Wednesday, 15 April 2020

United States V. One Tintoretto - Landmark Case on Forfeitures


New York attorney Allen Bodner earned his JD from Columbia Law School. With decades of experience litigating complex cases arising from business transactions, attorney Allen Bodner has been involved in various landmark cases. One of them was United States of America V. One Tintoretto.

The case revolved around a valuable painting titled The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Honored Donor. Created in the 1500s by Venetian artist Tintoretto, the painting was looted from the Dresden Museum in East Germany at the end of World War II. A Soviet Union general took it to his country where Isaac Silberberg purchased it from a second-hand shop.

Silberberg lived with the painting for many years before deciding to sell it. He made an agreement with Raymond Vinokur, a business associate, to sell the painting in the United States on a commission basis. Vinokur resorted to getting the painting into the United States using shady tactics, falsely claiming that the property was his, for his own use, and not for sale, to avoid paying customs fees. The FBI caught up with him and arrested him. Vinokur plead guilty to making false statements in a Customs Bureau, and the US government obtained possession of the painting.

Later, the government commenced an instant forfeiture case on the painting (United States V. One Tintoretto), claiming that the painting was illegally smuggled into the country. It had a notice of attachment published. The owner, Silberberg, claimed ownership of the painting and filed a verified response in court.

The government argued that the owner’s innocence was no defense in a claim of forfeiture. The claimant, through his counsel, argued that, borrowing from the decision in Calero-Toledo V. Pearson Yacht Leasing Company, it would be difficult to reject the constitutional claim of an owner who proves that he was not involved in or aware of the wrongful activity and had done what was reasonably expected to prevent such use of his property. The Southern District Court held that the owner should not lose his art because an agent fraudulently entered it into the United States.