3 ms·
I think the theory is that Bob secretly gives an accomplice a bunch of dirty cash. That accomplice then buys art from Bob, but they get to keep some portion of
by jml7c5 7y ago
I think the theory is that Bob secretly gives an accomplice a bunch of dirty cash. That accomplice then buys art from Bob, but they get to keep some portion of the money for their trouble. There needn't be an artist involved.
Though it seems the accomplice would come under scrutiny unless they have some plausible explanation as to how they got the money to pay for the thing. I don't know if "the art market is fueled by money laundering" theory is actually supported by evidence, but it's a fun idea.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- yairchu 7y agoIs there any other plausible explanation?
- wolco 7y agoIt's based on fear, copying the last person, vanity, greed, fraud and elitism. Money laundering is possible but a transaction like that with art will trigger an audit in best of times and the government will demand proof of worth. Easy to give with a Warhol harder to do with an unknown painter.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]