>in 2014, at a Sotheby’s auction, Barnett Newman’s painting Black Fire I sold for $84.2 million
>painted in 1961
>half of the painting is black and the other, beige
>single black line interrupts the light portion
>an abstract piano key
Eighty two point four million United States dollars. Why? Would I be able to search for abstract art of a few decades old and bank on it?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
m.youtube.com
klasing-associates.com
irs.gov
wsj.com
arts.ri.gov
nola.com
nytimes.com
justice.gov
twitter.com
art is money laundering
Store of value nigga
It’s a metaphor for how the white gene pool gonna finna get BLACKED
this
You are a dumb, tasteless faggot who is too braindead to comprehend the significance of this piece.
Along with the laundering element, he was also creating art in the right time and place. Art history is narrative and that narrative came to heavily favor and reward abstract expressionists for a time.
at least it's somewhat aesthetically pleasing
beats a lot of modern art now
>why?
Because his paintings had Jewish themes, and the rich decided his paintings were worth something. He was one of the first people doing such minimalist paintings.
Rich jews buy art from other jews and then claim it's charity or some shit.
But all the money just stays in the hands of jews, which is the only relevant point.
Nope. Just laundering.
Get some Maecenas tokens - then you can buy and sell shares in a painting.
fpbp
it seems strange intuitively because you're used to millionaire-level crime and so you wonder, "why is this happening in the open"
same reason soros and the rothschild hang out in plain sight as they wreck nations: this is billionaire-level crime
this. the art ostensibly has value because it was created by someone artistically significant, so it has value in the same way that one of jesus' toenail clippings would have value.
but the real purpose of this is money laundering. you can buy a work of art in a tax free arts district and launder illegally obtained money this way because the value is stored in the art itself. technical laziness aside, this is part of why people are so disgusted by modern art. it's one thing to launder art through works which have actual value but with modern art they've basically just said "fuck it, let's just cut to the chase".
Yes the emperor has not been wearing any clothes for more than a century. Look up disumbrationism for a laugh.
I sometimes buy paintings I like at shows (if the price is right). If you really like a painting you should consider buying it. If it appreciates in value then good for you, if not you still enjoy the sight of it.
So what your saying is u should buy my art. Got it.
>he was also creating art
Nah.
Wake up, fren. This is Jow Forums, not /ic/.
you dumbass retards
the whole art industry is about insidertrading, scams and money laundering
painting the wall not only with your bitcorns
OP the next guy on aenima.io
This
>take a shit
>sell it to a shit dealer for $1 million
>the press covers the deal
>everyone is trying to figure out why your shit is so expensive
>experts give their opinions
>debates ensue
>people write books about it
>40 years later, your shit is worth $50 million
>it's considered a classic
>revolutionary in its time
TRUE
Actually there is shit art, one guy did a shit in a can and sold it
This why
youtube.com
>take a jar
>masturbate
>fill it with cum
>call your art dealer friend
>'hey pal, let's make my cum appreciate'
>'fine'
>jar with cum sold for $1 million
>the press cover the deal...
>experts
>debates
>books
>jar is flipped over the years and goes from $1 million to $50 million
Yep, make all art transactions above $1 million have a 50% tax and see what happens
Wow! She's working so hard!
none of you explain how they are money laundering
he should have bought bitcoin instead.
And publicize it
>call your art dealer friend
>'hey pal, let's make my shit appreciate'
>'fine'
>shit is sold for $1 million
>the press covers the deal
>everyone is trying to figure out why your shit is so expensive
>experts give their opinions
>debates ensue
>people write books about it
>now traders are literally competing for your shit
>giving higher and higher bids
>a wealthy man sees this
>he needs to launder money
>'his shit is appreciating' - he notices
>buys your shit for millions and holds
>sale is tax deductible
>because artists are subsidized by the gov
>time passes
>the wealthy owner decides to sell your shit
>auctions it
>turns in a nice profit
>'how did you get rich?', people ask
>'I made profitable investments in art'
>Tax avoidance
>purchase/sell anonymously.
These are the main points that enable it to be used for money laundering/fraud.
You can take anonymously purchased art with you across countries and not pay huge fees or have to explain anything to anyone on how you made your illegal money.
>take a shit
>call your art dealer friend
>'hey pal, let's make my shit appreciate'
>'fine'
>shit is sold for $1 million
>the press covers the deal
>everyone is trying to figure out why your shit is so expensive
>experts give their opinions
>debates ensue
>people write books about it
>now traders are literally competing for your shit
>giving higher and higher bids
>a wealthy man sees this
>he needs to launder money
>'his shit is appreciating' - he notices
>buys your shit for millions and holds
>sale is tax deductible
>because artists are subsidized by the gov
>time passes
>the wealthy owner decides to sell your shit
>auctions it
>turns in a nice profit
>'how did you get rich?', people ask
>'I made profitable investments in art'
that's not money laundering. if you are the painter and someone else buys your painting for 1 million, then there is a buzz about it and demand increases, then carlos slim buys your next painting for 2 million , your money is clean from the start.
if you are carlos slim and someone else buys the painting from you for 5 million, theres also no laundering going on here.
you're still missing a step, like the other guy i just responded to. if you are in possession of the painting you have to explain how you made the money you bought it with. its like the police using civil forfeiture to take gangster's cars that were bought with dirty cash. i dont think you guys know how money laundering works.
But who is buying it for $50m?
If tou say smb, who aims to sell it for $100m, then it all just turns into a ponzi scheme and rich ppl are not that stupid.
Yes
Sometimes art is actually art
But art is money laundering too
Illuminati money club
Imagine how much druuuuuuus they coulda bought
Laundering is about obscuring the origins of your money. When you repeatedly buy and sell art, it becomes harder to trace the origins of your money since auctions are usually private. Also, you can buy and sell art from your equally wealthy and corrupt friends, so it becomes impossible to trace where the money came from.
Example:
>steal $1 million
>buy artwork
>sell it to your friend
>profit by charging a commission (which is less than the taxes you would pay through other means)
>your friend resells it, profit with comission
>the feds come to you and ask where you got that money from
>'I sold an artwork'
>so you invest your dollars into more artwork and flip it over and over
>art tends to appreciate
>it's easy to hide
>banks can't report how much $$$ you own in art to the gov
>better than holding cash
>But who is buying it for $50m?
It doesn't matter. It could be someone you know or works for you - wash trading-, a trader, an investor, or someone else laundering money.
> someone else laundering money
You still need to launder it then. There's no laundering in selling art per se.
Sure, you can 'sell' it to make a pretext for the sum chamging hands, but the money has to be clean already
Most big ticket art auctions are going to oil niggers and Japanese executives, to hang in conference rooms where the public will never see them again.
In this case, it's a good thing.
>When you discover most of the great works of art are sitting in vaults of rich people
Yeah, that's not how it works. At all.
lol. you think even *municipal* police, let alone federal investigators, would hear someone say "I sold and artwork" and then go, "Oh yeah, sure, certainly. Well Jim nothing to see here. Sure there are people we have in custody for possession and intent to distribute who are saying he was their heroin wholesaler, but you heard the guy, he sold an artwork." this is how it would actually go:
>'I sold an artwork'
>How did you buy that artwork? Your bank account never had a balance over $1 million
>I bought it with cash
>And how did you get the cash?
>...
>I uh
>I found it in a brown paper bag on the sidewalk
or if the buyer of art in fact had a high balance and used a wire transfer to purchase the painting
>So on the 3rd and 18th of every month last year you made cash deposits of $50,000. How did you earn that much money every two weeks?
>I uh, well...
also of course banks dont report your art assets, they dont report any of your assets. you are supposed to report your own, including sales of artworks, which are considered a capital asset. everyone ITT seems to believe art is some magical unregulated world
>the money has to be clean already
Why?
No, it doesn't. When you art no one will ask you about whether you obtained your money legally or not.
>There's no laundering in selling art per se.
Buy and sell repeatedly until people can't trace the origins of your money. It's not a 100% effective method, it just makes it harder to for federal agents to figure out how you got your money. Banks are under strict federal surveillance (in developed countries). Art auction houses aren't.
>'I sold an artwork'
>How did you buy that artwork? Your bank account never had a balance over $1 million
>I bought it with cash
>And how did you get the cash?
>From selling other artwork
>Ah... (give up investigating)
pretty sure that's just aesthetically non-offending
I call it
Pink square with a line through it
$50,000,000
Its a way of moving money around the cabal famalam
>you are supposed to report your own, including sales of artworks, which are considered a capital asset.
>Implying people will report.
>also of course banks dont report your art assets, they dont report any of your assets.
They do.
small kek induced. nice one cuckjezuz
>Most big ticket art auctions are going to oil niggers and Japanese executives, to hang in conference rooms where the public will never see them again.
Sure, and why do you think they are doing this? Gaining social status is part of it, sure. But another reason is to keep money moving so it becomes harder to trace.
>Yeah, that's not how it works. At all.
Explain how it works then.
>tax free arts district
What the fuck are you babbling about, kid? Are you just putting words together, hoping they mean something?
There is no tax avoidance in buying art, you fucking dunce. And, you can't buy art anonymously at the big auctionhouses, you fucking retard. They just keep the buyer's name out of the public, so they're not targeted by art thieves. They have to prove they have the funds to even bid, and that means showing ID, filling out forms, and only accepting money transfers from legit banks. You fucking child. And, the auction houses report all sales to the IRS.
"Herr derr jooz money laundering reeeeee"
You fuckers will believe anything, I fucking swear - and worse, you embellish it with your own retardation.
ding ding ding
>private
That doesn't mean the sales are anonymous, you fucking spastic. It just means the details aren't released to the press. Nobody is walking into Southeby's and buying a painting for 35 million dollars with cash. The auction house won't take it.
>When you art no one will ask you about whether you obtained your money legally or not.
What are you, 12?
Someone sells a painting. Someone else buys it. The money used to buy it was taxed, and reported as income. There's no laws broken. The art world is not a secret cabal of JOOOOOZ laundering money, you fucking spastic.
I won't bother explaining how a lot of buyer's in these auctions are museums and galleries, because you're obviously too fucking retarded to understand simple concepts.
where does someone look into the art industry? how do you guys into this stuff
again, not how it would go. if i really need to draw for you how the investigation would go, there's more to it than just the interrogation
>investigator searches suspect's name from Sotheby's records
>finds entries for purchases and sales over last 5 years
>investigator finds first purchase, gives information to interrogators
>So user, March 3rd 2011 you made your first artwork purchase, a Picasso pencil sketch for $1 million in cash, correct?
>Yes that's correct
>How did you earn the cash you used to buy that sketch? You reported no income in excess of $25,000/year the last 5 years
>Well you see, I uh....
you clearly just dont understand what money laundering entails. launder doesn't just mean "make a lot of transactions so its hard to hard to find the first one." if that was the case the suspect could go into crypto or any market where profits can be made, and just make a bunch of sales.
the guy you are replying to is saying the money has to be clean already because the purchasers of the art, under scrutiny, has to be able to explain where they earned their cash. financial auditors are able to pour over pages of transactions to deduce suspicious activity. even if there were 20 years of sales stemming from a single first purchase of a picasso sketch with dirty money, it would be as easy as reviewing the auction house's records and comparing them with the suspect's bank account records chronologically to bring scrutiny on the purchase
dont disagree that people will avoid reporting, but you are dodging the point. you believe art collecting to be an especially easy way to avoid reporting, but its on the same footing in the eyes of the IRS as real estate, jewelry, stocks, stamp collections, etc
they report large cash transactions ($10k threshold) and there are voluntary reports for suspicious activity. they don't submit to the government the balance of each of their customer's checking and savings account
what is the significance?
reality is;
a) name of the artist is being sold and not the art itself.
b) money laundering like another user posted.
>How did you buy that artwork? Your bank account never had a balance over $1 million
>You don't have access to my bank accounts, filthy goy, because I have 3 citizenships and my banking goes through the offshores and I think senator Shlomberg will be very displeased with your persistence
>we are very sorry mr. Shekelstein, want us to polish your shoes?
That's how it actually works.
I'm not even close to making it, but even I have a double citizenship with a non-extradition country and keep my money in the grey zones. Only poor pay taxes, get chased by IRS and generally fucked in the ass by the governments.
I call it -
Delet
$60,000,000
Literally this and I work in the art business. Art is unironically a lot like crypto. It has value because it can be traded and each painting is really only valuable if it believed to be a genuine work by the artist. So imagine if ICOs only issued 50 tokens, thats basically art.
And then the old masters like Vermeer are like the Bitcoins, time tested value.
>investigator searches suspect's name from Sotheby's records
Sotheby's records are private and you have a better chance of getting a court order to audit the Fed, than to get a court order to disclose the buyers. Because the buyers are the ones who make or break the bosses of these investigators.
>finds entries for purchases and sales over last 5 years
One would probably find funds going in and ouf of black bank accounts in Panama or tiny islands like Niue
>investigator finds first purchase, gives information to interrogators
Even if they somehow find anything Interrogators realize they are about to interrogate someone who can make them lose their jobs on the spot and drop the case
I worked in art publishing for years. I also had a cousin who worked at one of the big auction houses in NYC. I know the art world. The gallery world is utter shit, and most modern art after the 50's is shit. But that's how it works. It's "value" is determined by the white wine and cheese crowd in cities like NYC, Paris, Geneva, and a lot of collectors get stuff early on in an artist's career, that artist is blown up by the art crowd, their work becomes valuable, the early buyers are now suddenly rich. Lars Ulrich, of Metallica, did that, he bought stuff early on from up and coming artists, and sold off his collection for a nice stack. I dimly remember he made 30 million off selling part of his collection? But yeah, it's all a fraud, if it's "modern" art. But the auction houses also turn over smaller, lesser known works for more reasonable amounts all the time. Same for galleries. And, a lot of the sales happen outside of auction houses, in private sales. And none of it is hidden from the IRS - the idea of hiding a 35 million dollar painting is utterly ridiculous, considering you'd then be unable to insure it, which is simply so idiotic it's not even worth discussing.
The art world, at the gallery/auction house is a fraud, in terms of what's considered "art" these days, but it's not a cabal of JOOOOZ laundering money. That's just another autistic meme from here.
>Sotheby's records are private and you have a better chance of getting a court order to audit the Fed, than to get a court order to disclose the buyers.
Laughably untrue. My cousin worked for one of the big auction houses in NYC, this is simply not true. They're a business, like anyone else's, and as one that processes large purchases and has a lot of money flowing through their accounts, their accounting is impeccable and completely transparent to the tax authorities.
I know this is Jow Forums, home of the larpers, but just shut the fuck up already, kid.
But is it really art?
>My cousin worked for one of the big auction houses in NYC
And my dad works at Nintendo. Your autistic LARP is embarrassing.
YES!
For sale; MASTERPIECE
Title: All colors combined
Price: $1,000,000,000
SO angry at being told you're wrong, arencha, neckbeard? Cry more.
>Shitty 60 year old painting sells for 1/10th what the 500 year old Mona Lisa is worth
From this we can only conclude age is the only factor and all 60 year old paintings are worth around 75 million dollars
Because it's magically worth millions and tax exempt.
I sell you $100 million in crack. You give me $10 worth of shitty canvas and covertly drive the price up at auction to make it worth $100 million. I flip it for that. Done. It's a rabbit hole worth heading down, Google it.
Sure thing moshe. I'm sure the paper trail is impeccable.
The Mona Lisa is valued at 800 million, and just for insurance purposes, dummy. It will never be sold. If it were to go on sale, it would go for multiples of that, easily, with the number of billionaires on the planet.
Nah, Dyor. It's not just joos - Russian mob and a few others too. You're mostly correct, but the easy money laundering is too obvious to ignore.
this things in philly
At a dot of shit color brown and I'll buy.
please think out your scenarios before posting.
>You don't have access to my bank accounts
three possibilities:
>So you have foreign financial assets you failed to report on a form 8938?
>Yes, that is true, I have offshore money I did not report
>Time to pony up
>outcome: suspect amends tax filings, reports foreign holdings, investigation proceeds
>>potential outcome two: suspect refuses to disclose foreign holdings
>>suspect is held in contempt, put in jail/prison until compliance
>>US govt asks Swiss bank for records, Swiss bank can (and has) turned over records for any variety of reasons (FACTA compliance, interest in compromising suspect, maintain diplomatic relations, etc)
>So you have foreign financial assets you failed to report?
>Nope, I have no foreign assets to report
>Then how did you come to possess this Picasso sketch? Did you steal it?
>No, I did not steal it
>So you bought it?
>Yes
>How?
>With cash
>How did you earn that cash?
>I uh, well
its honestly difficult to keep up with your bullshit and fantasy while i and the other guy give sources and reasonable appraisals of the situation. i dont doubt money has and is being laundered through the art and many other markets, but none of you brainlets seem to have any idea how the process actually works. your and others' ideas seem sourced from cartoons and blockbuster movies
sources: klasing-associates.com
irs.gov
wsj.com
p2
>Someone sells a painting. Someone else buys it. The money used to buy it was taxed, and reported as income. There's no laws broken.
you're all missing the point. yes, none of this is illegal, but when you buy a piece of art with illegally obtained money, sell that, buy something else, sell that, buy something else, and then sell that, ad infinitum, the origin of your purchases becomes obscured. you conceal that you ever had illegally obtained money to begin with.
nobody is saying that buying and selling art is money laundering, just that it's a useful tool for money laundering.
this isn't even a controversial subject.
>“The art market is an ideal playing ground for money laundering,” said Thomas Christ, a board member of the Basel Institute on Governance, a Swiss nonprofit that has studied the issue. “We have to ask for clear transparency, where you got the money from and where it is going.”
nytimes.com
>Sotheby's records are private
>better chance of getting a court to audit the Fed, than to get a court order to disclose the buyers
i have to go and will reply to your braindead post in more detail when i get back if its still up, but im going to chip this in to start, you can do a little of your own research too. it's from a complaint by the US govt on a malaysian prime minister and his associates that used malaysian govt money to buy their own shit. christies, sotheby's and other auction houses will voluntarily comply with the US govt to track down thieves and launderers, they didnt even need a subpoena. this feels redundant to say but conspiracy theorists are delusional.
justice.gov
this isnt money laundering. a tax loophole? exploiting IRS regulations? a kind of nepotism? corruption? greasing palms? sure, but not money laundering.
Kek I made that happy merchant
So my general gist of this thread is that art is more of a tax loophole than money laundering?
It isn't a fucking tax loophole, even if you buy a piece from a registered charity and can deduct the tax you still have to spend the fucking money. If you bought the OP maybe you claim 40 in tax, but you are still out of pocket 80 million dollars.
this, I mean people pay money for vintage guitars. We're talking about mass produced guitars from the 50's that while they sound great are utterly useless without a skilled player using them - and yet collectors will have fifty of the things just waiting for them to appreciate in value
mah nigga
you know which board you're on, right?
OP's pic is on a giant canvas. Art is a sensory experience... I'm not saying OP's example is good or anything, only that yours is even worse.
What are third parties? Brokers?
yes.
not anymore as much probably in the US at least now that crypto forced them to restrict 1031 to real estate only.
this
>financial auditors are able to pour over pages of transactions to deduce suspicious activity.
You have an idealized view of how the fiscal system works. Yes, that's all possible, but the state doesn't have resources and time to pour over pages and pages of transactions. They filter a few cases and dig into them. Most transactions in this market happen under the radar and are hard to quantify, differently from bank transfers or securities trades. That's why the art market is ripe for money laundering. schemes.
>you believe art collecting to be an especially easy way to avoid reporting, but its on the same footing in the eyes of the IRS as real estate, jewelry, stocks, stamp collections, etc
This is right, and that's why people who invest in and trade art also 'diversify' into all those other things.
Abstract Art Works like this:
>Timmy needs to pay Bobby for some shady shit.
>Timmy needs a reason to pay Bobby
>Timmy can't just drive over to Bobby's and give him 20 mil
>Bobby finds some piece of shit art and gets an auction company to list it for him
>Timmy gets an auction company to bid for him
>Bobby gets his money, and can prove to the IRS it was from a legitimate source.
>Timmy has now payed Bobby and the IRS can't do Jack shit without a mountain of evidence.
>Someone sells a painting. Someone else buys it. The money used to buy it was taxed, and reported as income. There's no laws broken.
>There is no tax avoidance in buying art, you fucking dunce.
Idealized view of the fiscal system, again. People who trade artworks to launder money aren't going to report shit. And obviously they won't buy/sell in mainstream auction houses; they will pick shadier ones instead.
Think about this: there's a huge market for stolen artwork. If people steal art, it's because there is demand for it, there's money to be made. People are willing to pay millions for a painting that they know was stolen.
Do you think these people give a fuck about reporting their taxes? This market is riddled with corrupt actors, which facilitates money laundering (in comparison with other, better monitored markets). I'm not saying there are no honest actors, of course. What I'm saying is that surveillance isn't efficient, which allows people to game the system.
>nytimes.com
This pretty much settled the discussion.
literally better than any of the shit that andy warhol ever made
One thing you guys are missing is that a lot of art is bought through charities or trusts owned by billionaires and the purchase is a tax write off