Hidden in Plain Sight: The Role of Free Ports in the Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property

(Tempo di lettura: 13 minuti)

On 13 September 1995, the Italian Carabinieri, in collaboration with the Swiss police, raided a storage facility in the Geneva Freeport belonging to Giacomo Medici, a notorious Italian antiquities dealer. Inside, they uncovered a sophisticated trafficking operation in which looted artefacts from Italy and around the world were stored and sold, including to some of the world’s most famous cultural institutions, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the J. Paul Getty Museum. The raid revealed not only a large quantity of antiquities but also a restoration laboratory and a showroom where clients could view objects before purchase. The scale of the operation soon became clear. According to Watson and Todeschini (2007), around 3,800 artefacts were recovered, along with over 4,000 photographs of illicitly excavated objects and close to 35,000 pages of business records. This case demonstrated how free ports could be exploited as hubs for the trafficking of cultural property. Three decades later, it remains important to ask whether the situation has improved since then and why free ports are so vulnerable to misuse. This article explores the role of free ports within antiquities trafficking networks.

Free ports or free trade zones?

According to Lavissière and Rodrigue (2017), free ports are a form of territorial exceptionalism and an important aspect of globalisation. Free ports act as platforms for transportation, logistics, and trade. These territorial exceptions offer countries a competitive advantage in the global market. The concept of free ports is hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. In the middle of the twentieth century, the concept of free ports evolved into several forms of free trade zones. The World Bank provided definitions of these concepts in its publication Special Economic Zones: Performance, Lessons Learned, and Implications for Zone Development (2008). In this publication, free ports and free trade zones are defined as two connected yet distinct concepts. Free ports are described as larger areas that enable various activities, such as tourism and retail, and may even permit residence on site. They also provide a number of benefits, including warehousing, transshipment, and the introduction of duty-free and tax-free merchandise by enterprises or individuals. Free trade zones, on the other hand, are described as commercial free zones, usually smaller, fenced-in, and duty-free areas. These zones also offer users a wide range of options, such as warehousing, storage, and distribution facilities for trade. Lavissière and Rodrigue (2017) emphasised the significance of the free ports in Dubai, Singapore, and Hong Kong as some of the world’s leading commercial gateways.

In the literature related to research on the illicit trafficking of cultural property, the term ‘free port’ is most commonly used, but it is not always clear whether it refers strictly to free ports as defined, for example, in the World Bank (2008) publication or whether the term is used more loosely to indicate various forms of free trade zones. Tanico (2022) pointed out that the original purpose of free ports was to help merchants avoid import tariffs during the transit of goods. She further explained that today free ports are large, warehouse-like structures, mostly located in the vicinity of airports or shipping ports. To further explore how free ports are defined in the literature on illicit cultural property trafficking, I analysed two important publications. The first is the report of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in the Case of Illicit Appropriation (hereafter referred to as the ICPRCP), produced at its twentieth session in 2016. The second publication is the report of the Art-Law Centre (University of Geneva), submitted to UNESCO in 2018, entitled The Legal and Illegal Trade in Cultural Property to and Throughout Europe: Facts, Findings and Legal Analysis. These two reports define free ports in similar terms. They are described as tax-free warehouses where goods can be held for a period of time before transportation, import or export, transit, and reshipment. The ICPRCP report (2016) notes that goods can now be stored for an unlimited period of time, often at minimal cost. Both reports also explain that owners of stored goods do not pay import taxes or duties until the goods reach their final destination. In this context, ‘free’ refers to the suspension of customs duties and taxes. It is also important to note that owners do not pay transaction taxes if goods are sold within free ports. Additionally, Tanico (2022) explains that storage in free ports requires only simplified customs documentation.

Both analysed reports also state that there are numerous free ports worldwide, with more than forty located in the European Union and over ten in Switzerland. The ICPRCP report further highlights five or six free ports that specialise in art storage, located in Geneva, Singapore, Monaco, Beijing, Luxembourg, and Shanghai. The free port in Geneva is the best known within the art world. The Art-Law Centre reports that the Geneva Free Port is a 550,000-square-foot high-security warehousing complex, approximately 40 per cent of which is dedicated to storing art and antiquities. The authors also cite a statistic from 2013 indicating that around 1.2 million artefacts may have been stored in the Geneva Free Port at that time. According to a swissinfo.ch report from 2014 on Geneva’s Port Francs, companies operating within the facility offer art dealers and collectors a wide range of services. The most important of these is the storage of art and antiquities under conditions of strict confidentiality. Objects are kept in storage units with varying levels of security and controlled temperature and humidity conditions to ensure their preservation. To attract additional business, the company highlighted in the report also offers further services, such as art restoration and authentication using modern technologies. The report also describes so-called “showrooms”, spaces that serve a commercial purpose by allowing collectors to “stay connected to their artworks” and “to look at them, move them, [and] exchange them”.

Free ports in networks of illicit trafficking of cultural property

As already mentioned, Lavissière and Rodrigue (2017) argue that free ports are important elements of globalization, offering countries a competitive advantage and opportunities for economic development. Yet some cases, for example the Giacomo Medici scandal, together with reports and academic publications, indicate that these same free ports can also facilitate criminal activities, including the illicit trafficking of cultural property.

Why is this possible? The sources analysed point to several recurring factors:

• lack of regulation and user anonymity;
• the absence of a uniform international regulatory system or effective penalties;
• weak oversight and limited monitoring;
• simplified customs forms and procedures;
• the fact that free ports can exist outside a country’s territorial jurisdiction, raising questions about authority and accountability;
• and, as previously mentioned, the possibility of storing goods for an unlimited period of time.

To further investigate the role of free ports in the illicit trafficking of cultural property, it is also crucial to examine the structure of trafficking networks. This has been addressed most clearly by Mackenzie et al. (2020) in the book Trafficking Culture: New Directions in Researching the Global Market in Illicit Antiquities, as well as by Campbell (2013) in his article The Illicit Antiquities Trade as a Transnational Criminal Network: Characterizing and Anticipating Trafficking of Cultural Heritage. In these publications, the authors divide trafficking networks of cultural property into three phases: the source country (when cultural property is looted or stolen), the transit phase (when cultural property is moved away from the location of looting), and the destination market (where looted cultural property is ultimately sold).

The transit phase, as described in the works of Mackenzie et al. (2020) and Campbell (2013), is the period during which looted cultural goods leave their country or location of origin and are moved towards the destination market. This process distances an object from its original context, making traces of criminal activity harder to identify. It is the most complex phase of the three outlined, and the one that remains the least clearly understood. In addition to transporting looted goods towards the destination market, traffickers’ main objective is to transform illegally obtained antiquities into objects that appear legitimate and ready for open sale on the destination market. There are various methods by which this can be achieved. The following section examines how free ports can be misused during this phase.

Free ports as Facilitators of Cultural Property Trafficking

This chapter outlines the illicit activities that traffickers can carry out by exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in the special status of free ports worldwide. Through an analysis of relevant literature, documents, and case studies, four such activities have been identified that may be carried out while cultural goods are stored in free ports, though others may also exist.

a)‘Cooling Off’ Looted Cultural Property

The ability to store goods in free ports for an unrestricted period allows criminals to conceal looted cultural goods away from the location of looting for extended, potentially unlimited periods of time. This is possible because free ports often lack systematic customs controls or rely solely on random inspections, making it unclear what goods are stored within them. The absence of effective customs oversight also means there is often no paper trail regarding the origin of stored cultural goods, which can sever the link between illegally acquired cultural property and the place, time, and actors involved in the looting or theft.

The process of so-called “cooling off” is particularly relevant for antiquities originating from crisis- or conflict-affected countries that were illegally acquired or exported during periods of instability. Once the situation in the source country and the international context have “cooled off”, such goods can be gradually introduced into the antiquities and art market. This practice helps traffickers reduce suspicion on the part of authorities or potential buyers regarding the illicit origin of the objects once they are released onto the market.

b) Fabrication or ‘laundering’ of provenance

What does the fabrication or “laundering” of provenance mean? Mackenzie et al. (2020) provide a clear explanation. The process involves creating an acceptable false or fabricated provenance, or backstory, in order to obscure the illicit origins of an object and eliminate direct links to illegal acquisition. The result is that illegally obtained antiquities can be offered openly for sale on the global art market.

There are various methods through which provenance can be fabricated or laundered. One common method involves providing false provenance information that is deliberately vague and difficult to verify. At the point of sale, objects may be accompanied by minimal or ambiguous provenance statements, such as “anonymous collector”, “acquired on the London art market”, or claims that the object formed part of an old private collection. Such collections are often dated to a period before most countries established state ownership of antiquities within their territory, or at least prior to 1970. A second method is more complex. While antiquities are stored in free ports, they may be sold repeatedly between various front or shell companies. These transactions are fictitious, as the same individual ultimately controls the companies involved. Giacomo Medici’s triangulation system, as described by Watson and Todeschini (2007), whereby an object is consigned through one company and purchased through another of his front companies, is a particularly relevant example. This practice generates a paper trail of sales that signals to the market that the antiquities are “clean”, while simultaneously creating artificial demand. Actors involved in the illicit trafficking of cultural property often seek to sell antiquities through well-established auction houses, as such sales provide an additional layer of apparent legitimacy.

Criminals may also attempt to forge accompanying documentation. This typically involves falsifying import or export certificates, sales records, or documentation relating to previous ownership. Most countries have established state ownership of at least archaeological cultural property within their territory and have implemented export or import restrictions on cultural goods. As a result, an export certificate is generally required for antiquities to leave their country of origin. Antiquities that have been removed illegally are therefore not accompanied by such certificates, and their absence should alert buyers to the possibility of an illicit origin. To avoid scrutiny, traffickers may forge export or import documentation so that antiquities attract less attention on the art and antiquities market. This method may, however, be less necessary in practice, given that many antiquities sold by major auction houses are offered without export or import certificates.

c) Movement of the Cultural Property

Both the ICPRCP (2016) and the Art-Law Centre (2018) reports note that free ports are a global phenomenon, with facilities located worldwide. However, Tanico (2022) pointed out that one of their greatest problems is the absence of a uniform regulatory system establishing international rules for their management. At present, free ports are regulated individually, locally or nationally. This allows traffickers to exploit differences between jurisdictions and operate in those with the most favourable conditions for illegal activity.

The combination of fragmented regulatory system, insufficient customs oversight, user anoymity and simplified customs procedures, makes the movement of cultural goods through free ports both efficient and hard to track. The movement of goods is the most important aspect of trafficking, not only of antiquities, but in general. Free ports can therefore be misused as trafficking hubs, allowing cultural property to be moved without proper documentation. This efficient and invisible movement enables traffickers to break the link between an object and its looting location, distancing an object from its site of origin without leaving a paper trail. At the same time, easy movement of cultural property increases opportunities for sales, by granting the traffickers access to the wider international antiquities market. It also allows them to target jurisdictions with weaker import rules, limited customs capacity, or the possibility of misdeclaration (for example, declaring looted antiquities as replicas or souvenirs). Such vulnerabilities are more common in economically less developed countries, where underpaid customs officers may be more susceptible for corruption.

d) Money Laundering possibilities

The use of free ports and artworks or antiquities for money laundering is a complex topic that requires dedicated research. This article therefore provides only a brief overview of the issue.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) noted in its 2010 report that relaxed oversight, a lack of system coordination, insufficient regulation, and an absence of transparency can lead to the misuse of free ports and other types of free-trade zones. The report explains that free ports may be exploited both for the initiation and facilitation of traditional and complex money-laundering techniques, as well as for terrorist financing. Trade-based money laundering is identified as the most common money-laundering technique facilitated by free ports. This scheme typically involves under- and over-invoicing and other forms of value misrepresentation. It relies on networks of front companies combined with the purchase and shipment of goods acquired with illicit proceeds. The report, however, does not address how cultural property specifically fits into the highlighted illicit schemes.

This gap is addressed by Tahri (2022) in her article Luxury Freeports and Crime: What Are the Risks?. She explains that criminals may purchase artworks using funds of illicit origin held by shell companies. These artworks can then be traded among multiple front companies, all controlled by the same individuals or groups. Through this process, criminals not only launder illicit funds but also further distance themselves from the original purchase. It is also important to note that artworks and antiquities are particularly susceptible to value manipulation, given the subjective and symbolic nature of their valuation.

Discussion

As established by the scholars discussed in this article, free ports are situated within the transit phase of cultural property trafficking networks. However, an analysis of the illicit activities facilitated by free ports shows that they play a crucial role at two distinct interfaces within this phase. First, at the source–transit interface, traffickers are able to move objects anonymously, concealing traces of their illicit origin, as free ports often leave little or no record of movement. Second, at the transit–destination market interface, free ports allow traffickers to fabricate a new and acceptable provenance, replacing an object’s true history with one tailored to market expectations. In this way, free ports can function as tools both for erasing an antiquity’s original story and for constructing a new one that renders the object suitable for open sale on the destination market.

The importance of this process can be understood in light of Mackenzie’s analysis. As Mackenzie (2006) explains in Psychosocial Balance Sheets: Illicit Purchase Decisions in the Antiquities Market, high-end, white-collar buyers often do not perceive themselves as criminals. Instead, they rely on various forms of justification when purchasing antiquities of illicit origin. Free ports can play a critical role in this process, as they may be used to erase an object’s true history and replace it with an alternative narrative. By obscuring an object’s past and constructing a new provenance, traffickers create a layer of so-called “plausible deniability” that allows buyers to claim good-faith purchase. Such claims enable buyers to maintain a socially acceptable self-image and to avoid being perceived as engaging in criminal behaviour.

The legal consequences of plausible deniability are also significant. The contemporary art and antiquities market generally operates on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, meaning that antiquities and artworks may be traded freely unless and until their illicit origin is demonstrated. This framework renders restitution claims exceptionally difficult, costly, and time-consuming. As Renold (2018) notes, claimants must establish several elements in order to succeed. They must prove that the antiquities in question originated from their territory or were otherwise obtained illegally, and that state ownership and export restrictions were in force at the time of the looting. In cases involving private ownership, proof of prior lawful ownership must also be provided. Claimants must further comply with strict limitation periods and address conflicts of law arising from the international dimension of such disputes. Throughout this process, the burden of proof falls almost entirely on the claimant. By severing the link between an object and its place of origin, traffickers make these elements extremely difficult to demonstrate, particularly in cases involving illegally excavated objects for which official documentation is lacking. Moreover, buyers claiming good-faith purchase may, in some jurisdictions, be entitled to compensation if an object is returned, and under certain conditions may even acquire valid legal title if sufficient time has elapsed since the object’s looting or theft.

Conclusion: The Future

This article opened by describing a landmark case that exposed how free ports can be misused in the trafficking of cultural property. But has the situation improved since 1995? Even a brief review of publicly available information suggests otherwise. A simple internet search reveals numerous instances in which illicitly obtained antiquities and artworks have been discovered or seized in free ports, most frequently in Geneva.

According to research by the Antiquities Coalition and case documents from the Supreme Court of New York (Exhibits 40–45), the marble bull’s head looted from the Temple of Eshmun near Sidon during the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990) was stored in the Geneva Free Port between approximately 2006 and 2009 by the Beierwaltes couple. In 2013, nine antiquities from Syria (Palmyra), Yemen, and Libya were seized in the Geneva Free Port during a random customs inspection. Investigations carried out in late 2015 and early 2016 by Italian and Swiss authorities at the Geneva Free Port uncovered forty-five crates of Roman and Etruscan antiquities linked to the notorious antiquities dealer Robin Symes. In 2016, Swiss authorities also seized a Nazi-looted Modigliani painting (Seated Man with a Cane) within the same facility. Additional cases are documented in the ICPRCP report from 2016 (paragraph 9).

These examples demonstrate that the use of free ports in the trafficking of cultural property has continued well beyond 1995. They also raise an unavoidable question: how many looted antiquities and artworks remain hidden in free ports, and how many have already entered the international art market? Notably, all publicly documented cases identified in this brief review involve the Geneva Free Port, prompting a further question: what is occurring in other free ports around the world in relation to this issue?

According to the ICPRCP report (2016), several attempts have been made to improve the regulation of free ports. Nonetheless, there has been little visible progress in this area. An international and coordinated approach is clearly required to address the role of free ports within global cultural property trafficking networks. Without a stronger commitment by national governments and international institutions to prioritising the protection of cultural heritage, free ports are likely to continue to be exploited in the ways outlined in this article.

Literature and recommended further reading

1. Art-Law Centre of the University of Geneva 2018, The Legal and Illegal Trade in Cultural Property to and Throughout Europe: Facts, Findings and Legal Analysis. – The Art-Law Centre (Centre du Droit de L’Art), Geneva.
2. Campbell, P. B. 2013, The Illicit Antiquities Trade as a Transnational Criminal Network: Characterizing and Anticipating Trafficking of Cultural Heritage. – International Journal of Cultural Property 20/2, p. 113–153.
3. FATF 2010, Money Laundering vulnerabilities of Free Trade Zones (March 2010). – Paris, FATF/OECD.
4. ICPRCP 2016, Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation: Twentieth Session (29–30 september 2016). – UNESCO, Paris.
5. Lavissière, A. in J.P. Rodrigue 2017, Free ports: towards a network of trade gateways. – Journal of Shipping and Trade 2/7, p. 1–17.
6. Mackenzie, S. 2006, Psychosocial Balance Sheets: Illicit Purchase Decisions in the Antiquities Market. – Current Issues in Criminal Justice 18/2.
7. Mackenzie, S., N. Brodie, D. Yates in C. Tsirogiannis 2020, Trafficking Culture: New Directions in Researching the Global Market in Illicit Antiquities. – London and New York, Routledge.
8. Renold, M. A. 2018, Legal Obstacles to Claims for the Restitution of Looted Art. – In: Bonomi, A. and G. P. Romano (ed.), Volume XIX Yearbook of Private International Law Vol. XIX – 2017/2018. – Köln, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, p. 247–268.
9. Tahri, K. 2022, Luxury Freeports and Crime: What are the Risks? – Center for Art Law (September 3, 2022).
10. Tanico, D. 2022, The Secret Lives of Free Ports: An Analysis of the Regulation of Free Ports and the Illicit Antiquities Inside. – Fordham International Law Journal 45/4, p. 717–750.
11. The World Bank Group 2008, Special Economic Zones: Performance, Lessons Learned, and Implications for Zone Development (April 2008). – Washington, The World Bank Group.
12. Watson, P. and C. Todeschini 2007, The Medici Conspiracy.– New York, Public Affairs.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice or advice of any other type (ŽB).