New York, 13 November 2012
It is a fact that Sotheby’s is accused of deceit in the sale of the Khmer statue. The 500-pound statue was set to be on sale in March 2011 but the sale was canceled since Cambodia asked for its return. Federal prosecutors have no doubts there was a conspiracy between the auctioneers and the item’s owner in order to hide that the sculpture had actually been stolen from a temple in 1972. It is said the statue came from a Khmer Dynasty temple – Prasat Chen – part of a vast complex called Koh Ker.
Even though Sotheby’s denies the accusations, and says the U.S. Government is selecting the information provided by other auctioneers to go against them, the government is certain the statue was imported into the United States with an inaccurate affidavit. Added to this, under Sotheby’s request, it was stated the statue was not a cultural property belonging to a religious site.
Furthermore, in the heart of the case lie questions about when the statue had actually left Cambodia and above all, if the Cambodian laws would have blocked the statue’s removal at the time. It is said the statue was one of a thousand that had been pillaged during Cambodia’s civil war in the 1970s, it later passed into the hands of a collector – who remains unknown today; is said Sotheby’s did not list its name to avoid the artwork’s trail – who later sold it to a London dealer, Spink & Son, now known under the name of Spink. In 1975, the Asian statue was bought by the husband of a Belgian woman, Decia Ruspoli di Poddio Suasa, and remained in her possession until it was given to Sotheby’s for auction.
The government accuses Sotheby’s of having provided “inaccurate information to potential buyers, to Cambodia and to the United States”: both civil and criminal penalties. A shameful proof against Sotheby’s that needs no further explanation is an e-mail from a Sotheby’s official to the Khmer scholar, Emma C. Bunker that says: “If I can push the provenance back to 1970, then U.S. museums can participate in the auction without any hindrance.”