TRACKING RECENT TRENDS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET FOR ART THEFT

William Lawrence

Laurie McGavin Bachmann

Michael yon Stumm

Introduction

Art theft has existed for hundreds of years, but the level of such ac- tivities has increased dramatically during the twentieth century,

especially during the last 20 years. As an international crime, many law enforcement authorities believe that art theft is now second only to il- legal drug trafficking when measured by the dollars involved.

How much art is stolen is hard to know. Estimates of the value of stolen art range from $50 million to $5 billion a year. Major recent art thetis include Impressionist paintings worth $12.5 million stolen from the Marmottan Museum in Paris in October 1985(1) and 140 pre- Colombian artifacts worth approximately $2 million stolen from the National Museum of Anthropology and History in Mexico City in December 1985.(2)

Statistics are uncertain, in part because not all stolen art is reported. It is estimated that in the United States only 20 to 30 per- cent of art theft is reported; in Europe the reporting rate may be as low as 15 percent.

Art theft is international in scope, but an estimated 98 percent of all such reported thefts take place in Europe and the United States.

51

Most of this paper's statistical information about art theft is taken from art theft reports and information supplied by law enforcement agencies such as the New York City Police Department (NYCPD) - Investigation and Identification Unit; The National Stolen Art File (NSAF) of the FBI; Interpol of Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Canada, and Paris, France; the Repository of Stolen Art Files (ROSA), linked to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and the Bundeskriminalamt in Wiesbaden, West Germany. (A complete list of international agen- cies included in compiling data on stolen art and their addresses is available from the authors.)

Interpol Headquarters in Paris and the Bundeskriminalamt in West Germany both have statistics covering stolen art over the last 15 years. The other law enforcement agencies' statistical information covers a more recent period of time.

Private institutions specializing in the circulation of notices of stolen art, such as the International Foundation of Art Research (IFAR) and the Art Dealers Association of America (ADAA), both based in New York City, also supply valuable information on stolen art. Insurance companies can also be a source of art theft data, but most companies' art insurance line is so negligible relative to other types of insurance coverage that the relevant data cannot be separated from the overall figures.

According to the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) the number of art thefts reported in 1985 is nearly triple that of 1979. But while art thefts increased, the number of recoveries declined markedly. In 1982, 22 percent of reported stolen art was recovered; in 1985 only 5 percent was recovered.(4)

As a matter of fact, some stolen art, distributed through large and complex underground networks, eventually becomes "legitimate" by being "washed" through numerous resales. They reappear in museums, galleries, and exhibitions throughout the world, and particularly in New York City, the center of the international art market.

Strong efforts to impede the art theft "business" are underway around the globe: Recently, the internationalization and coordination of law enforcement activities has made it harder to get away with major thefts, and efforts to establish international registries of art collections and of stolen art are being developed.

52

This paper will discuss recent developments in this field in an ef- fort to improve the dialogue between those responsible for caring for art collections and those responsible for protecting art from theft.

We used the IFAR and ROSA data bases in conjunction with selected economic statistics such as employment, inflation rates, growth conditions to gain a better understanding. We also evaluated industry statistics such as the Sotheby price index and desegregated sales of selected art objects on an international basis. We attempted through regression and correlation analysis to establish relationships between reported thefts, economic conditions, and the activity around art sales, auctions, and exhibits. While the results seemed to follow the general trend of the hypothesis tested, we were not able to draw any solid conclusions at this point due mainly to the scarcity and incon- sistency of the data. We had only three years of consistent art theft re- lated data to work with. We would need a longer time series of theft data, as well as more consistency on art sales and thefts that are inter- nally comparable, for a more in-depth empirical analysis.

The Increasing Art Theft Market

Art theft is now a worldwide, multi-billion dollar a year problem, according to Detective Thomas Moscardini of the New York City Police Department.(5)

The recent rise in art theft has had a corresponding decline in recoveries which maybe attributed to three major factors: 1) A robust market worldwide; 2) more organized art thieves, using more sophis- ticated techniques; and 3) the lack of a central international clearing house for reporting stolen art.

There are many participants in the art market today: artists, dealers, consultants, collectors, investors, and corporations -- with more and more participants becoming involved daily. There are more art collectors, so more dealers and consultants enter the market to serve their needs. Corporate collectors also create greater demands on the art market, thereby increasing both the volume and the prices of the works of art.

This rise in the popularity and value of art does not go unnoticed by thieves; in fact, a simple correlation coefficient of .80 was estimated between the Sotheby price index (a monitor of world auction price trends) and the number of reported art thefts. When auction prices rise, art thefts increase accordingly. The correlation estimate used the Canada-based ROSA figures for reported thefts for the United States.

53

A recent analysis of the attempted theft of $18.5 million worth of Mid- dle Eastern antiquities at a warehouse in Queens, New York, in January 1986, illustrates this principle. Over the past decade, the price of these antiquities has increased tenfold. Consequently, there is a cor- responding increase in their black market value.(6)

Recent Trends in International Art Theft

Approximately 98 percent of all reported art thefts take place in Europe and the United States, with the greatest proportion of thefts taking place in Europe. There are several reasons for this: There are more national and historic treasures in Europe; European museums and galleries are in much older buildings that are not protected as thoroughly by new security systems and often uninsured due to the prohibitive cost of insurance; Europe is more conscious of the value of its cultural heritage, (though this is changing with the advent of blockbuster exhibitions in United States museums since the late 1970's); and it is difficult to trace and prosecute art thieves in Europe due to the greater accessibility of international borders and the dif- ferent legal jurisdictions involved.

European and American art theft patterns differ markedly, as statistics kept by IFAR since 1982 demonstrate.

The IFAR statistical profiles, based on those thefts reported to the foundation each year, break down the number of thefts, the number of objects stolen, and the type of theft victims -- private, gallery, museum, church, synagogue, other, and unknown (a victim is categorized as "un- known" if the theft report doesn't disclose the type of victim). IFAR also determines an annual recovery rate based on those objects reported to authorities as recovered.

Trends in art theft since 1982, based on IFAR statistics, are in- structive. In the United States the hardest hit victims are galleries and private collections followed by museums. The United States has suf- fered very few thefts from churches and synagogues, but, according to a recent article in the New York Times, the trend toward church burglaries is on the rise.

In Europe, the hardest hit victims are churches and synagogues, then private collections, followed by museums. The "unknown" category is much higher in Europe than in the United States. This may be because Europeans tend to be much more private about their art collections, for security purposes and because large holdings of art can be heavily taxed by some European governments, particularly in

54

France. European galleries seem much less vulnerable to theft than United States galleries. This may be in part because New York City, the hardest hit area for art theft in the U.S., is the international art gal- lery capital of the world and the United States is the world's largest art importer.

Interpol (Paris) reports the statistical breakdown of victims of art related crimes in Europe as follows: (as reported to the Secretariat General 1981-1985)

• 39.6% Religious Institutes

• 36.5% Private Establishments -- Homes, Stores

• 15.5% Museums, Castles, Archaeological Sites

• 8.4% Other -- Transit

In Europe the hardest hit country is Italy, which alone reports that 44,000 pieces of art are stolen each year. France is the next most fre- quent site of art thefts in Europe.

The ROSA report from the Interpol branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police cites the breakdown of types of art works stolen in the United States as follows:

• 18.0% Paintings

• 13.7% Sculptures

• 13.5% Prints

• 7.0% Drawings

• 6.6% Netsukes

40.5% Other (Decorative Arts, Religious, and Cultural Artifacts)

Interpol (Paris) also compiles statistics on the breakdown of types of art works stolen worldwide, but has fewer categories in their report than does ROSA:

• 44.9% Paintings, Prints, and Drawings

• 12.0% Statuary, Sculpture

• 43.1% Other (Jewelry, Sacred Art, etc.)

During the four-year period analyzed, the total number of art thefts in the United States declined from 209 reported to IFAR in 1982, to 178 in 1983, to 175 thefts in 1984, and then went back up to 216 thefts

55

in 1985, a 23 percent increase from the previous year, before declining again in 1986.

The number of art thefts in Europe increased even more dramati- cally. Reported art thefts in Europe increased from 331 in 1982 to 367 in 1983. In 1984 there were 318 and in 1985 there were 481, an increase of 51 percent from the previous year. Total foreign thefts were up again to 524 in 1986.

Statistically, the art objects which are stolen most frequently are paintings, followed by archaeological and religious artifacts. More often than not, most frequently stolen art objects are those that can be categorized as "suitcase size" -- small, portable items easy to conceal.

An analysis of recent worldwide art thefts and recoveries suggests the following trends: 1) a decrease in the number of major works of art stolen and an increase in the number of thefts of more anonymous, lesser-valued works;(8) 2) a move away from the theft of paintings towards the theft of more easily-concealed objects;(9) and 3) an in- crease in thefts of pre-Colombian artifacts, Middle Eastern antiquities, and sacred art objects.(10)

There have also been changes in the types of thieves who steal art, with more evidence of organized rings and a greater sophistication in circumventing electronic security systems.(ll)

Law enforcement efforts are changing to meet these new situa- tions. There is also a trend toward using legislative reform to deal with the problem of recovering art of disputed ownership. Other advance- ments in the field include stricter enforcement of export licenses for art works leaving their country of origin and efforts to standardize electronic data processing of stolen art reports and work more close- ly with the private security industry.

Difficulties in Gaining a Statistical Documentation of Art Theft

It is difficult to obtain an accurate statistical picture of the scope of art theft. When top agencies and organizations concerned with the problem were asked how to arrive at art theft statistics, the following responses were typical:

"There are no solid statistics on the subject" (Art Dealers Association of America);(12)

56

"I wouldn't touch that problem with a 10 foot pole" (FBI).(13)

The essential information necessary for adequate statistics -- the number of annual art thefts, the number of objects stolen, and the value of these objects -- is not clearly known and not fully available in any reliable form. There are many reasons for this lack of information. The first and primary reason is under reporting. Very simply; most art theft is never reported to the authorities. It is estimated that only 20 to 30 percent of all art theft in the United States is reported to the proper agency. In Europe it is estimated that only 15 percent is reported. This lower estimate results from the fact that only the theft of "significant" works is reported in Europe. ROSA of Canada gives a comparable percentage of reported Canadian art thefts.(14) In non- Western countries, the reporting of art theft on any regular basis is vir- tually non-existent.

There are many reasons why victims don't report art thefts. Law enforcement agencies in the United States (local police departments, the FBI, and Interpol) have only had a special category for art thefts since the late 1970's and early 1980's. Even though there are now spe- cial law enforcement reports and agencies like the ADAA (Art Dealers Association of America) and IFAR, some people are not aware of how to file an art theft report. Many don't know about the agencies that specialize in this problem, others don't report art thefts because they don't want their insurance premiums to increase. Still others, for the sake of privacy, don't want their art losses to be investigated. Finally, there are some victims of art theft actively engaged in the illicit traffic of stolen art. They won't file a report for obvious reasons.

Because of the vast under reporting, any trends tracked by statis- tics represent only a fraction of the actual problem.

A second reason for the dearth of accurate statistical information on art theft is the lack of consistency in the reports filed and the records kept. Until 1979 the United States had no central government source that kept records of art theft. Up to the late 1970's, works of art were not even singled out in theft reports. Instead, art thefts were lumped together in an overall category of property theft. A stolen Rembrandt painting might have been described with the same kind of care and con- cern as a missing Polaroid camera or microwave oven. It is therefore most difficult to track art theft statistics over time.

57

Third is the difficulty in estimating the annual dollar value of stolen art. Estimates range from $50 million(15) to $5 billion.(16) Although a figure in the hundreds of millions may be more accurate, no one ven- tures to give an exact accounting. The difficulty in assigning an annual dollar figure to art theft, either worldwide or country-by-country, is re- lated to the problem of inadequate data. Bonnie Burnham, in "Art Theft, Its Scope and Its Impact," arrived at an annual dollar value for art theft by assigning an average value of $5,000 for each stolen object and multiplying this dollar amount by the total number of objects reported stolen in a given year. Burnham's simplistic approach further reveals the lack of solid statistics on the subject.(17)

Fourth is the difficulty in tracking down the recovery rate. Recovery rates are based on those works of art which have been reported missing and are then reported as recovered. Of course, since the reporting of art theft is only partial, the recovery figures are partial as well.

At a national conference on museum security held in Washington D.C. in 1985, it was concluded that the recovery rate for stolen art in the U.S. was less than 2 percent. The recovery rates for victims who knew where to report the theft and left the crime scene undisturbed were much higher than the rates for those who did not report the crime properly or disturbed the scene of the crime.(18)

West Germany reports a recovery rate of 20 to 30 percent, while Austria reports a recovery rate of 40 to 50 percent. This leads to the question of whether the recovery rate is dependent on the size of the country. More research and better statistics are necessary to satisfac- torily answer this query, however.

Stolen Art Databases

Three of the most recent trends in the electronic data processing of stolen art records are: (1) increasing use of video laser discs which allow visual images derived from photographs to appear on the com- puter screen in conjunction with the written text; (2) a move toward standardizing the data on stolen art so that information can be input more consistently and therefore more quickly and compatibly from country to country around the world; and (3) a move toward greater cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the art institutions they serve. Interpol and the IFAR are discussing the possibility of shar- ing a common computerized system for stolen art records.

58

The three systems which have been used consistently as models for processing computerized reports of stolen art are those of the FBI, ROSA, and the Bundeskriminalamt.

Since 1979 the record keeping in the United States for stolen art has become much more sophisticated and specialized. Several com- puterized databases have been set up here and in Canada to keep track of stolen art. Also, an Interpol branch in Washington D.C. keeps com- puterized records of stolen art in the United States which may travel internationally. The National Stolen Art File (NSAF) of the FBI in Washington D.C. focuses on the problem of national stolen art and has computerized files containing descriptions of stolen and recovered art works. The NSAF also stores images of missing art works on video laser discs. In Ottawa, Canada, ROSA keeps track of Canadian art theft, as well as major international thefts, on an advanced computer system which is also linked to their national museum network.

However, because none of the computerized art theft systems are the same, special problems exist with regard to streamlining and shar- ing computerized records. When computer reports are circulated from one agency to another, more often than not, the data needs to be recoded to fit into another agency's system.

Interpol has had several meetings on this issue since 1984 and it is now trying to develop both an international standard for describing stolen art data and an art theft reporting form for its participating countries. Until a method of gathering standardized and compatible art theft data is developed there will not be an accurate statistical pic- ture of the problem.

Describing Stolen Art for Reporting Purposes When a stolen art file is created, either on a computer or manual-

ly, certain key categories for describing the stolen objects are neces- sary. Although the reports of the various agencies at present lack a standard format, there are many points of information which the dif- ferent reports have in common when describing the stolen art. These include: artist, title, date, medium, school, size, shape, color, subject matter, and distinctive markings. The use of photography makes it much easier to identify stolen objects. Recent advances in optical disc imagery have made it possible to digitize photographic images and store them in a computer as the FBI does. At this point it seems ap- propriate to discuss what is classified for insurance purposes as "fine art."

59

A wide range of objects can be considered "art." For the purpose of this paper, a strict definition of art is less useful than a listing of art objects according to the classifications used by the organizations and agencies which protect and insure them. (Samples of the forms used by each of the following agencies are available from the authors or directly from the agencies themselves.)

However, the diversity of classifications shows that each of the agencies cited uses an entirely different method for recording stolen art. This lack of uniformity makes the exchange of information ex- tremely difficult.

Many insurance companies underwrite fine arts policies for out- standing art collections. Typically, a fine arts floater is attached to a personal or commercial policy which outlines the nature of the insured collection. The company's guidelines often stipulate an example of which kinds of property can be underwritten as fine arts and which can- not. The requirements might read as follows:

For insurance purposes, objects to be considered as fine arts are: Paintings, Drawings, Sculptures, Antique Furniture, Carpets, Tapestries, Silver, and, in general, all objects and items sold or dealt with in trade by art dealers, art galleries, and auctioneers.

The International Foundation of Art Research has categorized the unwieldy subject area of "art objects" into six groups. In order to un- derstand the full range of objects which can be considered "stolen art," it is helpful to know the kind of objects which fit into each of the six categories. This is outlined below:

1. Fine Art - painting, sculpture, prints, drawings, col- lages, mixed media, and photographs.

2. Decorative Arts - home furnishings such as fine anti- que furniture, silver, porcelain, rugs, fixtures, etc.

3. Antiquities - ancient (Pre-Medieval) artifacts such as statues, coins, vessels, medals, etc.

4. Ethnographic Objects - cultural artifacts from so- called primitive cultures which might include objects such as masks, statues, vessels.

5. Oriental Art - the fine and applied arts of Asian cul- tures.

60

6. Miscellaneous - anything that does not fit in the above categories.

Of all the law enforcement agencies and stolen art reporting or- ganizations, Interpol has the most extensive documentation for iden- tifying the physical nature of the stolen object, The Interpol Art Works Description List. If art is stolen, Interpol has the victims use entries from an "Art works Description List" to identify the stolen objects. This description list includes three major categories: classification (type of art), shape, and material.

The FBI also has its own department called the National Stolen Art File which classifies works of art for their reporting purposes.

Motives for Art Theft

The theft of art is seldom a random matter. According to IFAR, the range of theft includes:

1) Theft for hire by a wealthy collector;

2) The innocent/naive thief who doesn't really know what he or she has stolen or where to sell it;

3) The smart thief who knows where to sell it quickly;

4) The person who steals for random and/or political mo- tives;

5) The eccentric collector in love with art who cannot stop stealing it;

6) Theft by conversion when art is taken on consignment by one dealer from another and then sold without paying original dealer. Other forms of art theft include theft in transit and "insider jobs."

The most common art thief is motivated by need for money. This thief steals from any place that has an art collection: galleries, museums, private homes, warehouses, etc. This kind of theft is fre- quently planned in advance. The thieves know beforehand what to take and they have a good idea of how they will dispose of the stolen objects quickly. These thefts require specialists who know what to take, how to carry it, and who to deliver it to.

61

The following description of the burglary of the showroom of an art dealer who specialized in porcelain illustrates these motives and techniques. Late one evening when no one was around, thieves broke into the showroom and took the best pieces in a very short time (the police, notified by the alarm system, arrived within eight minutes to find the thieves gone). Furthermore, the thieves packed the porcelain in well-prepared suitcases theybrought with them. Obviously, the theft of these carefully selected items was strategically planned and ex- ecuted.

Planned theft, however, accounts for only 75 percent of all art thefts. Thieves are sometimes stuck with art objects when they steal other goods. The thieves intend to steal other goods they are more familiar with and inadvertently end up with art objects by sheer acci- dent.

An example of an accidental art theft is the theft of a truck from a warehouse full of garments. Art objects (books and paintings) were on the truck along with garments (a shipment from the airport to one of the New York auction houses). The truck was found two days later in the South Bronx. The garments were gone (that was the merchan- dise the thieves were after), the crate with the paintings was gone as well (the thieves must have thought the paintings had some value and were disposable). However, the crates with the books were opened, but left behind (the thieves had no idea that one of the books had a value of $50,000).

A second example of this kind of theft follows: a truck was stolen while the driver was buying some food. The truck was a rental truck full of art works containing a combined shipment of several New York galleries with a total value far above $1 million. The thieves expected to find television sets, telephones, or other easy-to-dispose-of mer- chandise. Instead, they had a truck full of paintings. They must have known it would be difficult to sell the art objects so they started to negotiate with a loss adjuster for money. Most of the art objects were recovered after more than a year of negotiations.

Art is also stolen in "insider" or "in-house" jobs, with the motive again usually being money. A good example of an insider theft is that of the 1978 theft of Cezanne paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago. Laurence Chalmers, at that time president of the institute, was involved in recovering the theft from the beginning to the end and described the whole episode in his unpublished manuscript, "The

62

Anatomy of an Art Theft: The Theft, Attempted Ransom, and Recovery of Three Cezanne Paintings.(19)

In this case the insurance loss adjuster played a very critical role by acting as the middleman between the thieves and law enforcement agencies. In cases where a ransom is required, as it was in this theft, the loss adjuster also has to work more closely with the owner of the art objects and with the insurance company.

Very often a loss adjuster becomes directly involved in the recovery of a theft or in the evaluation of a stolen piece. Loss adjusters are professionals in establishing the value of art and play a direct role in the determination of how much an insurance company should pay for a particular piece of stolen property.

Money is not the only motive for art theft. Art works are also oc- casionally stolen for reasons of hate, anger, love, or patriotism. The following examples illustrate these more unusual motives.

Vincenzo Perugia, the Italian carpenter who stole the "Mona Lisa" from the Louvre in 1911, was, according to court reports, driven by nationalism. He claimed to be seeking revenge for what he saw as Napoleon's rape of Italian art treasures.(20)

When Goya's portrait of the Duke of Wellington was stolen from the National Gallery in London in 1961, the thief, Kempton Burton, demanded money for charity. His motive: He was incensed with the government because free television licenses had not been granted to pensioners.(21)

Finally, the most intriguing and at the same time the most remote motive for art theft is the eccentric desire of an art collector. The ex- istence of a thief of this genre is difficult to verify; however, there is much speculation about this kind of motive.

The November 1983 theft from the Budapest Museum may be cited as a possible case of an eccentric collector. Apparently a weal- thy Greek industrialist ordered the theft of six paintings, a theft under- taken by Italian thieves. Fortunately, all of the paintings were re- covered in January 1984.

The theft of Impressionist paintings from the Marmottan Museum in Paris might have also been ordered by an eccentric collector, since no other motive can be proved. According to the New York Times, Nov. 6, 1985, "There is the ever intriguing theory that a passionate but un-

63

scrupulous collector commissioned the theft of the paintings so that he might privately own and enjoy them."(22)

There are many very important paintings that have been missing for a long time. Among them are: a Caravaggio stolen from a chapel in Palermo, Italy, in 1969; 18 important paintings stolen from the Montreal Museum in 1972; a Pieter Breughel stolen from the Cour- tauld Gallery in London in 1982; eight important paintings stolen from Norway's National Gallery, Oslo, in 1982; and a Jacob Van Gheyn stolen from the Dulwich Picture Gallery in London for the fourth time in 16 years, in 1983.

One famous case is the "Duhem Affair" in France. About 200 paintings with a total value of roughly 110 million francs disappeared from the Duhem Villa between April and December 1983 while Mme. Duhem was hospitalized. The paintings were stolen by Mme. Duhem's servants. Also involved in the affair were Mme. Duhem's nephew, an insurance agent who acted as a middleman, and two important art dealers in Paris. The art dealers claimed they were the victims of a plot and had been threatened; they thought they were dealing with the right- ful representatives of Mme. Duhem; and they thought of each other as honorable men.(23)

Disposal of Stolen Art Objects Once an art work is stolen, the thief whose motive is money must

dispose of the art. Most stolen art, especially art stolen by specialized art thieves, is disposed of through fences. The fence resells the art in another market, i.e., in another city.

The most common fence for art objects is an art or antique dealer or an art auction house. Galleries and auction houses have at times be- come "semi-legitimate" clearinghouses for stolen art, where stolen art is commingled with legitimate merchandise.

When a stolen art object, whether it is a painting, sculpture, silver, precious gems, etc., is well known, fences often refuse to handle it. Thieves then have only two choices other than disposing of the piece at a fraction of its worth to a known collector willing to buy it. (1) They can change the object's appearance, for example, melt the silver (only worthwhile when the price of silver is high) or recut the stone (a diamond will lose its value substantially if cut in half); or (2) they can hide the object until so much time has passed that the public might have forgotten the theft. Since we are dealing with international markets, the public memory very much depends on where the thieves or mid-

64

dlemen try to resell the art, (Buenos Aires, for example, is a smaller and more obscure market than New York or London). Thus, the resale of well-known stolen art objects often takes place in less exposed and specialized markets.

Flea markets have also become key in disposing of stolen art. One of the biggest wholesale markets in the world for stolen art is the flea market at Porte de Clignangcourt in Paris. At this market 3,000 dealers sell everything from kitsch to old masters. Flea markets are attractive to thieves because of the anonymity and ease with which they can dis- pose of stolen goods.

At the Clignangcourt flea market the stolen art objects are brought in around three or four a.m. When the market opens they are put on sale for about 10 percent of their original value to antique dealers, "fen- ces," consultants, and private collectors. The buyers are mostly French, German, and Dutch. Currently the Germans prefer religious artifacts and old masters; the Dutch prefer furniture, especially Louis XV.

The whole market is based, of course, on cash. The advantages are fast disposal and no records. Most often stolen fine art objects change hands two to four times. After several resales, a stolen object is considered "washed." Finally, these art objects end up primarily in private households. It is supposed that nobody will know that the ob- jects have been stolen as long as they are not too well known and not sold again through public auction.(24)

"Artnapping" for ransom is another way to dispose of stolen art. It isn't a new method: A panel from the Van Eyck brothers' altarpiece, the "Adoration of the Lamb," was stolen from the Cathedral of Ghent, Belgium, in 1934. The thief demanded one million Belgian francs ran- som from the Bishop, however, the money was never paid and the panel has never been found.(25)

Vermeer's "The Guitar Player" was stolen from Kenwood, England, by IRA sympathizers in 1974. The ransom demanded: two IRA prisoners were to be returned to Northern Ireland to complete their sentences there. The prisoners were not returned and the paint- ing was finally left behind in a churchyard.(26)

"Artnapping" for ransom has not been a very successful method of disposing of stolen art. According to Bonnie Burnham, former direc- tor of IFAR, few if any ransom demands have ever been met. Conse- quently, "artnappers" usually try to "sell" stolen art objects back to the original owner or to insurance companies.(27)

65

Another way to dispose of stolen art is to sell it through public auc- tion after some time has passed. This is a rather dangerous method. First of all, it is the responsibility of the auction house to know the work's provenance or history and most of them do so as a matter of policy. However, not every provenance is thoroughly checked and the sheer volume of works being auctioned off makes it difficult to verify the ownership of each piece. Second, descriptions of the art objects on sale are published, often with photographs, in a catalogue, giving them public exposure. Only recently, in the spring of 1985, two paint- ings were removed from a Christie's sale in New York City because they were recognized as stolen.

Finally, stolen art objects can be disposed of by destruction. When art thieves find an especially famous work of art too "hot" to handle, and realize they may be in trouble if they hold onto the work and it is discovered, their solution may be to destroy the art work. One recent example of this ultimate method of disposal was the discovery of some stolen Louise Nevelson sculptures in New York City's East River.

Destruction may be the result of a theft itself even if the thieves plan to hold on to the work: Fine art must be kept in proper storage. If the storage conditions aren't right, art objects can deteriorate in quality so much over the years that their value diminishes significant- ly.

Law Enforcement

Art theft has generally not been considered a violent crime. It has, therefore, not been a very high priority for law enforcement officials. Its victims are usually wealthy collectors or established museums or galleries. Consequently, the general public has not been overly con- cerned about being protected from or preventing this kind of crime.

But art theft has progressed from a small cottage industry to a much more organized, violent, and sophisticated "business." Law en- forcement officials are beginning to recognize and to deal with this shift in emphasis. Starting in the mid to late seventies, several strong efforts to establish international registers of art collections and of stolen art were begun. In addition, many countries entered into agreements with each other and enacted legislation involving the protection of cultural property and the recovery and return of stolen art.

Most law enforcement agencies that started to record art theft in the 1970's kept records manually. Several switched over to computers in the early 1980's, while others still continue with manual record keep-

66

ing. So far, computerization has had some advantages, but it hasn't necessarily meant better communication between agencies.

The primary problem among law enforcement agencies is that they often don't share information with each other. Many agencies rely on Interpol for their international data base on stolen art objects, but make few other efforts to exchange information about art theft. Reasons for this might include nationalism, limitations of funds, language differen- ces, manual systems versus EDP (Electronic Data Processing) systems, etc.

Stolen paintings are recorded by all agencies and most agencies keep records of stolen sculptures, ceramics, prints, and ancient ar- tifacts. These art objects are listed by type of item and often also by the number of items involved in each theft. The number of thefts per year is also noted and recoveries are recorded in many cases. However, the value of the art objects is usually not recorded.

Our research into the law enforcement agencies and other institu- tions, including the insurance industry, dealing with stolen art in the United States, Canada, and Europe indicates that several problems still exist:

• 1. A lack of law enforcement personnel trained in art to work on theft cases. (Several people in the field whom we interviewed will soon retire or have already retired. Who will continue the tremendous task of preventing art theft and working on recoveries in the future?)

• 2. Insufficient funds to develop and maintain stolen art records.

• 3. Inadequate communication among agencies handling stolen art.

• 4. Incompatibility between art theft computer systems.

Conclusions and Recommendations

We have attempted to highlight the importance of art theft. The economic impact on the industry is devastating in that hundreds of valuable and irreplaceable pieces of treasured art are lost forever through theft. While some of these pieces reappear after several years they are often damaged beyond repair. Estimates of the value of art stolen each year vary widely because no clear records are kept in a sys- tematic way to facilitate a more realistic evaluation.

67

1FAR and ROSA in Canada, the FBI, and Interpol must continue the work of recording and documenting stolen art with standardized electronic data processing procedures. Also, auction houses should send their catalogues, prior to public sale, to an institution like IFAR or ADAA for a check on stolen art objects. This could avoid later embarrassment. However, these efforts are not enough: Ways must be found to expand and coordinate them with other international agen- cies presently engaged in the monitoring of stolen art.

Art theft is a highly specialized crime involving valuable property. The only way the various international, national, and local law enfor- cement agencies and individuals charged with recovering stolen art can effectively do their jobs is through a full appreciation for the value and uniqueness of the missing art objects. The industry, made up of museums, galleries, and auction houses, has the biggest vested interest in establishing a system of education and information to those involved in law enforcement, insurance, adjustment, etc.

The present deterrents to art theft are few and almost inconse- quential. The probability of being caught is almost zero and if caught and prosecuted, the art thief faces a minimal punishment. Members of the industry, including artists and art collectors, can make a serious contribution by helping law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies better appreciate the need for more severe punishment. This will have to be an international effort since most stolen art covers more than one legal jurisdiction. International agencies will have to expand their cooperative efforts to make art theft less attractive to thieves.

In addition to the education of the law enforcers, an equal effort to educate the public must be made as well. If the economic and so- cial implications of the permanent loss or damage to a unique piece of art were better understood by the public, it would be easier to justify the expense of a more coordinated and efficient law enforcement.

Empirical research will continue to be stymied unless the methods used in obtaining and collecting data improve dramatically. Governmental and industry funding is critical to the collection, storage, retrieval, and dissemination of needed data to undertake empirical analysis of art theft trends. With this research we will be able to monitor the factors which contribute to the increase in stolen art and provide concrete recommendations to better curtail its growth.

Pace University and Nordstern Service International

68

Note: Lawrence is at Pace University and both Bachmann and von Stumm were previously at Nordstern Service International

Footnotes

1. Judith Miller, "French Pressing Hunt for Stolen Art," New York Times, October 29, 1985.

2. William Stockton, "Pre-Colombian Artifacts Stolen from Mexican National Museum," New York Times, December 27, 1985.

3. Patricia Blake, Review of The Caravaggio Conspiracy, by Peter Wat- son, Time Magazine, January 16, 1984.

4. Lynn Stowell Pearson, "Current Trends in Art Theft, the IFAR Report," inArt andAuction Magazine, (May 1986), pp. 98-100.

5. Douglas McGill, "Theft of Major Art Works on the Decline," New York Times, October 29, 1985.

6.- ...... "Middle East Art Thefts Tied to Inflated Market," New York Times, January 7, 1986.

7. Reginald Thomas, "Churches Become Burglary Target," New York Times, February 16, 1986.

8. McGill, "Theft of Major Art Works on the Decline."

9. Paula Span, "Arresting Trend in Art," 77~e Washington Post, January 7, 1986.

10. McGill, "Experts Tell of Market in Stolen Pre-Colombian Art," New York Times, December 27, 1985.

11. William C. Blair, "1.5 Million in Art Objects Recovered in Buffalo & Florida," New York Times, February 23, 1986.

12. Interview with Donna Carlson, Director of the Art Theft Archive at the Art Dealers Association of America and Gilbert S. Edel- son, President, ADAA, conducted by Laurie McGavin Bach- mann and Michael Von Stumm on March 29, 1985.

13. Interview with John McPhee, Director of National Stolen Art File at the FBI, conducted by Laurie McGavin Bachmann on Novem- ber 20, 1984.

69

14. Interview with John Lyons, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 14, 1987.

15. Verla Gabrielo, "Art vs. Crime: Is Preservation Worth the Cost," Sky Delta Airline, December, 1979.

16. Paul Richard, "Where is the Museum of Stolen Art?" International Herald Tribune, March 10, 1987.

17. Bonnie Burnham, Ann 77~eft: Its Scope, Its Impact and Its Control. (New York: New York Publishing Center for Cultural Resour- ces, 1978).

18. Tom Moscardini, "Art Theft Patterns," Lecture at the National Conference on Museum Security, Washington, D.C., February 12-14, 1987.

19. Laurence Chalmers, "The Anatomy of an Art Theft: The Theft, Attempted Ransom, and Recovery of Three Cezanne Paintings," unpublished manuscript, Art Institute of Chicago, 1983.

20. Geraldine Norman, "The Missing Masters: Where Are They Now?" New York Times, November 6, 1985.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. "The Duhem Affair," Artn & Auction Magazine, (October, 1985), January 1986, and February 1986.

24. "Auf Dem Floh Markt Hafen Heheler Einen Guten Stand, Paris 1st die Haupstadt Im Europa Der Kunstidiebe," Kamst Magazine, August 1985.

25. Hugh McLeave, Rogues in the Gallery: 77~e Modem Plague of Art Thefts Boston: David R. Godine, Publisher, 1981. pp. 222- 225.

26. Ibid., p. 81.

27. Burnham, Ann 77wft.

References

Burnham, Bonnie. TheArt Crisis, New York: St. Martin Press, 1975.

70

Burnham, Bonnie. Art Theft: Its Scope, Its bnpact and Its Control. New York: New York Publishing Center for Cultural Resources, 1978.

Burnham, Bonnie. The Protection of Cultural Property, Handbook of National Legislation. Paris: International Council of Museums, 1974.

Burnham, Russ. "Missing Masterpieces: The International Trade in Stolen Art," Journal of Insurance, Vol. 42,( July and August 1981).

Chalmers, Laurence. "The Anatomy of an Art Theft," unpublished manuscript, Art Institute of Chicago, 1983.

Chatelain, Jean. Means of Combatting the 77~efi and Illegal Traffic in Works of Art b~ Nine Countries of the EEC, Brussels: EEC, 1976.

Esterow, Milton. The Art Stealers. New York: McMillan, 1973.

McLeave, Hugh. Rogues in the Gallery: The Modern Plague of Art Thefts. Boston: David R. Godine, Publisher, Inc., 1981.

Meyer, Karl. The Plundered Past. New York: Atheneum, 1973.

Watson, Peter. The Caravaggio Conspiracy. New York: Penguin, 1987.

A short version of this paper was presented at the Fourth Interna- tional Conference on Cultural Economics held by A.C.E. in Avignon, France in May of 1986.

71