Tag: Frauds and Swindling

  • Medicare Bleeds Billions on Pricey Bandages, and Doctors Get a Cut

    Medicare Bleeds Billions on Pricey Bandages, and Doctors Get a Cut


    Companies can set such high prices because of a quirk in Medicare pricing rules, industry experts said. For the first six months of a new bandage product’s life, Medicare will set the reimbursement rate at whatever price a company chooses. After that, the agency adjusts the reimbursement to reflect the actual price paid by doctors after any discounts.

    To circumvent the reimbursement drop, some companies simply roll out new products.

    In April 2023, Medicare began reimbursing $6,497 for every square inch of a bandage called Zenith, sold by Legacy Medical Consultants, a company in Fort Worth, Texas. Six months later, Zenith’s reimbursement fell to $2,746.

    That month, October 2023, Medicare began reimbursing $6,490 for a new Legacy product, a “dual layer” bandage called Impax.

    Marketing materials for the two products use identical photographs and similar language. The company describes both products as providing “optimal wound covering and protection during the treatment of wounds.”

    Since 2022, spending on Zenith and Impax has exceeded $2.6 billion, according to Early Read’s analysis.

    Legacy Medical Consultants did not answer questions about the marketing and pricing of those products. “Legacy is following the law, not taking advantage of the system,” Dan Childs, a company spokesman, said in a statement.

    A cottage industry of doctors and nurses make house calls to treat wounds. Some skin substitute companies pitch themselves to wound care doctors by offering a cut of the rising bandage prices.

    Dr. Caroline Fife, a wound care doctor from Texas who often writes about industry excesses, shared on her blog last year an email she received from an undisclosed skin substitute company. The company boasted that other doctors had developed “a healthy revenue stream” from its bandages and that a patch smaller than a credit card “would generate a little over $20,000 for your practice.”

    Some companies offer doctors a “bulk discount” of up to 45 percent, according to doctor interviews and contracts reviewed by The Times. But doctors then collect a Medicare reimbursement for the full price of the product.

    Anti-kickback laws prohibit doctors from receiving financial rewards from drug companies or medical suppliers. And although Medicare does allow bulk discounts, experts said that the bandage rebates could have violated federal law because they didn’t actually require high-volume purchases. In some Legacy contracts reviewed by The Times, doctors had to buy only three products to qualify for a 40 or 45 percent discount.

    “That is not a volume discount,” said Reuben Guttman, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who has represented many Medicare whistle-blowers. Mr. Guttman said that such labeling could be used to conceal a kickback.

    In 2024, at least nine medical practices billed Medicare more than $50 million for skin substitutes, according to an analysis done for The Times by the National Association of Accountable Care Organizations, which represents medical groups that are incentivized to curb Medicare spending.



    Source link

  • How Will Charlie Javice Teach Pilates in an Ankle Monitor?

    How Will Charlie Javice Teach Pilates in an Ankle Monitor?


    A striking and headline-making fraud case resulted in a conviction last Friday, when Charlie Javice was found guilty in federal court of conning JPMorgan Chase out of $175 million. The bank has also sued Ms. Javice, a 32-year-old entrepreneur who once made the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, for elaborately falsifying her student-finance start-up’s customer list.

    But in a Manhattan courthouse hearing this week, the deliberations about Ms. Javice’s bail terms turned into an absurdist episode, as her legal team argued that an order for her to wear an ankle monitor would hinder her ability to teach Pilates.

    Her lawyer, Ronald Sullivan, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the proceedings, stood at a podium and waved his arms to demonstrate the physicality needed to practice Pilates, which Ms. Javice teaches professionally in South Florida, sometimes leading three to four classes a day.

    “To have your legs in the air and the monitor going up and down on your leg, it is a significant encumbrance,” Mr. Sullivan said, also noting that the monitor “would remove the possibility of the one thing she can now do, which is teach her classes.”

    The hearing’s focus on the bulky surveillance device was another case of ankle monitors taking space within the news and pop culture sphere. Anna Delvey, the fake heiress convicted of theft and larceny, wore a bedazzled ankle monitor on “Dancing With the Stars” last year, and an ankle monitor appears regularly in the medical drama “The Pitt,” worn by a resident named Cassie McKay, who drilled through hers in a recent episode to halt its blaring alarm.

    For Ms. Javice and her legal team, the issue centered on her inability to earn money while wearing the monitor, with little if any acknowledgment that other, less physically demanding jobs were an option. In a court filing, her lawyers argued that: “Ms. Javice specializes in fitness instruction that requires demanding physical movement and full flexibility and range of motion, specifically around her feet and ankles. Indeed, Ms. Javice’s supervisor reports that Ms. Javice’s services are sought after because her instruction is particularly challenging and dynamic.”

    Wearing a Moncler coat, leggings and black flats, Ms. Javice sat quietly through the hearing.

    Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who has presided over high-profile cases such as the Harvey Weinstein trial and the tax fraud trial of the art dealer Mary Boone, took time to weigh in on the matter.

    “It’s not heavy, it probably weighs a pound,” Judge Hellerstein said of the monitor. “So I don’t know,” he continued. “I accept what you say, that it’s a restriction on her ability to do the advanced Pilates that she does.” But, he noted, “I can’t say there is no risk of flight.”

    About an hour of arguments on the matter ensued, featuring court exhibits depicting Ms. Javice teaching Pilates. At one point, she huddled with her lawyers away from the microphone and podium, demonstrating with her arms. And during his retreat to chambers, Judge Hellerstein brought with him printouts of photos of Ms. Javice exercising to help him mull things over.

    Ms. Javice embraced her co-defendant, Olivier Amar, for several seconds before the hearing began and helped him adjust something on the lapel of his suit. Mr. Amar, who sat between his lawyers during the proceedings, was an executive at Ms. Javice’s student-finance start-up, Frank, and was also ordered to wear an ankle monitor. His lawyers contested that the device was unsightly and “makes him a pariah.”

    In a court filing, the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Matthew Podolsky, wrote that “the defendants’ current bail packages are not sufficient to address the risk of flight.” He added: “Nor do Javice’s arguments that an ankle monitor inhibits her ability to teach an exercise class in any way override the statutory detention provisions of the Bail Reform Act. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court modify the defendants’ bail conditions to require both defendants to resume GPS location monitoring.”

    For the time being, Judge Hellerstein decided the monitor was required.

    Ms. Javice, who now faces the possibility of decades in prison, is free on a $2 million bond ahead of her sentencing this summer. She was fitted with her ankle monitor before leaving the courthouse on Tuesday.

    Kirsten Noyes contributed research.



    Source link

  • Sean Kingston and His Mother Are Convicted in $1 Million Fraud Scheme

    Sean Kingston and His Mother Are Convicted in $1 Million Fraud Scheme


    A jury in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., convicted the rapper Sean Kingston and his mother on Friday in a scheme involving more than $1 million worth of fraud, according to prosecutors.

    Mr. Kingston, 35, whose real name is Kisean Anderson, and his mother, Janice Turner, 62, both of Southwest Ranches, Fla., had been charged with five counts of wire fraud.

    They essentially took possession of high-end vehicles, jewelry and other goods by pretending to have paid for them through the use of fraudulent documents, according to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of Florida.

    Each faces a maximum of 20 years in prison on each count, prosecutors said. The defendants are scheduled to be sentenced in July.

    Ms. Turner, who testified during the trial, was taken into federal custody on Friday. Her lawyer, Humberto Dominguez, said on Saturday morning that they will appeal the verdict.

    Mr. Kingston, who did not testify, was allowed to post bond of a home valued at $500,000 and $200,000 in cash, but will remain in home detention with electronic monitoring. His lawyer, Zeljka Bozanic, said on Saturday that she was thankful that Mr. Kingston was allowed to remain out on bond but added that they will also file an appeal.

    As a 17-year-old, Mr. Kingston became known for his debut single, “Beautiful Girls,” which used a sample from Ben E. King’s “Stand By Me.” It was ranked at No. 1 for four weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 2007.

    “He spent his childhood in Jamaica, which gave him his stage name and his command of patois,” the critic Kelefa Sanneh wrote in The New York Times in 2007, “but his version of thug love (‘Girl, I know it’s rough, but come with me/We can take a trip to the ’hood’) makes it sound as if he’s trying too hard, or not hard enough.”

    According to prosecutors, Mr. Kingston and Ms. Turner “unjustly enriched themselves” by falsely claiming that they had executed bank wire or other monetary transfers as payment for vehicles, jewelry and other high-end items when no such transfers had taken place.

    It added up to a property haul of more than $1 million, prosecutors said.

    Mr. Kingston and Ms. Turner were accused of an “organized scheme to defraud” establishments, including a car dealership and a jeweler, of more than $50,000, according to arrest warrants for them.

    Mr. Kingston and Ms. Turner were also accused of stealing a Cadillac Escalade from the dealership and $480,000 in jewelry from an individual, according to the warrants.

    Ms. Turner pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges of bank fraud and filing fraudulent loan applications and was sentenced to 16 months in prison, according to court records. She was released in March 2007.



    Source link

  • Trump Commutes Ozy Media Founder’s Sentence Just Before His Surrender

    Trump Commutes Ozy Media Founder’s Sentence Just Before His Surrender


    President Trump on Friday commuted the sentence of Carlos Watson, a co-founder of the now-defunct digital media company Ozy Media, on the day he was set to surrender to prison, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Watson was sentenced in December to almost 10 years in prison for trying to defraud investors and lenders by lying about the company’s finances. He was sentenced after a federal jury last summer convicted Mr. Watson and Ozy Media of conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud. The jury also convicted Mr. Watson of identity theft, after a two-month trial during which witnesses detailed an impersonated phone call, fabricated contracts and misleading claims about Ozy’s earnings from 2018 to 2021.

    A federal judge had also ordered Mr. Watson and Ozy to pay $96 million in restitution and forfeiture. Mr. Watson and Ozy also no longer have to pay those financial penalties, the people said.

    Mr. Watson had pleaded not guilty and continued to assert his innocence up until he was sentenced to 116 months. His commutation was reported earlier by CNBC.

    Mr. Watson said in a statement that he was “profoundly grateful to President Trump for correcting this grave injustice.”

    Mr. Watson started Ozy in 2013, publishing news articles and newsletters before venturing into podcasts and television productions. The start-up secured commitments from prominent investors at a time when digital publishers, like BuzzFeed and Vice, attracted billions of dollars in investments that largely didn’t pan out.

    Throughout the legal proceedings, Mr. Watson denied the fraud allegations. In court, his lawyers argued that his representations to investors had been based on good-faith assessments of Ozy’s finances, and they shifted the blame for any fraudulent activity onto other former Ozy employees. When he took the stand at his trial, Mr. Watson said he had not intentionally inflated revenue estimates, but rather had presented the types of service-based income typical of a “scrappy young company” in its early years.

    Mr. Watson, at his sentencing hearing in December, reiterated his stance that the government selectively prosecuted him because he is a Black man.

    Samir Rao, the other founder of Ozy, and Suzee Han, a former Ozy chief of staff, pleaded guilty in 2023 to fraud charges and testified against Mr. Watson.

    At the heart of the case was a 2021 fund-raising call during which Mr. Rao misled Goldman Sachs employees by impersonating a YouTube executive, as first reported by The New York Times. Prosecutors contended that Mr. Watson had helped set up the call, citing text messages he sent to Mr. Rao that, they claimed, amounted to a script for what to say. Mr. Watson denied any responsibility.

    Witnesses also testified that Mr. Watson had misrepresented Ozy’s finances to secure investments, inflating revenue figures and presenting misleading claims of commitments from Oprah Winfrey and Live Nation Entertainment.

    Mr. Trump also this week pardoned the three founders of the cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX, who had pleaded guilty in 2022 to violations of the bank secrecy act, one of the people familiar with the matter said, as well as Trevor Milton, who was convicted by a federal jury in 2022 of defrauding investors in the electric truck maker Nikola.



    Source link

  • Art Expert Accused of Duping Prince and Palace of Versailles Stands Trial

    Art Expert Accused of Duping Prince and Palace of Versailles Stands Trial


    Bill Pallot had an unparalleled passion for 18th-century French chairs that he turned into a lucrative career consulting with museums, galleries, collectors and the Palace of Versailles.

    He became a fixture in Parisian society and a celebrity in the art world, until he was felled by a former student who had become so steeped in antiques that he could — literally — taste a fake.

    At the height of his powers, Mr. Pallot’s expertise and assurances of authenticity had helped convince French experts to designate multiple items as national treasures. He also used his renown to dupe deep-pocketed buyers, including Prince Abdullah bin Khalifa Al-Thani of Qatar, into believing they were purchasing genuine pieces of royal history.

    He attested to the authenticity of seating said to have belonged to Marie Antoinette and to the mistress of Louis XV, Madame du Barry.

    People believed so fully in Mr. Pallot because almost 40 years ago he wrote what was long considered the book on the topic: “The Art of the Chair in 18th Century France,” which includes a preface by his friend, the antique enthusiast and fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld.

    Now, Mr. Pallot is perhaps best known for using his knowledge of art history to hoodwink some of the most esteemed antique experts and buyers.

    On Tuesday, after years of investigations by the French police, Mr. Pallot and five others said to be involved in a scheme to unload fakes onto unsuspecting buyers attended the first day of a criminal trial in Pontoise, near Paris, where they stand accused of trafficking in counterfeit antique furniture.

    In 2016, the French culture ministry issued a statement saying that the police were investigating the authenticity of pieces of furniture valued at 2.7 million euros (about $2.9 million), including two Louis XV chairs, purchased by the Palace of Versailles. That inquiry led to the conclusion they were not authentic and to the arrest of Mr. Pallot the same year. In 2017, the scandal also changed how the French authorities authenticated antiques.

    But doubts about Mr. Pallot had begun to surface years before, most notably for his fellow antique dealer and former student, Charles Hooreman, who shared his concerns with Mr. Pallot, as well as with buyers and the French authorities.

    In 2018, Mr. Hooreman told Vanity Fair that he had considered Mr. Pallot his “hero” after attending his art history lectures at the Sorbonne. He later entered the same profession as his teacher, but he became suspicious of his mentor based on conversations with a buyer and about the quantity of antiques surfacing.

    As far back as 2012, Mr. Hooreman said he had seen two folding benches that were being touted as having belonged to Princess Louise Élisabeth, the eldest daughter of King Louis XV. He felt compelled to test them.

    “I licked the chair and voilà. I could taste the fraud,” he told Vanity Fair.

    Familiar with the methods used by master craftsmen for restoration, he recognized a trick used by a woodworker whom Mr. Pallot favored, Bruno Desnoues. Mr. Desnoues used melted licorice to give new wood an old feel.

    Mr. Desnoues is also on trial now and has admitted his role in the scheme. Mr. Pallot himself has widely admitted complicity but denies there are as many fakes as Mr. Hooreman has claimed.

    An investigative judge in France noted in a previous proceeding that a smiling Mr. Pallot had told the court about the origins of the deception: He and Mr. Desnoues had become curious about whether they could make a good fake one day while the craftsman was restoring authentic antiques, according to Le Monde.



    Source link

  • Art Adviser. Friend. Thief.

    Art Adviser. Friend. Thief.


    Lisa Schiff sat at her kitchen table, trying to explain how she went from being one of the world’s most celebrated art advisers to a high-society pariah and a felon.

    It was her first time speaking openly about her crimes. But the setting for this unburdening wasn’t her old $25,000-a-month TriBeCa loft, or the V. I.P. lounge at Art Basel Miami Beach where she once brokered art deals for the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio; rather, it was a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan’s unfussy Stuyvesant Town, where, she said, she needs her parents to pay her rent. Ms. Schiff, 55, has lost her money, all her friends and every shred of influence.

    “You become the lie,” Ms. Schiff said, fidgeting with a light-up Lego Christmas tree in her hands. Where once she collected artworks by Nan Goldin and Damien Hirst, today snapshots of her 12-year-old son decorate the apartment. “And I didn’t have anyone to talk to because everyone around me was either paid to be there or was family.”

    While her clients and friends saw a successful woman at the top of her career, she hid a secret. She was stealing from them. To conceal her theft, she would do things like pay one client with another’s money, or leverage their friendships to keep them believing that late payments were always almost on their way.

    By the time it all came crashing down in 2023, she had stolen some $6.4 million, from at least a dozen people.

    But out of all her transgressions, she seemed most ashamed of the glamour that gilded her crimes. Darting around in chartered helicopters and regularly burning through tens of thousands of dollars in shopping sprees at luxury stores, she said, like Loewe in Paris, wasn’t even fun.

    “I was miserable in that helicopter. I was miserable in Loewe in my fancy outfit,” she said, bitter with herself about her own choices. “At the end, I thought that I was going to have a stroke.”

    Today, clients who once jetted around the world with her buying art will speak of her only through a lawyer, Wendy Lindstrom, who represents seven of the people now suing her.

    “Any attempt by Lisa Schiff to portray herself as remorseful is disingenuous at best,” Ms. Lindstrom said in an email.

    As an art adviser, Ms. Schiff was matchmaker between famous clients and the pricey paintings they wanted above their sofas. Behind the velvet ropes of art fairs, celebrities and art-world insiders alike sought her guidance on which pieces of art to buy with their millions. She was paid a commission for successful transactions.

    They had good reason: Over her decades-long career, Ms. Schiff helped advance the field of advising from the vanity project of bored socialites into a respected profession, more akin to an asset management firm. Schmoozing at cocktail parties and lecturing clients as an ethics authority, she seemed like the ideal art guru: getting access to hot artists before their paintings jumped in value; discreetly brokering sales with the major auction houses; and warding off predatory dealers looking to upsell and overcharge novice collectors.

    She was everywhere, quoted in newspaper pages and speaking at museums. But all last year, she was missing from the cocktail circuit, and absent from the auction floors, except in the fine print: Listed atop three lots in a November auction at Phillips were the words, “Property to be sold to benefit the creditors of Lisa Schiff.”

    That was because in October, Ms. Schiff had pleaded guilty in federal court in Manhattan to defrauding the very clients she called friends. The proceeds of the sale would all go to pay back what she stole not just from clients but from an artist, a gallery and others.

    The crime, which federal prosecutors have described in essence as an art-world Ponzi scheme, began in 2018 and involved some 55 artworks. Sometimes Ms. Schiff would directly siphon money to herself from the sale of her clients’ art; other times, as a go-between for a seller and client, she pocketed the money they gave her to make new purchases on their behalf, and never bought the art at all.

    Ms. Schiff is scheduled to be sentenced March 19 and faces up to 20 years in prison.

    “Lisa Schiff attempted to paint a picture of a successful fine art advisory business,” James E. Dennehy, assistant director in charge of the F.B.I.’s New York field office, said at her guilty plea. “It was actually a multimillion-dollar fraudulent scheme. After half a decade of deceit, Ms. Schiff will now be held accountable for her lies.”

    Her scheme ensnared clients who were far from art-world rookies. Under her direction, the real-estate heir Candace Barasch had become one of the art world’s top collectors, according to the magazine ARTnews. Another client was the veteran dealer Adam Sheffer, who once worked at top galleries like Mary Boone and Pace. He was a leader in the art market, even serving as an expert witness in another art fraud case, where he criticized the industry’s lack of due diligence.

    For clients like them, she negotiated multimillion-dollar art purchases with noted dealers such as Larry Gagosian and David Zwirner as well as the major auction houses.

    Today, Ms. Schiff is bankrupt, and her own art collection is being liquidated. Some of those who are suing her say they treated her like a member of the family, only to find they had been robbed.

    The art Ms. Schiff grew up around in the early ’70s was limited to renditions of Depression-era photographs painted by her mother, which hung in their home in Kendall, Fla. The daughter of a prominent professor of medicine, with a center in his name at the University of Miami, Ms. Schiff said she considered her background privileged — not in terms of money, but gravitas.

    “We grew up middle class, but rich in prestige and rich in education,” she said.

    To illustrate her point, she said that the painful moment of her bankruptcy was when her library of costly art books was confiscated and sold to pay back her creditors. “I was enamored by the idea of knowledge,” she said — before revealing that she had not read most of them.

    Ms. Schiff said she earned art history degrees from the University of Michigan and the University of Miami before embarking on, but not completing, her Ph.D. from the City University of New York Graduate Center. Instead, she joined the circus of the art market, energized by a front-row seat to the deals that shaped the next chapter of art history.

    She assisted at Phillips auction house in the 1990s and later became a director at an Upper East Side gallery, Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art. She started her own advisory firm in 2002 and gradually became known as an early admirer of artists who would become market darlings, among them Christopher Wool, Glenn Ligon and Matthew Wong. She frequently trumpeted her efforts to secure a Basquiat for Mr. DiCaprio. She said she also hired a P.R. firm to get her into “serious” publications that would raise her profile further.

    In 2013, she helped found the VIA Art Fund, which has raised millions of dollars toward artist grants and projects. Today, there is no trace of Ms. Schiff on the organization’s website; according to court filings, Ms. Schiff owes the nonprofit’s first director, Jeanne Hagerty, and her husband, Thomas, nearly $2 million, including $925,000 they claim she never gave them after selling their Georgia O’Keeffe painting “Blue and White Abstraction.” In her interview with The Times, Ms. Schiff described the Hagertys as her dearest friends and godparents to her son. They did not respond to several calls for comment.

    She was still jetting between art fairs in 2020, when things began to truly fall apart. Ms. Schiff checked herself into a San Francisco rehab center to combat what she said was an addiction to alcohol and reckless behavior. It was, she said, an attempt to stop stealing and figure out how to make her clients whole. But as soon as she was discharged, she said, with the mid-pandemic art market heating up, she went right back to living large off her clients’ money.

    “I was a fake, a fraud every day,” Ms. Schiff said. “I hated when people would say nice things about me; when young people would say: ‘Oh my God, you are Lisa Schiff, you’re such a good art adviser!’” She added: “I felt like a walking corpse.”

    As the threat of incarceration bore down, she fretted about the impact on her young son, whom she raises alone.

    And still, she never stopped. “It just got so big and I got so scared. I have a kid and I was just like, ‘I can’t be a criminal,’” she said. “I didn’t allow myself to even think that I was doing criminal behavior.”

    Over the years, Ms. Schiff blurred professional lines, something her accusers now claim was deliberate. After Ms. Barasch, the real-estate heir, built a collection of nearly 600 artworks with her help, she described Ms. Schiff in chummy terms, referring to her as her “partner in crime” in a 2019 article in The New York Times.

    Ms. Schiff, however, may have had another view of such collaborations: “I feel like advising is just my way to buy things that I wish I could buy myself,” she confided in a 2015 interview in Cultured magazine.

    The two women spoke multiple times a day, according to a complaint Ms. Barasch and her husband, Michael, filed in New York State Supreme Court in 2023. They accused Ms. Schiff of making off with nearly $2 million of the $2.5 million from the sale of a painting owned by the couple and their friend Mr. Sheffer, by the Romanian artist Adrian Ghenie. Schiff Fine Art Advisory, her company, would directly handle her clients’ money in art transactions rather than letting buyers and sellers settle up themselves. She took advantage of the access to their cash.

    Clients were unaware of her schemes for years, though Ms. Barasch noted in court documents that Ms. Schiff’s spending on herself sometimes took her aback; she was struck when Ms. Schiff ran up a bill of $32,000 at Loewe in Paris, for things like $573 leggings and $953 jeans.

    Ms. Schiff said the spending was an effort to keep up with her high-rolling clients. “Did I need to stay in the same hotel as them or fly business?” she said. “No, but I felt like I had more mojo and confidence waking up in the same place as they did.” She said she now understands she was “misguided.”

    Ms. Schiff’s career imploded on a morning in May 2023 on a TriBeCa sidewalk, in a meeting with Mr. Sheffer. The two friends had met to preview the season’s contemporary art auctions. Mr. Sheffer and Ms. Barasch were still waiting for the rest of the money from the Ghenie painting she had sold. Ms. Schiff told him point blank: Their $1.8 million was gone.

    Then she turned and fled down White Street.

    “I am sorry and have every intention to make things right,” Ms. Schiff texted Mr. Sheffer later, according to a lawsuit. “I know you will never speak to me again but I will try to make it right regardless.”

    Then she texted Ms. Barasch, who days later would add another suit, accusing her of similar thefts. They included siphoning away $390,000 Ms. Barasch had wired her to pay for a Sarah Lucas sculpture and shorting the same gallery a quarter of a million dollars for a sculpture by Wangechi Mutu, whose work was exhibited on the facade of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

    “Know that I love you,” Ms. Schiff wrote.

    But by then Ms. Schiff had already begun the process of turning herself in, according to her lawyer, Randy Zelin. A few days later, she voluntarily turned over dossiers she compiled outlining her theft to the Manhattan district attorney’s office. On Oct. 17 of the next year, Mr. Zelin dropped her off in a taxi at 100 Centre Street, where she surrendered herself for arrest.

    None of the dozens of entities and people listed as creditors of Ms. Schiff in court filings responded personally to requests for comment. Calls to their lawyers were either not returned, or were declined on their behalf.

    Today the art world is reeling over not just her deception, but also the stain Ms. Schiff has left on the largely unregulated business of art advising.

    “She spoke at great lengths about the importance of transparency, about ethical conduct, about mitigating conflicts of interest, which are all the right things to say,” said Alex Glauber, the president of the Association of Professional Art Advisors. “But as the curtain has been pulled back we have seen the reality was as far from her story as one could imagine.”

    In the interview, Ms. Schiff acknowledged how convincing she was at playing the moral art adviser.

    It’s exactly why, she said, “I’m the worst one.”

    Ms. Schiff’s actions continue to reverberate in a relationship-based business where credibility is everything. “The art world is a small group of people that keep socializing with one another in different parts of the world,” said Adam Green, an art adviser, “and that can help you get access to galleries and artworks.”

    The $63 billion art industry is built partly on trust — sometimes to its detriment. There are advisers like Mr. Green, for example, who refuse to manage payment between collectors and galleries. “I found it odd that money was going through Lisa,” he said.

    Ms. Schiff was never asked to join the invitation-only Association of Professional Art Advisors, Mr. Glauber, the president, who is also an adviser himself, said. She did not qualify for membership because she was also a nascent art dealer, which is against the group’s bylaws given the potential conflict of interest it poses.

    “Unfortunately her situation is a case study in what’s problematic with an industry like ours,” he said.

    But even her critics had to admire Ms. Schiff’s aesthetic taste. Her recognition helped lift the careers of major artists like Richard Prince and Wolfgang Tillmans.

    Indeed, on a brisk day in November, Mr. Glauber was at Phillips auction house in Manhattan, bidding for a client on a photograph of a Fire Island beach by Tillmans — a piece of Ms. Schiff’s collection, on the block to pay back the people she cheated. The criminal connection did not mean a bargain; it went for nearly $36,000 — almost double its presale estimate. Mr. Glauber put down his paddle, outbid.

    But her 1988 painting by Richard Prince went unsold. The people she stole from are still not whole.

    The title of the work: “Are You Kidding?”

    In her nondescript Stuyvesant Town apartment, awaiting sentencing, Ms. Schiff has spent her days constructing a replica Hogwarts from Legos. Evenings at gallery openings have been replaced by meetings at Alcoholics and Debtors Anonymous.

    She said she writes and rewrites apology letters to her victims but that her lawyer has advised her to hold off on sending them. When she feels the urge to go on a spending spree, she heads to Blick Art Materials for a handful of stickers and pens. She is focused, she said, on setting a better example for her son and making plans for his care should she be imprisoned.

    “I feel so guilty to my victims, so guilty,” she said. “But I am shocked that I didn’t think through what I was potentially doing to my son.” If she does end up serving a prison sentence, she said, her brother will care for him.

    Ms. Schiff continues to believe that in some ways she was a good art adviser. She listed her tireless efforts to help her clients amass their collections, and claimed she often eschewed making money to steer clients toward art in which she truly believed.

    Then she caught herself.

    “I am the worst kind of perpetrator, because I seem so good,” Ms. Schiff said. “I’m a good person, I’m a good friend, I am loving and generous, I work hard — and I stole your money.”

    Susan C. Beachy contributed research.



    Source link