Back

Interview with Anna B. Rubin, Director, Holocaust Claims Processing Office (NYS)

March 31, 2025

Anna Rubin

MEET ANNA RUBIN

Anna B. Rubin started her career at the Holocaust Claims Processing Office (HCPO) in 2001 as a Holocaust Claims Specialist, later advancing to Deputy Director before assuming the role of Director in 2007. As Director at the New York State Department of Financial Services, Anna has overseen the organization’s daily operations for nearly two decades, supervising public relations, negotiations with international organizations, government agencies, and private institutions, as well as consultations with high-level officials to assist with the management of complex and overlapping claims processes.

Mrs. Rubin’s legal expertise, management experience, and deep understanding of historical restitution efforts establish her as a key advocate for rightful claims and a leader in advancing the restitution of Nazi-looted art. 

Center for Art Law sincerely appreciates Mrs. Rubin for generously sharing her time and insights in this interview, which was conducted, edited, and supplemented by Amanda Buonaiuto (Lead Researcher of the Nazi-Looted Art Restitution Project for Center for Art Law).

EDUCATION

Anna Rubin is a trained attorney with management experience and specialization in restitution negotiation, government and NGO liaison, international law, history, and political science. Mrs. Rubin earned a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in History from Boston University, followed by a Juris Doctor (J.D.) with an emphasis on International Law from the University of Miami School of Law.

SELECT PUBLICATIONS

    The Interview:

    You have been with the HCPO since 2001. How did you come to be in this field of work? Was it an accidental or intentional career path? 

    ​When I enrolled in law school, my intention was to pursue a career in public service or work for a non-profit organization, rather than practicing law in a traditional capacity. After a few years at a small non-profit, someone suggested I explore positions related to Holocaust restitution claims. I discovered the Holocaust Claims Processing Office (HCPO) and was immediately drawn to its mission, which resonated with both my commitment to service and my passion for history. Although I hadn’t specifically aimed for this path, I feel fortunate to have found this office, blessed to have been hired, privileged to work with the families we assist, and certain that advocating for justice for victims of Nazi persecution is where I am meant to be.

    Can you tell us more about the mission and primary goals of the HCPO? 

    ​The HCPO  was established in 1997 as an outgrowth of the New York State Banking and Insurance Departments’ investigations into Holocaust-era dormant Swiss bank accounts and unpaid insurance policies. During these investigations, it became evident that a dedicated agency was needed to assist victims of Nazi persecution in pursuing justice and recovering lost assets. In response, the State of New York took the initiative to create such an office. Within a year of its inception, the HCPO expanded its mission to include assistance with claims for artworks lost between 1933 and 1945. Today, the HCPO continues to assist victims and their heirs—completely free of charge and regardless of their residence—with claims for bank accounts, insurance policies, other material losses, and artwork lost as a result of Nazi persecution. 

    The HCPO has a unique role in the landscape of Holocaust restitution. Could you elaborate on how the HCPO approach differs from other organizations working in this field? 

    Due to the HCPO’s multifaceted mission, we review all cases within a broader restitution landscape. It is not unusual for us to pursue claims for assets that claimants were not initially aware of or that were not the basis for their original inquiry. Additionally, because the HCPO does not charge claimants any fees, we are able to pursue claims for all assets, regardless of their value, which allows us to approach each case with the same fervor and diligence. Since Nazi spoliation was not limited to highly valuable museum-quality pieces, many of the items we seek are of modest to low monetary value, but of immense emotional significance. Most importantly, the HCPO adopts a non-litigious approach to claims resolution. We pursue claims from a moral and ethical standpoint, facilitating open and transparent dialogue between the parties involved and drawing upon soft law tools such as the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art. The HCPO contextualizes the facts of each claim—including the personal story of the asset owner and the object in question—within the historical and economic environment of the Holocaust period, rather than relying on any specific legal doctrine. This extra-judicial approach enables the HCPO to avoid the constraints of court-imposed timelines and affirmative defenses frequently invoked by current holders of the objects being pursued. It also allows for creative solutions that recognize the original owner’s loss of the object.

    On average, how many claims does the HCPO review annually? How has the volume and nature of claims evolved over the years? 

    We receive approximately 45 new inquiries each year requesting information about or assistance with compensation and/or restitution for a variety of losses. Not all inquiries pertain to artwork; when reviewing a potential new claim, we consider all possibilities. Additionally, not every inquiry results in the opening of a claim. It is not uncommon for the HCPO to provide closure to individuals by informing them that the assets claimed had been previously compensated through a prior restitution or compensation proceeding or otherwise handled appropriately and in accordance with the asset owner’s wishes. 

    As a result of the HCPO’s subject matter expertise, we have recently seen an increase in requests for assistance from the art trade, as well as museums and libraries. As these organizations undertake due diligence efforts to review the contents of their collections or vet items prior to consignment, the HCPO has been asked to locate heirs to assist with the restitution of previously-identified looted art and/or to liaise with heirs to facilitate an amicable settlement before an item is offered for sale. Frequently, these inquiries can lead to additional claims.

    Can you share an example of a particularly complex case that the HCPO handled and how it was ultimately resolved? 

    All cases are unique and present their own challenges, but sometimes the most complex aspect of a claim is dealing with intricate family dynamics. With the passing of each generation, the number of heirs involved in a case often increases, and to successfully bring about a resolution, the HCPO must obtain consensus among all parties. Reaching unanimous agreement can be difficult, as we often deal with generational trauma, disparate views on what constitutes a just solution, and even intergenerational discord. While this is not the case in every claim, we sometimes spend as much time liaising among the different groups of heirs, explaining the claim, and brainstorming settlement options that would satisfy all parties as we do with the current holder of the item.

    Has the HCPO’s work influenced the way governments or institutions address other historical injustices, such as colonial-era looted artifacts? 

    The issue of colonial-era looted artifacts is a fascinating, complex, and compelling one. There is little doubt that the discussions around Nazi-looted assets in the late 1990s influenced conversations about colonial-era losses. To the best of our knowledge, the HCPO remains the only government agency providing institutional assistance to individuals seeking to recover a variety of assets lost due to Nazi persecution, and there is no similar entity working with indigenous groups to reclaim their losses. The key difference is likely that colonial-era losses are being pursued by the country of origin, and therefore, the government of that country directly handles their cases.

    What kinds of documentation or evidence are typically most valuable when investigating Holocaust-era asset claims? What can provenance researchers do now that will help future claimants? 

    As it is only possible to pursue claims for uniquely identifiable objects, any documentation that can provide details of the lost items is enormously helpful. Materials shared with the HCPO by claimants can include photographs, hand drawings, descriptive narratives, and family memoirs, all of which serve as a basis for further investigation. To further substantiate claims, we undertake exhaustive research in archives and libraries, which can include obtaining prewar tax documents or business records, wartime filings done in accordance with Nazi dictates, postwar compensation records and correspondence, immigration files, estate records, and even newspaper or magazine articles. These records are critical in understanding the victim-owner’s life before, during, and after the war, or what their family’s life was like in the event the individual perished, as well as what and how the items were lost. One can never know where a critical clue or piece of information will turn up, so we follow every lead and pull on every thread. 

    The victim-owner represents only one link in a chain when it comes to the ownership history of the item being sought; hence, provenance research plays a vital role when searching for an object. It can provide a clearer picture of where the item was prior to the victim-owner’s possession and, more importantly, where it might have gone from there. Through provenance research, we can learn of changes to attribution and title; even our understanding of the measurements of a work can be impacted by provenance research. Exhibition catalogues, catalogues raisonnés, art historical manuscripts and literature, auction house or dealer records, and even records maintained by the artists themselves are paramount when searching for looted art. It should be noted that provenance research is not only an integral part of searching for a missing item and understanding the ownership history of a piece, but it can also provide invaluable insight into an individual’s collecting practices and preferences. Provenance researchers are unquestionably critical partners when it comes to tracing and recovering artwork lost as a result of Nazi persecution, whether they are based in a museum, auction house, or are independent investigators. Open communication between all researchers can help achieve the collective goal of gaining a better understanding of a particular work’s history and telling the true story of its prior owners.

    How does the HCPO address claims where key documentation was lost or destroyed, and are there alternative methods used to substantiate claims? 

    The HCPO does the utmost to gather every bit of evidence possible, but not all gaps in the ownership history of an object can be closed, and not all research leads to a conclusive “smoking gun” document. This is why it is imperative to gather as much information as possible about the persecuted individual who lost the artwork and to contextualize that person’s story within the relevant period while simultaneously learning as much as possible about the work of art. Sometimes, despite our diligence, there simply is not enough to substantiate a claim, and we inform the claimant about this. It is not unheard of, however, for new records to surface years later, which then enable us to revive a case. In other instances, we have significant circumstantial evidence that serves as a basis for plausible hypotheses. 

    No restitution process in the modern era has demanded incontrovertible proof to justify the resolution of a claim in favor of the Nazi victim. Agencies across the restitution spectrum have adopted “relaxed standards of proof” to account for the loss and destruction of property. This approach is well rooted in restitution practices dating back to Article 3 of Military Government Law n.59, which promulgated a “Presumption of Confiscation” and the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, which endorse a similar position, noting that consideration should be given to gaps in knowledge and information.

    Has technology, specifically AI, changed the way the HCPO conducts research and processes claims since you joined the organization? 

    In the early days of the HCPO, we would send requests to archives using traditional postal mail and wait weeks for responses and hard copy records to be sent to us. While visiting libraries and archives is still an integral part of our work—in fact, most of our time is spent researching claims—the digitization of records has significantly improved our ability to find and obtain information. The evolution of technology has made a remarkable difference in our ability to assist claimants, from simple tasks like scanning documents and conducting teleconferences, to more advanced research techniques, such as zooming in on images or overlaying them to determine matches. Image matching capabilities are improving, but one needs to have a clear image as a basis to start the search, and that is more uncommon than standard.

    What do you foresee as the future of Holocaust restitution? How is the next generation engaging with this process, and do you see leadership transitioning to younger advocates? 

    As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “It’s never the wrong time to do the right thing,” and so I anticipate that the future of restitution will not look too dissimilar from today. The fight for and the pursuit of justice for victims of Nazi fascism and oppression will continue. Hopefully, this will also be made easier with the release of more information, including efforts by museums to make the entirety of their collections searchable online, the further digitization of records, advancements in AI, and more resources being made available to fund investigations. From the claimant perspective, younger generations are just as impassioned about seeking justice and reclaiming their lost heritage as their ancestors. From the research perspective, provenance research has developed into an academic discipline and career path, bringing more people into the field, which will hopefully result in the discovery of new resources and information. From the advocacy perspective, there appears to be continued interest in the field, and a new group of restitution leaders will likely emerge.

    What are some common misconceptions about the Holocaust restitution process, and what do you see as the key challenges moving forward? 

    The greatest misconception is likely that one needs to hire a lawyer to pursue restitution. Most of the works we find are not located in the US, and legal claims are not truly possible in continental Europe; therefore, legal advocacy isn’t strictly necessary. Moreover, even in the U.S., from the limited statistics available to us, most cases are resolved amicably and out of court. As with all things based on historical events, the further we get from individuals with first-hand knowledge—currently, the children and grandchildren of the victim-owner—the more challenging it can be to piece together a narrative of persecution and loss. In addition, with every passing, whether it be on the victim’s side or that of the present possessor, more information and details are lost as houses are cleaned out and papers are thrown away. Research can certainly help bridge these divides, but some things may always be lost to time.

    What advice would you give to families who are just beginning the process of researching their family’s Holocaust-era assets? 

    Do not be discouraged, and take it one step at a time because one piece of information and one clue can lead to another. While not everything will lead to a claimable asset or restitution, there is a wealth of documentation out there (for some regions more than others), and more is continually surfacing. New projects are being funded to reveal previously inaccessible information. Every inquiry and every new document sheds light on the past and the truth of what ancestors endured. Through those efforts, again irrespective of restitution, we honor those who perished and keep them among us. We teach future generations the importance of knowing where they come from, the importance of knowing and acknowledging even the most horrific of events, and with this knowledge, we prevail. While spoliation was certainly a fundamental component of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party ideology, it was about removing Jews from all aspects of German (and eventually all of European) life. Even doing research keeps those very same people entrenched in German/European history.

    Additional Resources:

    Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

    Related Art Law Articles

    Clinic Instagram
    Art lawWish You Were Herebootcampevent review

    WYWH: “Art Lawyering Bootcamp: Copyright Law”

    March 6, 2026
    Center for Art Law AI Artibtrator Article
    Art lawadr

    No Industry Seems Untouched by the AI Avalanche – Where Does AI Stand With ADR? Or Better Asked, Where Does ADR Stand With AI?

    February 25, 2026
    Center for Art Law AML Laundry Machines Ad
    Art law

    Regulation Without Legislation: Combatting Money Laundering in the U.S. Art Market

    February 21, 2026