Sotheby’s and Rybolovlev’s legal professionals paint contrasting photos of culpability in fraud trial’s closing arguments

Precisely three weeks after the civil fraud trial between Sotheby’s and the Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev kicked off in a Manhattan courtroom, the legal professionals for either side delivered their closing arguments at the moment (29 January). The 2 summations, which clocked in at round two and a half hours apiece, informed two largely totally different tales concerning the details of the case and the culpability of its numerous characters. Which one will win out, nevertheless, stays an open query for a minimum of yet another evening.

The day’s proceedings introduced the protagonists on this drama close to the tip of a protracted, winding street. Between 2003 and 2014, Rybolovlev paid roughly $2bn to amass 38 artistic endeavors by the Swiss businessman Yves Bouvier. (The precise purchaser in all circumstances was considered one of two offshore trusts, Accent Delight Worldwide and Xitrans Finance , technically the 2 plaintiffs within the current lawsuit.) Over time, nevertheless, Rybolovlev discovered that Bouvier, whom the Russian thought he had contracted to behave as an agent on his behalf, had as a substitute acquired and resold these works to his trusts at markups he alleges whole greater than $1bn.

Amongst these 38 works have been 13 that Bouvier purchased in personal transactions with Sotheby’s. Pretrial rulings winnowed Rybolovlev’s case in opposition to the home down to only 4 works. Essentially the most distinguished of those is the Salvator Mundi (round 1500), controversially reattributed to Leonardo da Vinci, adopted by Gustav Klimt’s 1907 canvas Wasserschlangen II (Water serpents II), Rene Magritte’s Le Domaine d’Arnheim (1938) and the Amedeo Modigliani sculpture Tête (Head).

After pursuing civil and felony expenses in opposition to Bouvier in territories starting from Switzerland and Monaco to Hong Kong and Singapore, Rybolovlev settled all issues with Bouvier in all jurisdictions in December 2023. This determination leaves the civil trial in opposition to Sotheby’s as maybe Rybolovlev’s closing probability for compensation—and at the moment’s proceedings as his legal professionals’ closing probability to persuade the jury to award it to him. (Bouvier has maintained from the beginning that Rybolovlev knew him to be appearing as a vendor free to set his personal costs; he has by no means been convicted of any crime anyplace.)

‘In on the con’

Zoe Salzman, who dealt with the closing argument for Rybolovlev’s facet, primarily formed her summation round two prongs. The primary was that Samuel Valette, Sotheby’s worldwide chairman of personal gross sales and Bouvier’s principal level of contact on the public sale home, was “in on the con” allegedly perpetrated in opposition to the Russian; the second was that Sotheby’s senior management repeatedly regarded the opposite approach in regard to Valette’s purportedly illicit dealings with Bouvier, exactly as a result of these dealings had grow to be too profitable for the public sale home to danger slowing down or snuffing out by significant oversight.

To this second level, Salzman stated: “They [Sotheby’s] had quite a lot of insurance policies on the books, however they didn’t do something to implement them.” Specifically, she portrayed the home’s appraisal standards—a frequent level of rivalry all through the case, particularly within the case of the Salvator Mundi—as functioning much less like significant inside rules and “extra like non-obligatory tips”.

This allegation echoed Rybolovlev’s rivalry that what led him to wreck was the opacity of the artwork market, with Sotheby’s as one of many chief obfuscators. Salzman known as again to her shopper’s testimony concerning why he filed this criticism in opposition to the public sale home within the first place: “It’s not solely a matter of cash. It’s essential for the artwork market to be extra clear, as a result of as I’ve already talked about, when the most important firm on this business [Sotheby’s] is concerned in actions of this kind, shoppers don’t stand an opportunity.”

Salzman additionally break up a number of of the present and former Sotheby’s staff who testified within the case into three classes: those that have been principally sincere professionals doing their jobs honourably, reminiscent of co-chair of Outdated Masters Alexander Bell and former head of valuations Franka Haiderer; these whose worst alleged misdeed was to avoid any data that might constrain the home’s income, reminiscent of former chief govt William Ruprecht and former chief working officer Bruno Vinciguerra; and in a category of his personal, Valette, who she portrayed as having been “in Bouvier’s pocket” for years.

But in the long run, Salzman argued, the distinctions between these teams have been basically irrelevant. It was the duty of Sotheby’s, as a world company, to implement inside rules that may justify its sterling status within the artwork market, in addition to to observe its employees to make sure these rules have been adopted in all its departments and places of work worldwide. In her telling, the proof confirmed this didn’t occur, whether or not it got here to assessments of honest market worth for the Magritte and Modigliani works, the authenticity and situation of Salvator Mundi or Valette’s function because the “key shopper supervisor” assigned to Rybolovlev.

“Sotheby’s sells belief. You possibly can’t blame Mr. Rybolovlev for getting it,” she stated to the jury, including that this was exactly what Sotheby’s legal professionals have been attempting to influence them to do. As a substitute, she proposed another.

“It’s time so that you can inform Sotheby’s that huge firms are nonetheless accountable underneath the regulation,” she stated, including in conclusion: “The buck stops now. The buck stops with Sotheby’s.”

‘Bouvier shouldn’t be right here’

After a lunch break, it got here time for Marcus Asner, Sotheby’s lead counsel, to make his closing attraction to the jury. Quite than instantly contesting the plaintiff’s case, he started on a degree of convergence between the 2 sides.

“There’s one factor we agree about: Bouvier lied to Mr. Rybolovlev repeatedly,” Asner stated. “If there’s a fraud right here,” he added, “that’s the place it was.”

“However Bouvier shouldn’t be right here,” he continued, referring to the truth that Bouvier was not a celebration to the lawsuit. As a substitute, Asner alleged, Rybolovlev had determined to sue Sotheby’s in an try and “make anyone else pay for what occurred to him”.

Then the lawyer pivoted to a struggle footing. He portrayed Salzman’s closing argument time and again as “mud thrown on the wall” to distract from the basic problems with the case, which he largely distilled into two factors.

First, he argued, there was “zero proof that Sotheby’s knew something about Bouvier’s lies”. The public sale home was conscious from the beginning that Bouvier was a vendor, partly as a result of he had performed scores of transactions with Sotheby’s over time. This meant that Valette and others all the time knew that any data they despatched to Bouvier could possibly be utilized in his subsequent efforts to flip works to another person.

However there was nothing incorrect with that, Asner argued; it’s merely how markets work, together with the marketplace for artwork. Simply as essential, Sotheby’s made no cash in any respect from Bouvier’s resales, whether or not the tip shopper was Rybolovlev or anybody else. This gave the home no incentive to help him in artificially inflating his personal resale costs.

The truth is, Valette testified that, in his first transaction with Bouvier, the latter was “very clear” that the sale contract must be drawn up with Blancaflor Investments, one of many firms Bouvier used to purchase artwork (together with a few of the works he would later resell to Rybolovlev), which “was shopping for this work as a principal”—that’s, an finish purchaser—slightly than as an middleman. This grew to become the association at any time when Bouvier did enterprise with Sotheby’s thereafter.

This level additionally led to one of many harder-hitting moments of Asner’s summation: Rybolovlev acquired 23 artistic endeavors from Bouvier earlier than Sotheby’s was ever concerned, suggesting that Bouvier didn’t, actually, want any help from the public sale home in convincing Rybolovlev to pay his costs. This concept undercut the plaintiff’s rivalry that it was Sotheby’s, and Sotheby’s alone, that enabled Bouvier’s markups.

The second pillar of Asner’s closing argument revolved round a authorized idea known as “affordable reliance”, which successfully asks whether or not it was affordable for a celebration alleging fraud (on this case, Rybolovlev) to have trusted the accused fraudster (Bouvier) in gentle of the obtainable proof. Asner argued that, right here, it was not—and because it was not affordable for Rybolovlev to have trusted Bouvier within the first place, then from a authorized standpoint, no fraud truly occurred, clearing Sotheby’s of even the potential for wrongdoing.

“These will not be kids,” Asner stated of Rybolovlev and Mikhail Sazonov, who led Rybolovlev’s household trusts for greater than 15 years, earlier than placing bulleted lists of the 2 males’s intensive academic and enterprise credentials onscreen for the jury. As a substitute, he continued, they’re “refined businessmen” who “surrounded themselves with legal professionals and accountants at each flip”, besides when it got here to doing almost all of their offers with Bouvier. (Notably, Rybolovlev enlisted a significant Swiss regulation agency to execute gross sales contracts for the primary 4 works he acquired by Bouvier however then stopped.)

To additional assist this level, Asner returned to testimony by Sazonov by which he recalled that Bouvier had informed him and Rybolovlev that each different middleman within the artwork market was crooked; solely Bouvier could possibly be trusted. Sazonov and Rybolovlev’s actions counsel they took this grandiose assertion at face worth. Each males admitted on the witness stand that they by no means requested to see any gross sales contracts with the sellers of the works acquired by Accent Delight and Xitrans, and Rybolovlev by no means checked to see if Sazonov had certainly executed a contract with Bouvier to behave as his agent. No less than, not till after he had spent $2bn.

Asner reached the summit of this method when he known as again to the negotiations for the Salvator Mundi. At one level, Bouvier proposed a method to deflate the portray’s worth and “break the morale” of the sellers by falsely claiming his then-unidentified Russian shopper was now not . Rybolovlev didn’t cease Bouvier from utilizing this tactic, casting doubt on the previous’s rivalry on the witness stand that he sued Sotheby’s partly to shine a lightweight on the artwork market’s darkish dealings.

By participating on this ruse, Asner argued, Rybolovlev and Sazonov destroyed any declare to affordable reliance they could have had: “They’re enjoying with a con man, they know they’re enjoying with a con man and so they bought conned.”

We’ll quickly discover out whether or not the six jurors agree. Tomorrow (30 January), Choose Jesse Furman will instruct them concerning the parameters of their pending determination earlier than sending them off to deliberate in personal. The artwork commerce will anxiously await their verdict.