Crime Law Soc Change (2011) 56:115132 DOI 10.

1007/s10611-011-9316-3

Art crime: a brief introduction

Mark Durney & Blythe Proulx

Published online: 13 July 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V . 2011

Abstract Art crime refers to criminally punishable acts involving works of art and includes a spectrum of phenomena as diverse as art thefts and confiscations, faked and forged art, vandalism, and illicit excavation and export of antiquities and other archaeological materials. This paper provides a cursory introduction to a variety of art crimes, and discusses the consequences of such crimes.

Introduction Combination of the terms art and crime inevitably conjures in most minds one or more of the following: Thomas Crown, the sophisticated art thief portrayed by Pierce Brosnan in the 1999 film The Thomas Crown Affair; Dr. No, the mysterious evil genius who stole and collected art for his underground hideaway, portrayed in the 1962 James Bond film of the same name; or the plot of the 2004 film Ocean s Twelve in which George Clooneys character and his crew of thieves must steal a priceless artwork in order to settle an old debt. However, these images are the figments of a Hollywood imagination; in truth, very few art thieves look like Pierce Brosnan, and of all the types of art crime, million-dollar museum art thefts are the exception rather than the rule [81].1 Just as one would not analyze Ridley Scotts 2000 epic film Gladiator for historical insights into Roman culture and traditions of the first century, one must be careful not to allow Hollywood to shape his or her impressions of art crime.
As Robert K. Wittman, retired FBI Art Crime Team Special Agent, recalls in his recent memoir, art theft is rarely about the love of art or the cleverness of the crime, and the thief is rarely the Hollywood caricature. The art thieves I met in my career ran the gamut- rich, poor, smart, foolish, attractive, grotesque. Yet nearly all of them had one thing in common: brute greed. They stole for money, not beauty ([85]: 15).
1

M. Durney (*) Art Theft Central, New York, NY , USA e-mail: mdurney86@gmail.com B. Proulx Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, V A, USA

116

M. Durney, B. Proulx

Art crime, generally defined as criminally punishable acts that involve works of art, entails damage, theft, deceit, or a combination of such activities ([31]: 2). Within art crime there is a diverse array of activities including art thefts and confiscations, art frauds, faked and forged art, iconoclasm and vandalism, and illicit excavation and export of antiquities and other archaeological resources [74].2 The spectrum of crimes involving art is diverse because art and what is considered artistically and culturally significant are similarly diverse, and when such objects are looted, damaged, stolen, or smuggled, the loss is both material and intellectual (Gill and Chippindale 1993). Antiquities, for example, are finite; once they are gone, they are gone forever. Also, after antiquities are looted from archaeological sites to become saleable commodities they have little scientific value and even less to say about human history [12]. Looted antiquities are said to be without context, the invaluable information about the human past that can only be gained from knowing precisely where an artifact came from. Take, for example, this scholar s attempt to analyze an ancient bronze sculpture of a wagon with oxen which is now part of a well-known antiquities collection: The wagon and its team are thought to have originated in Anatolia or northern Syria. Because the wagon models lack an archaeological context, the exact date, origin, and function of these objects are uncertain. At present, we have no idea of they come from funerary, domestic, or perhaps religious settings (von Bothmer 1990:31, cited in Chippindale and Gill 2000:500). This bronze sculpture may be commercially valuable or aesthetically pleasing, but its lack of provenience3 renders it mute on either the people or culture that produced it [10]. Many such art crimes avoid criminal punishment. Like other types of crime, art crime is not always reported to police, offenders are not always apprehended, and frequently cases are handled as civil actions [31]. Statutes of limitation run out, burdens of proof are not met, and jurisdictional incongruencies complicate criminal prosecution.4 As such forfeiture, for example, is another type of legal proceeding which is often instituted by the United States government against a cultural object [51]. Pursuant to a variety of federal statutes, if the current owner can show that the

Other activities subsumed under the rubric of art crime not treated here include extortion and the use of art in money laundering; regarding the latter, see detailed discussion in Purkey (2010). The art of money laundering. 22 Fla. J. Intl L. 111. 3 Two important terms warrant introduction and distinction here: provenience and provenance. Provenance, a term most frequently used in the art community, refers to the previous ownership history of an object. Among archaeologists, on the other hand, provenience refers not to past ownership history but information regarding the original findspot and context of the object [29]. Both provenance and provenience are important in telling the unique story that accompanies each artwork into the market and are key in determining an artworks the licit/illicit status. 4 Greece, for example, recently dismissed a criminal indictment against Marion True, a former curator of antiquities at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, who had been accused of conspiring to acquire a looted ancient Greek gold wreath, purchased in 1993 for more than $1 million by the Getty Museum [40]. Following Greek law, the Greek court had to defer to the three-year statute of limitations set forth by California state law, the jurisdiction in which the acquisition was made known, which had since run out [25]. Had Trues case not been dismissed and she were instead tried and convicted of receiving a stolen antiquity, she would have faced a prison term of up to 10 years [26].

Art crime: a brief introduction

117

object is in fact his and was not stolen, then he may prevail on such a claim.5 With respect to looting and trafficking in archaeological resources, legislative efforts generally construe the issue as a matter of theft or illicit export. That is, nations enact laws which vest ownership of such materials to the State (in which case the removal of such material is considered theft), or laws which prohibit exportation of such material from national borders (in which case the removal of such material constitutes illicit export) [2]. Art importing nations, however, have been reluctant to enforce other nations export laws, and as such some source nations have achieved success when pursuing items legally construed as stolen (ibid). When antiquities are legally construed as stolen, however, the burden of proof lies with the State claiming ownership. Meeting this burden is often problematic as most looted antiquities simply appear on the market with no documentation, context, or ownership history. Who can report a Cycladic figure as stolen, observed Gill and Chippindale, when it has been lying unseen in a grave for more than four thousand years? (1993:623). Overall, it is important to note that while such acts discussed below may in fact constitute criminally punishable conduct, whether or not they can and will be criminally punished is another matter. Since a detailed discussion of punishability is beyond the scope of this paper, we instead intend to address the universal importance of art and antiquities as components of human cultural heritage, provide a cursory overview of various criminally punishable acts involving art and antiquities, and addresses the difficulties in assessing the extent of art and antiquities crimes. As a means by which to better contextualize our subsequent discussion, we begin with a brief examination of some of the extant scholarship on art and antiquities crimes. Scholarship on art and antiquities crimes It has been suggested by some that there has been a paucity of academic scholarship on crimes involving art and antiquities, and/or that art crime is but a nascent area of scholarly attention. For example, on explaining how he stumbled into the study of art crime, Charney [27] writes, As I researched real art crime I quickly found that there was both relatively little scholarly material on the subject, and that there was no professor who could be considered an authority in the field (p. xiv). In fact, there is an ever-growing body of scholarly literature which suggests otherwise. For example, in 1964almost a decade before the development of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Propertythe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) dedicated an entire issue of its quarterly journal Museum to the topic of art crime and museum security.6 Some argue that the watershed moment for the study of art and antiquities theft occurred in the 1969 publication of Clemency Coggins article in Art Journal titled, Illicit Traffic of PreColumbian Antiquities [12]. Although brief, Coggins article was significant to the advancement of the study of the theft and illicit trade in cultural heritage because it
5 An example of such an action, involving the seizure of Egon Schieles Portrait of Wally, is discussed later in the paper. 6 Andr F. Noblecourt, ed. (1964). Museum. V olume 17, Issue 4, Pages 169235.

118

M. Durney, B. Proulx

dramatized and cast new perspectives on an old problem ([12]: 278). In 1970, Dora Jane Hamblins work, Pots and Robbers, explored looting and the illicit antiquities trade in Greece and Italy. In 1973, the journalist Karl Meyer published The Plundered Past, which underscored the connection between the rise in art prices and the increase in the destructive illicit trade in art treasures. In the same year, the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR), which was established in 1969 to fill a need for an impartial and scholarly body to educate the public about problems and issues in the art world and to research the attribution and authenticity of works of art, undertook a multi-year feasibility study of the museum and gallery community worldwide to determine the scope of art theft [53]. This resulted in the creation of the first publicly accessible stolen art database and the publication of Bonnie Burnhams The Art Crisis [23] and Art Theft: Its Scope, Its Impact, and Its Control (1978). More recent criminological studies have further broadened and refined the extant body of art crime scholarship. John Conklins Art Crime [31], drawing much-needed criminological attention to crimes involving art and antiquities, provided a broad but comprehensive overview of the intersection where art and crime meet and served as one of the earliest criminological works focusing exclusively on criminal activities involving art. Focusing on the trade in illicitly-obtained antiquities, Alder and Polk [2, 3] highlighted its similarities to and differences from other illicit enterprises. Building on the work of Alder and Polk, Mackenzie [61, 62] examined the illicit antiquities trade through the lens of white collar crime, interviewing antiquities dealers, collectors, and other demand end market stakeholders. In 2006, making use of Passas criminogenic typologies (2003), Tijhuis examined the antiquities market as a licit-illicit interface, describing how illicit antiquities are transformed in legal status and moved onto the licit art market. In 2008, Proulx examined the source end of the antiquities market, focusing on a large international sample of practicing archaeologists and their opinions about and personal experiences with archaeological site looting [77]. These works, in combination with other significant criminological works on art and antiquities crimes (c.f, also [15, 17, 63, 64]), in combination with other academic scholarship in the realm of archaeology and cultural heritage protection (c.f., for example, [21, 22, 42]), suggest that art crime has in fact become a well-established area of serious scholarship. Moreover, this body of scholarship is an important step in moving away from art crime as Hollywood imagination as discussed above.

The importance of art, antiquities, and cultural heritage In addition to what they contribute to information about human history, the tangible remains of human cultural heritage also play a critical role in national identity [74]. In 1992, for example, the newly independent former Y ugoslav Republic of Macedonia (now the Republic of Macedonia) put the V ergina Sun symbol on its national flag as a tribute to its cultural heritage.7 The Y ugoslav Republic of
7

The V ergina Sun is a stylized, 16-point sunburst design found on the royal sarcophagus of Philip II of Macedon (382336 BC), who was father to Alexander the Great (356323 BC).

Art crime: a brief introduction

119

Macedonias use of a recognized and honored Greek symbol on a Macedonian flag quickly offended their Greek neighbors [47]. Y ugoslav Macedonias flag was virtually identical to the flag that represents the region of Greek Macedonia in northern Greece, which is distinct from the Republic of Macedonia (the salient difference in flags was that Greek Macedonias flag featured the V ergina Sun on a blue background while the Republic of Macedonias flag similarly featured the V ergina Sun but on a red background). Moreover, by featuring the V ergina Sun on its flag, many Greeks felt that the Republic of Macedonia was attempting to stake what they perceived to be an unfounded claim to Philip II as part of their own historical heritage instead of that of Greeces [34]. The dispute became so embittered that Greece finally filed a request with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for exclusive copyright to the V ergina Sun emblem [9]. The United Nations intervened to mediate the situation in 1995, and when the Republic of Macedonia finally relented and removed the V ergina Sun from its national flag, Greece then lifted its trade embargoes against the Republic of Macedonia [86]. The V ergina Sun dispute clearly illustrates the integral component that cultural and historical heritage plays in the conceptualization of both self-image and national identity, and the destruction, or dilution, of such resources has deleterious affects on a peoples identity. Clearly, there is much more at stake than the tangible remains of human cultural heritage and the scientific knowledge derived from it. Gone too are important physical elements of collective national identity, self-image, and human history. Furthermore, in economic terms, the theft or destruction of cultural heritage can have a negative financial impact whether it is related to decrease in a museums annual attendance figures, or a countrys tourist industry. Countries often rely heavily on tourism as a source of national income, and a significant component of that tourist economy is the countrys culture in the form of art, antiquities, and archaeology. To be considered there is both the welfare of tangible cultural heritage itself and the welfare of the people to whom it belongs [17, 52].

Some criminally punishable acts involving art Art theft8 Of all crimes involving art and antiquities, high-value museum thefts are perhaps most well-known to the public [74]. But art theft encompasses broader criminality than museum heists. Art theftalthough perhaps to a lesser degree than the looting and illicit trade in antiquitieshas connections to a variety of other illicit industries. In 2000, after interviews with a variety of the stakeholders involved in the culture sector, the UKs Ministerial Advisory Panel on the Illicit Trade found that, the illicit trade in cultural heritage is, in some instances and in some parts of the world, very
8

Similar to art theft, crimes that involve rare book and manuscript can often go undetected for many years after the crime and cause extensive damage to the cultural record. For a detailed examination of rare book and manuscript thefts, see Allison Hoover Bartletts The Man Who Loved Books Too Much. New York: Riverhead, 2009.

120

M. Durney, B. Proulx

frequently linked with other illegal activities. While this evidence is inevitably anecdotal, we nevertheless find it persuasive ([36]: 13). Brodie et al. [21] further discuss how illicit antiquities frequently appear seized by authorities alongside marijuana, heroin, arms, and cocaine (p. 16). In June 2002, the FBIs Assistant Director-in-Charge announced the arrest of three individuals and the recovery of $50 million9 in stolen artwork, including Pieter Bruegel the Elder s Temptation of St. Anthony, as a result of a joint operation between the FBI, the Spanish National Police (SNP), and the Eastern European Organized Crime Task Force ([78]: 5253). The SNP later recovered an additional nine paintings and determined that the subjects were involved with a criminal enterprise engaged in narcotics, auto theft, armed robbery, possession of stolen contraband, and homicide (ibid, 53). While the number of museum thefts, which involves large quantities or iconic works of art, is comparatively low, such thefts tend to be more publicized and result in greater public fervor than other thefts. For example, dozens of books and articles have been written about the 1990 high-profile theft of several paintings from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston [32]. Similarly, the theft and recovery of Leonardo Da Vincis Mona Lisa from 1911 to 1913 was well documented by the media and generated a tremendous public response to what appeared to be a crisis in the culture sector [38]. The theft of the Mona Lisa was deemed a national scandal (The New York Times 1911); it raised questions from the cultural literati, including novelist Josphin Pladan, related to the competency of Frances national institutions to protect its cultural heritage (The New Y ork Times 1912); and it provoked the almost immediate resignation of the Louvres Director at the time, Thophile Homolle. Evidently, the public outcry was heavily fueled by the peoples indignation over the governments inability to adequately protect, preserve, and conserve French cultural heritage. A similar high-profile museum heist occurred in 1994 when four men broke into the National Gallery of Norway in Oslo and stole Edvard Munchs The Scream. Having left a note saying thanks for the poor security, the men asked for $1 million in ransom, which the gallery refused to pay [7]. The Scream was recovered later that year by Norwegian police with the assistance of Scotland Y ards Art and Antique Unit [14].10 More recently, in May 2010, there was an overnight theft of five paintings by Lger, Braque, Picasso, Modigliani, and Matisse from the Musee dart Moderne de la Ville de Paris [56]. The theft resulted from a security alarm system that had been broken for 2 months as well as the institutions inability to implement effective countermeasures in light of its alarm issues [43]. In August 2010, a painting by V an Gogh was stolen from the Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil Museum in Cairo during its hours of operation [79]. According to reports, only seven of 43 security cameras were functioning properly, and none of the museums alarms were working (ibid).
9

The monetary value of art as reported by the media is misleading due the multiple valuation methods as well as to the fickle nature inherent to the art market, discussed later in this paper. 10 In 2004, another version of The Scream (Munch painted four) was stolen from the Munch Museum in Oslo during daylight hours by masked gunmen (Jones 2007). This Scream, too, was eventually recovered with minimal damage (Berglund 2006).

Art crime: a brief introduction

121

While these recent Paris and Cairo museum thefts received some attention from the press, the thefts from Frances Louvre, Bostons Gardner Museum, and Norways National Gallery have achieved legendary status, and it is cases such as these that captivate the publics imagination and scholarly attention. When art crime makes news, the focus is thus on high-value thefts from museums. As sensational as these art crimes are, most art thefts do not in fact occur in museums. High-value art is stolen in ordinary burglaries alongside other objects [81]. For example, from 2003 to 2008, thefts from private collections accounted for 36% of the total thefts registered with the Art Loss Register (ALR),11 and 34% of the total thefts registered with Interpol [38]. Alternatively, during that same time period 3% and 2% of the thefts registered with the ALR and Interpol, respectively, were from museums (ibid). In many cases, an institution, individual, or its insurer will offer a reward for the recovery of its art. Rewards are considered by some to be a most effective strategy for recovering ones stolen art [37]. In addition to increasing the likelihood that the artwork may be returned or recovered, rewards create an incentive for private investigators to become involved in the recovery process. However, questions from individuals in the field have been raised as to the frequency that rewards are honored and paid [38]. Occasionally thieves, or fences, will hold art hostage and demand a ransom from the victimized institution or individual. Ransom arrangements typically require repeated contacts, a plan to trap the thief, and the close cooperation of insurance companies (or the victims) with police [37]. Art adjustors, insurers, and private investigators often favor rewards more than ransom payments because rewards enable the stakeholders involved, such as the institution, collector, and insurer, to be more flexible in getting the stolen items returned than the authorities ([67]: 274). Art frauds, fakes, and forgeries More common manifestations of art crime that have gained increased attention in recent years are dealers and galleries that run frauds or Ponzi schemes. In August 1980, art dealer Steven Straw pleaded guilty in local district court to ten counts of larceny and embezzlement in connection with a scheme that stole $1.7 million from art investors [5]. The following month, Straw pleaded guilty in Chattanooga, Tennessee to charges of obtaining money under false pretenses and faced similar charges in California [6]. In March 2010, Lawrence Salander, a top Manhattan art dealer, admitted to stealing $120 million from clients by not paying them for works consigned to him that he sold [80]. The Salander case underscores the fact that there is as much of a lack of transparency in fine art dealings as there is in the antiquities market ([46]: 54). The lack of transparency in the art market is unsettling for investors and collectors alike. In the 2010 Capgemini and Merrill Lynch World Wealth Report, a study found that although art is one of the most popular passion investment more than 56% of high worth net individuals (HWNI12) are discouraged from participating in the art market due to its opaque, unregulated, and illiquid nature [82].
11

12

For a detailed examination of private and public stolen art databases refer to [38]. HNWI is defined as those individuals who have investable assets of $1 million or more, excluding primary residence, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

122

M. Durney, B. Proulx

There are several other types of fraudulent activity involving art, which can be committed on the part of artists, dealers, brokers, auction houses, collectors, galleries, museums, and so forth. Of all the types of art fraud, art fakery and forgery are perhaps the best known. The difference between which is that fakery involves making an artwork that resembles the style of an original artwork while forgery involves making an exact copy of an original artwork and selling the forgery as the original.13 When Y ves Chaudron painted several copies of da Vincis famous portrait Mona Lisa, for example, it was forgery; when Elmyr de Hory sold his own original paintings, passing them off as the work of Picasso, Matisse, Renoir and others, it was fakery (Irving 1969). Despite its aesthetic value, faked or forged art lose commercial value when they are shown to be inauthentic [74]. However, in rare instances fake works of art become cultural curiosities and sell on the licit art market for high values. For example, in February 2009 Londons Victoria & Albert Museum acquired five miniatures by the notorious Spanish Forger under the Acceptance in Lieu14 system that accounted for 20,000 of inheritance tax [11]. Although little is known about the Spanish Forger, who operated during the late 19th to early 20th centuries, his illuminated manuscripts that were made in a variety of styles from the 14th to 16th century were the subject of a solo exhibition at the Morgan Library in 1978 (ibid). As illustrated in the case of the Spanish Forger, faked works of art can become culturally significant because they serve as historical evidence that can reveal how past generations of artists interpreted the works and styles of their predecessors. Frey [41] notes some of the positive externalities that result from fakes and forgeries, such as how they can propagate an artists name, which can lead to an increase in the demand for his or her art, and how their existence can result in greater collaboration between connoisseurs and conservation scientists. While fakeries and forgeries are ubiquitous to the international art market, it is unknown just how many fraudulent pieces are on the market or in established collections [31]. In fact, counterfeit art is such a ubiquitous problem in the art world that many museums are now revealing to the public how even art experts and curators can be fooled by fakes and forgeries. In 2010, for example, the Detroit Institute of Arts launched an exhibition entitled, Fakes, Forgeries and Mysteries, which showcases a variety of artworks acquired by the DIA that were later determined to be inauthentic [4]. In January 2011, the Hilliard University Art Museum in Lafayette, Louisiana opened a similar exhibit entitled Say It Isnt Faux, displaying counterfeit works [57]. Other popular fakes and forgeries exhibits have been held at the British Museum in 1992 and Londons National Gallery in 2010. Art confiscations Art confiscation refers to the looting, or plundering, of cultural heritage during periods of conflict. From ancient Roman times to Napoleon Is reign, victorious armies have often seized their enemies property as spoils of war, or booty. Perhaps
13

For a more detailed contrasting of art fakery and forgery, see http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/explorations/ research/collecting.pdf 14 Acceptance in Lieu schemes allow taxpayers to pay inheritance taxes by transferring artworks into public ownership.

Art crime: a brief introduction

123

the best documented cases are the widespread confiscations that took place across Europe from 1933 to the end of World War II under the direction of the Nazi Party [69]. Paintings, silver, religious treasures, ceramics, jewelry, china, sculpture, and other items of cultural significance were stolen from Holocaust victims (ibid). Of the thousands of cultural objects looted throughout Western Europe from various private and public art collections, some were re-sold on the international art market while others were kept as pieces to be included in Hitler s Austrian super museum [42]. While many objects were returned to their owners after the war, countless more remain unaccounted for [74]. The whereabouts of many artworks sold abroad remain unknown, original owners and their heirs are neither easy to locate nor always able to identify missing works, and countries in which looted artworks have been located have not always been cooperative in restitution [42]. Additionally, many pieces of art looted during the Nazi regime have become fodder for complex and lengthy court battles; Egon Schieles Portrait of Wally (1912), for example, was confiscated from a private Jewish collector in 1939 and was tied up in fierce litigation until the summer of 2010 when the original owner s estate finally accepted a settlement of $19 million [60]. The systematic plunder of cultural heritage conducted under the Nazi regime serves as a poignant reminder in the Middle East, the former Y ugoslavia, and other regions where cultural heritage is similarly endangered by conflict [42]. Art vandalism and iconoclasm Art vandalism includes not only intentional destruction of or damage to an artwork but can also refer to unintentional damage caused during restoration, a theft, an inattentive guardian, or even during periods of civil unrest [31]. In some cases art is vandalized as an attack on the artist or what the artwork itself symbolizes [33]; in others, the artwork is vandalized as an attempt at self-expression, religious or political protest, or even for pure entertainment [31]. When a copy of Rodins sculpture The Thinker was irreparably damaged by a pipe bomb outside of the Cleveland Art Museum in 1970, for example, police attributed the vandalism to a radical political group likely protesting Americas involvement in the Vietnam War [28]. In October 1999, Y uan Chai and Jian Jun Xi, a pair of Chinese artists, vandalized Tracy Emins installation My Bed, which was on display in the Turner Prize exhibition at Londons Tate Britain, by jumping on the soiled, unmade bed in a work of performance art they titled, Two Naked Men Jump into Tracey s Bed [44]. According to the artists, they hoped their satirical intervention would show how spontaneous art is superior to the institutionalized art which dominates the Turner Prize [45].15 Similar to vandalism, iconoclasm thus involves the willful destruction or defacement of a symbol for political, religious, or even economic reasons. Iconoclasts aim to render images powerless and to deprive them of those parts, which embody their effectiveness (Flood 2002). In other cases, art has been vandalized for utilitarian purposes. Pottery, vases, and sculpture, for example, are often sawn up into smaller pieces to facilitate their transnational smuggling [49]. In United States v. Schultz,16 it was revealed that the defendant, an American antiquities dealer, had smuggled freshly-looted antiquities
15 16

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/oct/23/fiachragibbons1 United States v. Schultz, 178F. Supp 2nd 445 (S.D.N.Y . 2002) aff d 333 F3d 393 (2nd Cir. 2003).

124

M. Durney, B. Proulx

out of Egypt by disguising them as pieces of an English art collection that had been assembled and removed from the country long before Egypt enacted its cultural patrimony law in 1983 [35]. In Peru, smugglers were able to legally export looted antiquities by disguising them as modern ceramics, slapping on false bottoms with Hecho en Bolivia stamped on them [10]. Similarly, in 2005, a gang of thieves used a stolen, crane-equipped lorry to transport Henry Moores two-ton bronze sculpture Reclining Nude from the Henry Moore Foundation in Much Hadham, Hertfordshire to a Dagenham scrap dealer, and then onto an Essex scrapyard before its raw materials were likely exported to the East (Jamieson 2009). In many art thefts, such as the 1990 Gardner theft, thieves cut canvas works from their frames in order to make them more portable. In such cases, the damage assists the thieves in that it facilitates theft and trafficking which, consequently, minimizes the chance of detection, arrest, and punishment [74]. Theft from archaeological sites and antiquities smuggling The looting17 of archaeological sites, which largely fuels the international trade in illicit antiquities [20], is also arguably one of the most deplorable of crimes involving cultural heritage in that it involves undocumented artifacts ripped from the ground that make their way to the legal market. As discussed above, looted archaeological sites and the objects removed from them to be bought and sold can make few contributions to our understanding of history. We are instead left with random items which might be pretty and possess a certain commercial value, but which remain forever dumb and virtually useless for scholarly purposes ([24]: 350). The 2011 Egyptian revolution exposed the vulnerability of that countrys cultural heritage, including those objects stored in archaeological site magazines and its museums, to looting and theft. Recently excavated objects, which have not yet been catalogued, and museum objects, which are poorly documented, are likely to enter the licit art market if stolen. For example, on March 15, 2011, Egypts Supreme Council of Antiquities released its final list of objects missing from the Egyptian Museum, which was broken into during the civil unrest18 Unfortunately, many of the objects listed lack sufficient enough descriptions and photographs to assist investigators in their recovery efforts. Because it has both licit (white) and illicit (black) market dynamics, the illicit antiquities trade similarly is considered a transnational grey market [17, 61]. That is, like the international art market, trading in antiquities is also altogether perfectly legal, and owning an antiquity becomes illegal only when it was illicitly exported, stolen, looted, or smuggled [2, 17, 74, 81]. In order to convert a looted antiquity into
Looting means the removal of culturally significant material from archaeological sites for commercial gain, the act of which destroys archaeological context or evidence needed to learn from the site. Archaeological site looting not part of any systematic excavation is per se a criminal act, but it is also criminal in that it can involve vandalism, trespassing, burial disturbance, permit violations, violation of protected religious or historic sites, and even violation of wildlife protection laws [50]. Just a note here: looting that is not part of a systematic excavation is not always a criminal act. For example, in the US digging on your own property is looting and not systematic, but is not criminal. Same goes for the UK, as long as any treasure you might find is reported to the county coroner. This definition needs to be slightly reworked to acknowledge that looting can be ILLICIT but not ILLEGAL. 18 http://www.scaegypt.org/eng/pdfs/Final%20List%20of%20Objects%20Missing%20from%20the% 20Egyptian%20Museum_2011-03-15.pdf.
17

Art crime: a brief introduction

125

a saleable one, then, its illicit origins must be concealed, and this is often done with faked or forged provenance documentation and by taking advantages of differences in countries property laws, statutes of limitations, and burdens of proof [74]. As such, the international antiquities market becomes a mixture of licit and illicit antiquities, which are not easily distinguished [21]. Like art, the value of antiquities is never fixed, and objects can accumulate commercial value quickly and yield staggeringly high prices [63].19 Indeed, there have been several famous cases in which antiquities were sold for astronomical amounts of money. The Sicilian Morgantina silver collection, for example, was illegally excavated in 1979 and sold by looters to middlemen for about $1,000 and, less than one year later, was then sold to a private collector who paid more than $1 million for it [19]. Handsome profit margins thus serve as motivation for archaeological site looting and the illicit antiquities trade. Y et very little of this profit ever trickles down to the original diggers who, on average, receive less than 1% of an antiquitys final sale price [18, 19, 22]. The Morgantina collection was ultimately sold to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New Y ork for a final price tag of over $2.5 million, nearly 100% of which was received by the middlemen [22]. The middlemen, not the original diggers, primarily profit from looting and antiquities trafficking. Whatever small reward the original digger receives for his find is a short-term economic gain because, as Brodie [19] notes, when that object becomes tradable on the international market and accumulates value via circulation, both the country of origin and the original differ are deprived of longrange economic benefit and ultimately twice-swindled: first out of the initial monetary value of their find, and then out of its long-term economic potential (p. 15). While many antiquities dealers and collectors argue in favor of an open, free antiquities trade on the basis that it is economically beneficial for archaeologically rich but economically underdeveloped countries, there is substantial evidence to suggest otherwise [17, 20]. While there is no shortage of legislative efforts to curb the problem, consisting mainly of either export laws or patrimony laws which vest ownership of antiquities in the State [2, 17], curbing the supply and flow of antiquities onto the international market has done little to curb the international demand for antiquities, and the global looting problem does not appear to be improving [17]. The existence of a transnational grey market in antiquities, fueled by an insatiable demand for antiquities and assisted by criminogenic asymmetries20 in the international legal
19

Even though it comprises a small component of the total international art market, annual antiquities sales amount to somewhere between $100 and $200 million ([58]: 187). 20 Passas [72] defines criminogenic asymmetries as structural disjunctions, mismatches and inequalities in the spheres of politics, culture, the economy, and the law; asymmetries are criminogenic in that they generate or strengthen the demand for illegal goods and services, they generate incentives for particular actors to participate in illegal transactions, and they reduce the ability of authorities to control illegal activities (p. 23). A good example of a criminogenic asymmetry in law is the nemo dat rule in AngloAmerican property law, which states that a thief can neither convey good title nor can someone claim good title through a thief even if the property is transferred to a good faith purchaser [42]. In contrast, good title to a stolen object can in fact be conveyed in the majority of European continental civil law countries when the object is purchased in good faith. If an antiquity were looted and illegally exported, for example, and then purchased in good faith in a civil country, then the good faith purchase is favored and the object is no longer legally construed as stolen [20]. Because of this criminogenic asymmetry, smugglers move antiquities through civil countries in order to secure good title to an antiquity and, consequently, legal export documentation which will allow the object to circulate on the antiquities market [2, 3].

126

M. Durney, B. Proulx

landscape has meant that the worlds archaeological heritage is disappearing at an astonishing pace [17, 20, 22, 51, 64, 70, 74].

Art crime motivations Both the justifications and motivations for art crimes are multi-faceted because the value of art is multi-faceted. A buyer, a seller, an archaeologist, an insurer, an auctioneer, an art historian, a gallery owner, and even a thief all have different assessments of the worth of an artwork [63]. That is, art and antiquities have not only aesthetic value but also commercial, insurance, cultural, artistic, and investment value. The value of art is thus socially constructed (ibid). Hitler, for example, fancied himself a connoisseur of the arts; under his leadership, the Nazis stole artworks from people in every territory they occupied [69]. If the worth of art is socially constructed, so too are the motivations for stealing, forging, smuggling, faking, and confiscating it. Conklin [31], for example, notes that art is often stolen for personal possession, on commission for collectors, for sale to dishonest dealers, for consignment to auction houses, on speculation, for investment, for ransom for personal gain, and for political purposes (p. 130). Often stolen art which is not valuable or was not made by an artist whose works are in high demand can reenter the licit art market. Unfortunately, this is due to the fact that a majority of auctions houses do not perform adequate due diligence to determine if a work of art has a clean provenance, or if it has any title defects. Alternatively, a thief may utilize stolen art to barter for other illicit goods. For example, in March 2009 Dennis Maluk was arrested in connection with stolen art found in the possession of a New Haven, CT (USA) drug dealer [71]. Law enforcement officials reported that Maluk regularly stole low value paintings and prints from Y ale Universitys Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life and the New Haven Free Public Library, among a few other businesses in the city, and then exchange them for $30 to $40 worth of heroin only a few miles away. At the conclusion of the trial, some of the art was returned to Y ale and the Free Public Library; however, the owners of 30 works found in the drug dealer s possession could not be traced [13]. But the motivations for art crime are not exclusively financial. In some cases, art thieves are run-of-the-mill kleptomaniacs who are motivated by the desire to possess things; in other cases, art criminals are motivated by the aesthetic pleasure of the artwork itself [63]. Sometimes art theft, fakery, and forgery are committed by those who know they will never be able to afford the real thing; in other instances, such crimes are committed with the intent to improve the criminals social standing: Certain Columbian godfathers want artworks so that they may present themselves as cultured people ([63]: 111). Sometimes art criminals are simply looking for less risky illicit activities from which to profit. Smuggling antiquities, for example, can be an inconspicuous alternative to smuggling large amounts of diamonds, gold, or cash (Fidler 2003), facilitated by the fact that there exists a licit international antiquities market. [2]. Moreover, many buyers are simply unaware of the underlying criminal conduct that may bring objects onto the art market, and many more are simply willing to turn a blind eye [20, 31, 64]. As one thief noted, I dont focus my efforts on one type of theft but instead on the occasions

Art crime: a brief introduction

127

for it. I know the buyers to whom I sell and they dont ask any questions if they do, I respond, I found it in the attic, or even better, its been in my family for years. ([63]: 121). Thus there are a variety of reasons why art and antiquities represent desirable targets for thieves. Whatever the motivation, criminal conduct involving art and antiquities occurs when three factors converge in time and space: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian [30].

Assessing the extent of art crime While the intellectual and material consequences that result from the types of art crimes discussed above are appreciable, estimations of the global prevalence, economic impact, and frequency of art crimes have been problematic. Interpol, which since 1947 has been involved in combating the illicit trade in art specifically through the publication of international notices on stolen works of art and the circulation of an annual statistics poll to its member countries, restated its position on the size and scope of art theft in 2009 with the following: We do not possess any figures which would enable us to claim that trafficking in cultural property is the third or fourth most common form of trafficking, although this is frequently mentioned at international conferences and in the media [55]. Comparative studies of crime in international context are already complicated by incongruencies in crime definitions, criminal laws, crime reporting and data recording procedures vary significantly from one country to the next [68]. The study of art crime presents similar difficulties. Because it is by definition illicit, no one really knows exactly how much illicit art crime money is truly earned or lost [74].21 Moreover, the official art crime statistics that exist can be deceptive and misleading. Interpol, for example, receives annual statistics of reported cultural property thefts conflated from a variety of locales including castles, archaeological sites, galleries, museums, places of worship, and private property [54]. The numbers, however, are problematic in that cultural property thefts are underreported,22 a majority of countries usually record thefts not by the type of object stolen but instead by the circumstances of theft (e.g., armed robbery, breaking and entering, etc.), and thefts often go undiscovered until a stolen item appears on the public art market (Interpol 2011; [77]). Due to the issues inherent to art theft statistics, it is best to analyze Interpols data on a country-by-country basis. However, as Durney [37] discusses, this still requires extensive investigations in order to confidently identify the reduction methods and protocols any given country has implemented that has yielded a decline in their annual art theft figures. The FBIs art crime statistics are more problematic because the National Stolen Art File only includes items reported stolen to the FBI through a law enforcement agency and valued at $2,000 or more (or less only if the theft is associated with a major crime) (FBI 2011). Moreover, art thefts represent but one type of art crime; as
Many scholars have argued elsewhere that the amount of illicit money associated with criminal affairs in general is most likely exaggerated, usually for political aims, and when asked to estimate the extent of any criminal market the only truly accurate response with which an honest researcher can only answer [is], I do not know ([83]: 2) [17]. On the difficulties of estimating the extent of transnational crime generally, see Naylor [66] and Passas [73]. 22 Less than one third of Interpols member countries reply annually to its art theft poll [56].
21

128

M. Durney, B. Proulx

such, art theft statistics do not include losses attributed to other art crimes like vandalism, frauds, forgeries, and illicit export of looted antiquities [31]. Accurate estimates of the extent of theft from archaeological sites, for example, have been particularly difficult because looters target both discovered and undiscovered sites; as such it has been impossible to assess just how much damage has been caused by looting around the world [76, 77].23 In addition to definitional and reporting inconsistencies, not all countries have the resources to even focus on the detection and prevention of art crimes. For example, through its Comando Carabinieri per la Tutela Patrimonio Culturale,24 Italy has been able to devote attention and resources on art crimes, which has led to the recovery of hundreds of thousands of cultural objects and facilitated the prosecution of thousands of looters and thieves [75]. In contrast, other relatively impoverished countries with broader social and crime problems, have simply not been able to dedicate as many resources to the protection of its cultural heritage [31]. A final reason for why estimations of the financial extent of losses attributable to art crimes is that the commercial value of art is never fixed [74]. In 2007, for example, Sothebys auction house sold the Guennol Lioness25 for more than $57.1 million, which set a new world record for the highest price paid for any antiquity; this price was triple its pre-sale estimate of $18 million ([1, 8]). The fickle nature of the art market itself thus further complicates estimations of art crime losses, and any attempt to estimate art crime losses inevitably leads to consideration of the valuation of art itself. Beyond its commercial value, what about other judgments of the value and worth of the Guennol Lioness? An insurer, an auctioneer, an archaeologist, an art historian, a buyer, a seller, an investor, and even a thief have different approaches to the valuation of a piece of art [63]. The Guennol Lioness has economic but also cultural, insurance, scientific, scholarly, aesthetic, artistic, and investment value; as such, its value is socially constructed. Artworks are imbued with whatever valueladen meaning actors in and beyond the art market assign to it; what primarily drives art crime, however, is the commercialization of cultural objects as economic commodities [23, 63].26
The inclusion of archaeological site theft (looting) in art crime figures is problematic. While art crimes generally involve the theft of identifiable objects owned by someone, looted antiquities are objects recovered through illegal digging and have never been seen before in modern times [17]. When such items appear for sale on the market, unlike stolen artworks, they cannot be recognized and identified as stolen, and unless a country can provide unequivocal proof that a particular object- one that has suddenly appeared on the market with no documentation, context, or pedigree- has unquestioningly come from its soil [21]. 24 Headquartered in Rome, this specialized unit of the Carabinieri is responsible for the protection of the countrys cultural, archaeological, and artistic heritage. 25 A rare example of ancient Mesopotamian artistry, this limestone sculpture stands less than four inches tall and was part of an antiquities sale that yielded over $67 million at Sothebys, the highest total ever in this category [48, 84]. 26 In spite of such difficulties, there have been several attempts to assess art crime losses. In 1995, the International Foundation for Art Research estimated annual losses due to art thefts between US$2 billion and $6 billion (IFAR 1995); others guessed between $3 billion and $6 billion [16]; today, the FBI estimates annual losses to be as high as $8 billion [39]. Despite Interpols disclaimer (discussed above), this figure is recycled because it is sensational, not because it is necessarily based in fact. In the use of any official art crime data, researchers should be sensitive to the problem of the dark figure of crime, which refers to undetected and unreported crimes.
23

Art crime: a brief introduction

129

Conclusion As Lowenthal [59] states, despite our best efforts to protect, preserve, and conserve the past, artifacts are ceaselessly effaced, whether suddenly destroyed by earthquake or flood, war or iconoclasm, or slowly perishing by erosion (p. 239). Crimes against art and antiquities exacerbate the cultural records rate of decay. Hopefully, future studies will seek to quantify the negative effects art crimes have on society. In doing so, the studies will then be able to better qualify the need for the expenditure of resources to protect against art crime. Similarly, further research needs to assess the effectiveness of the current strategies implemented to combat and reduce art crime in order to deliver practical recommendations to the countries, institutions, and individuals, whose cultural heritage is most at risk. Unfortunately, Hollywoods depictions of art crime can lead some to believe that the loss of cultural materials affects only a small segment of the population. Rather, the theft and destruction of the worlds cultural record has extensive ramifications that penetrate across all social strata. As such, the world is not economically poorer but culturally poorer due to the deleterious effects of art crime: . our lives will be poorer in ways that the statistician can never measure- we will live in a drabber world, and will have squandered a resource that enlivens our existence, offers a key to our nature, and, not least, acts as a psychic ballast as we venture into a scary future. ([65]: 2089). There is thus much more at stake than just the physical vestiges of human culture [17]. Ultimately, the various stakeholders involved in the culture sector, such as art market participants, museum-goers, and archaeologists, must recognize their shared values and similar vested interests in the preservation of cultural heritage. Whether such values and interests are ethical, aesthetic, cultural, commercial, or historical, all must participate in a collective effort to prevent further premature losses of the past.

References
1. Agence France-Presse, New York (2007). Mesopotamian sculpture sells for record 57million dollars. Dec 5. Retrieved January 23, 2008 from http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMfDoQ_ vX7HpjKjVVxJK7NwsMfIw. 2. Alder, C., & Polk, K. (2002). Stopping this awful business: the illicit traffic in antiquities examined as a criminal market. Art, Antiquity, & Law, 7(1), 3553. 3. Alder, C., & Polk, K. (2005). The illicit traffic in plundered antiquities. In P . Reichel (Ed.), Handbook of transnational crime and justice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 4. Allsop, L. (2010). Spot the face: The art world s pricey problem with forgery. CNN. Retrieved January 7, 2011 from, http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-24/us/art.forgeries_1_art-forgers-bogus-works-boltonmuseum?_s=PM:US. 5. Associated Press (1980a). Art dealer pleads guilty. Associated Press, 3 August. 6. Associated Press (1980b). Art dealer sentenced. Associated Press, 3 October. 7. Associated Press (1994). 4 Norwegians guilty in theft of the scream. New Y ork Times. Retrieved January 12, 2011 from, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/13/world/munch-s-the-scream-stolen-from-exhibit.html. 8. Artdaily (2007). Guennol Lioness sells for $57.2 Million. Artnews. Retrieved January 23, 2008 from http://www.artdaily.com/indexv5.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=22531. 9. Athens News Agency (1995). Greece petitions for international rights to V ergina star . Retrieved March 12, 2008 from http://www.b-info.com/places/Macedonia/republic/news/95-07/jul31.mak.

130

M. Durney, B. Proulx

10. Atwood, R. (2004). Stealing history: Tomb raiders, smugglers, and the looting of the ancient world. New York: St Martins. 11. Bailey, M. (2009). Spanish Forger bought by V&A. The Art Newspaper, 1 February. 12. Bator, P . M. (1982). An essay on the international trade in art. Stanford Law Review, 34, 290. 13. Beach, R. (2010). Man gets prison for role in Yale art theft. The New Haven Register, 21 August. 14. Berglund, N. (1994). Munch paintings recovered. Aftenposten. Retrieved January 12, 2011 from http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1441444.ece. 15. Bernick, L. (1998). Art and antiquities theft. Transnational Organized Crime, 4(2), 91116. 16. Borodkin, L. (1995). The economics of antiquities looting. Columbia Law Review, 95(2), 377417. 17. Bowman, B. (2008). Transnational crimes against culture: looting at archaeological sites and the greymarket in antiquities. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(3), 225242. 18. Boylan, P . (1995). Illicit trade in antiquities and museum ethics. In K. Tubb (Ed.), Antiquities trade betrayed: Legal, ethical, and conservation issues (pp. 94104). London: Archetype/UICIC. 19. Brodie, N. (1998). Pity the poor middlemen. Culture Without Context, 3(Autumn), 79. Retrieved December 21, 2007 from http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/iarc/culturewithoutcontext/issue3/ brodie.htm. 20. Brodie, N. (2002). Introduction. In N. Brodie & K. Tubb (Eds.), Illicit antiquities: The theft of culture and the extinction of archaeology. London: Routledge. 21. Brodie, N. (2006). An archaeologists view of the trade in unprovenanced antiquities. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Art & cultural heritage: Law, policy, & practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 22. Brodie, N., Doole, J., & Watson, P . (2000). Stealing history: The illicit trade in cultural material. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. 23. Burnham, B. (1975). The art crisis. New York: St Martins. 24. Cannon-Brookes, P . (1994). Antiquities in the market-place: placing a price on documentation. Antiquity, 68(295), 349350. 25. Carassava, A. (2007). Greek court dismisses case against ex-curator. New Y ork Times, Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/arts/design/28true.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. 26. Carassava, A. (2007b). Ex-curator acquitted in case of Greek relic. International Herald Tribune, Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/27/europe/getty.php. 27. Charney, N. (2009). Introduction. In M. Charney (Ed.), Art and crime: Exploring the dark side of the art world. Santa Barbara: Praeger. 28. Christman, B. (1998). Twenty-five years after the bomb: maintaining Clevelands the thinker. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 37(2), 173186. 29. Coggins, C. (1998). United States cultural property legislation: observations of a combatant. International Journal of Cultural Property, 7(1), 5268. 30. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588605. 31. Conklin, J. (1994). Art crime. Westport: Praeger. 32. Conley, S. (1995). International art theft. 13 Wis. Intl L.J., p 493 33. Cordess, C., & Turcan, M. (1993). Art vandalism. British Journal of Criminology, 33, 95102. 34. Danforth, L. (1996). The Macedonian conflict: Ethnic nationalism in a transnational world. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 35. DeAngelis, I. (2006). How much provenance is enough? Guidelines for the acquisition of archaeological materials. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Art & cultural heritage: Law, policy & practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 36. Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). (2000). Ministerial advisory panel on illicit trade. London: DCMS. First Report. 37. Durney, M. (2010). Art theft statistics: a need for reliability. American Society of International Law Cultural Heritage and Arts Review Fall/Winter , 2010, 1316. 38. Durney, M. (2010b). An examination of art theft, analysis of relevant statistics, and insights into the protection of cultural heritage. (Master s Thesis). London, UK: University College London. 39. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011). Art theft program. Retrieved 1/20/11 at: http://www.fbi.gov/ hq/cid/arttheft/arttheft.htm. 40. Frammolino, R., & Felch, J. (2005). Greek officials demand the return of Getty antiquities. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://cpprot.te.verweg.com/2005-October/001882.html. 41. Frey, B. (1999). Art fakes - what fakes? An economic view. In Working Paper Series Institute for Empirical Research in Economics No. 14. 42. Gerstenblith, P . (2004). Art, cultural heritage, and the law: Cases & materials. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Art crime: a brief introduction 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

131

48.

49. 50.

51.

52.

53. 54. 55. 56.

57. 58.

59. 60.

61. 62.

63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

Gauthier-Villars, D. (2010). Masterpieces stolen from paris museum. Wall Street Journal, 21 May. Gibbons, F. (1999a). Satirists jump into Tracy s bed. The Guardian, 25 October. Gibbons, F. (1999b). Controversy over bed will not rest. The Guardian, 23 October. Gill, D., & Chippindale, C. (2002). The trade in looted antiquities and the return of cultural property: a British parliamentary inquiry. International Journal of Cultural Property, 11(1), 5064. Greenhouse, S. (1995). Greece and Macedonia ready to settle dispute, US says. New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5DA1E3B F936A3575AC0A963958260&scp=5&sq=macedonia+flag&st=nyt. Gumbel, A. (2007). Lioness of ancient Mesopotamia sells for a record Pounds 28 m. London Independent. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/ is_20071207/ai_n21145313. Hamblin, D. (1970). Pots and robbers. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hicks, R. (2006). A model investigative protocol for looting and anti-looting educational program. In N. Brodie, M. Kersel, C. Luke, & K. Tubb (Eds.), Archaeology, cultural heritage, and the antiquities trade. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Hoffman, B. (2006). Introduction to parts II and III: cultural rights, cultural property, and international trade. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Art & cultural heritage: Law, policy & practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hollowell, J. (2006). Moral arguments on subsistence digging. In C. Scarre & G. Scarre (Eds.), The ethics of archaeology: Philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IFAR (2010). About IF AR. Retrieved on 16 August 2010 from World Wide Web: http://ifar.org/ background.php. Interpol (2007). Stolen works of art: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved December 20, 2007 from http://www.interpol.int/Public/WorkOfArt/woafaq.asp. Interpol (2009). Stolen works of art: F AQ s. Retrieved on 16 August 2010 from World Wide Web: http://www.interpol.int/Public/WorkOfArt/woafaq.asp#faq1. Interpol (2010). Interpol news: Burglary from the modern art museum in Paris, France. Retrieved March 25, 2011 online from, http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2010/ News20100521.asp. Kahn, E. (2010). Keeping it real: A show made of fakes. New York Times. Retrieved January 8, 2011 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/arts/design/19antiques.html. Kozloff, A. (2005). The antiquities market: When, what, where, who, whyand how much? In K. Fitz Gibbon (Ed.), Who owns the past?: Cultural policy, cultural property, and the law. NJ: Rutgers University Press. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lufkin, M. (2010). Portrait of Wally case settled for 19 million. The Art Newspaper. Retrieved January 8, 2011 from, http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/%3Ci-Portrait-of-Wally-i-case-settled-for-19m/ 21273. Mackenzie, S. R. M. (2005). Going, going, gone: Regulating the market in illicit antiquities. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law. Mackenzie, S. R. M. (2009). Identifying and preventing opportunities for organized crime in the international antiquities market. In S. Manacorda (Ed.), Organised crime in art and antiquities (pp. 95108). Milan: International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council of United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme. Massy, L. (2001). Le V ol DOeuvres DArt: Une Criminalit Mconnue. Bruxelles: Bruylant. McCalister, A. (2005). Organized crime and the theft of Iraqi antiquities. Trends in Organized Crime, 9 (1), 2437. Meyer, K. (1973). The plundered past. New York: Atheneum. Naylor, R. T. (2002). Wages of crime: Black markets, illegal finance, and the underworld economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP . Naylor, R. T. (2008). The underworld of art crime. In: Crime Law Soc. Change, 50, 263291. Neapolitan, J. (1997). Cross-national crime: A research review & sourcebook. Westport: Greenwood. Nicholas, L. (1995). The rape of Europa: The fate of Europe s treasures in the ThirdReich and the second world war. New York: Vintage Books. OKeefe, P . (1997). Trade in antiquities: Reducing destruction and theft. UNESCO. Owens, D. (2009). Stolen artwork recovered. The Hartford Courant, 24 March. Passas, N. (1998). Globalization and transnational organized crime: the effects of criminogenic asymmetries. Transnational Organized Crime, 4(3/4), 22056.

132

M. Durney, B. Proulx

73. Passas, N. (2002). Cross-border crime and the interface between legal and illegal actors. In van Duyne et al. (Eds.), Upperworld and underworld in cross-border crime. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. 74. Passas, N., & Proulx, B. B. (2011). An overview of crimes involving art and antiquities. In S. Manacorda (Ed.), Crime in the art and antiquities world. (forthcoming). 75. Pastore, G. (2001). The looting of archaeological sites in italy. In N. Brodie et al. (Eds.), Trade in illicit antiquities: The destruction of the world s archaeological heritage. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. 76. Pendergast, D., & Graham, E. (1989). The battle for the Maya past: The effects of international looting and collecting in belize. In P . Messenger (Ed.), The ethics of collecting (pp. 5160). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 77. Proulx, B. B. (2010). Organized criminal involvement in the illicit antiquities trade. Trends in Organized Crime (23 October 2010), pp. 129. Retrieved January 19, 2011 from, http://www. springerlink.com/content/m664v3q745g5q207/export-citation/. 78. Sadler, R. (2005). The FBI art theft program and its impact on collecting: a report from FBI Special Agent Robert Wittman and the editor. The American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin, 93, 5157. 79. Shahine, A. (2010). V an Gogh $55 million poppy flowers theft in Cairo blamed on Lax Security. Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 25, 2011 online from, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0822/van-gogh-55-million-poppy-flowers-theft-in-cairo-blamed-on-lax-security.html. 80. Sullivan, P . (2010). Protect your art with more than a handshake. The New York Times, 2 April. 81. Tijhuis, E. (2006). Transnational crime and the interface between legal and illegal factors: The case of the illicit art and antiquities trade. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. 82. V an der Linde, I. (2010). 2010 Capgemini HNWI research. 2010 World Wealth Report. 83. V an Duyne, P . (1996). Organized crime in Europe. Commack: Nova Science, Inc. 84. Wigmore, B. (2007). 10 m an inch - 3 1/4in carving of lioness roars into the record books as Briton buys it for 29 m. Daily Mail. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=500363&in_page_id=1770. 85. Wittman, R. K., & Shiffman, J. (2010). Priceless: How i went undercover to rescue the world s stolen treasure. New York: Crown Publishing. 86. Wren, C. (1995). Greece to lift embargo against Macedonia if it scraps its flag. New Y ork Times. Retrieved March 17, 2008 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DC113DF937A2575A C0A963958260&scp=2&sq=macedonia+flag&st=nyt.