The Forger Wants His Painting Back

Wolfgang Beltracchi is seeking the return of the “Red Painting with Horses.” After defeats in two court instances, he has achieved an initial success before the Federal Court of Justice. A legal question with implications far beyond the art market is now awaiting a decision.

An art forger seeking the return of his own forgery is an unusual claimant. On 9 October 2026, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) in Karlsruhe heard Wolfgang Beltracchi’s lawsuit. He wants to recover the “Red Painting with Horses” which he once introduced into the art market as a work by Heinrich Campendonk. The BGH’s Fifth Civil Senate must determine who owns the painting following the unwinding of the original sale.

The story begins in 2005. Beltracchi painted an oil canvas in the style of Expressionist artist Heinrich Campendonk, signed it with Campendonk’s name and dated it 1914. On the reverse, he attached forged collector’s labels, including one purporting to refer to the renowned Flechtheim Gallery in Düsseldorf. The alleged Jäger family collection, from which the painting was supposedly sourced, was also entirely fictitious.

The deception succeeded. In 2006, the Cologne auction house Lempertz included the painting in its catalogue as an allegedly authentic Campendonk. The estimated price ranged from €800,000 to €1.2 million. At the “Modern Art” auction, the painting fetched a hammer price of €2.4 million. Including additional fees, the buyer paid €2.88 million.

However, the success did not last. The forgery was discovered, exposing Beltracchi’s years-long art fraud. In October 2011, the Criminal Division of the Cologne Higher Regional Court sentenced him to several years in prison. This marked the criminal-law conclusion of one of the biggest forgery scandals in German art history.

The matter was far from resolved under civil law. The buyer demanded a refund and sued the auction house. In September 2012, the Cologne Higher Regional Court ordered Lempertz to pay damages in exchange for the return of the painting. The auction house had offered the painting in its catalogue as an authentic Campendonk without having sufficiently substantiated that attribution. The legal dispute eventually ended in a settlement before the Cologne Appeal Court. Lempertz recovered the painting and subsequently sold it to a third party.

This took the story in an unexpected direction. Beltracchi now demanded that the new owner surrender the painting. He maintains that ownership reverted to him when the original sale was unwound. Consequently, he argues, the auction house could neither acquire ownership nor validly resell the work.

At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question of German property law. In a commission transaction, an auction house sells in its own name but on behalf of the consignor. It does not own the painting itself, but with the consent of the person entitled to dispose of it, it may transfer ownership to the buyer. But what happens when the buyer withdraws from the purchase and returns the painting? Does the auction house become the owner through the transfer back to it, even though it never owned the work in the first place? Or does ownership revert directly to the original owner?

Beltracchi has so far lost his case at two levels of court. The Freiburg Higher Regional Court dismissed his claim in autumn 2022. He was also unsuccessful before the Karlsruhe Appeal Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision in November 2024. In the judges’ view, ownership of the painting was transferred back solely between the buyer and the auction house. Beltracchi was not a party to the settlement, nor could any acquisition of ownership in his favour be derived from its terms.

The judges also found no legal basis for ownership to revert automatically to the original owner. They relied on a 2002 decision by the Federal Court of Justice, in which the BGH had already recognised the reacquisition of ownership by a party who had not originally been entitled to it in a different legal context. The Appeal Court saw no reason to treat the present case differently.

There is an additional, unusual aspect to this case. Beltracchi had deliberately deceived the parties involved and caused millions of euros in losses through the sale. He had already received the auction proceeds. The judges of the Appeal Court did not consider it deserving of legal protection for him to derive ownership rights from the unwinding of the transaction as well.

The legal dispute therefore appeared to have been settled. The Appeal Court had dismissed the appeal by order without an oral hearing and refused leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice, finding that the case raised no question of fundamental significance. Beltracchi, however, refused to accept this outcome and lodged a complaint against the refusal of leave to appeal with the BGH.

He succeeded: the Fifth Civil Senate of the BGH admitted the appeal itself. This represents an initial legal milestone for Beltracchi, although it says nothing yet about the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. The federal judges evidently consider there to be sufficient grounds to resolve the disputed question of ownership themselves. They may, of course, still uphold the Karlsruhe Appeal Court’s position.

During the oral hearing, Beltracchi’s lawyer argued that there was a gap in the law governing the unwinding of the transaction, since Lempertz had not previously owned the painting and had not acquired ownership with the forger’s consent. The opposing side argued that a specific form of unwinding the transaction — namely, the return of ownership to the former owner — should have been expressly stipulated by contract. Otherwise, ownership would remain with the auction house.

A ruling by the highest civil court could have implications extending far beyond the art market. After all, questions concerning ownership also arise in other commission transactions. The decisions of the lower courts had already hinted that the parties would be well advised to regulate the transfer of ownership in unambiguous terms when unwinding such transactions.

Thus, almost twenty years after it was auctioned, the “Red Painting with Horses” is once again keeping the courts occupied. The identity of its painter has long been established. Its owner, however, remains to be determined. The man who once introduced it into the art market as the work of another artist now wants it back as his own. The Federal Court of Justice is scheduled to announce its decision on 15 January 2027.