Ernst Neizvestny at the Tretyakov Gallery. Did they know about the forgeries? Did they continue selling tickets?

Anna Graham, the widow of sculptor Ernst Neizvestny, told the Moscow City News Agency that she had warned the exhibition organizers at the State Tretyakov Gallery in advance about possible forgeries of her husband’s works.

“I warned them. They didn’t even bother to send me an invitation or a catalogue. I received information about forgeries from various sources and contacted the curator. I don’t know if he passed it on to management, but apparently, it had no effect — until the Investigative Committee got involved,” Graham said.

According to her, the works that became the subject of the investigation came from various private collections. “These are works from the collections of people who fell for this scam. A very regrettable event. The main thing is that the production has been set up on a large scale,” the sculptor’s widow noted.

Graham emphasized that the right to issue certificates of authenticity for Ernst Neizvestny’s works belongs exclusively to her as the rights holder.

Earlier, the Moscow Agency reported that a serviceman, Maxim Koshkaryov, became a defendant in a criminal case involving the forgery of paintings and sculptures by Ernst Neizvestny. According to the investigation, between 2020 and 2026, as part of a criminal group, he organized the production of at least 30 counterfeit artworks, which were sold to private collectors. Total sales amounted to no less than 90 million rubles. Searches were conducted as part of the case, including at the Tretyakov Gallery, where 37 paintings and 10 sculptures were seized and examined. Forensic examinations have been ordered.

Against the backdrop of this story, it is appropriate to raise the issue of ethics.

Imagine the situation: you are the PR director of the Tretyakov Gallery. A serious scandal is already raging in the information space surrounding the appointment of a new director, and it seems endless. At the same time, another crisis is brewing — signals about possible forgeries at one of the exhibitions. The Investigative Committee has not yet opened a case, but the first calls are already coming in. These calls could have included Graham’s appeals. You face a serious ethical choice: to side with the museum’s management or to be guided primarily by the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation.

If the choice is made in favor of loyalty to management, this often means continuing an active PR campaign to promote the exhibition and increase ticket sales while simultaneously ignoring or minimizing information about possible violations. Here it is important to clearly understand the boundary: employee loyalty ends where actions begin that could be qualified as concealment of a crime, misleading the public, or obstruction of justice. Crossing this line is no longer a matter of corporate ethics, but a matter of compliance with the law.

In such cases, PR specialists and their superiors sometimes go to extreme measures to suppress or minimize the scandal. Possible approaches include focusing on the positive aspects of the institution’s activities, organizing distracting news stories, working with loyal media and influencers, preparing legally precise refutations, and pressuring internal employees to maintain a unified communication line. In particularly acute situations, a strategy of complete silence on official channels may be applied, hoping that the issue will die down on its own.

It is important to remember that genuine professional PR ethics require a balance between the interests of the organization and the principles of honesty and transparency. When loyalty turns into deliberate concealment of facts that may indicate an offense, it is no longer protecting reputation — it is a risk to one’s own reputation and freedom. The boundary always lies in the law, not in an order from above.