A scandal is brewing at the Frida Kahlo Museum, better known as the Blue House. Recently, the museum’s former director, Hilda Trujillo Soto, publicly denounced the disappearance of several original works by the Mexican artist, including oils, drawings, and pages from her diary that allegedly left the museum without authorisation.
Some of these pieces have surfaced at international auctions, at the New York gallery Mary-Anne Martin (specialised in Latin American artists), and in private collections in the United States and Mexico. One such work, Congreso de los pueblos por la paz (1952) was sold at Sotheby’s for more than USD 12.6 million.
How, then, after being classified, catalogued, and safeguarded by the museum, did these pieces end up in private collections? Who sold them, when, and under what authority? This case not only raises serious concerns about the management of the legacy of one of the most important artists of the 20th century (a matter for another article), but also opens the door to a crucial discussion in the art world: the legality and security of art market transactions.
What happens if one of these works, unlawfully removed from the Casa Azul, ends up in our hands? The answer is complex and depends on the applicable jurisdiction. In Common Law systems, no one can convey title they do not own. In Spain, however, the law often favours the good-faith purchaser.
This gives rise to several possible scenarios. The first, and simplest, is that the buyer —whether in good or bad faith— acquires ownership over time. Under Article 1955 of the Spanish Civil Code, ownership of stolen goods can be obtained through good-faith, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession for three years, or six years for a bad-faith buyer, a surprisingly short term for someone acting so reprehensibly. However, a simple out-of-court claim by the rightful owner can interrupt this prescription period (Article 1973 CC).
It is important to note that neither a thief nor their accomplice can acquire ownership through the mere passage of time. Article 1956 CC is clear: those who steal or misappropriate movable property, as well as their accomplices, cannot obtain ownership by prescription. This provision, in essence, reaffirms the principle that no one may profit from their own wrongdoing.
Second, even if the buyer is unaware of the work’s illicit origin, the original owner may still bring legal action to recover it. This right, known as reivindicación, allows the legitimate owner to reclaim the work from its current holder (Article 348 CC). The owner has six years to do so; after that, they lose the right and can only sue the seller for damages.
Third, to provide security in commercial transactions and protect good-faith purchasers, title passes to the buyer when the work is acquired from a business open to the public (Article 85 Commercial Code). In such cases, the original owner may only bring civil or criminal proceedings against the party who wrongfully sold the work.
In any case, the seller is obliged to deliver and warrant the item sold, ensuring legal and peaceful possession and freedom from hidden defects (Articles 1461 and 1474 CC). In cases of loss or deprivation of ownership, known as eviction, the seller must indemnify the good-faith buyer, unless both parties have contractually agreed to modify or exclude this liability. However, any clause exempting a bad-faith seller from liability is void.
If the original owner does recover their work, what recourse does the buyer have? The legal consequences can be severe, even for a good-faith buyer, who may lose both the artwork and face the uphill battle of recovering payment from the seller, a challenge made worse if the seller declares insolvency.
The dispossessed buyer may therefore bring a civil claim against the seller for restitution and compensation for material and/or moral damages. Additionally, the buyer may initiate criminal proceedings for fraud under Article 248 of the Criminal Code, provided the purchase was induced by deceit. In such cases, the buyer must prove the fraud, the loss suffered, and the unlawful enrichment of the seller. A particular challenge arises for “expert” buyers, who must demonstrate that the purchase was an honest mistake and that they exercised due diligence in checking provenance.
There’s more. If it is proven that the buyer knew of the work’s illicit origin and acted for profit, they may face charges of receiving stolen goods (Article 298 Criminal Code). Moreover, if they later took part in concealing the crime or its perpetrators, without having been directly involved as a principal or accomplice, their actions could still be prosecuted as accessory after the fact (Article 451 Criminal Code). Both offences carry hefty fines and possible prison sentences.
It is clear, then, that various legal scenarios may arise for anyone acquiring a work of this nature. One way to mitigate the risk is to apply the guiding principle of the art market: due diligence and rigorous provenance verification. In this field, buyers are expected to transact only with reputable, professional sellers, review contractual clauses and warranties, consult public databases of stolen or at-risk works such as INTERPOL, ICOM and The Art Loss Register; compare market prices, and even request customs documentation if the work was imported.
Even for a good-faith purchaser, acquiring stolen or illicitly sourced art carries significant legal risk: from losing the piece without compensation to facing criminal charges. In a global market, engaging experts to verify both the conditions of sale and the work’s provenance is therefore essential, not only to secure ownership but also to foster a more ethical, responsible, and transparent art ecosystem. While Spanish law offers tools to protect the diligent collector, it quite rightly does not extend that protection to naïveté.
*This article was produced in collaboration with Yasir Khayyat, trainee.
