Subscribe
Search
ePaper
Newsletters
Subscribe
ePaper
Newsletters
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Search
Law
news

Prosecutor recommends four-year prison sentence and €250m fine for Guy Wildenstein in Paris trial

Lawyers for art dealing dynasty to present their defence next week in high-profile tax fraud and money laundering case

Victoria Stapley-Brown
14 October 2016
Share

On Thursday (13 October) French prosecutors recommended sentencing in their closing arguments in the tax fraud and money laundering trial involving members of the Wildenstein art-dealing dynasty. The high-profile case has mined how the Franco-American family handled its assets, including an art collection of more than 2,500 works, following the death of Daniel Wildenstein in 2001 and his son, Alec Wildenstein, in 2008.

The prosecutor requested four years in prison, two behind bars and two suspended, and a fine of €250m for Guy Wildenstein, Daniel Wildenstein’s son and the president of Wildenstein & Company in New York. The defendant has argued throughout the trial that he was uninformed of the financial structure set up by his father and brother. A six-month suspended prison sentence was requested for his nephew Alec Wildenstein Jr, as the prosecutor argued he was “much less involved” than his uncle, and a one-year suspended sentence was requested for Alec Wildenstein Sr’s widow, the Russian sculptor Liouba Stoupakova (who herself is at odds with the Wildenstein family). Three lawyers and a notary have also been charged and face possible prison sentences and fines if found guilty of complicity.

The prosecutor Monica d’Onofrio called the case “the longest and most sophisticated tax fraud” in the history of modern France. She reminded the courts that both Daniel and Alec Wildenstein died after battling illnesses in Paris, “where hospitals are paid for by our taxes”. D’Onofrio added: “This stateless fortune—where was it declared? Nowhere. You think that this is a global tax loophole? It’s shameful.”

Lawyers for the Wildensteins have argued that the assets held by trusts did not legally belong to Daniel Wildenstein, and so did not need to be declared by the family when settling the estate tax. The defence will present its arguments from Monday, 17 October, and the court is expected to rule after several weeks.

Law
Share
Subscribe to The Art Newspaper’s digital newsletter for your daily digest of essential news, views and analysis from the international art world delivered directly to your inbox.
Newsletter sign-up
Information
About
Contact
Cookie policy
Data protection
Privacy policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscription T&Cs
Terms and conditions
Advertise
Sister Papers
Sponsorship policy
Follow us
Facebook
Instagram
YouTube
LinkedIn
© The Art Newspaper