On Donor Intent and Institutional Trust: Reflections on the Nanjing Museum Case
- Jiaxin Zhao
- Feb 5
- 7 min read
I have always considered the Nanjing Museum (the “Museum”) to be among the most underestimated cultural institutions in East Asia, with its immense collection spanning from the Paleolithic era to contemporary China, particularly rich in Ming and Qing imperial porcelain, all the more significant given its historical role as the former National Central Museum of the Republic of China (that is, before the communists won the civil war).
In late 2025, however, the Museum made headlines over deaccessioning scandals for disposing national treasures into the art market. Some media outlet referred to the case as “making the Louvre thieves look dumb”. [1]
1. A Missing Masterpiece resurfaced in an Auction
(A timeline appears at the end of this article.)
In May 2025, a Ming dynasty masterpiece titled Jiangnan Chun (Spring in Jiangnan), previously recorded in the Nanjing Museum collection, appeared in a China Guardian auction catalogue as Lot No. 3211. The estimate was RMB 88 million (approximately US$12 million). The scroll painting was part of a large donation made in the 1960s by the family of Pang Laichen, a prominent collector and industrialist, comprising 137 works of Chinese calligraphy and paintings (the “Donated Works”).
Part of Jiangnan Chun, scroll painting by Qiu Ying, Ming Dynasty. China Guardian
About a year preceding the auction, after failed attempts to review the Donated Works at the Museum, Pang’s great-granddaughter obtained a court order [2] permitting an inspection, only to discover that five works were missing, including Jiangnan Chun. The Museum explained that the relevant works were “reallocated and disposed of according to the rules” after being identified as forgeries.
The artwork was allegedly “disposed of” for only RMB 6800 (approximately US$980) in the 2000s. Yet, family of Lu Ting claims that they already acquired the painting in the 1990s for over RMB 170,000 (around US$25,000).
It is not hard to imagine the turmoil in the Chinese art market ignited by this curious case and the concerns from domestic and international collectors.
2. Fake or Real? The Wrong Question
The central legal issue in this scandal is not whether the Jiangnan Chun, attributed to Ming dynasty master Qiu Ying, is authentic or not. There is no “God’s eye view” in art authentication. Disagreement among experts is routine.
The more fundamental issue is the legal relationship between a cultural institution (often linked to the State) and a private donor:
What rules govern this relationship?
Does the museum owe any duties to the donor once ownership is transferred?
Does any legal exception exist that limits the museum’s right of disposal when the work was acquired by donation?
Does compliance with internal rules exhaust a museum’s obligations?
Under what authority may a museum remove donated works from its permanent collection and, when it does so, does the donor or his family possess any pre-emptive rights?
Do the heirs have any rights in connection to the donation?
And, last but not the least:
What happens when there is a legislative vacuum and the contract is silent?
3. Covenant, Law, and the Absence thereof
The Museum’s defence relies primarily on the Chinese Civil Code (effective 1 January 2021), asserting that ownership of the Donated Artworks transferred when the gift was delivered in the 1960s, from the Peng family to the Museum. Legally, no further duties are owed to the donor regarding maintenance and disposal.
The Museum further argues that the disposal of the Donated Artworks complied with internal procedures and the Measures for the Administration of Museum Collections（《博物馆藏品管理办法》) ( the “Measures”）, a ministerial regulation issued by the Ministry of Culture in 1986, in the absence of relevant deaccessioning legislation.
In particular, the Museum contends to have satisfied the conditions outlined in Article 21 of the Measures for removing the Donated Artworks from its collection. After expert review allegedly confirmed the Donated Artworks to be forgeries, approval was obtained from the Jiangsu Provincial Cultural Department, and the Donated Artworks were “re-allocated” to a provincial cultural relics store in 1997 before entering the private market.
Article 21: Cultural objects […] that have entered the museum but are, upon appraisal, found not to meet the museum’s accession criteria, […] or to lack any conservation value, shall be removed from the main collection and held in separate, designated storage, and dealt with with particular caution. Where it is necessary to dispose of such objects, the proposed disposal shall be reviewed by the institution’s academic or curatorial committee, or by relevant external experts, and a classified disposal schedule shall be prepared and submitted for approval to the competent cultural-heritage authority, after which the objects shall be appropriately dealt with.
The Measures contain no express authorisation to sell the deaccessioned works. Instead, terms such as “dispose of” and “re-allocation” (调拨) are employed carefully. No explicit explanation of these terms are provided, but the literary meaning suggests retention in the public sphere, rather than private market. Equally absent is any explicit permission to transfer such works into private hands.
4. Red Flags, to Name a Few
There are (so many) legal and policy issues implicated: provenance, museum governance, absence or the debatable application of the law, standards of evidence, authentication and the weight of expert opinions, conflicts of interest, etc.
This post, however, will focus on understanding two interrelated questions: the legal standing of the donor’s heirs, and the donors’ rights vis-à-vis the museum.
1) Heirs Interest and Standing
Before the Donated Works were discovered missing, the Museum had initially declined the Pang family’s request to review the collection on that ground that “the heir is not the donor himself”.
Now this is quite a creative argument to make since the Donated Works were gifted without express conditions, and the limited documentation at that time (a receipt acknowledging the transfer) was silent on donor intent, let alone any rights reserved for heirs. So, the Museum was prima facie not violating any contractual obligations when it refused the heirs’ request for inspection.
The heirs do, however, have legal standing according to inheritance principles and civil procedure standing rules. Civil claims and contractual rights do not extinguish upon death unless they are strictly personal. To the extent a donor retains legally cognisable interests arising out of a donation such as the right to challenge mismanagement or improper disposal, those interests may pass to the donor’s heirs. That is why the heirs were ultimately able to obtain a court order to inspect the collection, but the right of inspection is not automatic.
2) Donors Rights in a Legislative and Contractual Vacuum
Chinese law generally does not apply retroactively unless explicitly provided otherwise. So the Museum’s disposal of the Donated Artworks cannot be judged directly under later legislation, such as Public Welfare Donation Law 1999 that protects donor’s intent; or the Collections Exit Measures 2018 [3] that requires negotiation with the donor before disposing of donated works; or Article 663 of the Civil Code that allows revocation of a gift should the museum fail to properly preserve it.
That said, the court is not left to confront a legal vacuum. While later-enacted laws do not apply retroactively as binding rules, they may nonetheless inform judicial interpretation and policy context. In practice, the court may still consider donor intent as as guiding principle, although it does not form a statutory requirement.
In the Nanjing Museum case, the issue is not merely that the donor and his heirs were not consulted for the disposal of the Donated Works, but that they were kept in the dark for nearly half a century.
5. Beyond the Law: Trust and Governance
Speaking from a donor’s point of view (drawn largely from experience representing collectors as clients), museum-donor relationships go beyond ownership rules. The Civil Code defines title, but it does not generate trust. That trust depends on governance, which requires transparency, documentation, professional stewardship, and communication. It is in the Museum’s long-term interest to safeguard its reputation as a custodian of cultural heritage.
To reinforce that trust, even where legislation is silent, formal mechanisms should be integrated into the governance framework, including donation agreements or a deed of gift specifying donor intent, standards of care, attribution or recognition, and, where appropriate, reversion clauses.
The Nanjing Museum case illustrates the risks of treating the law as a ceiling rather than a floor, and a perfect example of compliance by procedure rather than by purpose.
P.S. I recommend interested readers to follow this saga which extends well beyond the selected angles discussed above. You will discover, among others: an (almost) silent war over cultural relics between Beijing and Taipei; the fate of affluent collectors and their artworks during turbulent historical times; a series of other lawsuits brought by the Pang family against the Museum; whistleblower pointing to possible criminal liability for smuggling national treasures by a former Museum director; and how the alleged first private buyer (Lu Ting) of Jiangnan Chun eventually lost it as a collateral entangled in loans, art finance, and forfeited dreams.
P.P.S. In a future article, I will tell the brighter side, so to speak, of donating to museums. It is about a European collector friend who donated porcelain and bronzes to a Chinese museum, his intent, negotiation and other practical experience in dealing with a foreign institution.
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3337533/china-probes-museum-art-theft-claims-make-louvre-thieves-look-dumb
[2] The order was contained in a settlement agreement.
[3] Interim Measures for the Administration of the Exit of State-owned Museum Collections 2018
Timeline of the Nanjing Museum Saga
1960s
Donation of 137 artworks by Pang Laichen's family.
1990s
Alleged private acquisition of Jiangnan Chun by first private owner Lu Ting for RMB 170,000 (~US$25,000). The painting later became a collateral for loans.
2000s
Museum allegedly disposed of 5 artworks identified as forgeries, including Jiangnan Chun.
2014
Museum curator writes in an exhibition catalogue that the Pang heirs were forced to sell paintings to survive. The Pang family sues the Museum for defamation and accidentally discovers that Jiangnan Chun is no longer in the Museum’s collection.
2024
Court grants Pang family access to inspect the Donated Artworks following failed attempts to communicate with the Museum. Inspection reveals 5 works missing, including Jiangnan Chun.
2025
Provenance investigation traces the painting’s chain of ownership through several private hands before it is consigned to China Guardian Auction House.
May 2025
Jiangnan Chun appears in China Guardian auction catalogue as Lot 3211, estimated at RMB 88 million (~US$12 million).
August 2025
Pang family files lawsuit to demand return of the 5 deaccessioned works.
Comments