Mendelsohn argues that the statue, a bust of the Roman emperor Hadrian, was acquired legally and ethically, and that the seller, a reputable dealer, had no reason to know about the statue’s provenance. The Manhattan district attorney’s office, however, maintains that the statue was looted and that the seller, who is now deceased, was aware of the statue’s origins. The D.A.’s office is pursuing a civil forfeiture action against Mendelsohn, seeking to seize the statue and potentially sell it to recover the alleged losses. The case highlights the complexities of navigating the legal and ethical landscape surrounding looted antiquities.

A. has been accused of prioritizing the interests of the museum over the rights of the descendants of the enslaved people who were the original owners of the statue. The lawsuit filed by the Cleveland Museum of Art is based on the argument that the statue is a “cultural treasure” and that the museum has a “longstanding commitment” to preserving and displaying it. The museum argues that the seizure of the statue would be detrimental to the museum’s mission and would set a dangerous precedent for future claims.

The Art Loss Register is a global database that tracks stolen or lost artworks. It is a valuable resource for museums, galleries, and collectors, as it helps them identify and recover stolen or missing pieces. The Art Loss Register is not without its critics, however. Some argue that it is not comprehensive enough, and that it does not always accurately reflect the current market value of artworks. Despite these criticisms, the Art Loss Register remains a valuable tool for identifying and recovering stolen or lost artworks. It is a crucial resource for museums, galleries, and collectors, and it plays a significant role in the art world.

The lawsuit also alleged that the D.A.’s actions were “a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice.” This claim is based on the D.A.’s alleged failure to provide Mr. Nelsonsohn with the evidence that DANY claims casts doubt on Mr. Morrissey’s ownership. The lawsuit further alleges that the D.A.’s actions were “motivated by a desire to protect Mr. Morrissey’s reputation.” This claim is based on the fact that the D.A. has a history of defending Mr. Morrissey in other legal matters.