In May 2023, the Heidi Horten jewelry sale at Christie’s auction house broke
all records. However, the second half of the highly anticipated sale was can
celed by August 31, 2023. Horten’s wealth originated via her husband, Helmut
Horten, who obtained his wealth by purchasing Jewish businesses as Jews fled
Germany or were deported to death and concentration camps. Christie’s loss in
this sale is representative of a bigger legal risk.
This article makes two claims: one descriptive and one normative. The article
describes the legal and moral problems associated with the sale, typically by
auction houses, of property obtained or unfairly acquired under duress or at
times of conflict: what this paper calls “secondary liability conflict property.”
Secondary liability conflict property gives rise to legal liability and negative
reputational impacts. This article argues that by adopting a framework used in
a seemingly disparate context—corporations assessing their responsibilities for
fossil fuel emissions—auction houses can minimize harms associated with sec
ondary liability conflict property and avoid financial harm from canceled auc
tions and negative press.
The article organizes around two case studies: Christie’s Heidi Horten jew
elry sale and the U.S. government’s seizure of a superyacht owned by Russian
oligarch Suleiman Kerimov. The article then continues by outlining the funda
mental principles and regulations related to conflict property and distinguishes
between primary conflict property and secondary liability conflict property. Next,
the article provides an overview of environmental, social, governance, and cor
porate social responsibility initiatives in the U.S. corporate setting, and surveys
auction houses’ current engagement (or non-engagement) with these programs.
Then, the article provides proposals for auction houses to change and explains
how these proposals can affect auction houses’ profitability. The article then
anticipates and answers potential critiques of secondary liability conflict property and the application of environmental, social, governance, and corporate social responsibility frameworks to auction houses. It also enumerates other normative reasons why auction houses should accept these proposals. Finally, the paper concludes with suggesting broader justifications and rationales for this proposal and why it is a critical issue.

Keep Reading