During a search of Loudmer's offices in October 1997 police found two letters written by Philippe Loudmer, his son and associate, indicating that he had transferred money into an Bank of Luxembourg account nicknamed “Massimo”. A few days later Philippe Loudmer fled from France and sought refuge in Israel with some $ 67,000 in cash he had taken from the safe of his group. Every detail of the Bourdon case disclosed by “Libération” was confirmed by police. In March 1990, Loudmer sold the Bourdon collection for some $ 70 million.
Aged over 80, the Bourdons wanted to donate the proceeds to the SPA group but Loudmer, with whom both had friendly relations during 30 years, convinced them to set up an association instead. Appointed as administrator of the association, Loudmer allegedly cashed in some $ 7 millions in fees (not inclusive of tax) from the sale. He however told the investigating judge that Madame Bourdon had agreed to pay such a sum, which by far exceeded normal fees, as a gesture of gratitude.
Loudmer has also been accused of having sold five paintings from the collection fictitiously to a screen company, which he in fact managed. These paintings remained unsold and were given back to the Bourdon couple who however paid Loudmer's fees for these works.
The auctioneer also included in his sale a painting by André Derain, titled “Pont de Chatou”, which in fact the Bourdon couple eagerly wanted to donate to the Museum of Modern Art in Paris. The work was pre-empted by the State at $ 7,6 million while at almost the same time the Bourdon couple had reached an agreement with the director of the museum implying that there would be finally no payment required for that work. Still, Loudmer charged his commission and the Bourdon couple incurred a spending of up to $ 1,4 million on this occasion.
In addition, Loudmer enabled Soizic Audouard, one of his close friends , to set up a Bourdon Fund for Modern Art and to acquire in its name some 33 works for a total of $ 965,000. In addition Soizic Audouard received some $ 85,000 in fees for herself. The investigating however retained no charges against her though Loudmer has also been accused of having diverted some $ 290,000 from his group to acquire the Berggruen Gallery in Paris, which was then run by Soizic Audouard. Police added that Loudmer had placed his group in a more difficult situation in borrowing $ 600, 000 for the purchase of his luxurious flat in Paris.
The auctioneer and his son had set up at least two screen companies (IAI and Beechmont) in Luxembourg and Switzerland via which they bought lots in sales they were conducting, an illegal practice under French laws. Philippe Loudmer used the pseudos of “Catalupo” and “Papatakis” while Guy Loudmer had adopted the name of “Gramont” to acquire lots in their own sales. However no charge has been brought against the auctioneer regarding the setting up of these companies.
Loudmer was known in Paris as the “naughty boy” amongst auctioneers as during the 1970s he had tried to hold sales outside Drouot. Facing dismissal he then backed own and went on to carry out a steadily prosperous business until the organisation of the Bourdon sale.
At first, this prestigious sale established his fame but finally provoked his downfall. As a result of this successful sale Loudmer and his son were devoured by ambition and embarked on acquiring a building near Drouot to house their group. However in the aftermath of the Gulf war, the art market faced a recession in 1992 and Loudmer was forced to move to less expensive premises.
Monsieur and Madame Bourdon had been apparently manipulated by the auctioneer until they were advised to turn against him. However there were doubts about the provenance of certain pieces of their collection, which had been acquired during the Second World War at a moment when several Jewish collectors were being tracked down by the Nazis and their French collaborators. It had notably been reported that certain paintings, valued at over $ 1 million each, had stayed hidden under their bed whereas one would believe that such valuable paintings should either have been hanging on the walls of their apartment or placed in a strong safe. Such oddity did not fail to give rise to suspicion about the provenance of these works.
Home
