Belgian and French auction houses come under fire for selling 100 heavily disputed works linked to 2017 scandal that shook Ghent’s Museum of Fine Arts

Two auction houses in Belgium and France have been criticised for selling 100 paintings during a two-part auction linked to the controversy-hit collection at the heart of a 2017 scandal at Ghent’s Museum of Fine Arts (MKA).

Back then, Russian collector couple Igor and Olga Toporovsky loaned 24 works attributed to the likes of Kazimir Malevich, El Lissitzky and Natalia Goncharova to the museum for an exhibition. However, an open letter published in the Flemish newspaper De Standaard and The Art Newspaper in January 2018, and signed by several Russian modernist experts, called the works ‘highly questionable’. The signees included prominent international art historians and art dealers. The letter cited the absence of exhibition histories, scholarly references and verifiable ownership records.

All 24 works were subsequently removed from MKA by Ghent’s public prosecutor’s office, and the museum’s director, Catherine de Zegher, was dismissed. The Toporovskys have been under investigation for the last eight years, and their trial is slated to begin in early May in Ghent. They are also accused of selling 171 forged works for roughly $20 million andof money laundering.

While the two houses, Stanley’s in Brussels and Drouot in Paris, state on their websites that none of the 100 works recently sold during the auctions were shown at the infamous MKA show, they do state they were part of the same broader collection.

The first auction, titled Tributes to the Russian avant-garde & constructivists, was organised by Stanley’s last December. The second, titled Tributes to the Russian avant-garde & constructivists II, took place on 23 April at Drouot. Both auctions were online. Drouot was not involved in the first auction, whereas Stanley’s was involved in both.

Neither house guaranteed the paintings as genuine. ‘[This is] why we mention that the works are “in the taste of’ or ‘Russian school”,’ they state.

‘[P]art of this collection was presented in 2017 as part of an exhibition devoted to Russian modernism [that] was at the heart of an international controversy over its attribution and provenance,’ both houses’ websites read. ‘The ensemble presented here was not exhibited in Ghent, but is part of the Toporovsky/Pevzner collection [Pevzner is the maiden name of Olga]. It does not pretend to settle the disputed question of authenticity, but rather to explore its symbolic, decorative and aesthetic dimensions.’

American Ukrainian curator Konstantin Akinsha, who curated In the Eye of the Storm: Modernism in Ukraine 1900–1930s at London’s Royal Academy in 2024, published an open letter on e-flux this week taking aim at the houses. It is signed by dozens of art experts, including the former head of Sotheby’s Russian department, Jo Vickery, who now runs the art advisory Vickery Art.

‘Russian Modernism’, 2018 (installation view, Museum voor Schone Kunsten) © Museum of Fine Arts, Ghent

‘The decision to market approximately 100 works from the so-called Toporovsky collection – at an average price of around €300 per piece – on the eve of criminal hearings is not merely questionable; it is, in our view, deeply troubling,’ Akinsha writes. ‘The identity of the consignor remains undisclosed,’ he continues. 

‘[Stanley’s admission of the works’ problematic provenance] is immediately softened by an attempt to reframe the works as objects of “symbolic, decorative and aesthetic” interest – an argument that, in our view, does not withstand scrutiny,’ he adds. ‘The scandal surrounding the display of forged Russian modernist works at the Museum of Fine Arts Ghent – which led to the dismissal of Catherine de Zegher – remains one of the most damaging episodes in the recent history of Belgian museums.’

It is illegal to knowingly sell fakes and forgeries in Belgium and France, but Akinsha writes that Stanley’s and Drouot circumvented this law by labelling the works ‘in the taste of ’or ‘Russian school’. But he adds that ‘this legal minimalism does not mitigate the broader issue’. 

‘The catalogue language – invoking “a fascinating dialogue between myth, history and creation” – functions, in our view, as a rhetorical smokescreen,’Akinsha argues. ‘These objects appear to be imitative works with no clear artistic, historical, or scholarly attribution. To describe them as contributions to the legacy of the Russian avant-garde may be misleading, in a manner comparable to presenting a replica as equivalent to an original. This is not rhetorical exaggeration; it reflects our assessment of the nature of the material.’

When I asked Stanley’s where it consigned the works from, Virginie de Brouwer, an associate at the house, would not tell me, but said “they were previously part of Mr Toporovsky’s collection, but he is no longer the owner”. She added, “We have all the necessary documentation confirming this legal status.”

De Brouwer did not answer my question about why the 100 works were not seized as part of the investigation into the Toporovskys, nor if there were any guarantees in place that the paintings would not be sold later as originals. When I asked if it was a coincidence that the two-part auction coincided with the court hearings against the Toporovskys, she said: “The ongoing legal proceedings concern the authenticity of the works, not their ownership. Finally, our auction schedule is entirely independent of these proceedings.”

Several dealers who specialise in Russian and Ukrainian modernism, plus auction house specialists, have told me that up to 95 percent of works circulating in this polluted corner of the market are not genuine. One reason for this is because many original works from the movement were lost, poorly documented or dispersed during upheavals such as the Russian Revolution, making authentication difficult. At the same time, high demand and soaring prices for artists like Malevich and El Lissitzky create strong financial incentives for forgery.

‘[The sale of the 100 paintings] may create risks for the art market,’Akinsha writes in his letter. ‘Once dispersed, these works may re-enter circulation stripped of their current disclaimers. They are neither durably marked nor systematically recorded in databases such as Art Loss Register. Even more concerning, the December 2025 sale does not appear in major market databases such as Artprice or Artnet, which may limit transparency and traceability.’

‘That Drouot – a leading and influential auction platform – has chosen to associate itself with this operation raises questions,’he adds. ‘It risks lending institutional legitimacy to the circulation of works whose attribution remains contested.’

When I asked Stanley’s for comment on Akinsha’s letter, it did not respond.