3 ms·
While I agree with you on the practical difficulties, the reason it's so clever is right in OP's comment: "there’s a huge amount of plausible deniability in som
by alexeldeib 5y ago
While I agree with you on the practical difficulties, the reason it's so clever is right in OP's comment: "there’s a huge amount of plausible deniability in someone’s honest willingness to pay such an exorbitant sum."
That rings true for me -- think of any collectible and the prices people are willing to pay. At the extreme: large sums for things most people find totally irrational. Who are you to tell a high bidder that you don't believe they are genuinely interested, when you know nothing about them other than the bid?
- jldugger 5y agoTechnically, you'd need two bidders if this is an open auction, or you'd also have to explain why you outbid second place by so much. And to answer my own question: apparently it's not required for auction houses to vet buyers, and this has been discovered by russian oligarchs evading US sanctions. Congress passed a law on Jan 1 to make that illegal -- overriding Trump's veto, naturally. It specifically mentioned 'antiquities' so presumably people are testing the waters elsewhere.
- antihipocrat 5y agoI was confused as to how the buyer would escape scrutiny as well.. So the answer is that if the buyer isn't vetted, then the seller could pretend to be multiple buyers and bid up the price to the desired amount. The settlement would then be made (or at least documented as being made) in cash.