There's a far worse theory.

The laundering option doesn't make sense anymore cause it's so well known and you've opened yourself up to the irs.

It's instead a token to mask another transaction. A way to legitimise a transation for heinous things between rich people. "Oh sure I paid epstein $20m. It was for this art piece, isn't it great? If only I'd know about his misdeeds..." . The art or the money was never the point, the money wasn't initially dirty. The art is a cover they use to legitimise a transaction. Simply paying someone 20m for nothing rendered looks sus af, paying for some art though? All of a sudden it looks innocent.

They're not trying to clean their dirty money, they're trying to mask a transaction. The one who bought the art is the purchaser. Who can then gets a tax break by donating it to a museum sure (assuming they aren't looking to sell some evil services themselves), but that's just a discount on the purchase.

There's a far worse theory.

The laundering option doesn't make sense anymore cause it's so well known and you've opened yourself up to the irs.

It's instead a token to mask another transaction. A way to legitimise a transation for heinous things between rich people. "Oh sure I paid epstein $20m. It was for this art piece, isn't it great? If only I'd know about his misdeeds..." . The art or the money was never the point, the money wasn't initially dirty. The art is a cover they use to legitimise a transaction. Simply paying someone 20m for nothing rendered looks sus af, paying for some art though? All of a sudden it looks innocent.

They're not trying to clean their dirty money, they're trying to mask a transaction. The one who bought the art is the purchaser. Who then gets a tax break by donating it to a museum sure, but that's just a discount on his evil purchase.