On the 125th anniversary of Oscar Wilde’s death, the primacy of the master of paradox over his reign has abruptly come to an end. Paradox has a new king: the Museum of Ara Pacis in Rome. Its “Lex, Justice and Law from Etruria to Rome”, a successful exhibition aimed, in the words of its organisers, at “introducing the most significant aspects of the concept of Justice in Rome through more than 80 artworks” turned out to have displayed four fakes.
Three marble sculptures depicting imperial eagles, a marble head of goddess Atena, and the catalogue of the exhibition – held at the Ara Pacis Museum between the months of May and September 2023 – were seized by the Italian judiciary in the early days of March 2025. The seizures were executed in the framework of an investigation triggered by concerns raised by experts and visitors regarding the authenticity of some of the works on show, concerns that were later confirmed by technical assessments performed with the support of art scholar Andrea de Liberis and archaeologist Marina Mattei.
The fakes appear to have been purchased online for an amount totalling 12,000 euros, but to have been valued in loan papers at 725,000 euros. The curator of the exhibition Vincenzo Lemmo and private collector Fabrizio Casprini, owner of the seized artefacts, are under investigation in a case that sees the City of Rome and the Sovrintendenza Capitolina, patrons of the exhibition, as injured parties. The reputational damage suffered by the institutions involved is undoubtedly high.
How could the paradox of an institutional exhibition on the rule of law displaying dubious/fake artefacts as authentic happen? How could this paradox materialise in Rome, one of the cradles of antiquity, through artefacts of quality so poor to make their authenticity appear dubious even to the untrained eye?
The Ara Pacis fakes are by no means the first to have been displayed in exhibitions taking place within prestigious cultural institutions in Italy in recent years. In July 2017, an exhibition on Amedeo Modigliani held at Palazzo Ducale in Genoa was shut down three days early after a local prosecutor ordered the seizure of all 21 works on show on suspicion of fraud. By then, approximately 100,000 visitors had been exposed to an avalanche of dubious paintings. “Even a child could see these were crude fakes,” art critic and collector Carlo Pepi, who first raised suspicions about the works after going through the exhibition catalogue, told The Telegraph at the time. His assessment was later confirmed by a court-appointed expert, Isabella Quattrocchi, who declared that 20 of the 21 confiscated works (i.e. the totality of the paintings on display minus one) were “blatantly fake”.
Thousands of irate visitors to the show demanded a full refund of their tickets, while Italian consumer groups explored the possibility of seeking compensation for the 100,000 attendees’ travel expenses. After representatives of Assoutenti and Casa del Consumatore met with the President and the Director of the Palazzo Ducale Foundation, a support hotline was set up to deal with refunds. Tickets to the show, priced at 13 euros for a standard access, would be compensated by its organiser, company Mondo Mostre Skira. A trial that saw Palazzo Ducale and three consumer associations as injured parties commenced in Genoa in 2021; it ended in June 2023 with the acquittal of all six defendants on the grounds that “only” eight of the works were forged and that the exhibition was not a fraud: according to the judge, neither the organisers of the show nor the owners of the fakes were aware the works were forgeries; as a result, these had been exhibited as authentic in good faith. Eight years after the events, the reputational damage suffered by Palazzo Ducale has not yet faded.
Fakes laundering and the need for control mechanisms firmly in place at exhibition venues
We have created the term “fakes laundering” to indicate the process of falsifying the authenticity, the provenance and, consequently, the value of forged artworks and other fake artefacts through their cataloguing and display within exhibitions, auctions, and any other means or venues capable of conferring to the fake a track-record of authenticity, provenance, and any other element apt to fraudulently increase its value.
Fakes laundering presumes intent. Situations where owners, lenders, sellers or other subjects involved are bona fide unaware of possessing or dealing with a fake do not fall into the fake laundering category. The assessment of good faith should take into account the level of competence and technical knowledge of the individuals concerned; consequently, in cases involving major collectors, curators, art dealers and museums, good faith remains a grey area where the idea “he could not help but know” (the Italian “non poteva non sapere”) looms powerfully.
The category of “fake” includes the subcategory of “forgery”. While a forgery is, by definition, created with the intent to mislead and/or defraud, a fake is not necessarily created with the intent to deceive but has the potential to be used, with intent, for fraudulent purposes by subjects other than its creator. The use of the word “fakes” in our concept and term “fakes laundering” reflects coverage of forgeries as well as fakes created with no intent to mislead or defraud. The latter lose their “innocent” status when laundered.
The mechanism we have defined “fakes laundering” consists of three main stages:
Phase 1: A fake is created, willingly or accidentally acquired, or discovered.
Phase 2: For the purpose of making a profit or avoid a loss, the fake is given a false provenance and/or certificate of authenticity
Phase 3: In order to enhance its pedigree and, consequently, its value, the fake is loaned to exhibitions organised at reputable private or public institutions or consigned to reputable auction houses, where it goes undetected (presumably in good faith?) and is catalogued and displayed or offered for sale.
No control measures for the verification of authenticity and provenance – and therefore for the prevention of potential fakes laundering – appear to have been in place at Palazzo Ducale in Genoa in relation to the artworks exhibited in the Amedeo Modigliani show. In a press release issued on 14 June 2017, shortly after the artworks were seized by the judiciary, Palazzo Ducale Fondazione per la Cultura complained about the material and reputational damage suffered as a result of the scandal, and remarked that Palazzo Ducale had not organised the exhibition directly having commissioned the selection of artworks and the material organisation of the event to a reputable company (Mondo Mostre Skira, with which the Genoese institution had successfully worked in the past) which in turn had selected a reputable curator (Rudy Chiappini, for over 20 years director of the Lugano Art Museum), thereby acting under what the Foundation called the “traditional criterion of prudence and attention”. Clearly this was not enough.
As the investigation is ongoing, public information regarding the four fakes displayed at the Ara Pacis Museum within the exhibition “Lex, Justice and Law from Etruria to Rome” and seized by the Italian judiciary few days ago is extremely limited. Even on the basis of the scarce information currently available, however, it is rather evident that also in this case control measures and mechanisms against fakes laundering were weak or absent.
Every artefact has its own story, a “life” matured and maturing through different market players: artists, forgers, art dealers, galleries, collectors, auction houses, fairs and museums. Each step contributes to its pedigree, what is technically called “provenance”, and to its market value. Cultural institutions such as museums and foundations hosting exhibitions should have strong control measures and mechanisms in place to avoid facilitating fakes laundering and incurring in long-lasting reputational damage and criminal proceedings.
Mirta Aktaia Fava
Mirta Aktaia Fava is an art consultant, international lawyer, risk manager and interior designer active internationally. She graduated with a Master of Law (LL.M.) from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, and an M.A. in Political Sciences and International Relations from LUISS University, Rome, where she also held research and teaching positions. A published academic, she is an alumna of The Hague Academy of International Law and a former research fellow of the Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) and La Sapienza University Rome. She specialised in Art Market, Analysis of the Art Market, Art Law, and British Portraiture at the Sotheby’s Institute of Art, London, and in Antique Furniture at Christie’s Education, London. Prior to entering the art world, Mirta worked as a counterparty analyst and risk manager for some of the leading international financial institutions in the City of London.
***
Mirta Aktaia Fava è una consulente d’arte, giurista internazionalista, risk manager e interior designer attiva in ambito internazionale. Ha conseguito un Master in Diritto (LL.M.) presso l’Università di Cambridge, Regno Unito, e una laurea in Scienze Politiche e Relazioni Internazionali presso la Luiss di Roma, dove ha anche rivestito incarichi di ricerca e insegnamento. Ha al suo attivo diverse pubblicazioni accademiche e divulgative. È allieva dell’Accademia di Diritto Internazionale dell’Aja, Paesi Bassi, ed è stata borsista di ricerca per il Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) e l’Università La Sapienza, Roma. È specializzata in Mercato dell’Arte, Analisi del Mercato dell’Arte, Diritto dell’Arte e Ritrattistica Britannica presso il Sotheby’s Institute of Art di Londra, e in Mobili Antichi presso Christie’s Education, Londra. Prima di dedicarsi al mondo dell’arte, ha lavorato come analista e manager del rischio di controparte presso alcune delle piu’ prestigiose istituzioni finanziarie internazionali della City di Londra.