Ant and Dec pursue a High Court order to uncover alleged hidden profits from Banksy deals
But here’s where it gets controversial: the TV duo claim an intermediary earned secret, unauthorised profits from their Banksy transactions, and they’re demanding transparency.
In recent court filings, Ant and Dec say they paid £550,000 for a set of Banksy works, yet the seller seemingly received only £300,000. They want a clear account of the remaining £250,000 and where it went. The presenters also express concern that they may have missed out on a substantial sum from selling 22 other pieces.
To investigate, they’ve asked the judge to compel an art dealer to disclose information about the transactions, and to reveal operations of an unnamed art consultant—referred to in court as X—who acted on the stars’ behalf.
The consultants helped the pair buy, sell, and loan artworks as they grew their contemporary art collection. Harry Martin, representing Ant and Dec, explained that the pair seek to uncover what actually happened with these deals and trace missing funds.
One highlighted example involves the £550,000 purchase of a set of six prints portraying model Kate Moss as Marilyn Monroe in the Warhol style. Martin also cited a sale of a Banksy Napalm work, depicting Kim Phuc from the famous 1972 Vietnam War image, styled to appear holding hands with Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald. He noted a £2,000 discrepancy: the artwork was sold for £13,000, but the pair were told they had received £11,000.
Ant and Dec are pursuing a disclosure order to obtain records from art dealer Andrew Lilley and his firm Lilley Fine Art Ltd, which were involved in purchasing pieces for the presenters and selling works to them. The court heard Lilley and his dealership aren’t accused of wrongdoing but were “mixed up in the wrongdoing” and “involved in the flow of money.” Lilley has resisted providing information, citing confidentiality, but indicated he would comply with any court directive. He told BBC News he’s been drawn into the dispute but believes it’s unrelated to him, describing it as a matter for the courts between Ant and Dec and the third party, X.
Judge Iain Pester indicated he would issue a ruling on Wednesday about whether to grant the disclosure order and whether to lift the interim anonymity order protecting X’s identity.
Would you propose additional safeguards for transparency in art-dealing transactions like this, or question the legitimacy of pursuing private intermediaries in high-profile cases?
