HONG KONG: A leading China auctioneer holds a debut sale in Hong Kong on Sunday, lured by the city’s international buyers, low tax regime and stable regulatory framework in a trend that could bring more competition for global firms.
China Guardian’s sale of Chinese art and classical furniture in the former British colony follows its rise as the world’s third largest auction house on the crest of China’s art market boom, with sales of $1.77 billion last year.
“We want to win over more overseas market and buyers,” said Wang Yannan, the president of China Guardian and the well-connected daughter of former Communist Party leader Zhao Ziyang.
The sale, though relatively small, is seen as a symbolic foray by China’s top auction firm into the turf of goliaths Christie’s and Sotheby’s who have long dominated international auction hubs like Hong Kong, New York and London.
China Guardian’s key rival, Poly International is also planning an inaugural Hong Kong sale in late November, while A&F Auction and Beijing Rongbao Auction aim to enter Hong Kong in one or two years, according to art market reports.
China’s wave of millionaire buyers and investors have helped propel Hong Kong into the world’s fourth largest art auction hub, with nearly 7 percent of global art auction revenue in 2011, according to French art database Artprice.com.
“It’s great for competition,” Francois Curiel, Christie’s Asia president, told Reuters. “Whenever I see more auction houses coming into the market, the pie became larger.”
Some, however, felt the field was getting crowded.
“It’s like separating a bowl of rice into two,” said Tim Lin of the Lin & Lin Gallery in Beijing and Taipei, referring to increased competition for Hong Kong’s multi-billion dollar art auction market.
“How long will they last? It’s everyone’s guess.”
Art dealers and experts say the Chinese expansion into Hong Kong is also being driven by a tightening regulatory environment in China, that has grappled with widespread art crimes including tax evasion, a proliferation of fakes, money laundering and manipulative bidding practices.
TAX PROBE BLOW TO CHINA ART MARKET
In April, a large-scale Chinese customs probe into tax evasion on art imports delivered a blow to the art market, with at least six prominent art dealers, collectors and artists being investigated, according to art dealers and Chinese media reports.
“The tax probe had a huge impact on the spring auctions in China,” said the owner of an art gallery in Taipei who is a frequent buyer in the Chinese art market but who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.
“Everyone finds himself in danger so the market is extremely cold.”
According to market research firm ArtTactic, total auction sales this spring from the biggest four auction houses in the China market dropped to $1.5 billion, 32 percent lower than the autumn season in 2011 and 43 percent less than a year before.
“The tax investigation has cast a shadow on the Chinese art market,” said David Lin of Taipei’s Lin & Lin Art Gallery.
“It has a psychological effect on buyers and sellers in China ... The chain reaction is going to last for a while.”
China Guardian’s 2012 auction sales tally dropped 46 percent to 2.14 billion yuan ($340 million) this spring season, from 3.98 billion yuan in the 2011 autumn auction, but Wang attributed this largely to a stuttering Chinese economy.
“It also has something to do with the slowdown in the economy, but it has nothing to do with the tax,” Wang of China Guardian, told Reuters.
Art market experts, however, say Hong Kong’s laissez-faire economy, solid regulatary framework and zero-tariffs on art imports, make it a secure and stable alternative for China’s auction firms.
Although Beijing has lowered its import duties on arts to 6 percent from 12 percent since the beginning of 2012, another 17 percent of value-added tax still poses a huge burden to Chinese auction houses.
“Hong Kong is a more liberal tax region,” said Simon Young, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong.
“One would have wondered why they didn’t move sooner.”
China art auctioneers eye slice of Hong Kong market
China art auctioneers eye slice of Hong Kong market
FBI obtained Kash Patel and Susie Wiles phone records during Biden administration
- Patel portrayed the seizing of his phone records by the FBI and efforts to conceal them as an example of overreach by unelected government officials under Biden, a theme often repeated by President Trump
WASHINGTON: The FBI subpoenaed records of phone calls made by Kash Patel and Susie Wiles, now the FBI director and White House Chief of Staff, when they were both private citizens in 2022 and 2023 during the federal probe of Donald Trump, Patel told Reuters on Wednesday.
Reuters is the first to report on the FBI’s actions that took place during the Biden administration, largely when Special Counsel Jack Smith was investigating whether Trump had interfered with the 2020 election and had hidden classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, according to Patel. Smith was appointed to take over that probe in November 2022.
Patel portrayed the seizing of his phone records by the FBI and efforts to conceal them as an example of overreach by unelected government officials under Biden, a theme often repeated by President Trump.
“It is outrageous and deeply alarming that the previous FBI leadership secretly subpoenaed my own phone records – along with those of now White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles – using flimsy pretexts and burying the entire process in prohibited case files designed to evade all oversight,” Patel said in a statement to Reuters.
Reuters could not independently verify many of the details about Patel’s claims, including the full extent and timing of the seizure of phone records and the motive for doing so. Patel said the records were filed in a way that made it difficult for him and other FBI leaders to find them after taking over the bureau in February 2025.
Democrats in Congress have consistently defended Smith from previous GOP criticisms, saying he had acted appropriately in seeking phone records and other evidence they said was necessary to thoroughly investigate allegations of wrongdoing by Trump and his associates.
Investigators routinely subpoena and collect records of phone calls during investigations, even of prominent people, while seeking to determine the key facts in a case and who might be involved in a particular incident. Patel publicly said in 2022 that Trump had declassified the documents taken to Mar-a-Lago, a claim prosecutors disputed and Trump’s lawyers did not make in court. Patel was summoned before a grand jury hearing evidence in the case that year after he was given limited immunity from criminal charges.
Reuters could not independently establish what records the FBI obtained or who approved the subpoenas. The news agency also couldn’t ascertain if Patel or Wiles themselves were under investigation and, if so, why. Both were close to Trump during this period, as he built toward and ultimately launched his campaign to reclaim the presidency in 2024.
Both Patel and Wiles were known to have been interviewed by investigators as part of Smith’s investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents following his first term. A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment on Patel’s allegations on Wednesday. Biden, former Attorney General Merrick Garland, and former FBI director Chris Wray, who oversaw the bureau during Smith’s investigations, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Garland appointed Smith as special counsel.
A federal judge on Monday permanently barred the Justice Department from releasing Smith’s report on the documents investigation. Smith has told Congress that he is barred by court orders from discussing any aspects of the probe that have not been previously disclosed in court filings.
Smith previously told Congress that his investigators had serious concerns about obstruction of justice in their investigations. He told lawmakers last month that his office “followed Justice Department policies, observed legal requirements and took actions based on the facts and the law.”
The White House and Wiles did not immediately comment.
Patel said investigators used subpoenas to obtain what are known as “toll records,” which detailed the timing and recipients of calls he and Wiles made, but not what was said on the calls. The government may lawfully obtain phone records via subpoena without a judge’s approval.
Patel said investigators obtained the records around the time Smith led the probe into allegations that Trump illegally took classified documents to his South Florida property, Mar-a-Lago, after he left the presidency in 2021 and allegedly obstructed federal efforts to return those documents.
Smith charged Trump with felonies related to this investigation in 2023 but that case was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge, and Smith dropped an appeal of that ruling after Trump won election to a second term. Trump has denied wrongdoing related to Smith’s investigations.
Patel said he did not know the FBI’s purpose in seizing the phone records of him and Wiles, who became a top Trump adviser after he left office in 2021 and eventually co-campaign manager for his 2024 run against Biden. Patel also was a Trump political ally during this time.
Patel said the collection of phone records extended into Wiles’ time as Trump’s co-campaign manager, though he did not say when exactly the record collection began or ended.
The FBI discovered the phone records in files categorized as “Prohibited,” which makes them difficult to discover on the bureau’s computer systems. Patel said he recently ended the FBI’s ability to categorize files as “Prohibited.”
Smith’s investigative techniques have previously drawn denunciation from GOP leaders, including the seizure of phone records of US senators and other Republican officials during Smith’s probe into alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Smith testified last year that records of members’ calls helped investigators verify the timeline of events around the January 6 Capitol riot and that prosecutors “followed all legal requirements in getting those records.” He told a House panel that the records obtained from lawmakers did not include content of conversations.
