60
192
The Antiquities Trade – Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs
5.5. REGULATING THE PROTECTION AND MOVEMENT OF ANTIQUITIES
Legislation regulating matters of antiquity ownership and trade in Bulgaria is a
paradoxical mix of the conservative and liberal approaches. The 1969 Law on
the Monuments of Culture and Museums was inherited from the communist era
and despite its numerous amendments attempting to modernize it, it is still domi-
nated by the logic of state ownership over cultural property.
308
LMCM does not
explicitly ban private ownership of antiquities, but it does in no way regulate the
respective market relations, either. There is a well established collector network
while numismatic clubs can be found in nearly any city in Bulgaria. Coin collec-
tors in particular are supported through invitations to participate in joint exhibits
with state museums. The legal status of private collectors and their collections,
however, remains vague and thus vulnerable to improper political influence.
Halfway through this decade, though, the issue most debated in relation to curb-
ing criminal antiquity trading had become that of making allegedly illicit private
collections legal.
309
Affected by mounting public criticism, on 28 January 2005 the
Ministry of Culture adopted its Ordinance No.1 on the Rating of Registered Mov-
able Monuments of Culture Property of Legal and Natural Persons promulgated
in the Bulgarian State Gazette on 8 February 2005.
310
Its main aim is to set the
terms for private collection registration which will make privately-owned antiqui-
ties legal and available for public exhibitions. The Ordinance requires any legal
entity or individual in possession of cultural property to complete and submit a
registration form at the closest regional or specialized state museum, but defines
no fixed term for the registration. The registration papers deposited so far show
that collectors tend to avoid suspicions about the legality of antiquities by declar-
ing that they have bought the items at overseas auction houses or antique stores.
Only very few private collections have been registered so far, among them the
notorious lots of Vasil Bozhkov and Dimitar Ivanov.
There are a number of arguments against the feasibility and effectiveness of the
Ordinance as it is written.
311
First, there is little trust among collectors towards law
308 It defines monuments of culture as belonging to the nation, while legal ownership can be the
state’s, municipal, or of legal and natural persons. Items, discovered in archaeological excava-
tions, automatically become state-owned (Art.16, Par.1 of LMCM), but legal experts claim it is
more accurate to define it as so called ”private state property” as excavated monuments of
culture are liable to appropriation and become property of legal entities or persons. Any other
monuments of culture that have been buried underground, walled in or concealed in another
manner, so that their owner could in no way be established, also become private state property
straight after discovery. These objects are the so called treasures in relation to which there is no
consistent state policy and treasure finders are in no way encouraged by the state to turn in
their finds. Krasimir Manev, a legal expert, claims that ”the Law on Property and the Law on
Monuments of Culture and Museums contain conflicting provisions on this subject, and in reality
treasure finders are sometimes not even financially compensated. This strongly discourages them
from turning in or registering with the local museum any such items they might hold ... and in
this way cultural property crime is encouraged”. See Mitnicheska Hronika, No.5 (2006), p. 15).
309 Estimates about the number of those collections vary–from 1,000 large collections to 30,000
small-scale owners of several artifacts or coins (See Lazarova, B. and N. Alexandrova, ”Exactly
how many collectors are there in Bulgaria?”, Darik News, 17 January 2007). The larger part of
the collector community are members of the Association of Numismatic Societies in Bulgaria in
which over 120 numismatic clubs are signed up.
310 State Gazette 13/2005.
311 Interviews with prominent coin collectors, December 2006 – January 2007.
C# Word - Paragraph Processing in C#.NET Add references: C# users can set paragraph properties and create content such as run, footnote, endnote and picture in a paragraph.
add image to pdf java; add image to pdf form
57
Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends
193
enforcement bodies and museum staff. During the interviews, carried out for the
purpose of this paper, it was made clear that the prescribed system of registration
by commissions made up of local museum employees was not found trustworthy,
as it did not provide safeguards against the theft of valuable coins which could be
replaced with cheaper lower-grade versions by museum workers.
312
Next, cultural
object owners are required to pay for the photographs that must be appended to
every single coin/artifact as well as a registration fee and an expert appraisal fee
(for grading by the commission), which collectors consider a redundant financial
burden. Last, but not least, collectors argue that legalization is worthwhile only
for the owners of antiquities other than coins, such as statues and artifacts, but
it is unfeasible for coin collections given the great turnover of items.
313
The pervasive unwillingness of collectors to go legal seems to be rooted in the
very channels of acquiring their collections (as no amnesty is planned for ob-
jects illicitly acquired in the past
314
) combined with the rather fuzzy prospects
of properly regulating such trade in the foreseeable future. Even in the case of
registration the lack of documents of legal provenance (much more likely when
the antiquities were acquired in Bulgaria, rather than abroad) and the fact that
no regulations are in place to provide for the future enrichment of the collections
would further discourage most collectors already divided between the benefits of
the legal and the black market.
The interviews with stakeholders–policy makers, collectors, museum employees,
and archaeologists–have demonstrated that the convergence of their disparate
interests is highly unlikely due to the lack of dialogue between government, civil
society and the media. This runs the risk of law makers focusing on drafting
strict penal measures without seeking any input from the collector commu-
nity. Such an approach would lead to some easily imaginable measures and
trends–clamping down on currently legal cultural object exchanges as the one in
Veliko Tarnovo, an increase of contraband between Bulgaria and EU countries as
border control is being relaxed, and promoting some collectors while using legal
harassment against others. This would make it easy for each round of incumbents
in office to try to affect the market of antiquities for their own benefit.
To encourage registration of private collections which begun rather tentatively in
2005, stakeholders must be involved in an effective dialogue leading to a con-
sensus on cultural property issues. Prior to voting a new law on cultural monu-
ments, government institutions and civil society should launch a wide debate
on the regulation of cultural objects movement and protection.
315
One important
312 Some collectors have voiced their suspicions that past burglaries of private coin collections have
been committed with the involvement of corrupt police officers or other enforcement officials.
313 Arguments such as this have been in circulation for a long time in the debate over the liberal-
ization of the coin market in Bulgaria.
314 Illicit ancient artifact collections can still be prosecuted as misdemeanors as the offense of
”concealing stolen objects” has a statutory limitation of 10 years. In this way the collector could
avoid harsher sanctions by merely declaring a period of ownership longer than 10 years.
315 On 21 February 2007 the Sofia-based Red House Center for Culture and Debate hosted the
first major public event devoted to the philosophy and principles of the future law on cultural
heritage that is currently in preparation. The debate highlighted the disagreements between
policy-makers, administrators, experts, private collectors, and journalists and the acute need to
make civil society involved in debating legislation a regular practice.
53
194
The Antiquities Trade – Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs
issue, carefully evaded so far, is whether an amnesty for all illegal or quasi-legal
collections acquired in an earlier period should be introduced.
On the other hand, the poor regulatory framework may be a logical consequence
of the negligible cultural heritage protection efforts of the government itself, at
least compared to the strong pressure by corrupt officials and culture experts,
antiquity traffickers, dealers and grassroots looters interested in keeping the cur-
rent chaos and their own impunity.
The government’s indecision in tackling domestic antiquities trade and their
smuggling abroad is exemplified by poor inter-agency coordination – the Minis-
try of Interior, local authorities, the Ministry of Culture, archaeological institutes
(one major institute is part of the Bulgarian Academy of Science), and the in-
vestigation and prosecution services. The laxity of measures against illicit antique
dealing from the late 1990s to the present day contrasts sharply with peaking
enforcement efforts against other syndicate crime branches. During this period
the prosecution failed to pursue any charges against encroachments on cultural
monuments, thus debilitating the efforts of MoI enforcement agencies and other
institutions dealing with the heritage. Contrary to all logic, in 1999 the anti-traf-
ficking department for cultural property at the then National Service (now Chief
Directorate) for Combating Organized Crime (NSCOC) was closed down. Pros-
ecution and police officials have called this a major mistake that not only makes
life easy for criminals, but also gives full scope to corrupt local level MoI officers.
The above-mentioned department was re-established in 2006 and although a unit
with similar functions had operated at the national police, it had had to start
from scratch having received no prior information, experience or methodological
guidance to fight looters and traffickers. Meanwhile the network of informers,
whose role in detecting illicit domestic trade and trans-border trafficking is cen-
tral, was irreversibly lost.
Inertia and neglect are not the only factors to throttle effective enforcement.
Widespread corruption among local middle-ranking law-enforcement officers who
earn personal gains on the black cultural property market also has an adverse ef-
fect. Experts have outlined three major forms of corrupt relationships between
police officers and antique dealers/looters: 1) policemen are bribed to cover
looters and deter police investigation; 2) officers of higher rank become directly
involved in illicit antiquities trading, and 3) officers that must prevent and fight
cultural property violations become collectors.
316
In addition, the grading of cul-
tural objects held by looters, dealers or collectors is itself often done by would-be
experts whose only training is a two-week course delivered by the Privatization
Agency on a regular basis that can hardly have equipped them with the knowl-
edge they need to possess about cultural goods. Despite their determination to
get looters or persons in illicit hold of antiquities convicted, law-enforcement and
investigative bodies are often hampered by either incompetent or intentionally
falsified expert assessments presented at the trial phase.
316 In 2003, the head of Cultural Property Department at the National Police Col. Georgi Getov
was discharged. According to media reports he had operated one of the main antiquity smug-
gling channels in Bulgaria in partnership with a number of prosecutors, NSCOC officers, local
archaeological museum directors and other officials who had served as a supply link between
looters and the implicated department head. Maritsa Dnes daily, 7 May 2003.
Maritsa Dnes daily, 7 May 2003.
Maritsa Dnes
C# Word - Document Processing in C#.NET GetDocument(); //Document clone IDocument doc0 = doc.Clone(); //Get all picture in document List<Bitmap> bitmaps = doc0.GetAllPicture(); Create, Add, Delete or
add jpg to pdf acrobat; how to add image to pdf reader
46
Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends
195
The complex mixture of relations–criminal, quasi-legal and legal–between the ac-
tors on the cultural property market poses the need for a sophisticated regulatory
framework that would ensure due protection of the national cultural heritage,
while lifting some of the unwarranted restraints on private collecting to put it
in line with the common European practice. Reconciling the wide spectrum of
public and private interests would highly increase the efficiency of any mecha-
nism targeting the black market of antiquities or their contraband trafficking out
of the country.
•
The new law on the monuments of culture under preparation should be consulted with the equal partici-
pation of an expert group nominated by and representing the Association of Numismatic Societies.
•
Cultural objects kept in both public and private collections should be treated equally by law, including a
great number of items found among the private belongings of individuals inherited from past generations.
•
The ownership rights of citizens over cultural objects they possess should be guaranteed by law and a new,
more precise policy on their grading should be adopted. A balanced policy should also be drawn to facili-
tate the purchase of antiquities held by individual citizens as well as cultural objects exchange or trading
at specialized legal venues, such as shops and auction houses.
•
An official cultural objects classification system should be introduced requiring the mandatory registration on
a special list of items classified as protected world and national cultural heritage, while all other monuments
would be regarded as movable cultural property suitable for mass distribution that can be bought and sold
freely.
•
State support to the association of private collectors and the exhibit of private collections within Bulgaria
should be renewed. This would boost tourism, investment, and the cultural development of regions through-
out Bulgaria.
Box 12. The proposals of collectors
317
In 2006, the Bulgarian Supreme Prosecution Office of Cassation (SPOC) undertook a sequence of high-profile steps
to tackle violations on cultural property. The newly elected Prosecutor General, Mr. Boris Velchev, established an
inter-agency consultation group made up of prosecutors and experts from various ministries that would undertake
a thorough analysis of the current cultural property violations control system and attempt to formulate an effective
strategy to counteract such violations in the future. The SPOC has also formed a separate unit to target museum
thefts and looting offences. So far prosecutor warrants have been issued by virtue of which 480 cultural sites must
be specially safeguarded. A review of all related cases has been made and 11 prosecutor case termination writs
have been cancelled. It was found that 14 of all cultural property violation cases tried since 2001 have ended in
convictions. The number of actions brought against looters and cultural items traffickers in recent years exceeds
200 cases annually.
Box 11. The prosecution vs. the mafia
317 These are the core proposals drawn by Mr. Stavri Toplaov, who heads the expert group with
the Association of Numismatic Societies which were presented and debated at the February 21,
2007 Red House event together with several other recommendations.
44
196
The Antiquities Trade – Dealers, Traffickers, and Connoisseurs
Public cultural heritage strategies as well as concrete policies must be designed
while keeping in mind the fact that this market functions like communicating
vessels. Restrictions or a ban over legal domestic trade in antiquities, for instance,
would push black market prices down which in turn would fuel outbound smug-
gling. The latter could result in the loss of numerous collections to the Bulgarian
public. Conversely, generous liberalization unaccompanied by strict prosecution
of looting would cause clandestine excavations to spawn and would inflict lasting
damages on archaeological sites.
Several measures could be recommended to help avoid these risks:
• Modernize the legislation that governs heritage protection and keeps
the black market of antiquities in check by adopting a new Law on the
the black market of antiquities in check by adopting a new Law on the
the black market of antiquities in check
Monuments of Culture and Museums adequate to present-day realities
and by incorporating relevant texts in the Criminal Code. The Law should
provide for the currently unregulated issues such as the rights of owner-
ship, use, and inheritance; the purchase, sale and transfer of antiquities;
concessions of immovable cultural property; subtler differentiation between
national cultural heritage monuments and utilitarian articles, as the latter
are in greatest demand by collectors. The new criminal provisions need to
impose stricter penalties for violations involving cultural items.
• Step up law enforcement and criminal prosecution in cases of clandestine
excavation and cultural sites vandalism, also by prohibiting the use of metal
detectors, in order to curb looting. Financial rewards for accidentally found
articles and a mechanism for public museums to buy cultural items at at-
tractive prices would also rein in looting appetites.
• Improve international coordination to prevent the sale of contraband
antiquities from Bulgaria at auction houses in Western Europe. This would
probably deter attempts to traffic local cultural goods across the Bulgar-
ian border.
• Launch a catalog of cultural objects from museum funds as required by
current international standards and tighten museum security measures to
reduce museum thefts and illicit coin substitutions and enable the return
of illegally exported antiquities to Bulgaria.
• Provide options to legalize currently quasi-legal domestic transactions
with cultural goods not least by delimiting the role of all market actors in
the law.
Effective up-to-date regulation will necessarily involve leaving behind the domi-
nant culture of isolation among the institutions whose task it is to tackle looting
and the illicit dealing and transfer of antiquities. To establish a sound mechanism
for protecting cultural monuments the competent authorities would have to en-
gage in coordinated efforts at several levels:
21
Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends
197
• among the agencies of particular ministries, such as the police and the
Chief Directorate for Combating Organized Crime which should engage in
consistent information exchange and coordinated action;
• among the various ministries, e.g. the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of
Finance (in particular, the Customs Agency) and the Ministry of Interior,
whose work would gain immensely from a commonly maintained and ac-
cessible data base and the collating of relevant information;
• between central government and local authorities; the Ministry of Culture
in particular should demonstrate greater commitment to the government
of regional museums and seek the cooperation of town mayors and the
management of municipal museums.
• between the MoI and the Prosecutor General’s Office; a series of joint
actions against monument looting and antiquities trafficking carried out in
2006 demonstrated the good effects of such coordination;
• public–private partnership involving the relevant institutions, the local au-
thorities, the Bulgarian Orthodox synod and other religious councils, non-
governmental organizations and the media, with the primary aim of in-
creasing civil society participation in the debate on cultural heritage market
policy and practice.
24
CONCLUSION
This study is published as part of a series of analyses of the Center for the Study of
Democracy and attempts to offer a fairly comprehensive view of organized crime
in its development throughout the transition period. Although law enforcement
and judiciary institutions have had a certain amount of information on organized
crime its analysis has not been carried out systematically due to insufficient
capacity and lack of sustainable efforts. Public attention has been confined to
short-lived media coverage, while the partisan approach has prevented consensus
on effective policies. A sensationalist approach coupled with the understandable
impatience of the European Commission with the lack of progress further make
prospects of a breakthrough problematic.
In the last decade, the establishment of public-private partnerships as an effective
model has been a positive step towards tackling organized crime. The non-
governmental sector has provided a platform for a debate free of partisanship and
inert-institutional strife. Additionally, institutions of the state have the chance to
open to the community and gradually strengthen democratic transparency. Much
of the road forward to a new culture of open and accountable administration
and governance, however, remains to be traveled. The relatively new experience
of public-private partnership has survived the initial skepticism and revealed the
availability and potential of sound expertise, particularly in the monitoring and
assessment of organized crime markets and trends. Partnership thus needs to
go further and contribute to the acceleration of institutional developments, as
well as advanced policy-making and practice, in an aspiration to emulate the
best European models.
121
APPENDIX
200
Appendix
318 Article 33a of LMCM reads as follows: ”Movable monuments of culture belonging to one of the
categories stipulated in the Annex and movable monuments of culture constituting a national
asset may be exported from the territory of the country under conditions and following a pro-
cedure defined in an Ordinance adopted by the Council of Ministers on a proposal submitted
by the Minister of Culture and the Minister of Finance.”
Annex to Article 33a
318
of the Bulgarian
Law on Monuments of
Culture and Museums
(new, SG No. 55/2004, in force as
Culture and Museums (new, SG No. 55/2004, in force as
Culture and Museums
of 1 January 2005)
№
Category
Age
Value (in levs)
from
1 January until
31 December
2005
Value (in levs)
from 1 January
2006 until full
membership of
Bulgaria in the
European Union
Value (in levs)
at the time of
full membership
of Bulgaria in
the European
Union
1.
Archaeological objects which
are the products of:
–
excavations and finds on
land and under water;
–
archaeological sites;
–
archaeological collections
dating more than 100
years back
irrespective of
the value
irrespective of
the value
irrespective of
the value
2.
Elements forming an integral
part of artistic, historical or
religious monuments which
have been dismembered
dating more than 100
years back
irrespective of
the value
irrespective of
the value
irrespective of
the value
3.
Pictures and paintings other
than those included in
categories 4 and 5, executed
entirely by hand in any
medium or on any material
above 100,000
above 200,000
above 300,000
4.
Water colours, gouaches and
pastels executed entirely by
hand on any material
more than 50 years
old and not belonging
to their authors
above 20,000
above 40,000
above 60,000
5.
Mosaics in any material
executed entirely by hand,
other than those falling
in categories 1 or 2, and
drawings in any medium
executed entirely by hand on
any material
above 10,000
above 20,000
above 30,000
6.
Original engravings, prints,
serigraphs and lithographs
with their respective plates
and original posters
more than 50 years
old and not belonging
to their authors
above 10,000
above 20,000
above 30,000
7.
Original sculptures or statuary
and copies
produced by the same
process as the original (1),
other than those in category 1
more than 50 years
old and not belonging
to their authors
above 60,000
above 80,000
above 100,000
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
