Back

Langford and the Pandora Papers: The Flaws Uncovered in the Art World

June 9, 2023

collages about Latchford with his photo, info about the Pandora Papers from an online article, cover page of the indictment and an image of a returned Khmer sculpture

By Paulina Picciano

U-Turn for Obituary

Douglas Latchford, who died in 2020, was a renown and prolific scholar, dealer and collector of Cambodian antiquities. Born October 15, 1931 in Mumbai, India, Latchford was educated at an elite British prep school before returning to India before its independence in 1947.^{^[1]} Later in life, he settled in Bangkok and embraced Thai culture, becoming a Thai citizen in the 1960s, marrying a Thai woman, and even taking a Thai name. In the 1950s, Latchford developed an affinity for Khmer art and amassed one of the world’s largest private collections of Cambodian antiquities.^{^[2]} As a collector, he was described as a charming man of exquisite taste, long beloved in Cambodia because of his generous donations to the National Museum in Phnom Penh.^{^[3]} However, beginning in 2012, his reputation dramatically shifted from a scholar, benefactor and collector to an illicit antiquities trafficker, as civil and criminal cases began, accusing Latchford of plundering (perpetuating looting) of Cambodia’s sacred temples.^{^[4]}

In 2019, a federal grand jury charged Latchford with various crimes, including fraud and smuggling, relating to his decades-long looting scheme. Latchford died before he was able to stand trial.^{^[5]} Following his death, Latchford’s daughter Nawapan Kriangsak agreed to return her father’s collection to Cambodia. Likewise, various museums, in response to Cambodia’s global hunt for their antiquities, have little by little agreed to repatriate antiquities linked to the collector.^{^[6]}

Making the Pandora Papers

In October 2021, a team of journalists from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) published the Pandora Papers, a cache of nearly 12 million records from 14 offshore entities that expose the secret financial workings of wealthy and powerful individuals around the world. Building upon the work of the Panama Papers published in 2016, the Pandora Papers was an exposé by ICIJ that provided insight into aspects of an international financial system operating with little to no insight and thus allowing government leaders, billionaires, and criminals to shield their assets.^{^[7]} Included in the findings were the offshore accounts of the indicted collector and dealer Douglas Latchford, further exposing his role in the illicit trafficking of Cambodian antiquities.^{^[8]}

The Papers outlined the history of Latchford’s dealings and how the offshore accounts were used to hide his collection and sales. In addition, the Papers also connected suspect antiquities associated with Latchford and his associates to the museums to which they were either donated or sold. The Pandora Papers’s findings are significant in that they not only expose Latchford’s role in the illicit trafficking of Cambodian antiquities, but they also highlight the broader issue of trafficking, money laundering, and fraud in a complicit art world.^{^[9]}

The Offshore Accounts

The Pandora Papers revealed that Latchford began setting up an offshore account named Skanda Trust three months after U.S. investigators began linking him to looted artifacts.^{^[10]^[11]} Among the assets said to be included in Skanda Trust was Latchford’s antiquities collection. The timing of the trust’s creation is significant considering that eight years later the investigation would lead to an indictment compelling Latchford to surrender any looted artifacts still in his possession as well as any money rendered from his sales. According to the ICIJ investigation, the Latchford family insisted that the trusts were created for tax purposes, but they still benefited from the secrecy embedded in offshore accounts.^{^[12]} By placing his collection in the offshore account, Latchford was able to protect himself from any type of accountability expected from the indictment.

Accounts like Skanda Trust pose a significant obstacle to law enforcement and researchers looking for looted artifacts because they are not required to be registered. Without knowledge of the existence of these accounts, the assets they hide cannot be recovered.^{^[13]} Due to the secrecy surrounding the accounts, coming upon offshore companies like the one in the Latchford case often signals a dead end because it is nearly impossible to find the owners of the companies unless a leak like the Pandora Papers occurs.^{^[14]} Thus, in addition to shielding assets, the use of offshore accounts allows an individual to obscure their identity. These layers of secrecy are complemented by an art market with a strict adherence to keeping the identities of collectors private.^{^[15]} Due to the unregulated nature of the market, dealers for a long time were not required to know the identity of an owner or seller, which allowed for transactions to be done entirely through shell companies like the Latchfords’.^{^[16]} These actions and lack of accountability in the market show how offshore companies have enabled both dealers and collectors to engage in a variety of illicit schemes within the art market.^{^[17]}

Obscured Provenance

While the Pandora Papers themselves are not specific about the artifacts inside Skanda Trust, the journalists investigating the findings found relics listed in Latchford’s books to be “courtesy of Skanda Trust.”^{^[18]} Similarly, other investigations showed a portion of the artifacts credited to Skanda Trust as listed for sale by the dealer Asian Art alongside other relics listed separately for sale by Latchford. At another gallery, another seven artifacts matching the Skanda Trust pieces were listed in publications, and the owner of the gallery admitted to never having sold a piece for Latchford directly.^{^[19]} In essence, the evidence uncovered shows that one of the primary uses for the account was to separate the ownership of the objects from their association with Latchford, whose name was quickly coming under fire with the investigation, and allow for their continued sale. While these types of links clearly illustrate an attempt to hide the objects’ murky origins, Latchford’s daughter, one of the beneficiaries of the trusts, strongly denies that the trusts were created to obscure provenance.^{^[20]}

Falsifying provenance is not uncommon in the art market, as actors in the antiquities market often draw on internal and external false narratives regarding the provenance of their objects.^{^[21]} These false narratives help to obscure illicit origins and allow elite actors, such as buyers and museums, to engage in the purchase of these antiquities guilt-free.^{^[22]} A common strategy of Latchford’s was to lend false legitimacy to his antiquities.^{^[23]} Not only did he achieve this through his offshore accounts, he also did so by mentioning his antiquities in the books he wrote with Professor Emma C. Bunker in order to legitimize the looted artifacts and ease their sale.^{^[24]} Naturally, to accompany these false narratives of ownership, one needs false provenances for the antiquities themselves, with more complicated cases involving the forging of provenance documentation altogether. These falsifications are then accepted with little or no due diligence by a market that is “decidedly gray.”^{^[25]} In Latchford’s indictment, prosecutors described a looted Harihara statue with the same description as one within The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s (the MET’s) collection and which was purchased from the dealer Spink & Sons, who were former collaborators of Latchford.^{^[26]} According to the prosecutors, a representative from the dealer was aware of Latchford’s plans to create counterfeit documentation for his antiquities.^{^[27]} Similarly, Latchford falsified the provenance of another piece that is now believed to be at the Denver Museum of Art. At the time of the piece’s acquisition, Latchford provided documents with conflicting information about the antiquity’s ownership history. Particularly notable was a letter from a “false collector” stating Latchford had purchased the piece from him earlier.^{^[28]} However, other documents showed that the piece had in fact been in Latchford’s possession. Prosecutors state that this “false collector” tactic was one Latchford used many times over the course of his career.^{^[29]}

Museums, Due Diligence, and Policy

The “ultimate marker of legitimacy,” however, is the display of an antiquity within a museum, its illicit origins having since been washed away.^{^[30]} By this notion, it is safe to say that Latchford was quite successful in legitimizing his contested antiquities. At the time the Pandora Papers article was published, the investigative team was able to link at least 27 Latchford or Latchford associated pieces in prominent museums, a number that excludes several pieces that had been returned in years past as the truth of his actions became uncovered. Among these museums are the previously mentioned MET museum and the Denver Art Museum as well as others like the British Museum and the Cleveland Museum of Art. Because of the secrecy surrounding so many sales, this number is probably only a small fraction of the antiquities in museums that can be tied to Latchford.^{^[31]} None of the museums were able to provide records for these antiquities that showed they were exported with the approval of the national government, often because they did not have that kind of documentation.^{^[32]} These links between Latchford and highly regarded museums highlight the mutually beneficial, but severely problematic, relationship shared between private antiquities collectors and museums.

Overall, the use of antiquities to launder money within the art market is well known, but agents of the art market often advocate against efforts to prevent laundering through stronger regulation . Due to a lack of conviction and punishment in terms of policing the market, there are few successfully prosecuted criminal cases by which to assess the necessity of regulations. This is often used in the argument against applying anti-money laundering (AML) requirements on the market. According to organizations like the International Confederation of Art and Antique Dealers and the Committee for Cultural Policy, imposing regulations with this absence of recurring evidence would put an enormous burden on the trade.^{^[33]} The overall opinion is that money laundering is “simply not pervasive” enough of an issue, despite the fact that investigators have been told directly by bad actors that art was a “profitable investment precisely because of money laundering” due to the unregulated market.^{^[34]} Despite this pushback, new AML regulations in both the U.S. and the U.K. have been underway to include the art market within the regulatory scheme.^{^[35]}

This similarly calls into question the ethics of museum acquisitions and why due diligence investigations are so important. Historically, both museums and the art market have developed with little to no transparency or oversight.^{^[36]} However, that does not mean that museums are operating without any sort of acquisitioning guidelines. The American Alliance of Museums has published a set of guidelines on its website to “promote public trust and accountability of U.S. museums.”^{^[37]} It suggests that museums should rigorously research the provenance of an object prior to its acquisition, make an effort to obtain accurate written documentation of that provenance, and require sellers and donors to provide all available information and documentation.^{^[38]} It also states that museums must comply with all applicable U.S. laws governing ownership, import and other critical issues and that they should not acquire any object that to their knowledge has been illegally exported.^{^[39]}

In addition, the AAM guidelines note the significance of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and advise museums to require documentation that an object was found following the date on which the convention was signed.^{^[40]} This use of heritage instruments is another effective tool in fighting the illicit trade in antiquities. The 1970 UNESCO Convention urges State Parties to take measures to prohibit the illicit trafficking of cultural property and provides a framework for State Parties to work with. Centering on prevention, the convention asks Parties to consider factors like the regular establishment of inventories, the establishment of export certificates, and the application of criminal or administrative sanctions.^{^[41]} Another significant heritage instrument is the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, which builds upon the work of the 1970 convention. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention specifically notes due diligence as a necessary component for dealing with illicit trade.^{^[42]}

Unfortunately, the use of these instruments is complicated; while they are often the rule of thumb and a reference for how to deal with these objects, they are not a universal law. The 1970 UNESCO Convention, for example, is only applicable to State Parties that have signed it and is also dependent on the way those parties have since codified the convention into law. Despite these guidelines, museums typically play into the grayness of the market by publishing limited information on an object’s ownership history and generally do not share documentation, if they even have it.^{^[43]} According to experts, though, museums still have an ethical obligation to answer questions about objects in their collections. ^{^[44]} Furthermore, museums, as well as galleries and auction houses, containing contested antiquities have so far proven reluctant to return these antiquities unless confronted with overwhelming evidence of looting, placing the burden of proof on the countries of origin making a claim for their heritage.^{^[45]} For example, in the Latchford case, the Cambodian government has stated that any objects acquired after 1970 are looted given the rampant looting of temples during this period. However, museums have not taken over the task of researching claims of illicit activity, but instead continue to rely on the Cambodian government to produce evidence such as matching fragments to prove their claims.

Repatriation Efforts

Following the release of the Pandora Papers, the investigation of Latchford’s dealings and his association with objects within prominent museum collections has led to the return of some of the contested items as well as inquisition into others. As part of their investigation, the team of journalists contacted museums about their links to Latchford, particularly the Denver Art Museum and the MET. In response, the Denver Art Museum removed their four contested antiquities from its collection and began working with the Cambodian government on their return. The decision is significant considering that the museum has previously been much more reluctant to cooperate in the artifacts’ return.^{^[46]} On November 30, 2021, the museum announced that, in collaboration with U.S. and Cambodian governments, the four works were picked up from the museum for return to Cambodia, citing them as pieces acquired from Latchford and the museum’s commitment to their return.^{^[47]} Shortly after the Denver museum announced their decision to deaccession their pieces, the MET announced that it had reached out to officials from the U.S. attorney’s office to discuss whether artifacts in their possession had indeed been stolen from sites in Cambodia.^{^[48]} As of January 13, 2022, the museum remained under pressure from Cambodia to document its acquisition of roughly 200 artifacts that the Cambodian culture ministry believes were looted.^{^[49]}

Additionally, the Cambodian government called on two major museums in the United Kingdom, the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum, as of May 12, 2002, to return looted objects they believe are in their collections, specifically citing them as objects that passed through Latchford’s hands. They have reached out to both museums with lists of the items that Cambodian authorities believe to be in the collections. Of the approximately 100 Cambodian pieces the British Museum is believed to have in its collections, all appear to be in storage, with many ranking as a top priority for return. The British Museum responded in a statement, saying that they are “open and transparent about the heritage of objects in our permanent collection” and that they would “carefully and respectfully” consider any correspondence from the Cambodian government.^{^[50]} Similarly, the V&A is thought to own more than 50 Cambodian artifacts and has also been asked for extensive information on these objects. The museum responded with a statement that ensured the careful steps taken to provide as much information as possible on their objects to researchers through their database and that they “welcome the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue.” In addition, a museum spokeswoman also claims that none of the Cambodian artifacts in their collection were acquired through Latchford.^{^[51]}

Conclusion

The Latchford case highlights the pervasive issue of illicit trafficking and money laundering within the art world. Dealers like Latchford are able to not only take advantage of the art market’s gray ethics but also a lack of regulations that allow them to hide their illicit activities. However, these actions cannot stay hidden for long. The investigative work of journalists and provenance researchers is increasingly shedding light on these issues and calling out the institutions who have allowed it to happen, acting as a form of compliance in the art world and making it easier for affected source countries to repatriate their looted cultural heritage.

Since the time of their publishing, the Pandora Papers have effectively influenced change in the art market. Following the revelation of the use of offshore accounts in money laundering, U.S. lawmakers introduced a new bill called the Establishing New Authorities for Businesses Laundering and Enabling Risks to Security Act (ENABLERS Act), which aimed to expand the scope and authorities of anti-money laundering safeguards under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).^{^[52]} The proposed bill broadens the scope of the law to adjust the definition of a financial institution under the law and includes a variety of professional intermediaries such as attorneys and accountants involved in financial operations as well as art-related businesses.^{^[53]} Art market entities are specifically defined as those “engaged in the trade in works of art, antiques or collectibles, including a dealer, advisor, consultant, custodian, gallery, auction house, museum, or any other person who engages as a business in the solicitation of the sale of works of art, antiques, or collectibles.”^{^[54]} Building upon the BSA, the ENABLERS Act would require said entities to investigate potential clients and report financial wrongdoing.^{^[55]} As a result, it would introduce strict regulations to a notoriously unregulated art market.^{^[56]}

DISCLAIMER

This article is a modified version of a chapter of the writer’s MA graduate thesis.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Paulina Picciano is a recent graduate of the Master of Arts program in Art History with a concentration in Cultural Heritage and Preservation Studies at Rutgers University. She has a BA in Classical Studies with a concentration in Ancient Greek from Loyola University New Orleans as well as a postgraduate certificate in Art Crime and Cultural Heritage Protection from the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. She was a summer 2022 intern with the Center for Art Law and currently assists with publications as the Editing Coordinator.

The End of the Mask: Banksy, Anonymity, and What We Just Lost

Case Review: Bennigson v. Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation

Are Muralists Artists? Legally, It Varies