Work on Dodgy Artefacts, Expect to Have to Account for Yourself

Rick St. Hilaire has a really interesting text on his Cultural Heritage Lawyer blog (Tuesday, September 16, 2014: 'Conservator's Records To Be Subpoenaed As Prosecutors Score Triple Victory in Peruvian Artifacts Forfeiture Cases').

A federal magistrate in New Mexico recommended that a conservator, who may have handled contraband objects, turn over his business records to prosecutors under subpoena, a decision that certainly will attract attention among conservation professionals since they are rarely the subject of cultural property claims filed by the government.

Surely they have codes of ethics that would prevent them handling dodgy artefacts in the first place. No? The case is a complex one described in detail by St Hilaire but I cannot fail to mention the nice example it also affords of the collectors' resistance to good practice blowing up in their face, a judge's ruling in this case cites 'Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs', confirming the importance - denied by their lawyers - of the listing on an MOU

"designated list within the meaning of the CPIA [...] Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the artifacts are legally importable by providing a State Party issued certification or any other documentation certifying that the artifacts may be legally imported into the United States”.