A Museum Loses Its Masterpieces
An investigation into a leading Chinese museum has uncovered illicit art sales and missing treasures, exposing deep flaws in how cultural relics are safeguarded.
Sixth Tone
By Fan Yiying
Feb 10, 2026 | 651 words | ★★★☆☆
China’s campaign to professionalise the stewardship of its cultural heritage has run into an awkward showcase. A sweeping investigation into the Nanjing Museum, one of the country’s grandest repositories of art and antiquities, has uncovered years of mismanagement, illicit sales and procedural shortcuts. The fallout has ensnared museum executives and provincial officials alike, and prompted fresh calls in Beijing for tighter oversight of public collections.
State media describe the inquiry as unusually exhaustive. Investigators fanned out across 12 provinces, sifted through 65,000 documents and interviewed more than 1,100 people. They cross-checked records relating to over 30,000 artworks and ultimately traced five paintings that had disappeared from the museum’s holdings. Nearly two dozen officials now face disciplinary action; several cases have been passed to criminal authorities.
The Nanjing Museum is no provincial backwater. With more than 430,000 artefacts and artworks, it ranks among China’s largest institutions of its kind. That stature helps explain why the affair is being treated as the country’s most consequential museum scandal in years. It also touches a sensitive nerve. China has spent decades promoting itself as a guardian of civilisation-scale heritage, while warning against the trafficking and loss of cultural relics. A breach at a flagship museum risks embarrassment as well as financial loss.
The trigger was the unexpected reappearance of a Ming-dynasty painting. In May 2025 a work known as “Jiangnan Spring”, valued at around 88m yuan ($12.5m), surfaced at a Beijing auction. The painting had been donated in 1959 by the family of Pang Laichen, a celebrated collector, as part of a gift of 137 works to the Nanjing Museum. Its presence on the market raised an obvious question: how had a donated national treasure ended up for sale?
The answer, according to investigators, lies in decisions taken during the 1990s, a period when China’s art market was liberalising faster than its regulatory framework. Xu Huping, then executive vice-director of the museum, improperly authorised the transfer of several donated works to a state-owned art dealership for sale. The provincial culture department compounded the lapse by approving the move without a rigorous review, breaching established procedures.
Once outside the museum, the safeguards weakened further. In July 1997 a custodian at the dealership, surnamed Zhang, altered the listed price of “Jiangnan Spring” from 25,000 yuan to 2,500 yuan. He then arranged to buy it through an intermediary for 2,250 yuan. Zhang later resold the painting for 120,000 yuan to a private dealer. Over the following decades it passed through multiple hands before resurfacing at auction, where Pang’s great-granddaughter recognised it. The work has since been returned to the museum.
The inquiry reconstructed the fate of four other missing paintings. Two sold in 1999 and 2000 were recovered by the end of 2025 after circulating on the secondary market. A fourth turned out not to have left the institution at all; it was rediscovered in the museum’s own storage. A fifth, sold in 1995, remains unaccounted for.
Responsibility is being apportioned with unusual bluntness. Investigators concluded that Mr Xu violated regulations in approving the transfers and is under investigation for serious disciplinary and legal breaches. Zhang, the former custodian, faces a criminal probe. More than 20 people have been implicated overall, with suspected crimes referred to judicial authorities. Jiangsu’s provincial government has ordered administrative proceedings against the museum itself for violating cultural-relic rules.
Beyond punishment, the centre wants reform. Investigators have urged a comprehensive overhaul of the museum’s governance and the creation of a social oversight committee to add an external check. In a public apology the Nanjing Museum promised tighter internal controls, new rules governing donations and greater transparency through public supervision. ■
