The Manhattan District Attorney's office has been aggressively seizing artwork from dealers, collectors, and museums across New York, creating unprecedented risks for the art world. Since 2017, approximately 6,000 objects have been confiscated and subsequently returned to their countries of origin, including India, Mexico, China, and Greece. This sustained enforcement campaign has raised serious concerns about the safety of conducting art business in New York.
The DA's office recently scored a major legal victory in April when the state's supreme court approved the seizure of Egon Schiele's drawing "Russian War Prisoner" (1916) from the Art Institute of Chicago. The museum is currently appealing this decision, which has sent shockwaves through the art community. The ruling demonstrates that the DA's reach extends far beyond New York's borders, potentially affecting art institutions nationwide.
The Manhattan DA's approach to art ownership represents a dramatic departure from traditional legal principles. The office maintains that stolen artwork remains stolen indefinitely, regardless of who currently possesses it or how much time has passed. This means that antiquities that left their countries of origin decades ago can still be seized on allegations of theft, even if subsequent owners acquired them in good faith through legitimate channels in other jurisdictions like Switzerland or England.
This legal philosophy puts New York at odds with most other jurisdictions around the world. Other locations typically respect good faith purchases made in foreign countries and recognize statute of limitations protections. For example, London's Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Unit generally treats historical thefts and old exports as civil matters, avoiding criminal enforcement in such cases.
The unpredictable nature of art ownership under New York law creates significant business risks. A dealer or collector might legally purchase artwork in London under English law, only to face seizure when bringing the piece to New York. This exact scenario has affected several art dealers in recent years, highlighting the volatility of legal title when crossing jurisdictions.
Despite these concerns, the practical impact on most art owners remains limited. The majority of artworks have clean provenance records with no evidence of improper acquisition. Additionally, foreign loans to New York museum exhibitions are protected by immunity-from-seizure laws at both federal and state levels, providing some reassurance for international cultural exchanges.
However, dealers and collectors are increasingly cautious about the New York market. The risk that an investigation might later reveal problematic provenance creates uncertainty about whether an innocent owner's title could be automatically forfeited. This concern has grown particularly acute following the April court decision involving the Schiele drawing.
The Art Institute of Chicago case has strengthened the DA's position considerably. The museum had owned the Schiele work for over 50 years, but the DA and court determined it had been looted by Nazis during the Holocaust. The court sided completely with the DA's arguments, dismissing the museum's good faith acquisition, the substantial time that had elapsed, and even the fact that the artwork is currently located outside the DA's territorial jurisdiction. The DA claimed authority based solely on the piece's brief presence in New York around 1957.
Several prominent U.S. attorneys have expressed surprise and criticism regarding this judgment, which likely influenced the Art Institute's decision to appeal. The controversial nature of the ruling highlights the aggressive stance taken by New York prosecutors compared to their counterparts elsewhere.
Unless the Art Institute's appeal succeeds, the ruling will likely make art owners think carefully before bringing works to New York. Cast-iron provenance documentation or immunity from seizure protection for museums may become essential prerequisites for any art moving through the city. However, even these traditional safeguards might prove insufficient given the DA's expansive interpretation of its authority and the court's willingness to support such actions.
