IMHO , the issue is quite simple. Liability arises when there is intent. The expert can be wrong - and in different directions. The experts may have different opinions , and the court will weigh them in the balance power , weight, in the academic world , the availability of monographs, etc.
Old thing , published in periodicals or listing 50 years ago can not be the subject of criminal and even civil proceedings p.ch. buy as it is. Is that Marchand or deliberately concealed akutsionist important information. Vekselberg IMHO incident only confirms the rule.
But the deliberate creation bullshit course in prison.
Also, as it confirmed , though there certainly proving to be difficult.
I think that soon we will see in Europe is one of the most interesting processes , where paintings , say , Chagall - for all he has known institution - Committee Chagall napodtverzhdal Researcher museum " Uryupinsk ." This researcher once wrote several articles about Chagall in local refereed collections. And then slapped attributions on fake paintings , whether sold simpletons , whether insured and burned ...
Here is really a problem ...
And in Basner - the problem is not with Grigoriev . There is clear, because there was no expert activity , and was a typical deception , breach of trust and misappropriation of money fraudulently . There is a problem with Saryan , Sapunov prochitmi and similar works . Will prove that it was zavvedomo false conclusions obtained for money or a percentage of the sale. If we succeed , it will really be a precedent. And a good lesson to some " experts "
|