After over three weeks of intense legal proceedings, lawyers representing Dmitry Rybolovlev's Accent Delight International and Sotheby's have presented their closing statements in a landmark case that could have significant implications for the art world. The feud between the Russian billionaire and Swiss art dealer Yves Bouvier has spanned nearly a decade, with Rybolovlev accusing Bouvier of overcharging him by $1 billion across 38 art pieces acquired between 2002 and 2014.

Since 2015, Rybolovlev has launched numerous lawsuits against Bouvier in various jurisdictions around the world, but has yet to secure a favorable decision. The civil case brought by Rybolovlev against Bouvier in Singapore was dismissed in 2017, with the court of appeals stating that the matter would be better resolved in a Swiss court. Last November, the Geneva prosecutor's office closed their case after prosecutors were informed of a private settlement agreement between Bouvier and Rybolovlev.

During the closing arguments, Sotheby's took center stage as both legal teams focused on the alleged involvement of the renowned auction house in Bouvier's actions. Plaintiff's attorney Zoe Salzman compared the case to a pointillist painting, emphasizing the need to connect the dots and present a complete picture to the jury. Salzman portrayed Samuel Valette, currently Sotheby's head of private sales, as a "greedy low-level manager" who prioritized commissions and advanced his own career at the expense of Rybolovlev's interests.

Salzman highlighted that a significant portion of Valette's business from 2011 to 2014, ranging from 86% to 97%, stemmed from sales to Bouvier. Salzman also revealed that Valette received over $979,000 in commission on the four works central to the case, out of a total commission amount of around $19 million. By stressing the importance of these figures, Salzman aimed to convey the magnitude of the alleged wrongdoing.

The burden for the jury in this civil trial is to determine whether there is clear evidence that Sotheby's assisted Bouvier in defrauding Rybolovlev. Salzman argued that Sotheby's and the wider art market fostered a culture of greed, emphasizing their prioritization of money over principles and transparency. She urged the jury to hold big companies accountable under the law and reaffirm that honesty and transparency are essential.

In response, defense attorney Marcus Asner focused on redirecting blame towards Bouvier, asserting that Rybolovlev was defrauded by the Swiss dealer alone. Asner highlighted that Sotheby's sold only one third of the works eventually acquired by Rybolovlev from Bouvier. He emphasized that there was no concrete evidence linking Sotheby's to Bouvier's lies and manipulations, suggesting that Rybolovlev's reliance on Bouvier for advice played a significant role in the alleged fraud.

Asner also countered the argument of transparency in the art market by highlighting that Rybolovlev himself chose to conceal his identity, much like other major players in the industry. He cited instances where Rybolovlev, at Bouvier's urging, intentionally disrupted negotiations to gain an advantage.

The plaintiffs are seeking approximately $154 million in damages, representing the alleged markups on the artworks, commissions, and potential punitive damages. However, the real question lies in the jury's perception of the complex art market and their decisions regarding the involvement of Sotheby's in the high-stakes feud between wealthy individuals.

As the trial comes to a close, the art world anxiously awaits the jury's verdict, which may shape the future of how art dealers and auctions conduct their business practices.