In Italy, links between all these players and this complex underground were first discovered thanks to the investigations into [A] Giacomo and Gianfranco Becchina, two Italian dealers involved in a wide traffic of works of art of certain Italian provenance, which had as presupposed facts, criminal offences of theft and/or illicit excavation and exportation of the goods themselves. As assessed, the documentation gathered during the investigations throws light on what we might call the strategic organization of the antiquities underworld and the discoveries in this realm are a major contribution to the history of both archaeology and criminology in this sector during a long period of time, from the 60s to the late 90s. And we can summarize, as it follows, the investigations conducted by the Public Prosecution Office in Rome.

In 1995 a criminal procedure was started against [A] Giacomo, thanks to the Swiss Authorities who had seized from [A], at Geneva Free Port (Switzerland), thousands of archaeological objects, many of which still had Sotheby’s tags indicating the pertinent sales. The importance of the above acquisition was completed by paper documents, transmitted by Sotheby’s lawyers. Then, in June 2000 the Swiss Authorities delegated the proceeding which had been opened in Switzerland to the Italian Authorities, transmitting all the objects seized (almost 4000) which had in the meantime been examined by experts on Swiss territory, and also all the paper and photographic documentation seized in Geneva.

Then, in 2001 the Swiss Authority were once again very helpful, searching and seizing many documents and archaeological items which [B] had been holding in the Porto Franc of Basel. And in 2005 these evidence too was transmitted in Italy. Italian technician-archaeologists immediately began working on the material acquired: the aim of the examination was to unravel the events concerning some of the most important objects, since it was not possible to trace them all. From the examination of the documents held by the Prosecutor’s Office, various connections were found with other dealers, shippers, mediators and restorers of archaeological material, operating throughout the world. These, in turn, brought about a series of rogatory letters with assistance requests almost in the entire world, from Switzerland, from France, from Great Britain, to the United States, Japan, Denmark, Germany, Australia etc. Further investigations also took place in Italy, with raids and interrogations. Both the Italian Carabinieri and the Italian Guardia of Finanza, as well as technicians from the Italian Cultural Ministry, actively collaborated in this monumental work. Rogatories resulted in further acquisitions in Switzerland and elsewhere, with new seizures of objects and documentation, both against [A] himself as well as Phoenix A.A., also of Geneva; against Fritz Burki and his son Harry in Zurich; in France there was a particularly significant raid on Robert Emanuel Hecht, resulting in the seizure of objects as well as paper and photographic documentation, and a sort of “memoir” found in his home. Marion True, ex-responsible for purchases for the P. Getty Museum, was interviewed in the United States. Significant and serious with regards to [A]’s responsibilities, are statements by Casasanta Pietro, Guarini Walter, [B]Gianfranco, Tchacos Nussberger Frederique Marie, Jiri Frel and particularly by Robert Hecht, who basically confirmed the content of the memoir seized, of which he claimed paternity.

At the end of the extremely complex investigation which verified Giacomo [A]’s and Gianfranco Becchina’s activity over a period of almost forty years (their criminal actions lasted continuously, without downturn, for this length of time), one can with certainty maintain that the examination of the voluminous documentation with cross-checks of the same, has allowed us to verify and prove most of the suppositions both in relation to the objects seized, as well as with those not found, of which there are unmistakable photographs. For example, objects are frequently depicted in polaroids taken on sights of digs, in fragments and/or still dirty with earth; and polaroid technique is used by tombaroli so as to avoid diffusion beyond a circle of people known to them, of images regarding material excavated. This technique, as is testified by many, is never used in scientific circles. We could therefore state that the traffic run by [A] and Becchina, or of which they were certainly the principal players, might be quantified in more than 20.000 objects, some of which of enormous cultural value as well as economic value, the overall figure in economic terms being calculated in more than 100 million Euros. Objects were bought by some of the most important museums of the world, frequently for over $100.000 each. But the major damage was inflicted to the archaeological areas which were devastated so as to make this traffic possible (damage quantified by experts around 200 million Euros). In this excursus we must also recall the practices for “laundering” objects: practices in which [A] and [B]were supposed to be maestro, together with the members of the “club” which they concurred to head; practices which frequently consisted in attribution of provenance, known to be false, from collections or from auction houses which were the universitas or subjects delegated to the apparent transit of artistic goods, for the obvious reason of misleading any investigation.

Switzerland had to appear the “country” of provenance of the objects, which instead had recently been illicitly excavated, taken out of Italy and sent abroad thanks to [A]and Gianfranco Becchina, in so much as they were the reference point for thieves and/or Italian tombaroli and other people connected to them. From Switzerland the goods were then fictitiously attributed as being the property of other companies (see the above mentioned list), which acted as “clearing and laundering-house”, and which then sent the archaeological goods mostly to England, Germany, the U.S. and even to Japan or Australia. The brokering and triangulation had one only aim: that of rendering the purchases credible and unchallengeable for the buyers. Not only. At times the Art Loss Register (a data-bank for stolen goods similar to that of the Italian Carabinieri, obviously never double-checked) was approached, so as to be able to vaunt good faith. Since the objects had been illegally excavated, they could never have been catalogued or inventoried, nor, obviously, reported as having been stolen. With regard to proof and documents of particular weight for the incrimination of conspiracy in the present case, we must recall the following specific circumstances:

- In the course of a raid carried out on Pasquale Camera, well-known trafficker of Italian archaeological objects, which took place on the day of his death (30.8.1995), a page was found with the organigram of people in Italy involved in illicit trafficking of objects. [A], [B]and Hecht occupy an important position on this chart;

- The important documents regarding a trial held at Knightsbridge Court in London in the month of November 1991 against James Hodges, once employee of Sotheby’s London, refer to the interrogation of Mrs. Felicity Mary June Nicholson, responsible for the Antiquities Department of the above-mentioned London auction house.

From her questioning one learns, in synthesis, how some of Sotheby’s personnel was, in different ways, involved in trafficking goods of artistic, historical and archaeological interest, illicitly originating from Italy, be it by handling, be it because they had been illicitly exported, and held in violation of Italian laws;

- In the course of his interrogation, Guarini Walter (he too a well-known Italian trafficker), indicated [A] and [B]as being amongst the people interested and in contact with Italian and foreign traffickers; his statements appear even more significant in that Tchacos Nussberger Marie Frederique spoke of Guarini as the person who many times furnished [A] and [B](through Raffaele Monticelli, another trafficker) with archaeological objects, in particular those coming from southern Italy;

- In the course of his interrogation Casasanta Pietro (a well-known Italian tombarolo) confirmed that there were competitive groups, trying to send the best objects out of Italy, and that these groups were led respectively by [B]and Giacomo [A]; that [B]and [A] had divided Italy into two areas of influence and had become millionaires from nothing; that absolutely everybody in the milieu of the traffickers in archeological material knew that [A]and [B]were bosses who managed to intercept all almost the material excavated in Etruria and in South of Italy; that it was well known that Hecth and [A] were partners since the sixties; that the criminal group reported their rivals to the authorities whenever their interests were threatened;

- It is then Fritz Burki who, to the Swiss Authorities who were interrogating him in December 1997 and October 2001, ends up by admitting that at times he had acted as front-man for the buying and selling of objects dealt by, amongst others, [A], [B]and Hecht;

- Hecht himself had to admit that he had been a front for sales to the J.P. Getty Museum, allowing it to be understood that the Museum could not or would not buy directly from [A]. On the other hand, Hecht, in his memoir, says of [A]: “In spite of this G.M. (Giacomo [A]) was loyal… he appeared at our (of Hecht and his wife) apt. In Villa Pepoli (Rome)… with polaroids of a Kr (Krater) signed by Euphr (Euphronios)… I could not believe my eyes… took the train to Lugano (Switzerland) where G.M. had the Krater in a safe deposit box. The negotiation did not take long… we agreed on 1,500,000 S.F. (Swiss Francs)… That same evening I went on to Zu (Zurich), left the Kr to F.B. (Fritz Burki)…”. Also: “…G.M. (Giacomo [A]) soon became a faithful….. The next memorable purchase from G.M. was a group of a Etr (Etruscan) chariot fixture….”. And also: “The sale of the Kilix was an eye opener for G.M. He saw that quality had high premium…”. Also: “…G.M. (Giacomo [A]) had become more prosperous, selling mainly to me... he sold me a... kilix, which I put at auction at Sotheby’s. F.N. (Felicity Nicholson, head of department in Sotheby’s London) called me… said that Scotland Yard was inquiring about the kilix at the request of Italy… she wanted to give it to Italians. I told her to resist…”. There is more: “…G.M. (Giacomo [A]) at that time was the man of E.B. (Elia Borowski: wellknown collector)… this prompted G.M. to go to E.B. with the excuse that the police (Italian) were after the cup… so, in the evening on the Lungotevere (Rome), in front of the palace of Justice, in my car… L. (Luzzi)… G.M. showed me the cup…”.

With regard to their business relationships, to the “omertà” which had to surround the relations between the associates and their ties with museum institutions, it is well worth recalling the following expressions, taken from the same Hecht’s memoir: “…H.C. (Herbert Cahn, a well-known Swiss antiquarian) did not realize or want to realize that he was dealing in contraband… that in this activity it is ignoble to inform against your collaborators…”; and also: “…So I went into exile, not even permitted to return to Italy…. My friends were loyal during this period and brought to me such fine objects as the Attic r/f Kilix now in Munich (Museum)…”; and further: “…I read off a list of museums I had sold to including the B.M. (British Museum), Louvre, Glyptothek Munich, Glypt. Copenhagen, M. of A. (Museum of Art) Boston, Toledo, Cleveland, Harvard Univ… and the Campbell Soup Museum…”;

- Of significant probationary value are also Marion True’s statements, as are those of Tchacos Nussberger Frederique Marie (a Swiss dealer), who depict [A] and [B]as persons who tended to monopolize the market; as persons who had no compunction in using corruption so as to enter into the good graces of a museum; as someone who bought objects at very high prices at auctions (with no chalance, in fact they were buying the same objects they themselves had put on sale, obtaining the double advantage of “laundering” the object and raising its commercial value in a field where prices are obviously not pre-set). But there is more. Tchacos, heard on this point, said that in the organization there were two “ropes”: the first with the axis Robert Hecht (operating mainly in New York, Los Angeles, Paris and Geneva) [A] Giacomo, with Symes (operating mainly in London, New York, Los Angeles and based in Greece too) as reference point; the second, still with Hecht as the preeminent figure, involved amongst others, Giovanni Franco [B]and Raffaele Monticelli (the latters operating mainly in South Italy, Switzerland, Japan and Australia);

- Of significance are the places chosen for [A]’s and Becchina’s activity of stocking, buying and selling, that are, Free Port of Geneva and Basel, where it was obviously possible to carry out the first activity of receiving the archaeological objects just excavated and seeing to their restoration, either directly or with the help of third parties, far from prying eyes; places which were possible to search only thanks to the active collaboration of the Swiss Authorities. [A] and [B]evidently felt so safe, that at the warehouses inside Free Port, as said above, an imposing amount of photographic documentation of objects was found, objects frequently depicted in fragments on the sights of illicit digs; also found, a quantity of compromising documents, precious for the reconstruction of events concerning some of the objects; also, many archaeological objects of inestimable value, some of which put on sale and then re-purchased by the same people through auction houses, in clear laundering operations aimed at attributing legitimate provenance and artificially raising the price of the objects themselves. Other objects appeared still dirty with earth, packed in fruit boxes coming from Italy, with the names printed on them, or were wrapped in daily newspapers, these too Italian;

- Many of the photographs seized to [A] in Geneva and to [B]in Basel had writing on them and sometime showed interiors that were easy to spot as appertaining to the other associates, so helping to piece together the complex web of criminal interrelationship . Moreover, because at times illicitly excavated archeological objects, even when found intact, were deliberately fragmented, or, if found in fragments, were, once again, deliberately not restored: the criminal links of the conspiracy were traced not only thanks to the documents collected, but through the fragments and their subdivisions amongst the various participants;

- Thanks to the documentation collected, we came across a set of names that was the most surprising of all. This was a list of archaeologist or art historians and of museum curators who appeared to have been in touch with [A] and Becchina, and had offered to them their expertise. Evidently those experts as well as many restores were having an important part inside the criminal organization;

- Considering the confidential relations and meetings, which took place also in Italy, between [A]and Marion True (there are very friendly letters and photographs which depict the associates in convivial attitudes: documents found in Geneva belonging to [A]), it would undoubtedly have been more economic for Marion True -and through her for the Getty Museum- to buy directly from [A] instead of going through elaborate triangulations and intermediations, which, being illicit, were kept strictly secret, with agreements on the version to be upheld when any inconvenience or “accident along the way” took place. On the other hand, relations between the parts were stable and lasting and to illustrate this it is sufficient to recall the letter which Marion True sent [A]on the 22.1.1992. True says: “I intend to be in Rome… on February 19th through the 23rd. I will back in Rome again from March 8th through approximately March 12th. During one of these visits, I hope that you will be able to get together and have some further discussion about future acquisition”. Obvious indication that the collaboration between the two was at that time “flourishing”; that negotiations took place in Italy with respect to objects of Italian provenance. Also obvious that the modalities would have been the usual ones, seeing that no direct purchases result between the J.P. Getty Museum and Giacomo [A];

- We have to stress that Marion True should have been well aware of the illicit provenance of the objects dealt and often acquired through photos, depicting their illegal excavations. In this respect, it is sufficient to recall the letters published by the Los Angeles Time. Hecht on September, 22, says to True: “…am sending photographs of corinthian pots… that might be interesting as documents…. My friend called me + said that since the Carabinieri were looking for the pelike with the arms of Achilles he abandoned negotiations. So I will not have it. Perhaps others may acquire it. Sorry…”. And also the letters Hecht sent to True on the 1st of October 1986, and on the 7th of January 1987: “…I hope to have this -it was obviously sent a photo of the object- when you receive the letter. Found near Cumae. Maybe Turnus!….”. Or: “…whether this (h.14 cm)….. -it was obviously sent again a photo of the object- …..is within a few feet of your dying youth….”. However, in his memorandum written to Deborah Gribbon on the 24th of October 1985, Arthur Houghton, the previous curator for the J.P. Getty Museum, showed the same awareness. This memorandum reads: “….it has still seemed possible to go back through the chain of individuals through whom the material passed to try to find out exactly where all three originated. It was. At the beginning of this month I had a chance to discuss the matter with the dealer who had bought all three objects from the excavators. This individual, Giacomo [A], had sold one (the lekanis) to a second dealer, Robert Hecht, and the griffins and Apollo to a third, Robin Symes….. [A] informed me that he had acquired the lekanis and Apollo in 1976 or 1977, and that both had been found at the same location, a tomb which included a number of vases by the Darius Painter, at a site not far from Taranto. Hecht said the site was Ortanova…”.

We must also stress that the criminal phenomenon with which we have above dealt with was spread out over almost the entire world, from Italy, to Swiss, to England, to the U.S., to Japan, to Australia etc. And the laundering operations of this complex criminal organization -which mainly took place through English and U.S. auction houses and through certain private collections, created ex novo or certainly significantly incremented- were only possible thanks to the multiple relationships with foreign entities of the promoters and organizers of this criminal group; to the trans-national attitude of this conspiracy; to the fact that criminality trusted and trusts, especially in the matter of artistic goods, in the customs barriers and up to a few years ago it was almost impossible to obtain assistance for some kind of crimes; to the past liable indifference of many foreign Authorities whose cooperation is -vice versa- nowadays very important to fight the criminality in this sector.