I haven't seen the eBay listing you're referring to.

But I would also argue it doesn't matter.

Based on your description alone, the Love Rat print will be one of two things:


1. Counterfeit

For what it's worth, over the years I've personally examined a number of counterfeit Banksy prints, some more convincing than others, including with fake blind stamps.

Almost inevitably, counterfeits are accompanied by plausible-sounding, fabricated back stories (and perhaps an email trail, which may or may not be genuine, but could easily have been widely circulated, printed off in the hundreds, and used by anyone to prop up any forgery). One or two specific names will generally be thrown into the mix — like that of a printer or an ex-Pictures on Walls employee — to lend credence to a made-up story.

[Crossing out the edition number can serve a similar purpose and, opportunely for a fraudster, it takes the print outside the parameters for opining which Pest Control has set for itself.]

This plays as well into the desperation or greed of potential buyers, who are looking for every excuse to believe the story being peddled. They very much want to believe, which of course can cloud their judgement and lead them to disregard basic due-diligence red flags. A capable con artist will be fully aware of this and exploiting it. They'll be pushing the right psychological buttons of potential buyers, the inexperienced buyers tending to be the easiest marks.


2. Genuine, and therefore stolen

If genuine, then clearly the print should never have left POW's premises. It is highly unlikely the rightful owner of the work (whether Banksy or POW as a company) would have sanctioned this, since its presence on the open market compromises the integrity of the authorised edition.

So if this scenario is correct, it seems fair to assume a theft took place at some point — and that the eBay seller is consequently dealing in stolen goods.

Here we can rely on first principles: Is knowingly trading in, handling, or buying stolen goods acceptable? Would a decent person answer "Yes", if considering the issue honestly? I believe most people would find it morally objectionable. And perhaps even more so given it relates to property belonging to an artist whom the seller and potential buyers presumably admire.

What you'll often find among dealers and collectors who choose to partake in sleaziness involving so-called backdoor prints are attempts to excuse their behaviour — mental contortions allowing them to trick their own conscience and sleep at night. They justify themselves in different ways. For example, by the fact the initial theft took place many years ago. Or that the stolen goods have exchanged hands on numerous occasions, the multiple links in the chain making the connection to the theft less direct.

No doubt individuals and institutions dealing in artworks looted during wartime also make generous use of these self-serving rationalisations. But here again, first principles allow us to see through the disingenuousness, obfuscation attempts, and convenient self-delusion.

____________


Here's an analogy which may better illustrate the principle:

(i) If I knowingly bought artwork that was stolen from your home, that would make me vile.

(ii) The fact the theft may have taken place over a decade ago is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you.

(iii) The fact your artwork may have traded hands a few times over the years (allowing the initial theft to seem more remote to people handling the stolen property) is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you.

(iv) The fact you may have a successful career and be financially well off is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you.



Now, a couple of questions using the same analogy (which could equally apply to so-called backdoor prints):

Should this forum be used as a platform to sell or advertise the sale of artwork that was stolen from your home? Would this be ethically defensible?

For both questions, I would say "No".

____________


As a rule of thumb, I'd advise anyone against purchasing a Banksy original or limited edition print unless it is accompanied by a Pest Control certificate of authenticity.

Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable.  They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed.  Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft.