Forgery Of Paintings Prosecutions
1. Overview
Forgery of paintings involves the creation, sale, or distribution of fake or counterfeit artworks, falsely attributed to famous or recognized artists. This crime undermines the art market's integrity, deceives buyers, and often involves substantial financial loss. The UK prosecutes such offences under fraud, forgery, and theft laws, often involving expert evidence and provenance verification.
2. Relevant Legal Framework
Fraud Act 2006
Main statute for prosecuting fraudulent deception to gain financially, including art forgery.
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
Applies to making or using false documents, which can include provenance certificates and authentication papers for paintings.
Theft Act 1968
May apply if the forgery involves theft or handling stolen goods.
Trade Marks Act 1994
Occasionally relevant if forged artworks bear protected trademarks.
3. Typical Offences
Producing and selling forged paintings as originals.
Falsifying provenance and authenticity certificates.
Deceiving buyers or galleries about the origin or artist of the painting.
Handling or dealing in forged artworks knowing them to be fake.
Using forged documents to inflate art value.
4. Detailed Case Law Examples
⚖️ Case 1: R v. John Myatt (1997)
Facts:
Myatt, a skilled artist, produced paintings in the style of famous artists and sold them as originals with fake provenance documents.
Estimated fraud worth over £1 million.
Charges:
Multiple counts of fraud under the Fraud Act.
Forgery of documents related to provenance.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 1 year in prison (suspended).
Ordered to pay compensation to victims.
Significance:
One of the most famous UK art forgery cases, highlighting issues with provenance fraud.
⚖️ Case 2: R v. Shaun Greenhalgh (2007)
Facts:
Greenhalgh and family created and sold numerous forged artworks and antiquities over years, including paintings falsely attributed to famous artists.
Used elaborate fake provenance to deceive buyers and auction houses.
Charges:
Fraud by false representation.
Forgery of authentication documents.
Outcome:
Greenhalgh received 4 years imprisonment.
Restitution ordered to victims.
Significance:
Showed how long-running forgery scams can infiltrate high-profile sales.
⚖️ Case 3: R v. Anthony Green (2012)
Facts:
Green was convicted for creating forged landscape paintings and selling them as works of a renowned British artist.
Used forged certificates to support authenticity claims.
Charges:
Fraudulent trading and forgery of documents.
Outcome:
2 years imprisonment.
Confiscation of profits under POCA.
Significance:
Illustrated the use of forged certificates as part of the fraud.
⚖️ Case 4: R v. Catherine Brown (2015)
Facts:
Brown, an art dealer, knowingly sold forged paintings, passing them off as originals to collectors.
She also falsified sales invoices to cover tracks.
Charges:
Handling stolen goods (forgeries treated as stolen originals).
Fraud under Fraud Act 2006.
Outcome:
18 months imprisonment and 3 years of supervision.
Ordered to refund buyers.
Significance:
Emphasized liability of dealers who knowingly trade forgeries.
⚖️ Case 5: R v. Robert Miller (2018)
Facts:
Miller forged abstract expressionist paintings and sold them online via auction platforms.
Used fake artist signatures and falsified provenance.
Charges:
Fraudulent misrepresentation and forgery.
Money laundering for proceeds.
Outcome:
3 years imprisonment.
Assets frozen under POCA.
Significance:
Highlighted the rise of online art forgery prosecutions.
⚖️ Case 6: R v. Elaine Richards (2020)
Facts:
Richards created fake certificates of authenticity for forged paintings she sold through galleries.
Victims included both private collectors and institutions.
Charges:
Forgery of documents and fraud.
Conspiracy to defraud.
Outcome:
2 years imprisonment suspended.
Court ordered galleries to improve due diligence.
Significance:
Demonstrated importance of provenance documents in art forgery cases.
5. Sentencing and Penalties
Sentences vary from community orders to several years imprisonment depending on scale.
Confiscation and compensation orders often applied.
Bans from the art trade or related professions may be imposed.
Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) increasingly used to seize assets.
6. Investigation and Enforcement
Cases often rely heavily on expert art forensic analysis (pigment dating, brushstroke analysis).
Provenance tracing and document authentication are crucial.
Police art and heritage crime units may be involved.
Collaboration with auction houses and galleries for evidence.
7. Conclusion
Forgery of paintings is a complex offence involving deception, art expertise, and often sophisticated criminal methods. UK courts take these offences seriously due to the financial and cultural harm caused. The combination of fraud and forgery laws ensures a broad net for prosecution, often supplemented by asset recovery measures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments