CINOA isn’t the first global organisation to challenge 'bogus' claims about trafficking in cultural property. But dealers are rattled and a new report shows they’re worried that false data is leading to the persecution of their legitimate business.

CINOA is an umbrella organisation of 30 art and antique dealer associations worldwide, including BADA, LAPADA and SLAD in the UK. Their latest report unpicks the areas where bogus data or the misrepresentation of data is causing members greatest concern. 

Top of their agenda is the need to address inaccurate claims about the exact scale of trafficking in cultural property - not least because CINOA maintain that governmental bodies and international organisations are continuing to base new legislation on what they believe is false and unverified data. 

“This report shows how bogus figures cited are either entirely made up or do not accurately reflect the claims about the international art market with which they are associated”, claims the report.

Why are they so convinced the figures are wrong? CINOA’s report, Fighting Bogus Information about the Art Market – 2021, points to a number of different studies, commissioned by governments, NGOs and international organisations, which have all struggled to find reliable evidence about the exact size of trafficking in art and antiquities. Instead of confirming governments’ worst fears, these studies suggest the market is much smaller and less transparent than governments are claiming. This ought to drive policies towards a less harsh regime, according to CINOA. However, this report claims the repetition of inaccurate data is driving legislators in the opposite direction, encouraging them to introduce trading regulations that are more restrictive than necessary, in particular against money laundering.

One of the difficulties they say in trying to understand the scale of this problem is the widespread misuse of the term ‘cultural property’. What exactly does this term mean? 

CINOA point to the confusion caused when the same figures used in official reports to indicate the total size of trafficking in cultural property are mistakenly used to indicate the size of  trafficking in antiquities. They worry this creates an entirely “false picture” of the scale of antiquities trafficking and is against the public interest, potentially leading to what they fear most: a “great fall-off in the number of people collecting”.

They are also concerned that the words ‘art trafficking’ and ‘financing terrorism’ appear frequently together as an excuse to introduce new legislation - but without any justification.  CINOA repeats the research-based conclusions of several other recent studies, either independent or commissioned by the European Union, which suggest that no evidence exists to prove that terrorist financing activities in cultural goods are taking place within the EU.  As a source, they draw on last year’s RAND Corporation report claiming market channels that can be monitored are too small to act as conduits for a thriving illicit trade in antiquities. 

“One thing we can be sure of: if an instance arose where it could be proved that art crime led directly to terrorism financing, it would be heavily publicised in the media”, insists CINOA’s report.

It’s understandable that an organisation representing the art and antiquities trade should demand only accurate data is used to influence legislation covering their trade. But it stretches our understanding to agree they are justified claiming that without this evidence they should be exempt from enforcement of the same worldwide legislation covering every other form of illicit trafficking. 

It’s equally remarkable that an organisation of dealer associations, a few of whose members have been prosecuted for antiquities trafficking, should remain silent on those genuine risks arising from known trafficking channels that may impact on the integrity of their members.

Make up your own mind by reading the full report.

Photo: TEFAF Art Fair, Maastricht

Courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org