This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/arts/design/legal-tussle-over-statue-turns-nasty.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Legal Tussle Over Statue Turns Nasty | Legal Tussle Over Statue Turns Nasty |
| (3 days later) | |
| The fight between Sotheby’s and federal lawyers over the fate of an ancient sandstone statue that Cambodia wants returned took a bitter turn in court on Thursday after each side filed papers accusing the other of acting unethically. | The fight between Sotheby’s and federal lawyers over the fate of an ancient sandstone statue that Cambodia wants returned took a bitter turn in court on Thursday after each side filed papers accusing the other of acting unethically. |
| In a motion in United States District Court in Manhattan, Sotheby’s, as part of its effort to have the case dismissed, accused federal officials of blocking a $1 million private deal that might have provided for the amicable return of the statue and other improprieties. | In a motion in United States District Court in Manhattan, Sotheby’s, as part of its effort to have the case dismissed, accused federal officials of blocking a $1 million private deal that might have provided for the amicable return of the statue and other improprieties. |
| In response, prosecutors took the unusual step of accusing a former colleague, Jane A. Levine, who is now a top Sotheby’s executive, of providing “false and misleading information” to the government early in the 30-month investigation. Sotheby’s denied the accusation. | In response, prosecutors took the unusual step of accusing a former colleague, Jane A. Levine, who is now a top Sotheby’s executive, of providing “false and misleading information” to the government early in the 30-month investigation. Sotheby’s denied the accusation. |
| Ms. Levine worked for 10 years as a prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s office in Manhattan and was a special trial lawyer assigned to the F.B.I.’s art crime team before becoming director of the worldwide legal compliance department of Sotheby’s in 2006. | Ms. Levine worked for 10 years as a prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s office in Manhattan and was a special trial lawyer assigned to the F.B.I.’s art crime team before becoming director of the worldwide legal compliance department of Sotheby’s in 2006. |
| The tensions in court on Thursday underscored the stakes in the case, in which the United States, acting on Cambodia’s behalf, has accused one of the world’s leading auction houses of attempting to sell a 10th-century Khmer empire statue valued at $3 million despite what the government views as evidence that it was looted. The statue portrays a hulking Hindu warrior named Duryodhana. Cambodia laid claim to it after matching it to its severed feet, which were found in the Koh Ker temple complex. | The tensions in court on Thursday underscored the stakes in the case, in which the United States, acting on Cambodia’s behalf, has accused one of the world’s leading auction houses of attempting to sell a 10th-century Khmer empire statue valued at $3 million despite what the government views as evidence that it was looted. The statue portrays a hulking Hindu warrior named Duryodhana. Cambodia laid claim to it after matching it to its severed feet, which were found in the Koh Ker temple complex. |
| Sotheby’s has said it acted in good faith and that it has seen no evidence to indicate the statue was stolen, or that it must be returned under laws cited by the United States and enacted a century ago by Cambodia’s French colonial government. | Sotheby’s has said it acted in good faith and that it has seen no evidence to indicate the statue was stolen, or that it must be returned under laws cited by the United States and enacted a century ago by Cambodia’s French colonial government. |
| The statue, which had been sent to New York by its Belgian owner for auction, was removed from sale in March 2011, when Cambodia declared it to be a looted artifact. In the ensuing months, Sotheby’s sought to negotiate the return of the statue, and talks began with a Hungarian art collector, Istvan Zelnik, who indicated he might be willing to buy the statue for $1 million and donate it back to Cambodia. | The statue, which had been sent to New York by its Belgian owner for auction, was removed from sale in March 2011, when Cambodia declared it to be a looted artifact. In the ensuing months, Sotheby’s sought to negotiate the return of the statue, and talks began with a Hungarian art collector, Istvan Zelnik, who indicated he might be willing to buy the statue for $1 million and donate it back to Cambodia. |
| But Sotheby’s, citing government e-mails, said in its court papers that an agent with the Department of Homeland Security, Brent Easter, had pressured Cambodia to halt the talks because the government wanted sole credit for the statue’s return. | But Sotheby’s, citing government e-mails, said in its court papers that an agent with the Department of Homeland Security, Brent Easter, had pressured Cambodia to halt the talks because the government wanted sole credit for the statue’s return. |
| Federal lawyers replied that the private deal had fizzled, not because of government intervention, but because Sotheby’s had rejected Mr. Zelnik’s offer. | Federal lawyers replied that the private deal had fizzled, not because of government intervention, but because Sotheby’s had rejected Mr. Zelnik’s offer. |
| In their papers, the prosecutors accused Ms. Levine of misleading federal agents about the statue’s document trail as part of an effort to short-circuit their investigation into the legality of selling it. They said Ms. Levine had assured the government that the statue had proper paperwork dating to the late 1960s, “while discouraging the government from obtaining the documents that ultimately show that asserted provenance to be false.” | In their papers, the prosecutors accused Ms. Levine of misleading federal agents about the statue’s document trail as part of an effort to short-circuit their investigation into the legality of selling it. They said Ms. Levine had assured the government that the statue had proper paperwork dating to the late 1960s, “while discouraging the government from obtaining the documents that ultimately show that asserted provenance to be false.” |
| The criticism of Ms. Levine prompted Peter G. Neiman of WilmerHale, the lawyer representing Sotheby’s in the case, to write a letter late Thursday to the United States District Court judge in the case defending Ms. Levine. | |
| “Any suggestion that Sotheby’s provided information it knew to be inaccurate is demonstrably not true,” Mr. Neiman wrote. | “Any suggestion that Sotheby’s provided information it knew to be inaccurate is demonstrably not true,” Mr. Neiman wrote. |
| In the court hearing on Thursday, Mr. Neiman also said that Mr. Easter had misled Sotheby’s in 2011, asserting that the government had the right to confiscate the sculpture, when in fact, documents show, prosecutors were still searching for an applicable law under which to do so. | In the court hearing on Thursday, Mr. Neiman also said that Mr. Easter had misled Sotheby’s in 2011, asserting that the government had the right to confiscate the sculpture, when in fact, documents show, prosecutors were still searching for an applicable law under which to do so. |
| The federal prosecutors said the issue was moot because the judge, George B. Daniels, had already decided that the government had the right to block any movement of the statue until the case is resolved. | The federal prosecutors said the issue was moot because the judge, George B. Daniels, had already decided that the government had the right to block any movement of the statue until the case is resolved. |
| Sotheby’s has asked the judge to halt the further exchange of discovery documents and rule instead on whether new papers it filed Thursday provide evidence sufficient to have the case thrown out. | Sotheby’s has asked the judge to halt the further exchange of discovery documents and rule instead on whether new papers it filed Thursday provide evidence sufficient to have the case thrown out. |
| The new evidence included an affidavit from a French expert in Cambodian colonial law, Alexandre Deroche, disputing the American position that legal decrees from the early 1900s that are still on the books in Cambodia outlaw the removal of Khmer Empire statues. | The new evidence included an affidavit from a French expert in Cambodian colonial law, Alexandre Deroche, disputing the American position that legal decrees from the early 1900s that are still on the books in Cambodia outlaw the removal of Khmer Empire statues. |
| In response, government lawyers said Mr. Deroche’s testimony addressed only one of the three legal prongs it is using to prove that the statue was stolen Cambodian property. They said the other arguments by Sotheby’s were being used “to continue to delay the public airing of the facts.” They urged that the case go forward. | In response, government lawyers said Mr. Deroche’s testimony addressed only one of the three legal prongs it is using to prove that the statue was stolen Cambodian property. They said the other arguments by Sotheby’s were being used “to continue to delay the public airing of the facts.” They urged that the case go forward. |
| Judge Daniels set a new hearing for Oct. 14. | Judge Daniels set a new hearing for Oct. 14. |
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: | |
| Correction: September 16, 2013 | |
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the law firm in which Peter G. Neiman is a partner. It is WilmerHale, not Wilmer & Hale. |