “cultural intellectual religious and spiritual property taken from indigenous people without their free, prior and informed consent and in violation of their laws, traditions and customs”. In short, if items are removed in circumstances of oppression, often following violent conquest, then their refusal to return these items following peaceful request can often be seen as a perpetuation of the relationship of control. Literally adding insult to injury.
Museums in response argue that by acceding to one request for the return of cultural property, they would open the floodgates to others and result in the emptying of museums, which should be a world resource rather than having a nationalistic focus. The uncomfortable truth about the acquisition of these items is a story that should be told by setting out the full provenance and the historical context, so there is a better understanding of the circumstances in which they came to be where they now are. There is no easy answer, but the debate evokes emotional arguments on both sides.
In the meantime, on 12th March 2019 the European Parliament adopted the Regulation on the import of cultural goods which is designed to control the import into the EU member states of certain items of cultural property. The object of this legislation is to protect against illicit trading of cultural goods and the “preservation of humanities cultural heritage”. This supports other measures in place that have been intended to restrict the illicit trade in cultural goods, particularly from the Middle East, and fill in any gaps across the EU. As a regulation, it is already directly applicable in the UK and if the UK leave the EU on the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, as currently proposed, it will form part of UK law on the date of exit.
It remains to be seen whether the combination of restriction on import of cultural goods, and request for return of cultural goods that have been illicitly or illegally obtained will result in a change in requests for return of items. Museum directors can still rely on statutory restrictions that prohibit the return of items and, until they are allowed to do so, perhaps cultural collaboration between the museum community and the claimants will at least enable the full story to be told and the claimant’s voice heard.
QUICK LINKS
ConferenceMembershipTraining & CertificationDonate to IFCPP
TRAINING & EVENTS
1305 Krameria, Unit H-129, Denver, CO 80220 Local: 303.322.9667 Copyright © 2015 - 2018 International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection. All Rights Reserved
Contact Us
