The painting appeared at an auction in May 2025, before being withdrawn following a report to the NCHA by Pang Shuling, a descendant of Pang Zenghe.
Pang and her lawyers subsequently visited the museum twice but the museum was unable to account for five of the donated paintings, including Spring in Jiangnan.
The remaining 132 paintings still remain in the museum’s collection.
Investigators conducted inquiries across 12 provinces and municipalities, NCHA said – interviewing more than 1,000 people and reviewing at least 65,000 documents.
They collected more than 1,500 pieces of evidence and examined over 30,000 calligraphy and painting artefacts.
ILLEGALLY SOLD FOR 25,000 YUAN
An employee, surnamed Zhang, exploited her position managing state-owned assets – illegally trading cultural relics for personal gain, NCHA said.
Zhang came across the Spring in Jiangnan painting back in 1997, which had been illegally transferred for sale and priced at 25,000 yuan.
“Believing there was profit to be made, Zhang conspired with her boyfriend, surnamed Wang, to purchase the painting and resell it at a higher price,” NCHA said in its statement.
She had also altered the price tag from 25,000 yuan to 2,500 yuan.
She then circumvented a rule prohibiting staff from purchasing items by arranging for her boyfriend’s colleague, surnamed Chen, to make the purchase.
Zhang later instructed Wang to falsely claim that the painting was a “family heirloom” and offer it for sale to an art dealer surnamed Lu.
Lu, who died in 2025, bought Spring in Jiangnan and two other paintings for 120,000 yuan.
The painting was later passed through several private hands before appearing at auction in Beijing last April.
NCHA said the painting was withdrawn from auction the following month following Pang’s report and was returned to the museum on Dec 28, 2025.
“LOSS OF CULTURAL RELICS”
The museum, cultural relics store and the provincial department of culture had violated regulations by illegally approving the transfer of relics, NCHA said – selling them without authorisation and causing “the loss of cultural relics”.
Primary responsibility was placed on Xu for the museum’s management failures, including illegally approving transfers and failing to enforce relic management rules.
Read the full article here
