1

PATTERNS OF FINE ART THEFT IN THE UNITED STATES

A dissertation presented

by

Kate Melody Burmon

to The School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in the field of

Criminology and Justice Policy

Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts

May 2017

2

PATTERNS OF FINE ART THEFT IN THE UNITED STATES

by

Kate Melody Burmon

ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Criminology and Justice Policy

in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University

May 2017

3

ABSTRACT

This research has a three-fold purpose: examine the characteristics of fine art theft in the

United States, extrapolate potentially significant variables leading to stolen art recovery, and

establish a foundational dataset that can be expanded for future studies. Few studies examine fine

art theft and no recent criminological study on the topic has focused on the issue solely within

the United States. As a result, the primary knowledge and insight into this type of crime in this

country derives from the experiences of various law enforcement personnel. While case studies

can prove valuable in some types of analysis and in illustrating particular findings, the assumed

translation of individual experiences to broader patterns generally lacks evidential support. Thus,

this study seeks to fill this gap of knowledge by providing insight into the patterns for this crime

and establishing a basic comparison to other types of theft. In this exploratory study, the first

research question focuses on determining the characteristics of art theft. Due to the necessity of

using a convenience sample, the results cannot be generalized, but the findings do indicate

certain patterns worth exploring in future research. Similarly, this study examined in more depth

the circumstances of the seven cases in which law enforcement recovered the stolen art. A

notable pattern revealed that, in almost all of the cases, public awareness of the theft either

directly or indirectly led to the return of the art. Given the known limitations of obtaining this

initial dataset, a purpose of this study aims to use the process of this data collection to establish

methods and contacts for use in expanding the dataset. Also, the findings inform how the

dimensions and indicators need to be altered for future studies. Overall, this study succeeds in

providing some insight into patterns of fine art theft and stolen art recovery in the United States,

but contributes most in establishing an informed direction for future research.

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the help and support of numerous individuals, I never could have completed this

project. I owe a tremendous thanks to my entire committee: Dr. James Alan Fox, Dr. Gregory

Zimmerman, and Dr. Blythe Bowman Balestrieri. Each of them has provided essential guidance

throughout the process of writing this dissertation, providing insightful suggestions and thorough

constructive criticism.

While I value the scholarly contributions of my committee members, my family provided

so much love and support through all of the years that words really cannot express the depth of

my gratitude. Mom and Dad have always been there for me, encouraging me to pursue my

passions wherever they may lead and allowing me to fully embrace my liberal arts education,

both inside and outside the classroom. They showed me the world and it has been the most

valuable gift I could ever receive. My brother, Andrew, inspires me with his incredible

accomplishments, sense of humor, and unbelievable ability to touch people with his writing. He

motivates me to always reach higher and go further. My sister-in-law, Caroline, always knows

just what I need, from a cup of tea and a sympathetic ear to a kick in the pants to get me back in

gear. My entire family grounds me and reminds me that there is life beyond academia. They

above all seek to support my happiness, whatever direction that takes, and for that, I will be

forever and eternally grateful.

Special thanks are reserved for Dr. Richard Wrangham, a man who has been my mentor

since I was twelve years old and followed him into Kibale Forest to observe chimpanzees in the

wild. That moment, though I did not know it then, changed the course of my life. Richard’s

support has manifested in so many ways, but there is no doubt that he has had an irrevocable

5

influence on my career. However, I most value how he taught me to view the world through the

eyes of an anthropologist.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to the numerous police departments who

contributed their records to this study. Without them, this dissertation would not be possible.

Most especially, Bonnie Magness-Gardner of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Art Crime

Team deserves particular recognition. The personal time she took to help me, from answering

questions to obtaining data, proved instrumental. I really cannot thank her enough for her efforts.

Over the years it has taken to complete my doctoral work, countless friends and

colleagues have lent their support in a variety of ways. Some of these people have continually

been there for me through the highs and lows. Others probably have no idea how influential a

certain conversation was to the development of this dissertation or just how much a night out

meant to me when I felt close to breaking. For many scholars, the dissertation ends up being one

of very few works of sole authorship. However, it should not be interpreted that a dissertation is

written without the help of others. The contributions of my family, friends, and colleagues may

not be seen in the words in these pages, but without their love and support, in whatever capacity,

this work could not exist. For this, I thank them.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION ................................................................................................ 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 4

FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ 9

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ 10

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 11

Purpose of the Present Study ..................................................................................................... 13

Outline of the Present Study ...................................................................................................... 15

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 18

Terminology ............................................................................................................................... 19

Defining Fine Art Theft. ........................................................................................................ 19

Defining what is not fine art theft. ......................................................................................... 22

Significance of Fine Art ............................................................................................................. 26

Symbolic. ............................................................................................................................... 26

Economic. ............................................................................................................................... 29

Fine Art in the United States. ................................................................................................. 32

Public perception. ................................................................................................................... 34

Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 37

LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 40

Criminological Sources .............................................................................................................. 41

Non-Scholarly Sources .............................................................................................................. 46

Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 50

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................. 52

Grounded Theory ....................................................................................................................... 53

7

Situational Crime Prevention and Routine Activities Theory ................................................... 54

Application to Fine Art Theft .................................................................................................... 58

Stolen Art Recovery ................................................................................................................... 64

Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 70

DATA AND METHODS .............................................................................................................. 72

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 72

Data Sources .............................................................................................................................. 72

Population and Sampling Criteria .............................................................................................. 76

Variables and Measures ............................................................................................................. 79

General Information. .............................................................................................................. 80

Suitability of the Target. ........................................................................................................ 80

Guardianship. ......................................................................................................................... 83

Offense Profile. ...................................................................................................................... 84

Recovery Tools. ..................................................................................................................... 86

Analytic Techniques .................................................................................................................. 88

Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 90

FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 92

Univariate Analysis .................................................................................................................... 92

Suitability of the Target. ........................................................................................................ 93

Guardianship. ....................................................................................................................... 101

Offense Profile. .................................................................................................................... 104

Recovery Tools. ................................................................................................................... 108

Bivariate Correlations .............................................................................................................. 112

Suitability of the Target. ...................................................................................................... 112

Guardianship. ....................................................................................................................... 115

Offense Profile. .................................................................................................................... 116

Recovery Tools. ................................................................................................................... 117

Cases with Items Recovered .................................................................................................... 119

Case 1. .................................................................................................................................. 120

8

Case 2. .................................................................................................................................. 120

Case 3. .................................................................................................................................. 122

Case 4. .................................................................................................................................. 122

Case 5. .................................................................................................................................. 123

Case 6. .................................................................................................................................. 124

Case 7. .................................................................................................................................. 124

Correlations with Stolen Art Recovery. ................................................................................... 125

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................... 128

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 129

Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 130

Implication for Future Research .............................................................................................. 131

Expanding the Dataset. ......................................................................................................... 131

Future Focus of Research. .................................................................................................... 134

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................... 138

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 141

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 161

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 162

APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................. 163

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................. 167

9

FIGURES

Figure 1. Distribution by Year of the Number of Art Thefts 74

Figure 2. Distribution of the Current Values of Art Stolen in Thefts 99

10

TABLES

Table 1. List of Target Suitability Variables and Measures 82

Table 2. List of Guardianship Variables and Measures 83

Table 3.

List of Offense Profile Variables and Measures 85

Table 4.

List of Recovery Tools Variables and Measures 87

Table 5.

Characteristics of Suitability of the Target 94

Table 6. Characteristics of Guardianship 102

Table 7.

Characteristics of Offense Profile 105

Table 8. Characteristics of Recovery Tools 108

Table 9. Correlation Matrix of Variables Related to the Suitability of the Target 114

Table 10. Correlation Matrix of Variables Related to Offense Profile 116

Table 11. Correlation Matrix of Variables Related to Recovery Tools 118

Table 12. Fisher’s Exact Test for Stolen Art Recovery and Other Variables 126

11

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The largest unsolved art heist in the United States occurred on the night of St. Patrick’s

Day in 1990 at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, Massachusetts. Two thieves,

posing as policemen, deceived the guards on duty and quickly subdued them. After 81 minutes

of roaming the galleries, the thieves vanished into the night with thirteen works of art totaling an

estimated $500 million in value. For more than twenty-five years, law enforcement officials and

civilians alike have used the scant clues left behind to speculate on the current whereabouts of

the missing works of art.

The potential sexiness of the crime of art theft has its benefits and drawbacks. It often

conjures images associated with such films as The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) – a glamorous

world of gentlemen thieves. In reality, some of the thefts, such as the infamous Isabella Stewart

Gardner heist, read like a film script. However, like other crimes, art theft has severely negative

consequences that resonate on an international scale. In one example, Martin Cahill, a Dublin

crime lord in the 1980s, stole a painting by Vermeer which he used as collateral for money he

planned to use to establish a heroin trade in Dublin. This case involved the movement of art and

currency across multiple international borders and several criminal parties tracked down by law

enforcement in at least three countries (Hart, 2005). Cultural property crime research has

increased among criminologists in recent years, but this research focuses on organized crime

connections, the criminal networking involved in such activities, applications of criminological

theory to art market stakeholders, and other topics related to the art market. Despite the more

recent interest in art crime generally, art theft specifically has not been studied in as much depth

12

from a criminological perspective. Some scholars have attempted to better understand this crime

in foreign locales, such as Australia, Taiwan, China, and Slovenia (Aarons, 2001; Tseng, 2002;

Vučko & Dobovšek, 2010). However, recent studies focusing on this issue in the United States

are lacking. There is no research indicating the extent of the problem of art theft in the United

States nor any research describing what is known about art theft in the United States.1

Many might question the significance of such research. Even though art heists might not

reflect the media-beloved gentlemen thieves, they surely cannot compare to the genocides,

homicides, school shootings, and hate crimes portrayed on the news every night. In many ways,

the theft of art cannot compare to the obscene acts of violence perpetrated by humanity across

the globe. Cultural heritage is ultimately material in nature and comparing a painting to a human

life is impossible. But that is not the argument here. The significance of art to a nation as a

reflection of that culture and its history, passions, prejudices, and social commentary transfigures

the sum role of art to something much greater than the individual pieces. It is this legacy that

must be considered before undermining the value of research into art theft.

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum heist and Martin Cahill’s theft illustrate anecdotal

evidence from individual instances of art theft that have occurred, both domestically and

internationally. These cases suggest a high level of planning and strong connections to organized

crime. Characteristics of other types of property theft suggest that such cases as the Isabella

Stewart Gardner heist prove an exception to the rule. However, no macro-level data from the

1 Some publications cite that the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates six billion dollars of art is stolen per year (Tucker, 2011, p. 613-614; Wylly, 2014, p.1). This statistic used to be presented on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Art Crime Team website. When I inquired about the origins of this statistic, I was informed by Wittman, one of the founding agents of the Art Crime Team, that this number was not based on any formal research, but rather was more of an educated guess. In an email clarifying this point and asking for permission to include this anecdote in this dissertation, Wittman wrote, “Sure, you can tell them I made it up” (personal communication, August 18, 2015).

13

United States exists to give a broad understanding of even the most basic patterns of art theft in

this country, let alone how it is situated on an international scale. There is absolutely no certainty

as to whether thieves most frequently target museums, galleries, or private collections, let alone

in determining more substantial criminological analysis of the planning required, effective

security measures, or best practices for stolen art recovery.

Purpose of the Present Study

The present study aims to establish the basic patterns of fine art thefts, while also taking a

qualitative approach to the cases in which stolen art was recovered, to establish an understanding

of this type of crime in the United States. This dissertation acts as an exploratory study seeking

to determine the characteristics of art theft in the United States. The lack of current data on art

theft in this country results in the additional absence of a broad understanding of this crime.

Achieving a greater comprehension into several possible avenues of research centered on art

theft all derive from this most basic descriptive analysis. The purpose of this angle of research is

to obtain a clearer sense of this issue. Additionally, the data garnered from this study can also be

used to examine stolen art recovery more specifically.

This exploratory study seeks to understand the issue of art theft in the United States, a

topic that has not previously been studied in much depth from a criminological perspective

beyond its theoretical understanding. Thus, the first research question focuses on determining

what factors are important when examining this topic:

R1: What are the characteristics of art thefts in the United States?

14

While this question is admittedly quite broad, the lack of prior research means that there

is no baseline to determine significant, or seemingly significant, variables or combinations of

variables to guide future studies, as specific to art theft. By clarifying these elements, future

research can be more directed. A descriptive analysis of the data allows for a starting point to

guide future research on this topic. Many generalizations have been made regarding property

theft, given the patterns seen in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report

(FBI-UCR) and similar macro level data over the years. Art theft shares some characteristics of

other types of property theft, but in other ways appears singular.

In addition to creating a foundational dataset for use in understanding patterns of fine art

theft in the United States, this dissertation seeks to examine in more depth the cases in which the

stolen art was recovered. Many institutions and individuals have limited security resources. This,

combined with the desire or need to display art in an accessible place, renders thwarting potential

thieves problematic. Focusing on cases of recovery to determine future research into best

practices in this area could result in minimizing the impact of this crime without requiring

resources difficult or impossible to acquire.

Related to this, the importance of cultural heritage and its role in civilizations across the

globe plays a significant part in the attitude of investigators towards stolen art recovery. This is

significant with regard to the investigations of these crimes. Robert Wittman, a former Special

Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, cites a reason for leaving:

I reached a point in the FBI where doing these investigations, you know, I was kind of

stymied by the fact that everything had to be a criminal investigation. Well, a lot of these

investigations, although they are criminal, they are civil as well. So now I'm able to do a

15

lot more cases and I'm working for a number of insurance companies and galleries and

I'm actually out hunting down stolen art, too. (Davies, 2010)

In many cases, the prison sentences for someone caught for a theft or in the possession of stolen

goods is minimal, especially in relation to other crimes (Atwood, 2004). Fine artworks,

individually, are unique goods, which means that there is actually a greater chance of return the

more time passes from the date of the theft in comparison to other products (Amore & Mashberg,

2011). According to Mackenzie & Green (2009), “Strategies of regulation at the demand end of

the chain of supply have been thought potentially capable of achieving a sanitising effect on the

market” (p. 145). When comparing the punishment available to the loss of these works of art, the

history they represent, and their contribution to world culture, efforts may be more effectively

applied in stolen art recovery as opposed to offender apprehension. Unfortunately, at this time,

similar to most other types of property theft, the estimated recovery rate for stolen art remains

quite low. Thus, the second research question of this study seeks to discover:

R2: What variables are significantly correlated to stolen art recovery?

Again, this is a relatively broad question, due to the exploratory nature of this study. Examining

this dataset from the perspective of the variables related to stolen art recovery will provide

insight into the importance of elements of the thefts, as well as methods of recovery.

Outline of the Present Study

The outline for this dissertation adheres to the following structure. This chapter served as

an introduction to the topic of fine art theft and its importance. It also explains the purpose of the

study within this context. Given the interdisciplinary nature of fine art theft in the field of art

16

history and criminology, Chapter Two begins by defining relevant terminology more distinctive

to this topic. It then proceeds to generally discuss the significance of fine art politically,

economically, and culturally. Chapter Two concludes by specifically discussing fine art as a

commodity in the United States, the public perception of art, and why this is important to

understanding fine art theft. Chapter Three covers a review of the pertinent literature.

Criminological sources provide the foundation for this research, but the existing body of

literature remains sparse. This significant gap in the criminological literature requires

supplementation with non-criminological and non-scholarly sources to fully grasp the current

understanding of the breadth of what is known about fine art theft. Given the exploratory nature

of this study, Chapter Four discusses the necessity of using a grounded theory approach for the

theoretical framework. It also describes the influence of both situational crime prevention and

routine activities theory. The framework must primarily derive from inductive reasoning, as there

is no existing understanding of fine art theft with supporting data that could form the basis for a

logical deductive approach. However, the research design draws upon previous theoretical

applications. For example, the choices regarding which variables to include developed from a

basic understanding of crime opportunity theories. This chapter expounds on the logic of the

potential application of routine activities theory and situational crime prevention to fine art theft

to determine important variables to measure and consider. Chapter Four also addresses what is

known regarding the return of stolen art and the challenges faced by investigators in recovering

these objects, especially in comparison to other categories of goods frequently targeted in grand

larcenies. Chapter Five presents the methodology utilized in this study by first describing the

police report data obtained in combination from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Art Crime

Team and their National Stolen Art File database, as well as individual police departments

17

around the country. Further discussion elaborates on the data sources and population and

sampling criteria, as well as details the variables and measures included in the study. Chapter Six

addresses the findings of the research, examining the descriptive results of each variable,

determining correlated variables, and providing a qualitative description of the cases in which

law enforcement recovered the stolen art. Concluding this dissertation, Chapter Seven outlines

the implications of this research, describes the limitations of this study, and provides suggestions

for future directions in the study of fine art theft in the United States.

18

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND

The primary purpose of this chapter is to address the pivotal role of art in society and

why the theft of a work of art represents so much more than just a singular crime, but an

immeasurable loss of cultural heritage. The first step is to define the terminology, as there are no

internationally standardized definitions for much of this vocabulary and understanding these

terms is essential to understanding the contextual significance of this dissertation. Art is one of

the most significant distinguishing factors between cultures. As a result, conquering nations have

used plundering and destroying art as a technique to symbolize their triumphs for thousands of

years. The social context of art and its importance culturally, politically, and economically

situates its significance in studying this topic, as well as demonstrates its social construction and

meaning in the world today. This discussion is essential to this dissertation because it justifies

why this topic should be studied in the first place, why it has not yet been studied, and how this

in turn situates the knowledge of art theft in the United States in the broader context of art theft

within the international scope. Additionally, understanding the social construction of art helps

gain insight into the approach to stolen art recovery, in particular the strong emphasis in the

return of the art over the arrest of the offender(s).

This background begins with defining the relevant terminology. It then moves to

demonstrating the significance of art through the earliest known cases of art theft. The discussion

then moves onto the role of value – both the literal and more figurative means of the construction

of such. This precedes a closer examination of the value of art in the United States, both in

comparison to other countries, as well as how it is shaped through the influence of the media.

19

Lastly, all of this relates to the importance placed on finding stolen art, facilitating its return, and

the methods employed to do so. All of these subsections relate directly to this dissertation, as one

cannot discuss the theft of a particular product – especially one that is so high profile – without

understanding the importance of that product. Why a commodity is valued substantially

influences the motives of thieves and their options after a theft regarding what they do with that

commodity.

Terminology

Several terms used throughout this work require definition here, given their

comparatively sparse usage in the criminological field and/or their wide variability for

conceptual interpretation. This section addresses both art historical and criminological

terminology relevant to this study, specifically what is included, and – importantly – what is not

included as “fine art theft.” At a simple and fundamental level, this term implies the taking of a

work of art by a person or persons to whom it does not belong. However, this broad

conceptualization is of limited use, as a “work of art” could be considered any type of cultural

property and “taking” could indicate a variety of crimes, such as larceny, robbery, burglary,

smuggling, or looting. Thus, further specification is required to operationalize these terms.

Defining Fine Art Theft. Several philosophical treatises have discussed the issue of

defining art, but this lengthy debate need not be recounted here, given that this subjectivity does

not apply to the cases examined in this study. Thus, for the sake of simplicity, the art considered

in this study includes the forms of fine art typically found in an encyclopedic museum of that

typology. To further clarify what constitutes “fine art,” Conklin (1994) uses the International

Foundation for Art Research’s typology, defined as follows: “fine arts, including paintings,

20

photographs, prints, drawings, and sculptures; decorative arts; antiquities; ethnographic objects;

Oriental and Islamic art; and miscellaneous items, such as selective armor, books, coins, and

medals” (p. 3). Technically, the term “art” includes both visual and fine art, with visual art

encompassing a wider scope of aesthetic designation. However, for simplicity, the terms “art”

and “fine art” will be used interchangeably throughout this dissertation to mean the range of

works encompassed in Conklin’s typology.2

Similar to the concept of art, theft can cover a broad range of activities and behaviors. A

widely used legal definition is as such: “Theft is the generic term for all crimes in which a person

intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent

and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale)” (Pasco, 2012, p. 30).

2 This dissertation focuses on fine art theft, but fits more broadly into the criminological literature on cultural property crime. The following discussion seeks to clarify the meaning of the terms “cultural heritage” and “cultural property” which are not frequently used in criminological texts. Tylor (1920) wrote that “culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (p. 1). Since then, numerous anthropologists and international organizations have created increasingly complex definitions of culture heritage and argued for and against a variety of necessary inclusions and exclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation, a general understanding of the concept, as defined by Tylor (1920), is sufficient. Extrapolating from the above, cultural heritage, as defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1989) includes:

the entire corpus of material signs – either artistic or symbolic – handed on by the past to each culture and, therefore, to the whole of humankind. As a constituent part of the affirmation and enrichment of cultural identities, as a legacy belonging to all humankind, the cultural heritage gives each particular place its recognizable features and is the storehouse of human experience. (p. 57)

While cultural heritage and cultural property are terms that are occasionally used interchangeably, they are not synonyms. There is significant overlap and arguably cultural property could be considered a subset of cultural heritage, but the latter embraces an intangible conceptual element logically missing from a definition of cultural property. It is necessary to distinguish these terms from one another in order to best understand them. Specifically, UNESCO (1954) defines cultural property as:

movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above. (p. 8)

Cultural heritage and cultural property are both terms relevant to this dissertation, though encompass more types of art than those included in this study. As their names imply, cultural heritage and cultural property embrace most, if not all, creative aspects of a civilization or society (culture). However, when discussing theft, the likelihood of a building or monument going missing is unlikely. Thus, a more appropriate term for this idea in the context of this dissertation is “art” or “fine art.”

21

While the terms “theft” and “larceny” may be used interchangeably, theft also encompasses the

crimes of embezzlement, robbery, and burglary, which are also included in this study.3

The Federal Bureau of Investigation collects national crime statistics using reports from

police departments in their Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. While embezzlement

usually refers to financial crimes, art falls under the category of “property” in the following

definition: “The unlawful misappropriation or misapplication by an offender to his/her own use

or purpose of money, property, or some other thing of value entrusted to his/her care, custody, or

control” (United States Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010).

3 The definition of theft includes neither the crimes of forgery nor vandalism, though broader discussions of art crime tend to include these terms. To clarify, art forgery involves a work of art created with the intention to deceive the buyer or audience that its attribution is to an artist other than the creator (Dutton, 1993). The key word in this definition is intent. Many introductory art classes encourage budding artists to imitate original pieces, as doing so can aid in the learning of certain artistic techniques, particular details of composition, and the accuracy of anatomical features. A couple of forgers, most notably Ken Perenyi and John Myatt, have even reformed and now use their skills to make a living selling fakes (Cohen, 2012).

The difference is that, while their technique and final product remain unchanged, the intent has. Forgers aim to deceive, creating their works with the intent of passing them off as the original, but people selling fakes candidly admit the unoriginality of the piece (Hatch, 1998, p. 7). As a note, not all forgeries involve a copied work of art. One of the most famous cases of forgery occurred during World War II, when Hans van Meegeren fooled the world into believing that he had discovered a series of new paintings by Vermeer (Dolnick, 2009). Overall, art forgery involves not just copying a previous artist, but the intent of deception, generally for financial gain or as a means of proving an element of artistic talent, though motivations vary. Vandalism of art occurs when a person or group willfully damages or destroys a work of art. The motives and methods of these vandals often combines politics, economics, and culture, but the weight of one over the other determines their ultimate goal and technique (Gamboni, 1997, p. 24). Sometimes the vandalism of art occurs as an act by one person seeking to make a point, as when a nudist activist painted, while naked, a yellow British Pound sign (£) over Rembrandt’s Self Portrait at the Age of 63 in London’s National Gallery to demonstrate the injustice in the illegalization of nudity (Kuntz, 2005). However, sometimes vandalism occurs by groups of people, often motivated by politics and/or religion. One of the first examples of this occurred during the Byzantine Iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th centuries (Gamboni, 1997). More recently, the Islamic State (IS) has damaged and destroyed numerous works of art, as well as entire archaeological sites, as part of their cultural cleansing efforts (Hartmann, 2015). The primary significance of art forgery and vandalism as they relate to art theft is the relationship each of these crimes has to the art market. In the cases of forgery and stolen art, fraudulent paperwork can be used to sell forgeries or stolen works of art on the legitimate art market, which affects the value of art (Alder, Chappell, & Polk, 2011; Chappell & Polk, 2009; Ulph, 2011). Similarly, the destruction of art affects the market (Lavris Makovics, 2009). Please see Significance of Fine Art - Economic for further discussion of the social construction of value of art.

22

The definition of robbery involves, “the taking or attempting to take anything of value

from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence

and/or by putting the victim in fear” (United States Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 2010). In contrast, the United States Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of

Investigation (2011) defined burglary as:

the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. The UCR Program has three

subclassifications for burglary: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and

attempted forcible entry. The UCR definition of ‘structure’ includes apartment, barn,

house trailer or houseboat when used as a permanent dwelling, office, railroad car (but

not automobile), stable, and vessel (i.e. ship).

Thus, the differences between robbery and burglary generally relate to whether or not a structure

or person is present, as well as the possible use of force or fear. Any of these types of cases are

included in this study. Thus, this dissertation combines the above definitions for fine art and theft

to construct the definition of art theft used:

A crime in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes another person’s fine art

property – including paintings, photographs, prints, drawings, and sculptures; decorative

arts; antiquities; ethnographic objects; Oriental and Islamic art; and miscellaneous items,

such as selective armor, books, coins, and medals – without permission or consent and

with the intent to convert it to the taker’s use (including potential sale). (Conklin, 1994;

Pasco, 2012)

Defining what is not fine art theft. While it is essential to define the concepts in this

study, it is equally important to acknowledge what does not fit in its scope. This clarification is

23

necessary because plunder during war and archaeological looting could technically fall under the

definition given above, depending upon the interpretation of the concepts. Thus, it is important to

clarify why these two facets of art theft are not included.

Plunder during war. Given the above definition, art plundered during war qualifies as art

theft. For example, in 2003, the Iraq National Museum suffered massive losses to its collection

during the invasion of Baghdad when three waves of thieves ransacked the galleries (Bogdanos

& Patrick, 2006). Perhaps most famously, during World War II, the Nazis seized upon a long

tradition of cultural exploitation and conspired to systematically accumulate the artistic riches of

countries, institutions, and individuals by means of confiscation and coercion. Initially, Adolf

Hitler primarily intended Austria’s most prized works to fuel the foundation for his

Führermuseum, an ultimately unrealized cultural complex. He later extended his vision to

include the artistic accomplishments of other occupied areas. Herman Göring, a high-ranking

Nazi official, also used the opportunity to amass a substantial illegitimate personal collection.

There are two reasons why this category of art theft is not included in this study. First and

foremost, there has never been this kind of systematic plunder in the United States. These

specific events occurred in the Middle East and Europe, respectively, even though there was

American involvement in the recovery efforts in each case. Also, given the bribes, death threats,

seizure, and other outstanding means used to acquire this art on such a widespread scale and for

the political purposes it represented, the situation can hardly be considered comparable to the

thefts addressed in this study.

However, even in trying to understand background information on the recovery of stolen

art, these cases remain too singular to be of much use. Most significantly, the recovery and

24

restitution of the art seized by the Nazis has primarily resulted from legal issues stemming from

the difficulty of families trying to produce proof of original ownership when all assets and, too

often, lives were taken in its confiscation or the aftermath (Spiegler, 2009). Global diversity in

the implementation of laws and legal approaches regarding cultural property complicates the

process of restitution and repatriation cases (Roodt, 2013). In short, the problems surrounding the

recovery of this type of art and its restitution to its proper owner differ significantly from any of

the cases examined in this study.

Archaeological looting. Archaeological looting specifically refers to “any unscientific

and illegal act of plundering archaeological sites for profit” (Kipfer, 2000, p. 318). In other

words, archaeological looting occurs when unauthorized individuals dig at sites in hopes of

finding items worth selling. Excavating without the proper consent is illegal at most sites, due to

the substantial historical information lost when these sites are disturbed without the precise

documentation and other records kept by archaeologists. Additionally, because most countries

have passed cultural property laws rendering any artifacts not yet discovered as part of the

country’s cultural heritage, and thus under the jurisdiction of the government, their sale is illegal.

In other words, archaeological looting is legally considered theft of antiquities from the country

of origin, which falls under the definition of art theft used in this study. However, there are a few

reasons why patterns of archaeological looting differ from the fine art theft examined in this

study and are thus excluded.

Unlike plunder during war, cases of archaeological looting have occurred (and continue

to occur) in the United States. However, this country ranks fairly low as a source country, since

the only supply of archaeological artifacts derive from Native American sites. Currently, the

Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior recognizes 567 tribal entities (United

25

States Department of Interior – Indian Affairs, 2016). These are living cultures with several laws

protecting their heritage, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,

which requires protection and repatriation of certain objects to these cultures. Additionally, only

a small percentage of types of Native American artifacts generate the same high prices on the art

market as artifacts from some other cultures. Though certain regions of the country do have

issues with looting from these types of archaeological sites, the above reasons contribute to

explain the lower incidence rates of looting in comparison to other source countries.

The most significant difference is that in the cases of archaeological looting, authorities

have no way of knowing what objects were in the ground when it was looted. The scene of the

crime proves of little use, since most looters leave nothing but holes in the ground to prove their

presence. Thus, recovering looted works involves a combination of historical, art historical, and

archaeological information already known about the site, as well as possibly knowing whom

initially looted the art or at least who had the access and knowledge to do so. The looters’

identity is often less helpful than one might believe, as usually looters are locals who have grown

up around or live near the site and are looking to supplement or earn their income, as seen in

examples of cases from Peru, Italy, and Iraq (Atwood, 2004; Farchakh-Bajjaly, 2008; Watson &

Todeschini, 2006). The looters generally sell their finds quickly to networks of shady dealers and

the trails of pots, tapestries, and other artifacts rapidly blur. This is an entirely different set of

behaviors than the cases considered in this study. Many of the variables in this study revolve

around how the thefts occurred, as well as the means and efforts taken in finding the stolen

works. Simply put, archaeological looting is a different type of crime than stealing art from

either a public or private collection. Thus, the way the crime is committed and the methods used

in recovering the stolen art differ too greatly to add to the analysis conducted in this study.

26

Now that the meaning of the term fine art has been clarified for the purposes of this

dissertation, this chapter must address why it matters. Why is studying fine art theft in the United

States important? The United States dominates the global art market and is the largest consumer

of fine art in the world (Forbes, 2016). As a capitalist country, the financial impact of fine art

theft alone serves as a solid argument. However, the United States’ art market does not operate

unilaterally and the value of art is a social construction based on a variety of ambiguous factors.

Thus, in order to understand the significance of fine art theft in the United States, one must first

understand the significance of fine art.

Significance of Fine Art

The significance of fine art can be broken down into two primary categories: symbolic

and economic. Fine art serves as both a symbol and a commodity. In 2015, global sales of fine

art totaled $63.8 billion, with $27.3 billion of those sales transpiring on the United States’ market

(Forbes, 2016). However, the significance of art cannot be solely considered in an economic

context, as its monetary value depends entirely upon the social construction of its political and

cultural value.

Symbolic. The recorded history of stolen art began thousands of years ago, with such

occasions as the Persians plundering Athens in 480BCE (Brodie & Gill, 2003). An infamous

description chronicles Marcus Claudius Marcellus’ defeat of the Syracusans in 212BCE. After

two years of laying siege to the city, Marcellus and his army looted the traditional items of value,

but also returned to Rome with several of the Greek sculptures that had once decorated the city.

This changed the history of Roman art, an effect chronicled by Plutarch:

27

Marcellus, at length recalled by the people of Rome to the immediate war at home, to

illustrate his triumph, and adorn the city, carried away with him a great number of the

most beautiful ornaments of Syracuse. For, before that, Rome neither had, nor had seen,

any of those fine and exquisite rarities; nor was any pleasure taken in graceful and

elegant pieces of workmanship. Stuffed with barbarous arms and spoils stained with

blood, and everywhere crowned with triumphal memorials and trophies, she was no

pleasant or delightful spectacle for the eyes of peaceful or refined spectators; but as

Epaminondas named the fields of Baeotia the stage of Mars; and Xenophon called

Ephesus the workhouse of war; so, in my judgment, may you call Rome, at that time (to

use the words of Pindar), “the precinct of the peaceless Mars.” (Trans. Dryden & Clough,

1992, p. 381)

This act illustrated a tradition frequently used by the Roman Empire and later echoed by

numerous conquering militaries to great effect. Perhaps most notable in more recent times, this

included the systematic amalgamation of notable artworks by Napoleon Bonaparte as he

conquered the continent, followed by Adolf Hitler’s epic plundering of his subjugated territories

less than a century and a half later. This type of demonstration upon defeating an enemy proves

symbolically effective, as, in addition to a show of triumph, the defeated party suffers the

indignity of having their culture amassed by a foreign group. The scale varies, such as in the

cases of the pillaging of Afghanistan’s National Museum in 1988 when Soviet troops left Kabul,

museums in Somalia ransacked during conflict in 1991, the global distribution of Cambodian

antiquities after the Khmer Rouge regime, and the thefts from the Iraq National Museum in 2003

(Brodie, 2003). Most currently, the Islamic State has bulldozed, bombed, and destroyed such

28

globally significant sites as the ancient city of Nimrud, in modern day Iraq, in an effort to prove

the dominance of their political and religious beliefs and effect a cultural cleansing.

Art transcends individuals and crosses cultural and geographical divides. It traverses both

literal and figurative borders. When asked whether art is worth a life, Robert Edsel, one of the

famed Monuments Men of World War II replied:

I think the best answer, though it is an individual answer, that characterizes the view of

the Monuments Men, is that of Deane Keller, a Monuments officer who worked in Italy:

“No work of art is worth the life of a single boy, but risking your life to fight for a cause

is absolutely worth the effort.” The Monuments Men felt across the board that for one

person to run into a burning building to save a da Vinci, no, it's not worth a single loss of

life. But to risk your life for a way of life that includes respect for cultural property, yes,

it is worth the risk. (Pacatte, 2014)

Both this question and its answer get directly to the heart of the matter. The fact that one can

honestly question and expect a serious answer when weighing the recovery of stolen art against

human life implies almost more than any response. Edsel’s reply, though, echoes the sentiment

of those in our country who fight for freedom, who fight for a way of life.

While this dissertation does not use these types of crime as a means of understanding

patterns of art theft in the United States, the point here is that art holds a strong symbolism for a

culture and thus theft of that kind of symbol has an impact, regardless of the historical period or

culture. These examples demonstrate the significance of art throughout time and the

effectiveness of art as a stolen symbol. History establishes the existence of art theft for thousands

of years, a significant trend indicating that it is unlikely to abate. Understanding the

29

contemporary issue of art theft necessitates exploring some of the history of the development of

the crime.

Economic. The above discussion establishes that art serves as a medium for symbolic

political and religious statements, but the reasons as to why it is so valuable are also significant.

Art remains a rather exceptional commodity, given that its constructive parts typically have little

to no monetary value, especially in proportion to its market value. The true value in art lies in its

level of creativity, a measure that can only derive from arbitrary assessments. Understanding

how people define high quality items informs markets, such as the art trade (Yogev, 2009).

Bordieu (1971) wrote of the cultural unconscious, “His most conscious intellectual and artistic

choices are always directed by his own culture and taste, which are themselves interiorizations of

the objective culture of a particular society, age or class” (p. 180). Defining art and assigning it

value depends entirely upon societal constructs. Wolff (1993) argues that contemporary society

places too much emphasis on the individual artist as the sole creator. This idea is echoed by

Anderson (2000) who cites several artists’ recognition of their situation with relation to “social,

economic, and cultural milieus in which they exist” (p. 167).

Other areas of society also influence the concept of art and its value. Laws dealing

specifically with art encourage the perceived notion that these objects maintain a special

significance within society. Rotter (2008) uses the First Amendment, customs definitions, and

copyright to argue that laws significantly determine how society views the value of art and, more

specifically, how it constructs its definition. For example, customs officers and others must

determine the line between fine art versus crafts one could buy at a local market as a souvenir.

30

While Vickery (2006) primarily refers to contemporary art, his point that the attribution

of value cannot be divorced from the work of art itself, arguably applies to all art, especially in

the United States which is a top consumer of art. The status derived from the commodification of

art replaces much of the depth of historical identification with art as seen in many other cultures

from around the world. The price of a work signifies a great deal in the art world, attributing

meaning of its own, even though it stems from the status and reputation of the artist and dealers,

as much as from the quality of the art itself (Velthuis, 2003).

The economics of the art world changed dramatically in the 1960s, as the federal

government, state governments, and private philanthropists established a number of foundations

and endowments promoting and funding the arts (Heilbrun & Gray, 2001). At the same time,

Baumol & Bowen (1966) published the first seminal work dealing the art and economics,

establishing the field as it were. As Conklin (1994) notes, prices for art rose dramatically

beginning in the 1950s, with Pablo Picasso’s works increasing in value by thirty-seven times

between 1951 and 1969 and Marc Chagall’s pieces escalating by fifty times during the same

span.

To place this discussion within the context of art theft, there are three reasons as to why

this evolution of the value of art is significant. First, any commodity with a high level of value is

going to attract thieves. On top of that, creating widespread awareness as to the substantially

increasing value of such a commodity certainly does nothing to act as a deterrent. With auction

prices reported in the newspapers, especially of the more dramatic and expensive sales, the

number of art thefts related to organized crime increased dramatically. It has been speculated that

after 1961, a substantial percentage of art crime may be attributed to links within organized

crime (Charney, Denton, & Kleberg, 2012).

31

Second, the publication of the values of works of art aids thieves. Each time a theft

occurs and the media print a value in the newspaper the following day, the thieves then have the

estimated market value, upon which they may then conduct their own black market dealings.

This is significant because many museums and private collectors keep valuable pieces for

decades and centuries may go by without an item selling publicly. In these cases, experts

determine the estimated auction value based on a number of factors, including such

characteristics as the current popularity of the artist and prices of their other works recently at

sale. This estimated white market value in turn also decides the black market value.

Third, stolen art affects the market. For appraisers and their attorneys, a questionable

provenance affects the marketability of art, so an object up for appraisal with suspect origins

clearly impacts the potential assessment of its value (Kaye & Spiegler, 2004). Museums with

dodgy acquisition policies affect the art market, both with regard to direct purchases and in

accepting gifts and bequests from private collectors with donations of dubious origin (Brodie &

Doole, 2004). Brodie (2003) outlines four elements of the antiquities trade that arguably apply to

the stolen art market generally:

1. The importance of portals for laundering illicit material.

2. Demand is geographically and socially circumscribed.

3. The archaeological resource is limited and not renewable.

4. There will always be a demand for the unique piece. (p. 188)

The portals represent the places where legal approaches to trade allow for easier laundering of

stolen objects and the creation of falsified provenance documentation. The geographic

discrepancy refers to the asymmetry between source and demand countries and the movement in

32

goods that this encourages. Despite online market expansion, 57% of auction sales in 2015

derived from pieces selling for over $1 million (Forbes, 2016). This illustrates the point that the

wealthy dominate the art market. Additionally, those collectors do not view art as

interchangeable pieces, so the exclusive holds its own currency. The only point less relevant to

stolen art is regarding the resource pool, as art can be stolen an unlimited number of times.

Viewing patterns and trends over time in smaller markets known for trade in illicit art, such as

that in Iraqi antiquities, can provide insight into the corruption on the legitimate art market

(Brodie, 2011). This can guide future research on the more general impact of stolen art on the

global art market.

Grasping the intricacies of the social construction of the value of art is an important

element in understanding the wider impact of stolen art. Much of the economic value of art is

determined by its social, cultural, and symbolic significance, which changes depending upon

time and place.

Fine Art in the United States. One cannot perceive of a culture’s idea of art theft until

one explores the meaning of art within that culture. Yogev (2009) discusses the results of his

study, noting, “The centralized macrostructure of the market has several overlapping

implications: first, the process of artistic canonization is revealed to be social in essence. The

dominant place social mechanisms occupy in the evaluation of the artistic products makes the

assessment of quality in the art market based largely upon socially constructed judgments” (p.

530).

In general, people value art for two reasons: its aesthetic appeal and its monetary worth.

Typically, the overall value of art is seen as some kind of intersection of these two, but with the

33

basis of them so intertwined, it becomes a chicken and egg scenario. On the one hand,

widespread appeal to a certain type of art certainly drives the market prices for such objects

higher, but, in return, many care less about the aesthetics and more about using the art in their

collection as a status symbol, a politer means of demonstrating wealth than, say, leaving millions

of dollars lying around when friends visit.

While these two aspects of the value of art remain constantly and inextricably linked,

cultures in general tend to weigh one over the other. Understanding one of these aspects as

inherently more important than the other potentially affects the perpetration of art thefts in that

country. In the United States, the country involved in this study, people tend to comprehend the

communication of wealth more readily than appreciate the artistic significance of a piece.

Contrarily, in a country such as Italy, the people tend to regard their art more as a symbol of

national heritage and view its monetary value as secondary. As always, exceptions abound, but

these seem the prevailing national views for these two countries, not unexpected when dealing

with the dichotomies of a market nation (United States) as opposed to a source country (Italy).

Regardless of which aspect of art’s value on which a country tends to place emphasis, art

is considered valuable and often an element deemed essential in defining a culture. However, the

perception of worth matters in how a country shapes its laws governing the protection of its

artistic treasures. As Folkinshteyn (2007) notes:

On the one hand, some of the nations considered to be producers of such cultural goods

believe that such consumption destroys the original ideas behind these goods and leads to

a loss of national consciousness, and thus these goods deserve legal protection. On the

34

other hand, the consumer nations, the ‘cultural internationalists,’ argue fervently that this

unfettered spread of goods (and ideas) ultimately drives cultural growth (p. 144).

This dichotomy sets the stage for the role of the United States in the global art market, as well as

the role of art in the United States. When approaching research regarding art theft in the United

States, it is important to understand how this country in particular views and values art.

In five of the past six years, the United States has led the global art auction market

(Ehrmann, 2016). It must be emphasized that many collectors do have a connection with their art

and frequently feel certain works in their collection hold a deep personal significance. However,

while the owners of these items no doubt appreciate the beauty and perhaps the rich history of

these objects, the United States in general has a “different perception of arts in society, rooted in

the national core cultural values of democracy and a free market that have been historically

developed in American society” (Grincheva, 2010, p. 170). In other words, for many American

collectors, art serves as a status symbol, as well as a means of displaying one’s wealth, prestige,

taste, class, and sophistication. Demonstrating knowledge of art and having the ability to

purchase the objects most pleasing to one bestows a level of refinement desired by many (Kersel,

2012b).

Public perception. The public perception of art theft in the United States is important to

studying this topic because it illustrates a facet of the larger perception of art in the United States.

The previous discussion primarily focuses on the wealthy individuals and institutions who collect

the art. However, the public’s concept of the importance of art and art theft is also important to

understand. Unlike many other types of crime, a certain romance has become associated with art

theft, a perception heavily influenced by the media. This perception cannot be discounted when

35

discussing art theft in the United States because even the criminals have been influenced. Myles

Connor, an art thief with a significant criminal record, told Thomas Daly, an agent for the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, that “he loved pulling that off, saying ‘It was just like

Hollywood,’” in reference to a theft of a Rembrandt (Carley, 1997, para. 20). He had organized

the heist from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston while in prison in order to acquire a

Rembrandt to use as a bargaining chip to reduce his sentence (Amore & Mashberg, 2011). As

evidenced here, popular culture contributes to the American perception of art crime. Beckett &

Sasson (2004) tracked the increasing depictions of criminals as protagonists after the 1970s,

when the larger studios lost control over the film industry (p. 91). With films such as The

Thomas Crown Affair, Entrapment, and Ocean’s 12, a romantic notion of art crime pervades,

with people believing gentlemen thieves typify the art criminal (Wittman, 2010, p. 15).

In addition to the influence of popular culture, a survey conducted by Pew Research

Center found Americans derive much of their knowledge of current events from the media, with

only 1% of American adults claiming to not receive news from television, online, radio, or print

newspapers (Mitchell, Gottfried, Barthel, & Shearer, 2016). However, the same study found that

the level of trust in local or national news organizations was much more variable (Mitchell,

Gottfried, Barthel, & Shearer, 2016). With regard to the press’ track record reporting on art theft,

it appears that this skepticism is valid.4

Atwood (2007) denounces The New York Times, one of the most widely read newspapers

in the United States, as a publication significantly lacking when it comes to its alleged

investigative reporting of art crime. While he found that the number of column inches devoted to 4 Please note that much of the following discussion generally encompasses several types of art crime due to the studies it references, but the sentiments expressed certainly apply to art theft specifically.

36

art crime in this newspaper exceeds many of its competitors from around the country, it

neglected to provide a balanced view on accusations against institutions, such as the

Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, for illicit transactions used in acquiring some of their

pieces. This makes more sense, if not ethically at least logically, when one considers that the

publisher for The New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger, also holds a position on the board of

trustees at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Instead of presenting both sides of the debate over

items potentially acquired illegally, The New York Times presents only that of the institution with

which it has close ties (Atwood, 2007). Similar irresponsible reporting created a massive public

outcry in April of 2003 with the discovery of the looting of and thefts from the Iraq National

Museum when the Americans invaded Baghdad. Rather than searching out the facts, gross

misreports of the numbers of artifacts stolen, as well as the extent of the damage, not to mention

the neglect of the United States military, had significant repercussions worldwide (Bogdanos,

2006, p. 115). This incident informed the opinion of the American invasion both at home and

abroad, creating a devastating backlash on international relations. In addition to shaping the

public’s perspective on the extent of art theft, media sources can influence the behavior of

collectors and thus the art market. Kersel (2012a) lists examples of popular magazine articles and

press releases of professional organizations encouraging a free-trade approach to antiquities

collecting and consequently fueling the market for illicit artifacts.

As a consumer culture, the United States places a greater pecuniary emphasis on the

value of art than some other cultures, especially ones that have featured one or several artistic

movements in their past that produced artworks highly coveted in all regions of the world. With

a more limited historical record and a foundation is capitalism, this is not surprising.

Additionally, it must be recognized that this is not necessarily a positive or negative attribute, but

37

something that just must be understood in order to gain greater insight into the value of art in the

United States, since this influences art theft. Thieves, fences, and buyers of stolen art in the

United States all have shared cultural experiences that influence them, sometimes only at a

subconscious level, though sometimes more overtly. The media plays a role in shaping the value

of art, as well as in portraying art theft as a crime. Thus, this section aimed to provide the

building blocks for research into art theft in the United States.

Overall, art holds a key place in society. While superfluous in the sense that art is not

required for human survival, it plays an essential role in defining cultures and expressing values

of both the individual artist and the society in general. It often provides a commentary on the

time and place, introducing a key perspective historically, socially, and temporally on the ethos

of a group, culture, or nation. It is easier to dismiss the significance of art theft when viewed in

comparison to the numerous violent crimes committed on a daily basis throughout the world.

However, these thefts represent more than the loss of one painting or sculpture, but in turn what

that loss signifies for the cultural heritage of a nation and the world. The economic value of

various works undoubtedly guides many of the choices thieves make in selecting their targets.

However, the determination of this value lies largely in the social context of the art, often

additionally influenced by the cultural mores of the society.

Chapter Summary

The Constitution of the United States opens with the directive to “establish Justice, insure

domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure

the Blessing of Liberty” (U.S. Const. pmbl.). The document acts to outline the rights of

American citizens and secure the way of life those rights provide. One of the functions of art

38

serves is to act as social commentary and elucidate the social and historical tenor of a nation and

people. Throughout history, the art of a country or an empire or a civilization serves as a

representation, for better or worse at times, of the political, economic, religious, social, and

cultural beliefs of that people. Cultural property extends beyond the borders currently delineated

on world maps. It represents a significant branch of world history and often illustrates much of

what we know of the way of life of civilizations and societies no longer present in today’s world.

Numerous conquerors have understood this power that art holds for peoples they subjugate.

However, with the passage of time and civilizations, the symbolism and importance of the art of

a people only grows, as it becomes more than just the history of that one group, but is also

situated in the history of all people.

This value can be difficult to quantify, both in the short-term and the long-term.

Changing perceptions of beauty, meaning, and status influence the value of art, though its worth

always exceeds – generally to a great degree – the sum component of parts. This nebulous

markup derives from attempting to value originality, risk, ingenuity, creativity, and vision, all

concepts that change over time and across place. Currently, in the United States, art represents

both status and beauty. As with most goods, the more expensive it is, the more luxurious it is

considered. Art functions as a status symbol for many, sometimes primarily so and sometimes

secondarily to the collector’s love of a piece. In addition to solely serving as a means of

demonstrating wealth, art as a commodity also implicitly endows its owners a level of

intellectual standing absent from the implications of owning other expensive products, such as

jewelry or automobiles. It is perhaps this element that aids in the persistence of popular media

representation of the gentleman art thief. Street criminals tend towards the opportunistic theft,

short-term plans, and an unorganized quality that jibe with the symbolism of art as highbrow.

39

Thus, the fictions of Danny Ocean, Thomas Crown, and Dr. No recognize the thieves with the

intellectual capacity to truly appreciate their score. Unfortunately, sometimes the media

representation of the reality of art theft sometimes remains as distorted to its relation of truth as

these imagined scenarios, influencing people’s understanding of the true breadth of this type of

crime.

Regardless of perceptions, both of the value of art and the realities of thefts, the

importance of these works on the larger scale cannot be lost. Police reports and clearance rates

aside, the most significant step towards resolution of each crime committed varies. It can be

when an arrest is made. It can be when an offender is convicted. It can be when the victim feels

peace. It can be when a community heals. In the cases of art theft, it often is when the art is

recovered. Returning these works to their rightful owners and allowing their beauty, significance,

and history to be appreciated by collectors, museum attendees, and the world at large for this

generation and the ones to come, remains the highest priority. This chapter lays out the

importance of art beyond its significance as an economic commodity and situates it in a global

and national context. The next chapter examines the topic of fine art theft specifically and what

we know about it from both criminological and non-criminological sources.

40

CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

Using the definition of fine art theft described in Chapter Two, few criminological studies

have focused on this topic and none have recently addressed it in the United States. Given that

the basis for this exploratory study lies substantially in the fact that little research into art theft

has been conducted, it is unsurprising that the literature to review on this topic remains

significantly limited. There has been growing scholarly attention to the topic of art crime more

generally, but the substantial body of criminological and other scholarly work focuses on

archaeological looting and its ties to organized crime, transnational trafficking networks, and the

art market (Brughmans, Collar, & Coward, 2016; Chappell & Polk, 2011; D’Ippolito, 2014;

Dietzler, 2013; Mackenzie, 2002b; Mackenzie, 2011b; Mackenzie, 2015; Tsirogiannis, 2016). In

part, this extant literature serves to negatively define this study, as the topic of fine art theft was

specifically chosen because other scholars were already focusing on elements of antiquities

trafficking. However, that is the extent of its pertinence to this study.

Rather, the criminological sources examined are those that directly relate to the context of

fine art theft in the United States. Given the lack of scholarly insight into this topic, non-

scholarly sources are also surveyed, as several journalists have capitalized on the marketability

of the topic of art theft and written investigative works on particular cases. This section also

includes case studies written by former law enforcement agents and security experts, as their

practical insight into investigations proves valuable to understanding the progression of cases,

though it must be acknowledged that these are generally only the career highlights that generally

prove more of the exception than the rule.

41

Criminological Sources

Sources in the field of criminology that relate to this dissertation’s topic on art theft in the

United States break down into a number of categories. These include: broad resources,

applications of theory, examinations of the motivations of art thieves, studies conducted on art

theft in foreign countries, studies of art theft in the United States, assessments of art theft

recovery, and analyses of art security. While some of these resources have a more direct

relevance to this topic than others, a study examining an area this specialized benefits from a

complete understanding of the work previously completed, as references, perspective, and more

general information offered can provide key insight into this study.

Several sources discuss art theft at a broad level, often placing it within a larger discourse

on art crime in general. These sources tend not to relate directly to the topic of this dissertation,

but offer insight into a variety of research on art crime overall by compiling the insights of

experts in a variety of related disciplines, such as criminologists, archaeologists, lawyers, art

historians, and cultural heritage specialists (Kila & Balcells, 2014). In discussions of both art

crime and art theft, some apply theoretical concepts, some give a solid background on the

scholarly perspective on the importance of these topics, and others provide other types of insight.

All of these help in understanding the backdrop of where the study of art theft is right now,

directions to take in the future, and why it is important to do so.

Despite being over two decades old, sociologist Conklin’s book Art Crime (1994) still

offers one of the most comprehensive examinations of crimes in the art world. This source

provides an overview of what art crime entails, in addition to exploring art theft and the

distribution of stolen art in more detail and hypothesizing how criminological theory applies to

art theft. Mackenzie (2002) similarly conceives how criminological theory explains trafficking in

42

stolen cultural property and the current difficulties in sanctioning these illegal behaviors. Bazley

(2010) offers an updated approach similar to Conklin’s, outlining various types of art crime in

detail, applying a criminological perspective, and examining a number of specific cases. Mooney

(2002) also presents an overview of art theft, including some potential motives for art thieves.

This theme of motive has been examined by other authors, both from the perspective of

routine activities theory, as well as in the context of the value of art (Mackenzie, 2005; Wylly,

2014). Durney & Proulx (2011) consider motive for art theft, but within a broader discourse.

They also call attention to some of the general misconceptions regarding art crime common in

both scholarly and journalistic sources. Massy (2000) takes a broader approach to offender

motivations and also addresses the movement of the art after its stolen, examining the role of the

fence, and how trafficking in stolen art compares to that of arms and drugs, as well as money

laundering.5 This dissertation does not investigate potential motives of art thieves. However, the

motivation of thieves of any property often relates to what they do with the items once they have

been stolen. This then influences the potential avenues for recovery. Thus, this dissertation uses

these sources discussing motivation as a means to help interpret the results from the data.

The majority of the literature applying criminological theory revolves around the use of

Sykes & Matza’s (1957) neutralization techniques: denial of responsibility, denial of injury,

denial of victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeals to higher loyalty. Mackenzie &

Yates (2016) find the latter of particular note, as they found that “the ideal type of the appeal

presently takes the form ‘it is not wrong because…’ rather than ‘yes I know it is wrong, but…’.

Without apparent guilt or shame to overcome this is not a technique of neutralization, it is

5 Massy (2000) wrote this dissertation in French, a language in which the author claims no proficiency. Thus any error or misrepresentation of the contents of this work is solely the fault of the author.

43

normative and justified illicit collecting in which the law is seen as wrong” (p. 352). The body of

literature applying these neutralization techniques focuses specifically on stakeholders involved

in the antiquities market (Casey, 2015; Mackenzie, 2006; Mackenzie, 2007; Mackenzie, 2011a;

Mackenzie & Green, 2008). However, this kind of justification rhetoric has been used by the

kinds of art thieves addressed in this study, such as Peruggia’s theft of the Mona Lisa in 1911

and Dugdale’s robbery of Russborough House in 1974 (Burmon, 2012).

Any source considering art theft in the United States certainly pertains directly to this

study. While helpful in constructing ideas regarding the patterns that might occur in the data, the

lack of current research limits the usefulness of the information available on this topic. Burnham

conducted the first empirical study on art theft, stemming from her work with the International

Council of Museums regarding the ethics of the acquisition of works of art (Burnham, 1975).

Later, as executive director of the International Foundation for Art Research, she published her

results on a feasibility study for an art theft database (Burnham, 1978). Burnham’s work served

as a foundation for some of the later scholarly publications on art crime, including a brief

overview by DeGraw (1987) of art theft and the connections to organized crime, art security, the

roles of law enforcement, and the problems of attempting to collect data.

In addition to Burnham’s work, some insight into art theft in the United States resulted

from a study in New York City focusing on art thieves targeting galleries and their decision

making process (Ho, 1992; Ho, 1998). Unfortunately, this is the most recent empirical study

focusing on art theft within the United States specifically. However, while patterns in art theft

may present differently in various countries, examining the literature on studies from other

nations proves useful. One of the earliest studies examines the role of the Art and Antiques Unit

of the Metropolitan Police in the United Kingdom, as well as delves into information gathered

44

from interviews with two art thieves (Barelli, 1986). While not necessarily current information,

understanding changes to scholarly perspectives and the general body of knowledge regarding art

theft is important and the interviews especially provide insight into potential avenues for future

research.

A few other studies focus on art theft in a particular region. Aarons (2001) conducted an

exploratory qualitative study using interviews of people involved in Australia’s legitimate art

market to create a model describing the illegitimate art market. Tseng (2002) also examines the

flow of stolen art, focusing on the trade specifically between China and Taiwan, concluding that

the governments need to cooperate in order to cease the increased amount of smuggling of

cultural property. Vučko & Dobovšek (2010) performed a pilot study in Slovenia surveying

judges and the perceived threat of art crime, though the results remain somewhat inconclusive.

Again, these studies neglect to address the topic of this dissertation in any direct way. However,

the approaches to data collection, background information on art theft, and research questions

examined help fill in some of the gaps in the literature and provide some of the context in which

this study fits on an international level.

Given this international nature of art theft and trafficking in cultural property, some

research focuses on the transnational aspect of stolen art. Conley (1994-1995) discusses how the

nature of the art market facilitates the movement of stolen cultural property, the impact of art

theft on various players and institutions within the art world, case law relevant to art theft, and

finally the role of various databases of stolen art. Bernick (1998) examines the complex nature of

state-sponsored art theft, the role of organized crime, the art market, and suggests avenues law

enforcement, institutions, and individuals may employ to help in the prevention and recovery of

stolen art. Even though this study focuses on art theft in the United States, one cannot solely

45

consider this topic at a national level. Thomas (2014) examines the rise in demand for Finnish

design and architecture and the legal framework currently protecting these objects from theft and

export. Art transcends national borders in the nature of its commentary and historical

importance. Individuals and countries constantly vie for works produced elsewhere and the

significantly limited resource escalates prices. The art market has operated globally long before

globalization, but the rise in the flow of goods and ideas has certainly facilitated the growth of

the international art market. Thus, while it is important to study art theft within the United States

and to get a sense of the domestic patterns of this crime, the relationship to the international

playing field must be kept in mind, as well.

The security of art plays a definite role in art theft and a few authors have focused on the

importance of protecting art, as well as pointing out the difficulties institutions and individuals

face due to such restrictions as limited potential investment in systems (Dobovšek, Charney, &

Škrbec, 2010; Kerr, 2012; Mason, 1979). Studies examining the security of art do help construct

an idea of the expectations of the measures that should be taken in this area. Given that this

dissertation seeks in some ways to measure the original security level used to protect the art that

was stolen, understanding the common issues helps develop these in a meaningful way.

Tying into security designed for the prevention of art theft, recovery of stolen art

becomes relevant when these measures fail. Kenyon & Mackenzie (2002) examine the legal

boundaries placed on stolen art recovery and reflect on civil efforts. However, the primary issue

generally discussed in the literature regarding recovery revolves around disputes between

original owners victimized by an art theft and later purchasers of the art. If the latter did so in

good faith, or claims such, this results in a variety of potential ethical and legal quandaries

(Chappell & Hufnagel, 2014; Montagu, 1993-1994; Palmer, 1998). Of more relevance to this

46

study, Durney (2011) examines how previous documentation of ownership, as well as

publicizing the theft, can ultimately factor into a higher recovery rate. The concepts addressed in

this article relate to some of the variables measuring methods of recovery.

Overall, the criminological literature on art theft covers a breadth of issues related to this

topic. The limitations of the work in this field must be noted. Much of the information is not

based on empirical studies and the dated nature of many of these sources weakens their veracity

regarding current patterns in art theft, as well as recent investigative practices. However, the

theoretical discussions provide keen insight into this type of crime, recent studies present

interesting avenues of research, and the work that has been done in the field thus far provides a

substantial foundation for further inquiry.

Obviously, this literature review covers a broad cross-section of sources on art theft,

rather than primarily focusing on just the studies of art theft in the United States and assessments

of art theft recovery, which would be expected for a dissertation with this topic. However, it

must be reiterated here that the availability of scholarly sources and literature on these topics is

just extremely limited. The research proposed in this study fills a rather substantial gap in the

current literature, as many of the sources that do exist date back almost two decades.

Non-Scholarly Sources

Due to the nature of this topic, non-criminological sources must be reviewed, as well.

The contributions from this body of literature lack a scholarly context, as they generally target

the layperson as an audience. However, these sources represent a substantial amount of the

background information currently available on art theft and many of the scholarly works

mentioned above use them as references, as well.

47

Perhaps the most useful material derives from the personal accounts of law enforcement

and criminals. While these sources all add interesting insight into the minds of law enforcement

and criminals and shed light on some of the work being done on the front lines to battle art theft,

readers must also be cautious of extrapolating too much from them. Individual cases and

individual people provide interesting stories and a fascinating look behind the scenes, but these

are still isolated events and personalities. They do not necessarily represent a clear picture of art

theft in the United States or even internationally. Thus, while these references provide a valuable

background to studying art theft, they can also only provide so much insight.

Myles Connor, a notorious art thief primarily working in New England, offers the unique

perspective of an art criminal. While he provides an accounting of several of his crimes, perhaps

his most valuable contribution to studying art theft lies in his discussions regarding his reasons

for doing so (Connor & Siler, 2009). This provides interesting insight into motivations and what

can happen to stolen art depending on the motivation. Thus far, Connor is the only art thief to

recount his memoirs, but several law enforcement personnel have contributed their experiences.

Prior to the official establishment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Art Crime

Team (FBI-ACT), Spiel (2000) justified his handbook on art theft and forgery investigation

saying, “We criminal investigators should take some kind of different approach to art and rare

collectible theft and fraud…These are unique victim and property types about which most of us

know little” (p. vii). His field manual might be outdated with regard to many of the suggested

investigatory techniques, but some of his broader ideas on approaching the topic of art theft

differently than other crimes, even those that seem similar, remain quite relevant.

48

Wittman helped establish the FBI-ACT. After retiring from law enforcement to start his

own company investigating art crime, he released a book detailing some of his experiences and

outlining certain cases (Wittman & Shiffman, 2010). Similarly, Colonel Matthew Bogdanos

details his investigation into the thefts from the Iraq National Museum that occurred during the

United States’ invasion of Baghdad in 2003 (Bogdanos & Patrick, 2006). Both of these books

provide insight into the mindset of law enforcement officials and detail the process of specific

cases. However, both also focus significantly on international art theft and information regarding

some of these cases cannot be revealed due to ongoing investigations or other similar legal

reasons.

Anthony Amore currently serves as the Director of Security at the Isabella Stewart

Gardner Museum, the site of the notorious unsolved heist from March 18, 1990. Unlike Wittman

and Bogdanos, Amore writes less on cases from his own investigative experience and more of an

overview of a number of art thefts, primarily focusing on the artist Rembrandt (Amore &

Mashberg, 2011). In addition to the personal accounts of those involved in the investigation or

commitment of art theft, a number of journalists have written on the topic over the years.

A number of sources chronicling fine art theft fall into the category of investigative

journalism.6 Of these, Houpt (2006) perhaps provides the most comprehensive examination of art

theft, not only discussing individual cases, but also writing about some of the investigators

specializing in art crime, as well as the issue of art theft on a broader scale. In comparison, a less

useful resource, Knelman (2011) offers a brief and not entirely comprehensive “history” of art

theft. Most journalists, though, have elected to describe specific cases. A couple trace the stories 6 Weinberg’s (1996) definition of investigative journalism is: “The reporting, through one’s own initiative and work project, matters of importance to readers, viewers or listeners. In many cases, the subjects of the reporting wish the matters under scrutiny to remain undisclosed” (p. xvi)

49

of a number of high-profile art thefts, primarily from Europe (Dolnick, 2005; McLeave, 1981).

Others have chosen to specifically detail one case study, since many cases have dramatic tales of

both the thefts and the attempts at recovery of the art.

The Isabella Stewart Gardner theft from 1990 currently ranks as the largest unsolved art

heist and speculation, earning international attention and speculation as to where the art may be

(Boser, 2009). Martin Cahill, a notorious Dublin gangster, engineered a theft from Russborough

House in Ireland in 1986, a case linked to the narcotics trade and ultimately Cahill’s

assassination by the Irish Republican Army (Hart, 2005). One crime is partly famous for the

irony. Thieves broke into the Stephan Hahn Gallery and took several works in 1969 on the same

evening the art dealer sat at a meeting with the board of directors of the Art Dealers Association

of America discussing the rising number of art thefts in New York City at that time.

Additionally, the crime was perpetrated by the author’s own family members (Tuccille, 2008).

While it occurred over a century ago, the theft of the Mona Lisa in 1911 demonstrates the lasting

impact such a high-profile crime can have, as well as truths about art theft and recovery that still

hold today (Scotti, 2009).

In addition to these books, numerous newspaper articles cover art thefts from around the

world on a daily basis. While all of these cannot be listed here, some of these provide solid

information on individual thefts. The use of any sources written by journalists must take into

account their lack of criminological training and thus the limitations of these resources.

However, it must be acknowledged that these writers research their work in great depth and can

still offer valuable background information on a topic, such as art theft, that has not been widely

explored in academic circles.

50

Chapter Summary

This literature review provides an overview of both scholarly and non-scholarly sources

related to art theft and stolen art recovery. The criminological texts move from more

comprehensive sources that introduce the idea of art theft and put it in the broader context of fine

art crime generally. Theoretical applications of criminology focus primarily on the motivations

of offenders and the neutralization techniques used by various actors involved in the art market.

Specifically, these sources address the antiquities market, though once archaeological looting has

already occurred, the behavioral patterns of stakeholders are similar to those willing to purchase

any kind of illicit art. In other words, the motives and justifications of actors on the black and

white markets echo each other whether a looted antiquity or stolen art is the commodity for sale.

It is the networks and behaviors leading up to that point that differ and are thus not comparable.

A few sources address art theft within the United States, but take a more focused approach and

are relatively dated. The sources most analogous to this study reflect studies on art theft from

other nations. These are not to be confused with the studies examining transnational trafficking

in stolen art. The literature on art security informs variables related to fine art protection. Lastly,

the criminological source review discusses the body of literature studying stolen art recovery.

The following section addressed the non-scholarly texts, which can be divided into three

primary categories: practitioner accounts, criminal perspectives, and investigative journalism.

The accounts of law enforcement and art security personnel provide a useful backdrop to a study

of art theft, since they work specific cases. While this dissertation aims to understand art theft on

a macro-level, the perspective of investigators and those tasked with securing art on a micro-

level can provide a more considerate view of this issue. Offenders provide another unique

51

viewpoint regarding art theft. These are the individuals creating the underlying patterns of

behavior this dissertation seeks to elucidate. Thus, even though there are few accounts, they

provide valuable insight into the offender’s outlook on these crimes. The final segment of

literature surveyed can be best described as investigative journalism. These sources act similarly

to case studies on art theft, sometimes examining multiple events and sometimes focusing

entirely on the circumstances of one case. In summary, both the criminological sources and non-

scholarly works contribute, albeit in different ways, to the current overall understanding of fine

art theft in the United States.

52

CHAPTER 4

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

One of the primary approaches to criminological study is the testing of existing theories,

albeit in a variety of situations or using a previously unexamined lens through which to study the

idea. However, there are times when the research question develops from another avenue of

interest. In these cases, the lack of information available on art theft in the United States,

combined with an interest in this topic, leads to a project designed to fill in this gap. Sometimes

when this occurs, it makes sense to approach the problem using an existing theory and

postulating how it applies to the issue. In this particular case, though, this was not a logical

approach. It has been continuously reiterated throughout this paper that little information exists

with regard to scholarly research on the topic of art theft in the United States. Thus, attempting to

fit a preconceived theory to a scarcely researched subject risks missing key patterns and

information. While some speculation exists regarding what criminological theories best apply to

art theft (Conklin, 1994; Mackenzie, 2002a; Mackenzie, 2005), testing these ideas without any

prior analysis of statistical data seems imprudent. Thus, this study chooses to primarily use an

inductive grounded theory approach.

While the grounded theory method, to be discussed in more detail below, allows for a

greater flexibility in the approach to the development and analysis of the study, the creation of

this study did not occur in a vacuum. This research is not testing a particular theory, but

situational crime prevention and routine activities theory both served as a basis for thinking

about how to approach these research questions and helped inform some of the variables

53

measured. This section seeks to provide the theoretical framework for this study through the use

of grounded theory, situational crime prevention, and routine activities theory.

Grounded Theory

As an exploratory study, this dissertation uses the fundamental concepts of grounded

theory, or an inductive approach of observation, to determine what theoretical applications

explain the patterns in the data. Because so little is currently known regarding the topic of art

theft in the United States, it is difficult to establish pre-conceived hypotheses, as these would

largely be based on information that may or may not actually be relevant to art theft. Glaser &

Strauss (2012) first described the method of grounded theory in 1967, though it had been used

previously. They emphasized the importance of building of theory based on data. The

sociological answer-improving mindset advocates similar thinking, as “rather than aiming to

discredit or vindicate a ‘theory,’ one aims to construct a more comprehensive, accurate, and

powerful answer to a question” (Lofland, 1993, p. 37-38).

While most criminologists and other scholars use grounded theory in qualitative studies,

it is not limited to this type of application. At its heart, “grounded theory is a general

methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and

analyzed. Theory evolves during actual research, and it does this through continuous interplay

between analysis and data collection” (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, p. 273). That said, the vast

majority of the literature on this methodology involves qualitative data (Charmaz, 2008;

Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 2012; Morse et al., 2009). The fundamental ideology remains

the same between qualitative and quantitative studies, but the literature just becomes less

54

applicable when implementing the ideas practically. There is no reason to believe, however, that

the concepts cannot be used in quantitative studies.

Beginning with a singular theory when one has no real information regarding the topic

being studied potentially results in a focus so narrow that one misses significant theoretical

implications in the data. Some theoretical assumptions could potentially be made regarding art

theft, based on the similarities one might see in other types of high-profile crimes involving

stolen property, such as grand theft auto or bank robberies. However, art theft may also differ in

key ways from these crimes and using them as a basis to guide research when so little is known

risks losing a perspective on the data that might prove valuable for both this study and future

research.

Situational Crime Prevention and Routine Activities Theory

While criminological theory does not primarily serve as the foundation for the research

questions, it does inform some of the variables. Jasper & Young (2007) caution against scholars

writing “as though they were free from any theoretical influence” and, while this study seeks not

to test either situational crime prevention or routine activities theory, these theories certainly

partially informed the design of the study (p. 294). While this dissertation does not use a

theoretical framework in the same manner as many others, a discussion of these two theories

aims to provide an overview of each and their application to this study. It must be noted that the

influence of a pre-conceived theory does not negate the implications for use of grounded theory

as a primary theoretical framework. Rather, it is more a recognition that no work occurs in a

vacuum and, for this particular dissertation, the ideas serving as the basis for situational crime

55

prevention and routine activities theory also serve as an informational background in the

development of this study.

Given that the research question focus on the crime and not the criminal, it is

unsurprising that the applicable theories are offense-based, rather than offender-based. At its

most basic, routine activities theory claims that, in order for a crime to occur, the situation

requires a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardianship. If one of

these three factors is missing, then theoretically, a crime will not transpire (Cohen & Felson,

1979). This theory and the situational crime prevention approach in general seek to eliminate the

suitability of targets and increase capable guardianship, rather than focus on eliminating the

motivation for offenders. While routine activities theory provides a solid place to begin a

discussion of theory and its relative context to art theft, the literature on situational crime

prevention flushes out some of the ideas most relevant to this dissertation.

Clarke (1983) defined situational crime prevention as:

comprising measures (1) directed at highly specific forms of crime (2) that involve the

management, design, or manipulation of the immediate environment in as systematic and

permanent a way as possible (3) so as to reduce the opportunities for crime and increase

its risks as perceived by a wide range of offenders. (p. 225)

Situational crime prevention actually works quite well with a grounded theory approach because

it advocates a similar type of thinking, using an inductive methodology to determine from “the

analysis of the situational conditions that permit or facilitate the commission of the crimes in

question” the next step of “systematic study of possible means of blocking opportunities for

these particular crimes, including analysis of costs” (Clarke, 1995, p. 93). Similarly, while an

56

analysis of the data in this study will provide information on several types of variables, this will

include insight related to situational crime prevention. This dissertation focuses more on

recovery of stolen goods, rather than preventing their theft in the first place. However, answering

the first research question regarding patterns in fine art theft actually speaks more to the

preventative side.

The foundation of the situational crime prevention approach is that one can reduce a

particular type of crime by adjusting various elements of the crime that affect the criminal to

increase the risks and reduce the benefits. Once the risks outweigh the rewards to a great enough

degree, the criminal will be deterred from the target. With the language of risk and reward, this

perspective clearly echoes offender rationale seen in rational choice theory (Kleemans, Soudijn,

& Weenink, 2012). With regard to situational crime prevention techniques, Breetzke & Cohn

(2013) outline five categories of objectives that work towards this aim, including:

(1) Increasing the perceived effort involved in crime commission;

(2) Increasing the perceived risks associated with crime commission;

(3) Reducing the anticipated rewards to be derived from the crime;

(4) Reducing provocations that may encourage crime; and

(5) Removing excuses that facilitate crime. (p. 58-59)

The first of these objectives primarily involves ensuring that committing the crime under

consideration takes significant effort on behalf of the offender. Theoretically, if one increases the

effort to a high enough degree, then the crime no longer appeals as an option to the offender.

Returning to the elements of routine activities theory, the best ways to do this involve making the

57

target less suitable and/or adding guardianship. Certain, particularly physical, elements of a

target cannot change. However, the circumstances surrounding the accessibility of a target can be

manipulated to reduce its attractiveness. Guardianship takes many forms, both informal and

formal, and even small changes can impact the choices an offender makes.

The greatest risk for someone assessing the feasibility and benefits of a crime is generally

the likelihood of being caught, either during the act itself or soon there afterwards. Returning to

the elements of routine activities theory, an offender’s perception of certain punishment likely

revolves most around the level of guardianship surrounding the target. Thus, taking precautions

directed in this area are predicted to be most successful.

The reward an offender anticipates from the crime depends, with most of the benefits

contingent on the target. Thrill, profit, possession, prestige…all of these mirror potential

motivations and represent the various rewards an offender could stand to gain, with multiple

benefits sometimes perceived. Many rewards cannot be impacted by changing the suitability of

the object or increasing guardianship, though targeting such outcomes as the chances of

profitability could do so.

The last two categories – reducing the inducements and eliminating justifications to

commit crime – both revolve around the motivations of the offender and can vary greatly

depending on the individual. Numerous potential reasons exist for committing a crime, even one

as specific as art theft, as previously explored. Thus, this study suggests beginning the battle of

crime prevention and recovering stolen art by focusing on the elements of the target and

guardianship, as outlined in routine activities theory and emphasized in the situational crime

prevention perspective.

58

Application to Fine Art Theft

Conklin (1994) first applied the concepts of routine activities theory to art theft, though

mentioned it only briefly in his book, and Mackenzie (2005) later expanded on some of the ideas.

However, the majority of literature in the field expounds on aspects of the issue of art theft either

specifically or more generally and less on the application of criminological theory to the problem

at hand.

Some points regarding the suitability of fine art as a target have already been addressed,

namely its high value and low risk comparative to other types of goods. Two acronyms, VIVA

and CRAVED, represent sought for qualities in choosing the suitability of a target (Clarke, 1999;

Cohen & Felson, 1979). VIVA denotes value, inertia, visibility, and access, while CRAVED

stands for concealable, removable, available, valuable, enjoyable, and disposable. Obviously,

there is significant overlap between the two, though CRAVED essentially adds elements giving

it an edge over VIVA in describing more precisely and comprehensively the desired

characteristics of a target (Sutton, 2010). In some ways, fine art operates similarly to any other

potential target object. As previously discussed (see Significance of Fine Art - Economic), art’s

market value derives from both the aesthetic appeal and monetary worth. For thieves, the

evaluation of value is both similar and different.

The projected market worth certainly figures into any theft, especially those driven by

profit. However, sentimental value can also play a part as to why a certain piece is targeted over

another, though probably less often and to a lesser degree than the anticipated price tag. Given

the attachment individuals form to specific pieces, in cases of fine art, enjoyment may factor into

59

the value an offender places on a target. This characteristic mostly applies in cases where the

offender plans to keep the object.

The criteria of inertia and removability also reflect similar concepts important to the

attractiveness of a target because an object loses appeal if too heavy or difficult to move quickly,

easily, and without attracting unwanted attention. As an example, consider both Leonardo da

Vinci’s painting Mona Lisa and Michelangelo Buonarroti’s sculpture David. Both of these works

rank as national treasures and remain difficult to accurately assess on the art market given that

the French and Italian governments, respectively, acquired the items in the early 16th century

and neither has ever been up for sale. However, as targets for a thief, David stands at

approximately seventeen feet and weighs a little over 12,000 pounds. In contrast, Mona Lisa,

without her frame, measures approximately 30.5 x 21 inches and weighs about 4.6 pounds,

heavier even than many paintings, given that da Vinci used a Lombardy poplar panel instead of

canvas. Thus, when contemplating which item to steal, obviously the Mona Lisa makes much

more sense. This, combined with the higher monetary value in comparison to drawings, probably

contributes to the higher frequency of stolen paintings than other types of art (Aarons, 2001).

Concealment frequently correlates to inertia and removability, as those items with a

higher degree of the latter tend to also assume the former. This characteristic applies to both the

initial theft, but also the ability to further move the item once it has been taken, without drawing

the attention of the authorities.

Visibility and availability overlap with access in these two acronyms. Visibility refers to

the ability of an offender to view the target. With regard to fine art, obviously museums and

galleries suffer a distinct disadvantage, as one of the primary goals of both these types of

60

institutions is specifically to provide a greater visibility of art to the general public. Availability

and access relate to the “immediate vulnerability of targets to criminals” (Sutton, 2010, p. 674).

The fewer obstacles an offender anticipates encountering, such as locked doors and security

systems, the more attractive the target.

Disposability applies to the ease with which an offender may sell or otherwise transfer an

item. Fencing a stolen work of art proves one of the most difficult barriers to an offender, as

without proper networks in place, finding a person willing to purchase a hot piece drastically

reduces.

To relate CRAVED and VIVA to a more familiar commodity, diamonds exhibit almost

all of these characteristics. This idea was reinforced in a report from the FBI (2003) stating, “Due

to the high value, relatively small size, and concealable nature of diamonds, the trafficking in

diamonds and other precious gems could represent a simple and essentially risk-free means of

transporting assets for any terrorist organization” (p. 15). While not quite as fluid a commodity

as diamonds, fine art generally encompasses the desirable size, value, and marketability sought

in a target, especially if the offender seeks general criteria, as opposed to a very specific work of

art. Mackenzie (2005) discusses the potential use for cognitive mapping theory in such cases and

the fact that the distance travelled by an offender positively correlates to the value of the

property, as otherwise the offender seeks to select a museum or other institution with which they

are familiar (p. 355-356).

Overall, several factors contribute to determine the suitability of a target. While

CRAVED and VIVA characteristics certainly help influence why some works of art might be

targeted over others, as viewed from the perspective of the potential offender, admittedly this

61

approach neglects to address those cases where the target has been previously selected. Unlike

money or many other commodities, where the offender can choose the method of obtaining the

product by seeking certain locations with a higher availability of the item or easier access, the

inherent singularity of artistic works makes such a tactic impossible. Rather, in such

circumstances, certain security measures and other obstacles that would normally reduce the

suitability of the target may not have the desired effect. In these instances, the security must

work to prevent the theft by methods other than just deterrence. Just because a theft will be more

difficult to achieve does not mean that the offender will not still be motivated to attempt it under

the right circumstances, such as when only the one target exists and the potential benefits

outweigh the risks.

Going hand in hand with a discussion of types of security and deterrents for potential

offenders, the lack of capable guardianship is the third element required in order for a crime to

occur, as purported by routine activities theory. Guardianship refers to the level of supervision

over an object, be it either passive or active. The latter indicates whether or not the protections in

place have interactive capabilities with a potential offender. Examples of passive guardianship

include leaving lights or the radio on when out of town to give the illusion that a person currently

inhabits the residence. This type of guardianship lacks the ability to stand up to scrutiny and

neglects the ability to stop an offender if a breach occurs. On the other hand, a security guard

watching a camera feed of a target and making rounds serves as an example of active

guardianship. This level of protection provides the possibility of stopping an offender from

stealing the targeted item, even after the offender penetrates the ring of initial security.

Reynald (2011) expands the concept of active guardianship to include three stages of

protection. Stage one involves occupancy or whether people are visible to a potential offender.

62

The second stage, labeled monitoring, indicates whether those people are actually paying

attention to the space around them and are aware enough to detect something out of the ordinary.

The third stage, intervention, takes into account whether or not the person, after observing

something untoward, would intervene to disrupt the activity (Reynald, 2011, p. 47). While

originally applied to residential areas, this model can be adapted to include any of the institutions

relevant to this study.

The absence of capable guardians is one of the primary difficulties art institutions face.

Museums and gallery spaces find adequate security guards cost prohibitive and churches often

leave their doors open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with little, if any, monitoring

during evening and nighttime hours (Conley, 1994-1995, p. 498-500). Private collectors also too

often neglect guardianship tactics, as few people want to live with security guards and passive

techniques only extend so far when no one is home. This does not even address cases in which

people forget to set the alarm system prior to leaving the property or neglect to repair

malfunctioning equipment in a timely manner. Additionally, even in cases where a person is

present, human fallibility means that no system is completely impervious to a potential offender.

Several more passive security measures, involving less direct human involvement, are

available to help guard fine art. For example, cameras, traceable microchips, laser grids, heat or

pressure sensitive alarms, and triggered locking mechanisms can all help in either the prevention

of a theft – primarily through a deterrent effect – or aid in later recovery if a theft does occur.

However, while some of these security measures can be procured on a limited budget, other

types still remain cost prohibitive.

63

The nature of fine art is such that private collectors, museums, and dealers have no

interest in securing works in protective vaults, which does significantly reduce security options.

Similarly, many art enthusiasts, critics, and artists bemoan the necessity for such works as da

Vinci’s Mona Lisa and Michelangelo’s Pietà to be enclosed behind bulletproof glass (decisions

made after both works of art suffered previous acts of vandalism). While no one really disputes

the need for this type of protection, given the history of such works, at the same time no one

appreciates the manner in which this impacts one’s experience of enjoying and connecting with

the art. Museum officials, especially, are constantly debating the optimal ways in which to care

for the art under their protection, while not detracting from their primary aim of providing the

general public with the ability to experience fine art that would be otherwise unavailable.

Similarly, art galleries must display their wares and make them accessible to the average

consumer in order to sell them.

Thus, when considering the role of guardianship in fine art security, the balance between

the effectiveness of the measures and the resources required to put them into place must be taken

into account. Fine art security frequently operates on reduced budget streams when compared to

other valuables, while also suffering from more difficult conditions in which to design systems

of protection.

Considering the difficulties in reducing the suitability of art as a target and increasing

capable guardianship at a reasonable expense for the majority of museum, galleries, and private

collectors, the likelihood of preventing fine art from being stolen can only be decreased to a

certain degree. Thus, while studying preventative measures remains important, until and unless

circumstances in art security change, it makes sense to focus efforts towards recovering stolen

art, as well.

64

Stolen Art Recovery

Similar to most types of property crimes, the recovery rate in the United States for stolen

art remains quite low, with most approximations generally hovering between ten and fifteen

percent, but with some estimates as low as only one and half percent (Conklin, 1994, p. 6;

Conley, 1994-1995, p. 493; Gerlis & Pes, 2013). Much of this work is done with the help of the

FBI’s Art Crime Team, a group of sixteen special agents who handle art crime cases, though are

not devoted to them full time. In comparison, the Italian Carabinieri have the only police force in

the world with a substantial department dedicated to the recovery of stolen art. With over 350

agents, their recovery rate rests somewhere around thirty percent (Gerlis & Pes, 2013).

In comparison to recovery rates of property theft in general, according to the 2012

Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data, the recovery rate for all property stolen was 20.5% (Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 2012). Motor vehicle recovery ranks the highest at approximately 61%,

in part because cars with LOJACK tracking systems have about a 90% chance of return (Roberts,

2012, p. 445, 447). According to Weisel (2007), in the case of bank robberies, only about 20% of

the money is ever recovered (p. 6). However, banks see a high recuperation of their lost assets in

comparison to other entities suffering similar types of losses, given that the UCR reports only

2.7% of all stolen currency, notes, etc. as regained after a theft (Federal Bureau of Investigation,

2012).

Unfortunately, while stolen art compares to currency and motor vehicles with regard to

its status as a high value target and thus all frequently fall under the crime of grand larceny, in

other respects fine art differs too much to really provide any helpful information on methods of

recovery. For the most part, art is an extremely portable asset. Given the weight and dimensions

65

of currency and other items with a high value, diamonds are probably one of the only other

resources that can compare with such a high level of transportability and value.

While fine art can certainly suffer in conditions where the temperature and humidity vary

greatly or tend to one extreme or the other, in general, its size and weight allow for easy storage

capacity. Paintings are probably the easiest type to conceal, given that they can be rolled, once

the frame is removed. However, many valuable sculptures, figurines, archaeological artifacts,

and other types of art also lack substantial mass or volume, allowing for uncomplicated transport

and easy smuggling.

Adding to the difficulty of recovery, the variation in international laws and agreements

governing cultural property and the return of stolen art prove murky at the best of times (Conley,

1994-1995, p. 494). Few dispute the idea that the works of art stolen from families, museums,

and galleries during World War II by Hitler and other Nazis should be returned when possible.

However, the reality of sorting the provenance and claims from those millions of works of art

still continues in courts across the world today. Given that multiple national and international

laws were put in place specifically to handle these cases, it is little wonder that recovering fine

art, especially once it has been moved abroad presents substantial difficulty in cases when such

specific laws are not in place.

Furthermore, since the art market operates to such an extent on an international scale, the

movement of stolen art across international borders frequently occurs. This situation is often

compounded when someone buys the stolen art in good faith, in other words believing that their

acquisition is legal. Courts must then determine to which party the piece legitimately belongs,

66

according to laws governing the length of time since the theft and the effort put into the

provenance investigation, among several other factors (Montagu, 1993-1994).

The secrecy of the art market also precludes higher rates of recovery (Conley, 1994-1995,

p. 496). Private sellers and buyers often desire to remain unidentified, especially when

particularly valuable pieces are up for auction. Auction houses encourage this type of anonymity

because it allows for the potential to inflate the value of a work by incorporating false bids or

sales for higher prices (Grampp, 1989, p. 142). While the extent of this undoubtedly unethical

practice is unknown, the lack of transparency in these transactions makes such manipulations

possible and there is currently no motivation for stakeholders in the art market to change these

types of practices.

Dealers neglect to improve the situation on the art market and perhaps make it even

worse. In many places, galleries provide prices upon request, rather than listing them, allowing

dealers to inflate prices as desired, depending on the buyer. Moreover, dealers can withhold

information from buyers that can help increase the price on a particular work. For example, if the

buyer is interested in a certain artist, if the dealer suppresses their knowledge of additional works

coming to the market in the immediate future, they can inflate the price of the one piece the

buyer knows is available (Grampp, 1989, p. 138). Thus, this culture of secrecy and unwillingness

to share information surrounding the art market – one advocated by dealers, buyers, and sellers

alike – makes it much more difficult to track stolen art, even when it appears on the legitimate

fine art market.

As seen above, several elements significantly hamper the efforts of investigators

attempting to recover stolen art. However, certain variables can increase the likelihood of return.

67

One of the most common incentives given involves offering a reward for the art taken or any

information leading to its immediate recovery. This practice has led to some controversy

because, in certain instances, it has been postulated that the “rewards” have actually been

ransoms and that payouts by owners or insurance companies only leads to a “flag effect,” where

criminals then target places based on the knowledge that the institution, individual, or insurance

company will likely pay for the return of the art (Amore, 2011, p. 21-22).

However, in general, rewards are postulated to more likely lead to the return of the art

(Durney & Proulx, 2011, p. 121). Despite the disputed semantics regarding reward or ransom in

such controversial situations, in most cases the art was still returned one way or another with the

offer of money on the table. Additionally, with the possibility of a reward, private investigators

feel an incentive to join in the recovery effort, adding to the chances of recovery (Durney &

Proulx, 2011, p. 121).

There are some steps that private collectors, institutions, and gallery owners may take in

advance to ease recovery of art in the case it is ever stolen. Primary among these is ensuring

complete and proper documentation of the piece(s). While the provenance, or history, of a work

now must generally accompany any sale or transfer of ownership, all titleholders should maintain

copies to provide to law enforcement and stolen art databases. Additionally, collectors and

institutions should maintain a file including full color, high-resolution images of each item (from

multiple perspectives for three dimensional objects), as well as the weight, dimensions,

materials, and any other pertinent information. Barelli (1986) noted that frequently law

enforcement lacked such information in theft reports, making recovery much more difficult,

especially if a relatively substantial amount of time passed between leads, a frequent occurrence

when dealing with stolen art (p. 138).

68

Such documentation allows for investigators to have a more precise idea of what they

need to recover and to be able to circulate such images to auction houses, galleries, and other

places where lesser known objects may be put up for sale. With globalization and the easier

movement of art internationally, more detailed descriptions also help various types of customs

agents, many of whom do not have a background in art and thus have more trouble

distinguishing originals from proposed forgeries. While some high profile works, such as da

Vinci’s Mona Lisa or Van Gogh’s Starry Night, have well recorded histories and numerous

reproductions, most artworks lack the recognition of such pieces and circulating documentation

can aid in recovery (Durney, 2011, p. 442).

Conklin (1994) cites four reasons why private collectors and institutions feel reluctance

in reporting and publicizing thefts from their collections (p. 261). First, it could encourage

thieves to smuggle the art abroad or hide it instead of attempting to unload it, which could lead to

a faster recovery. Second, some – primarily private collectors – prefer the extent of their

collection to remain unknown to the general public. Third, the theft could bring attention to

certain security vulnerabilities of the location, prompting further attempts by other thieves to

target the collection. Lastly, by advertising the issues of recovering stolen art, it could educate

thieves in stealing art and the potential rewards from an avenue of profit they might not have

previously considered.

However, while these potential drawbacks could occur in theory, the likelihood that the

detriments outweigh the benefits remains improbable. Reporting allows for law enforcement to

track patterns in thefts, as well as return stolen art to its rightful owners upon the arrest of an

offender (Conklin, 1994, p. 262). Additionally, liaising between police jurisdictions at national

69

and international levels with shared information allows for a higher chance of recovery when

thieves smuggle art across state lines or abroad (Barelli, 1986, p. 137-138).

Not yet utilized to a great extent by law enforcement, some communities and individuals

have successfully used various social media sites, including Twitter and Facebook, to advertise

the theft of artworks, which has aided in information regarding the crime and/or the recovery of

the stolen pieces (Flores, 2014). While more traditional media outlets, such as newspapers,

broadcasts, and radio, have been utilized for years by law enforcement, social media provides a

newer avenue to explore. Some police departments have successfully employed social media to

return other types of stolen property, including bicycles and jewelry, so it seems logical that such

outlets could aid in stolen art recovery efforts, as well (Ioffee, 2014; Weigel, 2014).

In the past couple of decades, a number of government and private agencies have

responded to earlier scholarly recommendations and created stolen art databases for both internal

and public use. Most of these aim to provide a centralized location where law enforcement,

potential buyers, art dealers, and others may search for particular pieces in an effort to discover if

they are listed as stolen and the provide the contact information for the rightful owners.

Unfortunately, each of the current databases in use has certain drawbacks.

The Art Loss Register maintains a for-profit database marketed as the “world’s largest

database of stolen art” (International Art and Antique Loss Register Limited, 2014). However, it

costs $95.00 for a single search or $800.00 for an annual subscription that allows for up to 25

searches, a cost-prohibitive amount for some individuals and agencies. INTERPOL’s database

also tracks stolen art at an international level, but only includes objects reported and registered

by its member countries and uses a system that demonstrates an extreme lack of international

70

communication regarding these types of cases (Durney, 2011, p. 442). Several countries use their

own national databases, created specifically for the use of their own policing forces, such as in

the United States, Italy, and Poland. However, these primarily record art only stolen within that

country and difficulties in inter-agency communication limit the potential uses for these

databases (Conley, 1994-1995, p. 510). While the idea and potential of an international, non-

profit stolen art database exemplifies the ideal, the reality remains that none of the current

options provide such benefits.

Overall, attempting to recover stolen art presents enormous challenges, due to the nature

of the property itself, the lack of national and international resources devoted to the issue, and the

reluctance of those involved in the art world to give up the secrecy that dominates the market.

Despite these obstacles, buyers, sellers, dealers, collectors, and law enforcement may take certain

steps to help in the restitution of their art, both prior to any theft and after such an event.

Chapter Summary

The theoretical framework for the approach to this study involves inductive theory

construction, whereby deduction of the explanations of the patterns in the data occur after

reviewing the findings. While grounded theory derives from a rich anthropological tradition and

a history of qualitative research, it is not restricted to these applications. Rather, the exploratory

nature of this study lends itself better to an inductive approach, given that preconceived notions

of theoretical applications in such a broad study could limit the potential findings.

However, no scholarship occurs in a vacuum and operationalization of the variables for

this study draws heavily upon routine activities theory and situational crime prevention. Similar

to routine activities theory itself, this study assumes the motivation of the offender and focuses

71

more on variables related to the suitability of the target, as well as informal and formal

guardianship. The theory of situational crime prevention more specifically addresses how to

reduce the suitability of the target and the principles of guardianship, as well as introduces

elements related to external motivations for the offender dependent on the situation. In particular,

the works of Felson (1979) and Clarke (1999) prove particularly significant with regard to the

concepts of target suitability in their conceptualizations of the acronyms VIVA and CRAVED.

The last section of this framework addresses stolen art recovery, as this concept is

fundamental to the second research question. Routine activities theory and situational crime

prevention clearly focus on the variables significant to the prevention of crime. However, solely

concentrating on the front end of these crimes is short-sighted, given that many security

measures necessary to secure fine art prove financially or practically difficult or impossible to

implement. Thus, providing more context with regard to potentially similar high value target

crimes and what is understood regarding property theft recovery generally helps inform the more

general framework used to select the measurable variables for stolen art recovery.

72

CHAPTER 5

DATA AND METHODS

Methodology

The current scope of art theft in the United States lacks substantial definition and

understanding, given that no recent quantitative studies have focused on this topic. The

availability of information mostly derives from anecdotes based on the field experiences of law

enforcement officers and theoretical discussions of the issue. The only existing quantitative data

rely on decades old information or are international statistics on art theft. Thus, the first part of

this study takes a descriptive approach in order to better define the nature and patterns of art theft

in the United States. The second part of this study, also exploratory in nature, aims to examine

the cases of stolen art recovery. Given the limited number of case studies available, this involves

analyzing the correlations among variables and examining individual cases in greater depth to

gain insight about possible correlates that might be the focus of future studies. The first section

of this chapter discusses the data sources used in this study, while the section on population and

sampling criteria elaborates on these elements. The third section details the variables and

measures used in this study. Lastly, the fourth section outlines the analytical techniques utilized.

Data Sources

The data used for this study derive from police reports concerning art thefts. The process

of obtaining these police reports proved complicated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Art

Crime Team (FBI-ACT) oversees the National Stolen Art File (NSAF), a database cataloguing

stolen art and summaries of police reports collected from participating police departments around

the country. They also maintain hard copies of all police reports submitted to them. The FBI-

73

ACT was not able to provide access to this entire database, due to privacy concerns, since the

police reports are legally the property of each individual police department. However, the FBI-

ACT was able to release its list of the police departments’ case numbers, as well as the contact

information for each of the associated police departments. The FBI-ACT sent paper files that

were converted to digital form. It was also necessary to clean the records, given that there were

hundreds of entries that had been included multiple times. The final count tallied 573 separate

cases spread between 201 police departments throughout the United States.

Using this information, each police department was contacted to request their records

(see Appendix A for a copy of this letter). For departments unwilling to search for records or in

the cases of misplaced records, the police departments had the option to sign a release form

granting access to their records kept with the FBI-ACT (see Appendix B for a copy of the

release). In accordance with the Institutional Review Board’s requirements, any identifying

victim information was redacted. The lack of identifying victim information (e.g., name, birth

date, etc.) should in no way impact the analysis, as these variables are not expected to be

correlated to art theft or stolen art recovery in any meaningful way.

In total, 86 police departments provided data, contributing a total of 114 reports for

analysis. The dataset includes cases from 29 different states and spans 26 years. Most of the

states were represented by less than 7% of the cases, with only three exceptions: California

(22%, 19.3%), Florida (17%, 14.9%), and Texas (11%, 9.6%). The earliest case in the dataset

dates to 1978 and the latest in 2004 with Figure 1 displaying the distribution over time.

74

Figure 1. Distribution by Year of the Number of Thefts

Of the 114 total cases, 81 derived from records sent directly from the policing agencies

solicited. Several departments signed consent forms to allow the FBI-ACT to release their

records on the departments’ behalf, in total providing an additional 33 records. However, there

are a variety of reasons as to why certain records were not included in the sample. The

departments refusing to participate did so for a few specific reasons. Some states, specifically

Delaware, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania, denied the requests due to state laws requiring a

subpoena before releasing such records. Similarly, two universities refused to send their records

without a subpoena, as they are considered private policing agencies and choose not to release

their records unless required by law. Unfortunately, the records for both New York City and Los

Angeles County could not be obtained. New York City never responded to the written request

nor four phone messages over the course of three months, unfortunately not the only department

for which this occurred. Los Angeles County claimed that the law in California did not require

them to comply and thus refused to do so, an excuse used by a few other departments, as well. It

must be noted that the inability to obtain data from New York City and Los Angeles County

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 N

umbe

r of T

hefts

Year

Number of Thefts Per Year (N=105)

75

certainly impacts this dataset, as they are two of the primary art market hubs in the United States.

Additionally, their police departments are two of the very few that relatively consistently retain a

position for a detective specializing in art related cases. A common reason departments did not

immediately agree to send their records is because several of them had destroyed their records in

compliance with various states’ statutes regarding retention times. In some of these cases,

departments were willing to sign the release or review the records the FBI-ACT could send them.

However, some felt that they could not verify the information in these reports and thus chose not

to participate. An issue with some cases derived from incorrectly provided case numbers in the

initial information provided. In six instances, the cases did not meet the inclusion requirements

of this study. In these instances, there was no way for these cases to meaningfully contribute to

the dataset.

In addition to the case report information from the police departments, the FBI-ACT’s list

also included cases solely handled by the FBI. Because these were FBI files and not police

department records copied by the FBI, they are not subject to the same legal restrictions as the

local police reports. Thus, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was submitted in an

attempt to gain access to the records for these 438 cases. The letter sent explained my research

interests and asked for the records based on the FBI division names and corresponding case

numbers. The reply from the Records Management Division read as follows:

Your request for Art [sic] theft in the United States is not searchable in our indices. For

your information, the FBI Central Records System is not arranged in a manner that

allows for the retrieval of information in the form for which you have requested. Items

76

are indexed according to individual investigatory interests and not ascertain [sic] from

request letter. (Hardy, 2015)

Obtaining these records is certainly an important avenue to pursue to develop a more robust

dataset. However, the process is lengthy. Considering the response from the FBI, the first step in

the process involves working with the Records Management Division to ensure that the

formatting of the next request is correct. With the subsequent resubmission of the FOIA request,

receiving the response, adjusting any information if needed, and the final fulfillment of the

request, this course of action requires a minimum of two years and more likely significantly

longer. Thus, this was considered an unreasonable delay for the purposes of this study.

Population and Sampling Criteria

Theoretically and conceptually speaking, the population for this particular study includes

all art thefts in the United States in which at least one work of fine art valued at or above

$2,000.00 was stolen. However, the reality is that this is a non-representative sample, a subset of

another flawed sample. Given this self-selected sample, it proves impossible to predict whether

or not the findings are generalizable and thus one must assume not. In addition to the dark figure

of unreported art thefts, determining the number of reported thefts remains a challenge, given the

lack of recognition of fine art as a separate type of property crime. Even if this study included

every known case in the FBI-ACT’s system, it would be non-representative of the population of

art thefts in the United States. It would be more accurate than the current study, but still limited

in scope. Thus, it is not possible to draw a random sample of art thefts in the United States.

However, to reiterate, the purpose of this study is exploratory. Its primary aims are two-fold: to

77

provide the foundation on which to build a meaningful, larger dataset, as well as to provide a

preliminary analysis on which to base the direction of future research.

The $2,000.00 minimum threshold ensures the exclusion of crafts or applied arts of the

same medium as the art included in the study, yet that does not qualify as fine art.7 In the same

manner, this also eliminates works by amateur artists. The thefts of the types of items included

above and below this cutoff likely indicate different patterns in art theft and the motives of the

thieves. It must be noted, however, that the limit of $2,000.00 is arbitrary. The FBI established

this threshold in 1979 for inclusion in the NSAF, but no record exists indicating who made this

decision or why this particular minimum was chosen (B. Magness-Gardiner, personal

communication, July 15, 2014). However, it is still in effect today for the NSAF and, for the

reasons cited above, the same minimum value criteria will be used for all cases.8

In addition to the problem of underreporting common in most types of crime, the lack of

distinction between fine art theft and other types of property makes it difficult to determine the

scope of this issue at a national level. While the UCR includes property crimes and breaks these

down by property type, fine art best fits into the miscellaneous category, making it impossible to

7 Delineating the difference between fine art and applied art is difficult because it is essentially subjective. What is meant here is that not all items that would technically be labeled as one of the types of art included in this study should be included in this study. Defining fine art as opposed to craft is a subject for an art historical debate, not a criminological one. Thus, for the purposes of this study, applied arts or crafts are considered objects made by hand that serve a useful function (Zelanski & Fisher, 2002). 8 There is one exception to this. A case dating from 2000 in Lewisville, TX involved a painting stolen from an art exhibit in a mall. The current estimated value is $1,218.47. The case is included in the FBI-ACT’s records and the painting is listed in the NSAF and thus is included in this study.

78

delineate crimes involving the theft of fine art from any other type of property (Federal Bureau

of Investigation, 2012).9

As mentioned previously, the FBI-ACT maintains the NSAF, which compiles the

information on stolen art from police reports on cases involving stolen art. However, the reports

must be sent to the database administrator in order to be included. Some police departments are

unaware that the FBI-ACT even exists and thus never send a report. Sending this information to

the FBI-ACT requires additional time and effort for non-mandated reporting. Thus, even if

police departments are aware of the FBI-ACT’s database, they sometimes elect not to contribute.

Due to this, the FBI-ACT’s database cannot accurately reflect all reported art thefts in the United

States. However, it remains the best way to obtain official data on art theft in the United States at

this time.

The NSAF contains approximately 1,600 entries for different cases. The current NSAF

administrator works to standardize the entries and correct any mistakes, but some issues preclude

several of these entries’ viability for the research. For example, the NSAF still suffers from

inconsistencies, double entries, and other problems common to large databases with multiple

administrators all having several responsibilities over a long period of time. With regard to the

content, not all of the cases fit the criteria of fine art as defined by this study, as well as all other

study parameters.10

9 The UCR uses the following eleven categories for property types: currency, notes, etc.; jewelry and precious metals; clothing and furs; locally stolen motor vehicles; office equipment; televisions, radios, stereos, etc.; firearms; household goods; consumable goods; livestock; and miscellaneous (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012). 10 The NSAF defines an eligible work of art as follows: “The object must be uniquely identifiable and have historical or artistic significance. This includes fine arts, decorative arts, antiquities, Asian art, Islamic art, Native American art, ethnographic objects, archaeological material, textiles, books and manuscripts, clocks and watches, coins, stamps, musical instruments, and scientific instruments” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). Compare this to the International Foundation for Art Research’s typology, as outlined in the terminology section of this

79

The FBI launched the NSAF in 1979 in Quantico, Virginia. While it has some entries

dating back as far as the 1940s, this study uses cases in which the art was stolen on or after

January 1, 1975, for a greater degree of consistency and to ensure a large enough sample size.

The earliest case actually dates from July 28, 1978. From anecdotal evidence supplied by law

enforcement and examples used by scholars to illustrate their points, it does not appear that the

motives and nature of art theft has been significantly altered in this time frame (Durney &

Proulx, 2011; Mackenzie, 2005; Naylor, 2008; Wittman & Shiffman, 2010).

Variables and Measures

There is no singular dependent variable. The information collected in this study can be

divided into five primary categories: general information, suitability of the target, offense profile,

guardianship, and recovery tools. Many of these measures involve substantial reliance on the

theoretical framework of situational crime prevention and routine activities theory. The measures

focusing on the target provide detail on both the location and the art itself. Cohen & Felson

(1979) discussed the importance of value, inertia, visibility, and access (VIVA) and Clarke

(1999) elaborated with his CRAVED acronym (concealment, removability, availability, value,

enjoyability, and disposability). The relevant measures particularly focus on the removability,

availability, value, and access of the stolen item(s). Tables with each of the variables provide

information on the description, means of measure, type of variable, and the scale of

measurement. Further discussion highlights the significance of each of the variables and how

proposal and used to govern the art included in this study: fine arts, including paintings, photographs, prints, drawings, and sculptures; decorative arts; antiquities; ethnographic objects; Oriental and Islamic art; and miscellaneous items, such as selective armor, books, coins, and medals. While most of the types of art overlap, there are a few differences. Part of the reason that this study elects to use the International Foundation for Art Research’s typology is that this is more commonly used and such items as stamps and scientific instruments are less likely to follow the same patterns in theft and recovery as paintings and drawings.

80

each relates to art theft and/or stolen at recovery. Appendix C provides a comprehensive list of

all variables and measures.

General Information. This category gathers two types of information: the name of the

institution from whom the art was stolen and a detailed description of the art. The description of

the art includes such information as the dimensions and weight of the piece(s), the materials used

in its construction, and the date the artist originally created the work. This information will help

direct future research. For example, theory dictates that smaller works of art would be more

attractive to thieves because they would increase in portability (Aarons, 2001). Thus, if the

weight and/or dimensions are known, then analysis could provide insight into the importance of

portability of an object in its attractiveness to thieves.

There is not enough overlap in the sample to determine statistical significance to discover

the patterns within specific institutions. Much of the current information available regarding the

description of the art requires a more substantial understanding of art history than covered in the

scope of this criminological dissertation. However, these analyses could prove insightful for a

more interdisciplinary approach to this data in the future.

Suitability of the Target. The following variables presented in Table 1 relate to the

suitability of the target: the type of day the theft was reported to authorities, the season during

which the report was made, the day of the month the report was made, the year in which the

report was made, the type of day the theft occurred, the season in which the theft occurred, the

day of the month on which the theft occurred, the year in which the theft occurred, the time of

day the theft occurred, the city and state in which the theft occurred, the population of the area in

which the theft occurred, the type of institution victim to the theft, the location from which the

81

art was stolen, the number of items that were stolen, whether or not the art was the sole target of

the theft, the types of art stolen, the name of the artist of the stolen works, the current estimated

value of the stolen art, the accessibility to the art stolen, the visual security at the scene of the

crime, and the auditory security covering the area in which the theft occurred, including if alarms

were disabled and if so, by whom.

Any study examining crimes of theft will also measure many of these common variables.

The descriptive analysis for these variables can provide insight into how art theft compares to

other types of property theft in the United States. Additionally, several variables measure data

unique to art thefts, such as the types of art stolen and the type of institution victimized. These

measures significantly contribute to answering the first research question, as many of the patterns

of art theft revolve around characteristics of the target, as well as guardianship.

82

Table 1. List of Target Suitability Variables and Measures

Variable Name Description Measurement Variable Type

& Scale of Measurement

Type of Day - Report

Day of the week on which the theft was reported

Weekday (Mon-Thurs), Weekend (Fri-Sun)

Categorical Nominal

Season of Report

Season in which the theft was reported

Winter (Dec-Feb), Spring (Mar-May), Summer (Jun-Aug), Fall (Sep-Nov)

Categorical Nominal

Year of Report Year during which the theft was reported YYYY Continuous

Interval Type of Day -

Theft Day of the week on which the theft occurred

Weekday (Mon-Thurs), Weekend (Fri-Sun)

Categorical Nominal

Season of Theft Season in which the theft occurred

Winter (Dec-Feb), Spring (Mar-May), Summer (Jun-Aug), Fall (Sep-Nov)

Categorical Nominal

Year of Theft Year during which the theft occurred YYYY Continuous

Interval

Time of Day Time of day that the theft occurred

Day (0600-1759), Night (1800-0559)

Categorical Nominal

Population How many people live in the city/town in which the theft occurred

Numerical – used census data available for year closest to when theft occurred

Continuous Ratio

Type of Institution

Categorization of person/institution from whom the art was stolen

Business, Gallery, Museum, Private Owner, Religious Institution, University/School

Categorical Nominal

Stolen From Categorization of the location from which the art was stolen

Business, Gallery, Museum, Private Owner, Religious Institution, University/School, In Transit, Outdoors, Storage

Categorical Nominal

Number of Items Stolen

Number of art objects stolen in the theft Numerical Continuous

Ratio

Art Targeted Whether or not the art was the only type of property stolen Yes, No Categorical

Dichotomous

Type(s) of Art What category of art was stolen

Painting, Sculpture, Historical Artifact, Drawing, Other, Multiple Types

Categorical Nominal

Artist Name(s) of the artist whose work was stolen Descriptive Categorical

Nominal

Value Current estimated U.S. dollar amount of all art stolen in the theft

Numerical Continuous Ratio

Ease of Access to Art

How accessible the art is to the thieves

Secured Area, Space Open to the Public, Victim Facilitated

Categorical Nominal

83

Guardianship. The measures of guardianship revolve around the physical presence of a

person during the time of the theft. Table 2 describes the variables in this category.

Table 2. List of Guardianship Variables and Measures

Variable Name Description Means of Measure Variable Type &

Scale of Measurement

Visual Security Use of cameras Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Auditory Security Use of alarms Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Disabled Whether or not the alarms were working at the time of the theft

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Responsible Party If alarms not working, who was responsible Owner, Offender Categorical

Dichotomous

Security Guards Presence of security guards Yes, No Categorical

Dichotomous

Person Present

Indicates whether or not there was any human presence in the area of the theft

Civilian, Guard, No Categorical Nominal

Witnesses Whether or not a person saw the theft take place Yes, No Categorical

Dichotomous

The literature on guardianship and the studies attempting to measure its effectiveness

involve varied definitions of what a guardian is and how guardianship works. Several studies

testing routine activities theory and guardianship measure the latter with target hardening

techniques (Coupe & Blake, 2006; Garofalo & Clark, 1992; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998;

Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2003; Tseloni, Wittebrood, Farrell, & Pease, 2004; Wilcox, Madensen,

& Tillyer, 2007). However, Hollis, Felson, & Welsh (2013) note, “Target-hardening activities do

not increase availability of capable guardians; they merely make it more difficult for the offender

to complete the criminal act. The mechanism through which crime is deterred or prevented is,

therefore, different with respect to the two concepts” (p. 74). In other words, it must be

84

acknowledged that the presence of certain passive security measures, such as cameras and

alarms, could be viewed as a means of providing a level of guardianship or as a means of

reducing the suitability of the target. This study focuses solely on situations in which the crime

already occurred, indicating a failure of capable guardianship and the presence of a suitable

target. However, the logic remains the same for evaluating guardianship as a preventative

measure and explaining how the markers present failed to work as such. Thus, this dissertation’s

measures of visual and auditory security, such as cameras and alarm systems, contribute to the

measure of guardianship.

Offense Profile. Much of the work on routine activities theory focuses on the concepts of

preventing crime, primarily targeting methods to reduce the suitability of a target and increasing

the capable guardianship available (Arnold, Keane, & Baron, 2005; Reynald, 2011; Sherman,

Gartin, & Buerger, 1989). These ideas prove valuable when examining my first research question

regarding the characteristics of art thefts. However, my second research question presumes the

continuation of art theft as a significant problem and the possibility that directing attention to

learning effective techniques of recovery might prove more beneficial, at least at this time. With

this in mind, this study measures two additional concepts revolving around the actions of the

offender(s) during the crime and the investigation. Table 3 outlines all of the relevant variables.

85

Table 3. List of Offense Profile Variables and Measures

Variable Name Description Means of Measure Variable Type &

Scale of Measurement

Number of Offenders

Number of people who participated in the commission of the theft

Numerical Continuous Ratio

Means of Entry

Whether the thieves needed to force entry to a structure to gain access to art

Forced Entry, No Forced Entry

Categorical Dichotomous

Tools Required Whether or not the theft required tools to accomplish

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Destruction to Art Housing

Indicates whether or not the case, pedestal, or frame holding art was damaged in the theft

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Concealment of Evidence

Indicates whether or not the thieves attempted to cover the traces of their presence

Clear Concealment of Evidence, No Concealment of Evidence, No Evidence Found, Unknown

Categorical Nominal

Cleanliness of Scene

Whether or not there was evidence at the crime scene

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Level of Planning

Extent to which the thieves demonstrated forethought in executing the theft

Low, Medium, High Categorical Ordinal

The idea of an offense profile builds on some of the measures regarding the suitability of

the target. The latter specifically focuses on the target itself, in this case the art and where it is

located. However, for this study, the complexity of the theft and the actions taken by the

offender(s) to execute the crime and reduce the effectiveness of target hardening and other means

of protection need examination, as well. This helps determine the points of weakness. More

importantly, combined with other measures, elements of the offense profile, such as whether or

86

not the crime required previous planning, potentially impact recovery. Keeping this in mind, the

variables in this category include: the number of offenders, whether or not the offenders used a

disguise, the type of disguise used, whether or not weapons were used in the course of the theft,

the type of weapons used, the length of time it took to complete the theft, whether or not there

was damage to the housing of the art, whether or not the guards were bound, the type of binding

used, the means of entry into the theft location, the tools required to complete the theft, the

means of exiting the crime scene, if there was any concealment of evidence, and the level of

planning involved.

The level of planning was measured using a 3-point scale, where a 1 (low) was assigned

to cases in which the offender could literally decide at a moment’s notice to take the art targeted

and accomplish the task with no further planning or materials at hand. Cases designated as a 2

(medium) required some forethought, but with only a small amount of preparation the plan could

be implemented. An example would be breaking into a person’s home knowing they are on

vacation for two weeks and left the back door unlocked. There are two elements to this variable:

planning and execution. For a level two, at most only one of these should present difficulty. A

level 3 (high) was assigned to cases presenting a significant challenge, both in planning and

execution.

Recovery Tools. The final category of measures examines items related to the attempts

to recover the stolen art, as presented in Table 4. Obviously, the first variable indicates recovery

of the art. An entry of “no” (coded as 1) indicates that none of the art stolen has been returned to

the owner, nor is it being held for investigative purposes. An answer of “some” (coded as 2) for

cases in which a portion of the art taken is found and returned, but not all of it. A third possibility

87

is an answer of “all” (coded as 3) denotes any cases whereby all of the art stolen is returned. For

the purposes of this study, a case need not be closed, nor does an offender need to be either

identified or arrested, in order for the art to be considered recovered. Rather, recovery implies the

knowledge of the location of at least one of the pieces stolen and its imminent return to the

rightful owners, with any delay caused only by complications of legal channels. This reflects a

much more accurate measure than either case status or an incidence of an offender’s arrest. The

former may occur when too much time passes without a lead and the latter sometimes happens

without the return of any of the art to the owner.

Table 4. List of Recovery Tools Variables and Measures

Variable Name Description Means of Measure Variable Type &

Scale of Measurement

Insurance Indicates whether or not there was insurance coverage for the art stolen

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Documentation Whether or not the owners have evidence proving ownership

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Case Status Indicates whether or not this case is closed or not Inactive, Closed Categorical

Dichotomous

Items Recovered Indicates whether or not any of the art stolen was later recovered

None, Some, All Categorical Nominal

Reward Offered Indicates whether or not a reward was offered to help recover the art

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Arrest of Offender Indicates whether or not the offender was caught and arrested

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Public Knowledge Whether or not the public was alerted Yes, No Categorical

Dichotomous

Use of Media

Whether or not police alerted the media regarding the case to help in recovery efforts

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Law Enforcement What type of law enforcement worked the case

Local, Both (Local and Federal)

Categorical Nominal

88

Investigators, art owners, insurance companies, and the media all impact the potential

recovery of stolen art. Examining the actions of each of these players helps determine the

usefulness of certain techniques, such as offering a reward for the return of stolen art or

information leading to the same result. The variables measured in this category include: the

status of the case, the date the art was recovered, the length of time it took to recover the art,

whether or not a reward was offered, the amount of the reward, the person responsible for

financing the award, whether or not the offender was arrested, the date of the arrest, the length of

time between the theft and arrest, whether or not the arrest occurred prior to recovery, whether or

not the media reported on the case, the level of law enforcement investigating the case, whether

or not the owners had insurance for the works of art stolen, whether or not the insurance

company was involved in the investigation, the method of recovery, if there was documentation

stating ownership, and what type of documentation proved ownership.

The second research question seeks to elucidate the cases in which stolen art was

successfully recovered. Thus, several of the variables relate to the process through which this

occurs. These derive from literature pertaining to the recovery of stolen art and the perception of

strategies that have worked to recover stolen art (Amore, 2011; Barelli, 1986; Durney, 2011;

Durney & Proulx, 2011; Flores, 2014; Ioffee, 2014; Weigel, 2014). This dissertation seeks to

find support in the case studies for these ideas.

Analytic Techniques

The statistical analyses for this study remain rather basic, confined to descriptive

statistics and bivariate associations. Initial exploration of the variables involves univariate

analysis. This provides the preliminary analysis for the first research question, examining the

89

characteristics of art theft. Frequency distributions display the most basic patterns among the

variables and these descriptive statistics serve to summarize the sample. As mentioned

previously, this research question was designed in order to get a broad understanding of art theft

in the United States. In reality, these patterns are not generalizable. However, these patterns will

help clarify which hypothetical postulations from prior research appear most relevant for

continued study.

The bivariate correlations are integral to answering both the first and second research

questions by illustrating the linear relationships between the variables. Given that the majority of

variables are nominal or ordinal, the analysis involves the use of Cramér’s V and interprets the

results using Cohen’s (1988) standards for what is considered small (0.1-0.29), medium (0.3-

0.49), and large (0.50 and above) effect sizes. Given the sample size, a Fisher’s Exact Test was

used to compare stolen art recovery with the other variables, since multiple cells had an expected

frequency fewer than five, violating one of the assumptions of Chi-square measures. While the

results of the correlations provide some insight into the second research question examining

stolen art recovery, the limited number of cases (7) for which the stolen art was recovered

precludes greater depth using statistical analysis. However, more in depth explanations of the

investigations and means of recovery in each individual case provides an alternative method of

discovering a meaningful perspective on stolen art recovery. Qualitative descriptions of each of

these case studies provide a more complete understanding of the successful methods that have

been employed by law enforcement to recover stolen art, as well as other relevant variables that

could prove useful to explore in more detail regarding the return of stolen art.

90

Chapter Summary

The purposes of this study are three-fold: to establish the foundation for a comprehensive

dataset on art theft that can be expanded upon for future analysis, to determine the characteristics

of the currently available data on art thefts in the United States, and to ascertain what variables

most notably contribute to stolen art recovery. The majority of this dissertation focuses on the

latter two elements, discussing at length the findings of the research questions and situating this

study in the broader context of its contribution to the disciplines of criminology and, to a lesser

extent, art history. However, when considering the avenues of potential future research, the

process of collecting the data for this study proves most significant. First and foremost, the

network of people and agencies established, especially with the FBI-ACT, is essential to any

further data collection. Additionally, the scope of this study, especially with regard to its

timeline, was necessarily limited. However, the challenges faced illustrate the best means of

proceeding in future, giving valuable insight into anticipated obstacles, as well as the temporal

and financial resources required to overcome them. These hurdles included the legal boundaries

of information release from the FBI-ACT, the efforts required to submit information requests

from a large body of agencies, the continued follow up necessary to track records from so many

sources, the examination of the reasons for noncompliance with the request, and subsequent

determination of potential alternative avenues for success.

Given the general restrictions of scope by which dissertation research generally complies,

the exploratory nature of this study, and its purpose as a means of providing a groundwork on

which to build a stronger dataset, the limits of its generalizability prove unsurprising. However,

the dataset proves substantial enough for preliminary analysis, with the characteristics of the

sample not displaying extreme biases. The variables in this study divide into four primary

91

categories of analysis: target suitability, guardianship, offense profile, and recovery tools. The

first two of these are generally based on the theoretical framework of routine activities theory

and situational crime prevention, while the latter two provide additional insight into how the

crime occurred and investigative methods that potentially lend in aiding recovery efforts. A fifth

category tracks general information, measures that could be of potential interest in future, but

cannot be of use with a dataset of this size. Rather, the focus of the analysis is based on

descriptive statistics and frequency distributions, bivariate correlations, and qualitative

descriptions to illustrate potential insight into variables key to stolen art recovery.

92

CHAPTER 6

FINDINGS

This chapter presents the results of the descriptive analysis, bivariate correlations, and

qualitative explanations of the cases involving the recovery of stolen art. While this dissertation

seeks to fill the gap in the literature regarding the characteristics of art theft in the United States,

previous research on both property crimes in general and art theft in other countries suggests

certain expectations for the current analysis, some of which is confirmed by the data in this study

and some diverges. First, the univariate analysis follows the categories of variables outlined in

Chapter 5: suitability of the target, guardianship, offense profile, and recovery tools. Second, the

bivariate correlations provide information on the relationships between the variables, considered

both by statistical significance and effect size. Lastly, an examination into each of the seven

cases with stolen art recovered provides insight into the potential significance, albeit not

statistical, of variables essential to recovery.

Univariate Analysis

Prior to understanding any kind of relationships between variables, each must be

considered individually. With minimal exception, the frequency distributions provide the most

insight. In order, this initial analysis of the data examines the variables related to target

suitability, followed by the measures of guardianship, offense profile, and lastly, recovery tools.

The measures not discussed relate to variables of interest in future studies, but the lack the

robustness of this dataset prevents meaningful statistical analysis of any kind.

93

Suitability of the Target. As mentioned in the Variables and Measures section, no

analysis is relevant to the distribution of the years in which the thefts occurred, as this is merely a

reflection of the available data. However, there were 9 cases in which the year of the theft is

unknown and these are briefly worth noting. The missing cases indicate that the theft took place

at any time over a range of years. Most often, these cases involved relatives of a recently

deceased family member finding a work of art missing when inventorying an estate. The

frequency of this occurring should be examined with a more robust dataset with perhaps

additional variables measuring the habits of collectors (e.g. owning multiple homes, number of

art objects valued at over $2,000.00, etc.). These, in combination with such existing variables as

insurance coverage and documentation, could answer questions regarding the importance of

collection practices to theft prevention. As a note, not all of the missing cases were necessarily

this type of case. For example, another possibility is that the victim vacationed over the New

Year and thus could not indicate which year the theft took place.

Table 5 presents the frequencies for each of the variables related to the suitability of the

target: the type of day on which the theft occurred, the season in which the theft occurred, the

type of day on which the theft was reported, the season during which the theft was made, the

time of day the theft occurred, the population of the area in which theft occurred on the date it

occurred, the type of institution from which the art was stolen, what location from which the art

was stolen, the number of items stolen, the type(s) of art targeted in the theft, and the ease of

access to the art.

94

Table 5. Characteristics of Suitability of the Target

Variable Name Frequency Percent

Day of Theft Weekday 24 43.6 Weekend 31 56.4 Total 55 100.0 Missing 59

Total 114 Season of Theft

Winter 32 34.4 Spring 14 15.1 Summer 30 32.3 Fall 17 18.3 Total 93 100.0 Missing 21 Total 114

Day of Report Weekday 55 48.2 Weekend 59 51.8

Total 114 100.0 Season of Report

Winter 32 28.1 Spring 20 17.5 Summer 37 32.1 Fall 22 19.3

Total 114 100.0 Time of Day of Theft

Day 34 53.1 Overnight 30 46.9

Total 64 100.0 Missing 50 Total 114

Population Town 31 27.2 City 55 48.2 Large City 28 24.6

Total 114 100.0

Variable Name Frequency Percent

Type of Institution Business 11 9.6 Gallery 29 25.4 Museum 7 6.1 Private Owner 46 40.4 Religious Institution 10 8.8 University/School 11 9.6

Total 114 100.0

Stolen From Business 11 9.6 Gallery 29 25.4 Museum 7 6.1 Private Owner 39 34.2 Religious Institution 10 8.8 University/School 10 8.8 Other 8 7.0

Total 114 100.0 Number of Items Stolen

1 Item 61 55.5 >1 Item 49 44.5

Total 110 100.0 Missing 4 Total 114

Type(s) of Art Painting 44 38.6 Sculpture 32 28.1 Historical Artifact 12 10.5 Drawing 7 6.1 Other 9 7.9 Multiple 10 8.8

Total 114 100.0 Ease of Access to Art

Secured Area 55 49.5 Space Open to Public 38 34.2 Victim Facilitated 18 16.2

Total 111 100.0 Missing 3 Total 114

95

Only 55 cases included information on the day of the week of the theft, a much lower

sample size than for the data on the season. As mentioned previously, in a few cases victims did

not know the year in which the theft occurred, due to a vacation spanning the new year or estate

inventories by heirs after the original owner passed away. These issues obviously remain for the

weekday variable, though the number of people away on vacation at the time of the theft

increases, especially with regard to private owners with multiple residences. Additionally, it is

common in the art world to adjust opening hours to accommodate convenient public visiting

hours. Museums and other institutions frequently remain open over the weekend and close on

Mondays. Galleries usually still close for two days a week, but sometimes target weekend

customers by opening on Saturday, but closing on Monday, in addition to Sunday. This could

potentially affect the number of cases in which the type of day of the theft is known.

The seasonal distribution shows higher frequencies of theft in winter and summer. Given

that most people take vacations during winter or summer months or change residencies based on

these seasons, this is an unsurprising pattern, given the gaps of available data regarding type of

day, day, month, and year when the theft occurred. As a note, the data included 93 cases, as the

victims could more often pinpoint the month in which a theft occurred, rather than the precise

day, which is expected given that people go on vacation for periods of time longer than a day,

but shorter than a month.

Standing on its own, the data on the date of reporting supply little information for

understanding target suitability. However, it gives some insight into the behavior of the victims.

Given the data derived from the police, this analysis used the full sample size of 114 cases. The

slight increase in reporting on a weekday can be explained in two ways. Some thefts occurred at

businesses generally closed on weekends and thus unaware of a theft occurring until opening

96

Monday morning. Additionally, many people leave town for a weekend and not discover a theft

until returning Monday morning or so late Sunday night that reporting Monday morning makes

little difference and is more convenient.

The analysis for time of day used a total of 64 cases, with 34 occurring during the day

(53.1%) and 30 overnight (46.9%). In 50 of the cases (43.9%), the victim could not identify a 24-

hour period in which the theft occurred. This is unsurprising, given that these cases tended to

involve such cases as wealthy individuals traveling for extended periods of time. The FBI’s UCR

(2016) burglary by location data demonstrates that 28.9% of residential burglaries occur at night,

52.4% occur during the day, and the time of day is unknown in 18.7% of cases. Nonresidential

burglaries transpire more frequently at night (41.9%) than during the day (35.2%), with a similar

percentage of unknown time of day (22.9%). This indicates that thieves target residences during

the day more often than at night and nonresidential targets have a more even distribution

between day and night thefts. This also seems a logical distribution for art thefts, considering that

people are still absent from their homes during the day and nonresidential targets have a more

even division of pros and cons during the day and at night. For example, galleries open to the

public for business during the day provide easy access with relatively low security measures in

place. However, nighttime grants reduced visibility and a lower chance of guardianship in the

form of gallery employees and customers, better for stealth (Blake & Bradley, 1999). Further

analysis for residential versus nonresidential targets in comparison to the time of day is necessary

to discuss these similarities in more depth.

The populations of the areas examined ranged substantially, from a small town of 18

people to an urban center of 13,029,114. The frequency distribution grouped this into areas with

a population of less than 10,000 people, places with populations between 10,000 and 999,999

97

people, and regions with populations above 100,000 people. Given the sample, this can really

only indicate that areas with populations of all sizes experience art theft. However, this is an

important consideration to include in future studies and re-coding the data is suggested to comply

with the Office of Management and Budget’s (2013) delineation of population measurements:

Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Combined Statistical Areas, New

England City and Town Areas, and Combined New England City and Town Areas.11

The variables describing the type of institution and where the art was stolen from overlap

substantially, as is to be expected. All cases were included in both analyses. The results found

that the primary target of art thieves is private owners, followed by galleries. The remaining

types of institutions were targeted fairly evenly, as seen in Table 5. Similarly, private residences

rated as the highest target for art thieves, followed by galleries. The distribution of thefts

between businesses, museums, religious institutions, and universities/schools remained relatively

even, with other thefts – those in transit, from storage areas, or from outdoor spaces – ranking

much lower.

Both Aarons (2001) and Burnham (1978) found that paintings proved to be the most

common type of art targeted and both authors also found that small sculptures and artifacts

proved frequent targets, probably due to their often high value and easy maneuverability. The

data from this study support these findings, with paintings and sculptures representing over half 11 The responsibility of writing the guidelines for the United States Census Bureau’s statistical areas for population measurement fall to the Office of Management and Budget. In the most recent update, they delineate Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Combined Statistical Areas, New England City and Town Areas, and Combined New England City and Town Areas (Office of Management and Budget, 2013). In order to draw any conclusions regarding the population and its relation to occurrences of art theft, especially in relation to other types of property crime, the data must be re-coded in order to reflect the Office of Management and Budget guidelines. Additionally, this must take into account that the guidelines change every year, based on population. This study used the census data for the city at the time the theft occurred, or as close to that date as possible, depending on the census information available. Thus, the re-coding must also take into account the guidelines from the correct year prior to analysis.

98

of the art stolen and paintings surpassing sculpture as a target. Historical artifacts ranked next

with 12 occurrences (10.5%). In ten cases (8.8%), multiple types of art were targeted. In each of

these cases, paintings and/or sculptures were one of the categories of art taken by the thieves.

For the variable measuring the number of items stolen, 4 cases had missing data, bringing

the total sample to 110. Of these, 61 (53.5%) featured only one work of art stolen, 18 (15.8%)

with two, 8 (7.0%) with three, and 6 (5.3%) with four. In 9 cases, 17 or more works of art were

stolen, with high end of the range at 986 pieces. The variable measuring other items stolen

indicates that the art might not have been the target of the theft if other items were taken. Given

that museums and galleries showcase art, it was anticipated that in most cases, art would be the

primary target of the theft, a finding validated by this study. However, this is substantially related

to the type of institution targeted, as almost all of the cases in which other items were stolen

occurred at private residences. In just examining the data of thefts from private residences, 19

(48.7%) targeted art specifically and 20 (51.3%) involved the theft of other items.

According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, “In 2011, the average

dollar loss among the 73% of burglarized households that lost $1 or more was about $2,116”

(United States Department of Justice – Office of Justice Statistics, 2013, 3). Obviously, the value

for the thefts in this study ranks much higher, as dictated by the qualifications for inclusion. The

minimum value stolen was $1,218.47 and the maximum was $1,968,163.04. As a note, the

values were adjusted to account for buying power over time using the United States Inflation

Calculator in order to equalize the data (Coin News Media Group, 2016). In other words, a

painting worth $2,000 when stolen in 1992, would now be considered worth $3,440.53, whereas

if it was stolen in 2004 and valued at $2000 then, it would be considered to be worth $2,555.35.

99

Figure 2. Distribution of the Current Values of Art Stolen in Thefts

Figure 2 demonstrates that the majority of the cases (68.8%) involved art valued at under

$50,000. These prices may seem outstanding in comparison to standard property crimes.

However, fine art is a luxury commodity. According to Zuesse (1998):

Heroin is a commodity-market, where prices depend mainly on the commodity or

merchandise-category – here, ‘the heroin-market'. Fine art is an individual-item market,

where prices depend mainly on the individual artwork itself, even more than on `the fine-

art market'. The offering-price from any prospective buyer in the latter kind of black

market can be expected to take into account the fact that, upon any subsequent resale,

such as an estate-liquidation, the number of bidders will be enormously reduced, and the

likelihood of hot merchandise being discovered and thus valued at zero or even less (e.g.,

prison), will further drive down the resale-price. (p.499-500)

Given this logic, the higher the price for a work of art does not necessarily correlate with a

higher resale value on the black market, as the risk lowers the value too much. To put it another

05

101520253035404550

<$19,999 $20,000-49,999 $50,000-$99,999 >$100,000

Num

berO

fThe

8s

CurrentValue

DistributionofCurrentValues

100

way, stealing a world-famous and priceless work of art known the world over, such as the Mona

Lisa, prevents several avenues of sale. It is not possible to sell without the buyer knowing it to be

stolen. However, works of art worth up to $50,000 do not raise the same red flags on the

legitimate or illegitimate art market. Thus, a safer, easier, and more profitable means of divesting

stolen art involves targeting lower priced works.

The ease of access to the art divided into three categories. “Secured areas” indicate

instances whereby the thief entered a locked facility. In several cases, the space was open to the

public, such as galleries open for business at the time of the theft. The third category, titled

“victim facilitation,” is representative of occurrences in which the victim, unknowingly and/or

negligently, made it easier for the offender to commit the theft. For example, this includes

leaving the house unlocked when going out for the evening. In two cases, female offenders slept

with male victims and stole the art afterwards, while the victim slept. According to Clarke (1980)

and the theory of situational crime prevention,

Separate components of subjective state and thought processes which play a part in the

decision to commit a crime will be influenced by immediate situational variables and by

highly specific features of the individual's history and present life circumstances in ways

that are so varied and countervailing as to render unproductive the notion of a generalised

behavioural disposition to offend. (p. 138)

In other words, the decision to commit crime primarily relies on the immediacy and convenience

of the opportunity, in combination with personal experience of the offender. However, the data

for the cases of art theft suggest otherwise. Entering a secured facility requires, or sleeping with a

target indicates, that most of these targets are not immediately available to view and access.

101

Aarons (2001) found that works by established artists tended to be stolen more frequently

than those by living artists. However, this dataset did not provide enough information on the

artists to analyze, as they were too disparate or the information was missing altogether. The only

consistently represented artist among the thefts was Erté, a Russian commercial artist who lived

in France for much of his life. Specializing in an Art Deco style, Erté worked with the fashion

magazine Harper’s Bazaar for over two decades (Blum, 1976). A prolific artist, his art generally

retails between $1,150 and $50,000, depending on the medium and whether the work is part of a

limited edition set or is an original piece (Doubletake Gallery, 2016). He focused much of his life

on fashion and stage design, only turning to lithographs, serigraphs, and sculpture later in his

career (see Appendix D for examples of his artwork). As a result, he contributed more to the art

world through his aesthetic appeal to the masses than in the social and political commentary and

artistic revolutions for which more famous artists are known. Due to the relatively low prices his

work commands on the art market, Erté’s art fits within the parameters outlined in the previous

discussion of ideal value for resale. The repetitive style of his work and multiple editions (even if

limited in number) enhance the capability to resell these works on the black market, or even the

legitimate market, assuming for the provision of additional forged paperwork.

Guardianship. Overall, the indicators of guardianship illustrate the lack of general

security of fine art in the United States. The general purpose of museums, one often incorporated

into their mission statements, involves the exhibition and curation of fine art in order to provide

the public with opportunities for aesthetic appreciation and education (Arinze, 1999). Galleries

must allow customers access to the items for potential sale. Private collectors seek to display

their works for a number of reasons: personal aesthetic tastes, a passion for their collection,

demonstrating validation of their social status, and others. In short, art is intended to be shown.

102

However, there is a balancing act to displaying a piece to its most advantage without

compromising basics security measures. Additionally, the financial requirements for securing art

are often cost prohibitive. Table 6 illustrates that many individuals and institutions showing fine

art choose the art over safekeeping and neglect to implement effective security systems.

Table 6. Characteristics of Guardianship

Variable Name Frequency Percent

Visual Security No 113 99.1 Yes 1 0.9

Total 114 100.0 Auditory Security

No 97 85.1 Yes 17 14.9

Total 114 100.0 Auditory Security Disabled

No 9 52.9 Yes 8 47.1

Total 17 100.0 Missing 97 Total 114

Responsible Party Owner 6 75.0 Offender 2 25.0

Total 8 100.0 Missing 106 Total 114

Security Guards No 108 94.7 Yes 6 5.3

Total 114 100.0 Person Present

No 88 77.2 Civilian 24 21.1 Guard 2 1.8

Total 114 100.0

Witness Present No 101 88.6 Yes 13 11.4

Total 114 100.0

103

The visual security measure does not provide much information, as only one case

involved a business with camera security. The police reported that one camera watched the area

near the work of art, but did not provide a direct line of sight to the sculpture. Although it

worked at the time of the theft, the thief avoided it. Of the 114 occurrences, 17 (14.9%)

institutions used auditory security measures. However, in just under half of these, the alarm was

disabled. Of this percent, the victim was responsible for the disabling of the alarm 75% (6) of the

time, with the offender only dismantling it 25% (2) of the time. Sometimes the victim forgot to

turn the alarm on when leaving the premises and other times they knew it was malfunctioning,

but neglected to get the system repaired in a timely manner.

Physical security includes the use of guards at the facility holding the art. Only 5.3% (6)

of the institutions employed this type of security. In each of these cases, only one security guard

monitored the area where the art was stored and in each case, it was a large building or space,

such as a mall or a university campus. In 26 (22.9%) instances, either a civilian or a guard was

present in the vicinity, though were not necessarily witnesses to the crime occurring. This

measure really indicated whether or not the thief sought to operate by stealth or anticipated the

presence of people. In contrast, only 13 (11.4%) cases involved witnesses.

In two cases, the owners of the institutions heard the offenders on the premises and called

the police. In one of these cases and two others, a neighbor witnessed the offender’s car driving

away. Two galleries suffered the same scam, whereby one offender distracted the gallery

employee by asking about specific pieces while the other offender took another work of art off

display and walked out the front door. In five cases, the witnesses were unsure of their own

accounts, having been present at the time of the theft in an art gallery setting and having

suspicions regarding which customer(s) stole the art, but not actually witnessing the crime. The

104

last two cases involved prostitutes sleeping with a man and then stealing the art while he was

sleeping and leaving in the middle of the night. While the witness information proves interesting

anecdotally and could provide future avenues to pursue with regard to research, the sample size

is too small to say anything meaningful regarding the number of witnesses or their credibility in

recounting the event. However, the anecdotal evidence suggests that this study supports the

common finding that witnesses often prove unreliable both in remembering the event and in

giving testimony (Lezak, 1973).

Offense Profile. The variables measured for the offense profile combine elements

common to all types of property theft and those unique to art thefts. Table 7 illustrates frequency

distributions for the following variables: the number of offenders, the means of entry used by

offenders to gain access to the art, whether or not tools were required at any point during the

commission of the theft (generally either for access to the premises or the housing), whether the

offender damaged the housing of the art, concealment of evidence at the scene of the crime, the

cleanliness of the scene of the crime, and the general level of planning required by the offender

in order to execute such a theft.

In the 36 cases with information on the number of offenders, 77.8% involved only one

offender and 22.2% (8) of cases two people committed the offense. While nothing definitive can

be known about the missing cases, the high number in which only one work of art was taken

suggests that the majority likely involve one offender. Similarly, as discussed previously, several

of the victims had trouble narrowing down the date of the theft, so unsurprisingly, the length of

time of the theft proved impossible to know in all but 16 (14.0%) cases. In each of these, the

theft took under five minutes. While none of the other police reports narrowed down the length

105

of time of the theft, several of the circumstances surrounding the nature of the execution suggest

that the majority would take less than 15 minutes to execute in full.

Table 7. Characteristics of Offense Profile

Variable Name Frequency Percent

Number of Offenders One 28 77.8 Two 8 22.2

Total 36 100.0 Missing 78 Total 114

Means of Entry Forced Entry 38 35.5 No Forced Entry 69 64.5

Total 107 100.0 Missing 7 Total 114

Tools Required No 76 67.3 Yes 37 32.7

Total 113 100.0 Missing 1 Total 114

Destruction to Art Housing No 102 89.5 Yes 12 10.5

Total 114 100.0 Concealment of Evidence

Clear Concealment 9 8.2 No Concealment 41 37.3 No Evidence Found 60 54.5

Total 110 100.0 Missing 4 Total 114

Cleanliness of the Scene No 38 35.2 Yes 70 64.8

Total 108 100.0 Missing 6 Total 114

Level of Planning Low 46 41.8 Medium 61 55.5 High 3 2.7

Total 110 100.0 Missing 4 Total 114

106

In most of the cases, the offender(s) needed no force to enter the building or other area

housing the art. This fits with the findings of Felson & Clarke (1998), in which, “Crime

opportunities are concentrated in time and space. Dramatic differences are found from one

address to another, even within a high crime area. Crime shifts greatly by hour of day and day of

the week, reflecting the opportunities to carry it out” (p. v). Offenders seek the path of least

resistance the majority of the time, so unlocked venues or outdoor spaces provide a more ideal

environment for opportunistic theft. Related to forced vs. unforced entry, the requirement of

additional tools for a theft mirrors the findings above, with only slight differences. The

offender(s) needed tools to complete the theft in 37 (32.5%) cases, with no additional tools

compulsory to the execution of the crime in 76 (67.3%) cases. In some cases, the tools were less

integral in gaining access to the facility and more crucial in dismantling or destroying the casing

for the art. Of the 12 (10.5%) instances in which the housing was damaged, the offender(s)

disassembled the frame or cut a painting out of its frame in 9 (75%) and broke a sculpture from

its pedestal in 3 (25%).

Examining the offense profile can indicate important information regarding the

offender(s), as “crimes are generally reflections of the criminals who commit them, and we must

identify the offense-offender link in order to create a profile…Despite the popular opinion that

burglary is often committed in a standard way, there seems to be sufficient variation in the way

burglary is committed to differentiate multiple styles of the offense” (Fox, Farrington, Chitwood,

& Janes, 2013, p. 2). Thus, determining if the offender(s) displayed a level of organization

through the concealment of evidence proves interesting for further analysis. In this study, 110

reports provided information on this variable, with 9 (7.9%) demonstrating clear concealment of

evidence, such as cleaning with bleach, 41 (37.3%) displaying no effort to clean the scene of the

107

crime, and 60 (54.5%) crime scenes with no evidence. The latter could indicate that the

offender(s) cleaned particularly well, leaving no trace, or the performance of the theft left no

trace evidence behind.

Several of these variables address a level of planning or lack thereof required of an

offender in order to carry out a theft successfully. The average offender may take advantage of

opportunity more often than plan intricate heists (Felson & Clarke, 1998). However, a number of

case studies indicate that some art thefts indeed require significant planning and precise

execution (Amore & Mashberg, 2011; Wittman & Schiffman, 2010). Thus, it is important to gain

an understanding of the frequency with which these types of cases occur. Only 3 (2.7%) cases

qualified as a level 3, representing a substantial challenge in both preparation and

implementation. The first involved a personal residence from which over 40 Native American

artifacts were taken. These were not insignificant in size, necessitating a truck to fit them all. The

second case occurred at a penthouse suite of a high-rise building only accessible by private

elevator and with security in the lobby. Someone managed to steal a sculpture out of the front

entranceway. The third case classified as a level 3 entailed the offender(s) cutting the glass out of

rear French doors, which set off an alarm system. Despite the police arriving within five minutes,

the offender(s) managed to escape with a number of works of art and textiles without any of the

responders seeing a person or vehicle in the area upon arrival.

As a note, none of the cases generated information on the measures of three variables.

This study included variables measuring if an offender wore a disguise, if weapons were used

(and what they were), as well as whether the offender bound the guards on scene. Not a single

case in this dataset included a scenario in which any of these occurred. They are important

108

variables to keep when expanding the dataset, as such tactics are distinctive and could prove

significant in examining stolen art recovery or similar modus operandi.

Recovery Tools. Unfortunately, this section of analysis provides minimal definitive

insight into the importance of variables related to stolen art recovery, due to the low number of

items ultimately returned. Table 8 shows the frequency distributions for the variables related to

recovery.

Table 8. Characteristics of Recovery Tools

Variable Name Frequency Percent Insurance

Yes 23 51.1 No 22 48.9

Total 45 100.0 Missing 69 Total 114

Documentation No 11 13.1 Yes 73 86.9

Total 84 100.0 Missing 30 Total 114

Case Status Inactive 108 94.7 Closed 6 5.3

Total 114 100.0 Items Recovered

None 107 93.9 Some 4 3.5 All 3 2.6

Total 114 100.0 Public Knowledge

No 100 87.7 Yes 14 12.3

Total 114 100.0 Use of Media

No 99 86.8 Yes 15 13.2

Total 114 100.0 Law Enforcement

Local 110 96.5 Both 4 3.5

Total 114 100.0

109

While the primary purpose of this category of variables lies in how they inform stolen art

recovery, each of these variables should be considered individually, as well, for unanticipated

patterns and potential avenues for future research. Most estimates for recovery rates are quite

low. Conley (1994-1995) speculates that 10-15% of art is recovered, but neglects to explain how

this statistic was obtained. Similarly, Gerlis & Pes (2013) cite an unnamed “expert” who guessed

as low as a 1.5% recovery rate. While these estimates might drive home the point that the

potential of recovery is quite low, they do not appear to be based on substantiated statistics.

Regardless, these articles both address stolen art on an international scale, so assumptions cannot

be made with regard to recovery in the United States specifically. Out of the 114 cases examined,

authorities recovered some or all of the stolen art in seven of the cases, a rate of 6.1%.

Part of the value of fine art rests in its provenance or history. Most collectors of fine art

and arguably all galleries and museums know this and thus keep meticulous records of their

purchases and dealings. This study found that, of the 84 cases where it was noted in the police

report, 86.9% (73) of the victims maintained a record proving their ownership of the piece,

though 13.1% (11) did not. The documentations types ranged from photographs of the works of

art to bills of sale or insurance appraisals. Conley (1994-1995) argues,

The imposition of record-keeping standards and breaking the secrecy tradition is crucial

to the revamping of art world business techniques…By imposing such standards, dealers

and buyers could be more confident that a piece has good title…If an international

registration system is not achieved, the art world can look forward to many more years of

disappearing treasures. (p. 512)

110

Such an international registration system remains elusive and unlikely, given that most

dealers and collectors see several advantages in the lack of transparency on the art market. Better

recordkeeping would not necessarily result in a faster initial recovery time for stolen art.

However, at some point, perhaps decades later when its dodgy history is unknown to the current

possessor, that work of art will be put up for sale. At this time, if the work of art is logged as

stolen in NSAF or another art database, then it would be flagged and returned to its rightful

owners, or their heirs. Thus, documentation is key.

The argument for obtaining insurance remains murkier, especially given its expense. The

results from this study indicate that the victims of these thefts feel mixed regarding the

justification of insurance policies on art. Of the 45 police reports that noted whether the victim

carried an insurance policy on their art, 23 (51.1%) did so and 22 (48.9%) did not. While

seemingly contrary to popular belief,

Diverting expenses in security and insurance to investments over the notoriousness of

their collections reinforces the protection of Museums’ properties. This is because of two

counter-intuitive effects: (1) investments in precautions, while reducing thieves’ profits,

may adversely attract them towards works of art of higher value; (2) insurance may

actually increase the incentive to steal works of art for the purpose of ransom. (Nicita &

Rizzoli, 2009)

In none of these cases was a ransom demanded by the thieves, but the concept of holding art for

ransom has been a plan executed by thieves on previous occasions, oftentimes with the owner’s

insurance company paying the money (Merryman, 2007).

111

Ransom has also been connected with rewards. Rewards can create a host of difficulties,

including moral and distribution issues (Lippert, 2002). Only one case in this study involved the

use of a reward. The case dates to 1991 and the reward of $500 was offered by the institution, a

museum. The museum never paid out the reward nor was the stolen work of art ever returned to

the institution.

The use of traditional media as well as social media as investigative tools is a relatively

new approach that has found some success. In a recent case, a woman saw a Facebook post

regarding a stolen painting and realized it had been dumped in her backyard by the thief. Given

that the piece was an abstract mixed media work and thus not easily identifiable as art, she had

assumed it was trash and would have thrown it away if not for seeing the post (Littlejohn, 2016).

This study found that 15 (13.2%) of the police reports noted the use of some type of media in

attempts at recovery. As a note, this dataset dates from 1975-2004, so more recent data might

have found a more consistent use of media, especially in the case of social media.

A logical assumption supposes that the arrest of the offender leads to the recovery of the

stolen art. Unlike a television set that could end up anywhere, tracking stolen art should prove

substantially easier with the information from the offender regarding who bought it or where it is

stored. Unfortunately, in the one case of arrest in this study, the stolen art was destroyed. The

offender admitted in his interview with the arresting officer that he stole the paintings, along with

several items, but had sold some easier items to pawn and destroyed others, including the

paintings. He refused to elaborate on the issue and thus no more information is known. While

perhaps not the same justification as in this case, given that the offender confessed to this crime,

this represents a conclusion seen previously. For example, in 2013 Olga Dogaru claimed to have

burned seven paintings to protect her son from prosecution for the thefts (Vandoorne, Smith-

112

Spark, & Ciobanu, 2013). She perhaps gained inspiration from the case of Stephane Breitweiser,

who stole hundreds of small works in the 1990s, and whose mother threw paintings down the

garbage disposal and threw over 100 works in the river in order to prevent her son being found

with stolen property (Gentleman, 2005).

The FBI-ACT helps local law enforcement agencies when asked to aid in investigations

involving stolen art. However, only 4 (3.5%) cases had agencies participating in this study

utilizing such federal assistance. This skew definitely derives from the sample, though, so should

not be interpreted to have any substantive meaning.

Bivariate Correlations

The bivariate correlations use Cramér’s V statitistical analysis to provide futher insight

into the first research question regarding the characteristics of art theft. Cramér’s V testing also

helps to address the second research question examining which variables are significantly

correlated to stolen art recovery. This section begins by elaborating on the tables displaying each

category of variables.12 While all levels of analysis in this study require an expanded dataset in

order to draw meaningful statistical conclusions, this holds especially true for the bivariate

correlations. However, this analysis allows for insight into suggestions directions for future

research.

Suitability of the Target. The first correlation matrix, Table 9, represents the variables

related to the suitability of the target. The type of day of the theft has a medium correlation to the

population group, indicative of a variance in people’s behaviors on the day of the week,

12 The matrices make note of all of the correlations that are statistically significant. However, due to the sample size, there are some relationships clearly influenced by the sample size rather than a notable association between two variables, discussed in more depth subsequently.

113

depending on how populated the area is in which they live. Given that several of the institutions

close on weekends, logic supports the correlation between where the art was stolen from and

whether or not the theft occurred on a weekday or weekend. The population group also has a

medium correlation with where the art was stolen from, but not the type of institution, indicating

that those few cases where art was stolen in transit, from an outdoor setting, or from storage

could prove important with regard to location and population size of the area.

Obviously, the type of institution of the victim and the location of the theft correlate

significantly, as there were only a few instances in which the art was on loan, in storage, or taken

in transit from one location to another. Both of these variables, as well as the number of items

stolen, all correlated with whether or not other items were stolen, the type of art stolen, ease of

access to the art, as well as the current value. The type of institution and where the art was stolen

from measure a redundancy in this dataset, so can be considered together for this portion of the

analysis. The institution from which the art was stolen predictably correlates to whether other

items were stolen, as some of the institutions, such as museums or galleries, only house art

objects, reducing or eliminating options for stealing other types of property. If thieves steal other

items in addition to art, the likelihood that they will also steal multiple works of art increases.

Considerations, such as concealability, no longer apply once multiple targets are assumed. The

number of items stolen can relate to the type of art pursued due to proximity. Many types of

institutions display similar artworks together, so thieves stealing multiple objects have less work

in focusing on one type of art. This same logic applies to the number of items stolen and the ease

of access to the art, whereas the relationship between the value of the works of art and the

number of items stolen likely involves the thieves’ potential for profit.

114

Table 9. Correlation Matrix of Variables Related to the Suitability of the Target

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Type of Day - Theft 1 .245 .082 .350* .387 .494* .195 .082 .241 .384* .136 2 Season of Theft 1 .133 .220 .285 .290 .172 .115 .169 .080 .148 3 Time of Day 1 .089 .184 .184 .226 .042 .328 .423** .306 4 Population 1 .279 .306* .106 .065 .152 .181 .201 5 Type of Institution 1 .972** .257 .461** .313** .402** .296* 6 Stolen From 1 .300 .515** .333** .442** .323* 7 # Items Stolen 1 .212* .389** .326** .275* 8 Other Items Stolen 1 .133 .361** .256 9 Type of Art 1 .324** .190

10 Ease of Access 1 .218 11 Current Value 1 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

115

A relationship between the type of institution victimized and the type of art potentially

reflects collecting habits among the various institutions examined. Each type of institution takes

different kinds of precautions to prevent theft, depending on budgetary considerations, location,

institutional purpose, and such, which can alter the ease of access to the art. The current value of

the works of art also correlate to the type of institution from which the theft occurred,

demonstrating that different types of institutions might be targeted specifically for their more

valuable collections. Unsurprisingly, the type of art stolen correlated to the ease of access to the

art. Certain types of art lend themselves to particular types of display and security is affected by

these considerations. Whether or not the theft occurs on a weekday or weekend, as well as the

time of day it occurs, correlates to the ease of access to the art, as the habits of the people

overseeing the art frequently changes based on these temporal elements.

Guardianship. As noted in the univariate analysis, very little conclusive information can

be drawn from the guardianship variables because so few cases had some of the types of

security. Cramér’s V values could not be determined for the disabling of the auditory security or

the party responsible, as no correlation could be measured using this dataset. The correlations

with no statistical significance included: visual security and auditory security (.039), visual

security and presence of a person (.182), visual security and presence of a witness (.034),

auditory security and security guards (.099), auditory security and presence of a person (.228),

auditory security and presence of a witness (.150), as well as security guards and the presence of

a witness (.039).

The correlation between visual security and security guards (.399, p < .01) demonstrates

that institutions investing in security guards might be more inclined to invest in cameras, as well.

The presence of a person and security guards could indicate some overlap in the variable

116

measures, though security guards also tend to be hired at institutions with high foot traffic and

thus correlate (.604, p < .01). Lastly, the presence of a person correlated with a witness (.424, p <

.01). Again, there might be some overlap with these functions. However, several cases involved

thefts from open galleries. In most of these, various people wandered the gallery at the time of

the theft, but only in a select number did people actually witness the offender committing the

crime.

Offense Profile. Table 10 displays the correlation matrix for the offense profile variables.

From a logical standpoint, most of these relationships require little interpretation. For example,

forced entry generally necessitates the use of a tool. The means of entry also correlated

significantly and strongly to concealment of evidence, the lack of a clean crime scene, and a

higher level of planning. Forced entry generally involves damaging the area of entry, which also

leaves evidence. Additionally, breaking into an institution entails at least some planning to

accomplish.

Table 10. Correlation Matrix of Variables Related to Offense Profile

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Number of Offenders 1 .036 .075 .161 .179 .180 .297

2 Means of Entry 1 .668** .016 .694** .663** .590**

3 Tools Required 1 .188* .664** .590** .492**

4 Destruction to Art Housing 1 .281* .233* .142

5 Concealment of Evidence 1 .889** .377**

6 Cleanliness of Scene 1 .468**

7 Level of Planning 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Most of the cases in this study required the use of a tool. This sometimes occurred in the

commission of breaking into the building, but weak correlation exists where the art was

removed from its housing necessitating the aid of some kind of implement. The help of tools

117

also related to the concealment of evidence and a lack of cleanliness at the scene of the crime.

The assistance of a tool also implies a degree of planning in most cases, as most offenders

brought the tools with them instead of relying on finding something at the scene of the crime. In

cases where offenders damaged or destroyed the housing of the art, they also neglected to try

and conceal their presence and clean up the evidence. Unsurprisingly, the concealment of

evidence and cleanliness of the crime scene overlapped, indicating perhaps some redundancy in

these measures, but also that offenders who attempt to clean the crime scene of evidence are

primarily successful in these types of thefts. The concealment of evidence and cleanliness of the

scene also correlated significantly to the level of planning. Offenders who planned a theft in

advance would be aware of how much time they had to complete the theft and would thus be

more willing to take the time to cover their tracks.

Recovery Tools. As seen in Table 11, victims holding insurance and victims with

verifiable documentation correlate strongly and significantly, unsurprising given that insurance

proves one type of documentation. An insurance policy also correlates to public knowledge and

the use of media in recovery efforts, which could result from pressure placed by the insurance

company to utilize these avenues for stolen art return. Similarly, insurance companies may place

pressure on victims and law enforcement to utilize the media. Documentation moderately

correlates to the arrest of the offender, but this is likely a case of Type I error, given that only one

case resulted in the arrest of the offender. The lack of other correlations with documentation

implies that insurance is important, as opposed to any other proof of ownership. Case status and

the arrest of the offender are significantly correlated, as clearance by arrest generally indicates

the closing of a case, regardless of the property return. A significant relationship also exists

between the case status and the awareness of the public regarding the case. Again, this indicates

118

that an increased attentiveness among the public helps close cases. The dataset, as originally

conceived, expanded the indicators surrounding this relationship. These proved irrelevant to this

dataset, but could provide insight into these relationships on stolen art. In only one case did the

victim offer a reward and in only one case did the offender get arrested, though these cases were

not the same case, so any conclusions drawn from the analysis must take this into account.

However, a correlation between the offer of a reward and public knowledge of the theft clearly

makes sense, as the victim must publicize the reward in order for it to be of any use. The most

obvious tool for disseminating information on a case is the media, explaining that correlation.

Public knowledge of the crime and its relationship to the type of law enforcement used again

reflects a difficult link to explain, though perhaps federal law enforcement proves more willing

to utilize the network of the public in cases. Similarly, the use of media by law enforcement

indicates a willingness among federal officers to use all types of sources available.

Table 11. Correlation Matrix of Variables Related to Recovery Tools

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Insurance 1 .590** .063 .a .154 .489** .420** .083

2 Documentation 1 .029 .043 .283** .166 .158 .075

3 Case Status 1 .022 .399** .271** .024 .045

4 Reward Offered 1 .009 .251** .242** .018

5 Arrest of Offender 1 .035 .037 .018

6 Public Knowledge 1 .724** .219*

7 Use of Media 1 .349**

8 Law Enforcement 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level .a Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.

119

All of these correlations suggest potential avenues to develop hypotheses and pursue

further research. However, some of these relationships make more sense logically than others.

This sample is small and that necessarily affects all of the analysis. While some of the

relationships in this discussion could be the product of Type I error, it is also possible that Type

II error occurred, as well. For example, the relationship between the number of offenders and the

level of planning was neither statistically significant nor of a high effect size. However, logical

reasoning supposes that multiple offenders necessarily require at least a minimum of planning in

order to coordinate their efforts. Thus, this finding may be in error. Due to these issues with the

sample and some of the errors that could occur in both the univariate and bivariate analysis of the

variables related to stolen art recovery, a more qualitative approach to the specific cases in which

the art was recovered allows for a greater understanding of the investigative process in these

cases.

Cases with Items Recovered

In total, seven of the investigations successfully resulted in the return of some or all of

the stolen art. This section outlines the cases, paying particular attention to the investigative

techniques that led to the art’s recovery and noting what variables and methods appear most

relevant. Unfortunately, not all of these cases provide much, if any, information on this process,

but getting a more complete sense of the profiles can also be enlightening. Additionally, one of

the cases involved the return of a firearm, rather than the art stolen. However, as noted

throughout this study, these cases have elements that overlap with more traditional property

crimes and elements unique to art theft. It follows that stolen art recovery could result from

implementing other types of investigative techniques unique to other particular types of property.

120

Case 1. The reporting officer recorded an incident as a burglary of a gallery. Located out

West in a small town of only 18 people, the gallery showcases a varied collection of many types

of works, including paintings, sculpture, and jewelry and has a glassblowing school and studio

associated with it. One weekend night in the middle of summer, the offender(s) pried open a

locked ground level door on the side of the building with a crowbar or similar instrument. An

investigating officer, assistant officer, follow-up officer, and reporting officer were all listed as

different people. The remainder of the report just included a list of the 14 items stolen with a

brief description and the value of each item. As a note, some of these included groupings of

jewelry of similar type (e.g. “198 pairs of misc. earrings consisting of white, yellow metal with

some having beads and stones [sic] of various colors”). The two distinctive sculptures stolen

were recovered in spring of the following year, though the jewelry was never located.

This case report maintains no notes on the investigation. However, the population of the

town is only 18 people and this report indicates a minimum of four officers dedicated to this

case. While the jewelry contained glass stones, its similarity to other work previously completed

by the gallery’s associated studio would make ascertaining the precise works stolen much more

difficult. In contrast, the two unique sculptures allow for easier identification, which could have

facilitated their return. Thus, even though the investigation process remains unknown, the

population size and singularity of the works of art potentially aided the recovery efforts and

indicate variables of particular interest for future studies.

Case 2. Another case involved a burglary on a Saturday afternoon in summer, when the

victim left his house for approximately six hours to run errands. He locked the house prior to

leaving and returned to find that the two offenders pried open a screen door at the back of the

house, which allowed for entry into a screened in porch area. From there, the offenders broke the

121

bottom of the glass sliding door, removed the wooden dowel securing the door, and entered the

home. One of the offenders cut themselves in this process, as traces of blood were found on the

glass door, as well as in rooms throughout the house. The location of the stains on drawers and

other areas suggest the offender cut their left hand. The officer found more evidence at the rear

of the house in the sandbox, as the two separate sets of footprints appeared to belong to large

juveniles or adults. The responding officer requested the help of an evidence tech unit to process

the scene of the crime, dusting for fingerprints, taking photographs, and collecting blood

samples. In addition to a 6’ x 6’ Chinese screen worth approximately $30,000, the thieves stole a

television, a Smith & Wesson 38 caliber 5 shot revolver, hand painted serving plates, and

assorted men’s jewelry (e.g. watch, cuff links, class ring, etc.). An area broadcast alerted the

public to the theft and the officer submitted the description and photographs of the stolen art to

the FBI-ACT. Ten days after the theft, the victim called the station and alerted the police that one

of his neighbors mentioned seeing a suspicious vehicle, but the follow up yielded no useful

information from the potential witnesses in the area the car was seen. A letter in the file from the

insurance company of the victim indicated that they had paid his claim for the losses sustained in

the theft, including the screen. The investigation into the gun involved a lengthier process.

Initially, the officer sent a Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) notice. Three years

subsequent to the date of the theft, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) case involving

possession with intent to deliver dangerous drugs and possession of an explosive device ended

with an execution of a search warrant on a premise that yielded the stolen Smith & Wesson.

Unfortunately, the Chinese screen stolen in this case has yet to be recovered. However,

this example illustrates the significant difference between investigations into firearms and stolen

art. While the officer sent national alerts out on both items, the Smith & Wesson’s serial number,

122

in combination with extensive cross-jurisdictional policies and awareness, allowed for the

subsequent return of this item. Property crimes elicit certain challenges, as so many of the items

cannot possibly be tracked by the police. However, stolen art should not be one of these

commodities, given its unique nature. Examining the means of investigating other types of

property crime and successful procedures, especially those in the course of the same crime, can

aid in developing best practices for stolen art recovery.

Case 3. On a Friday morning in summer, a museum suffered the loss of a bronze bust

sculpture valued at $25,000. The open display offered no security measures and that area of the

museum uses no cameras. Thus, the offender took the sculpture and walked away with it, the

only challenge being its weight of approximately 60 pounds. Two months subsequent to the

theft, the museum notified the police that a third party returned the sculpture. The citizen read an

article on the subject of the bust and then observed the sculpture at an undisclosed location and

returned it to the museum. It is unclear what methods of disseminating information to the public

were used, but clearly this resulted in the return of this particular work of art.

Case 4. A couple observed a painting that they donated on their way in to attend an

evening concert at a prominent venue in town on a winter’s night. When they left, they noticed

the painting missing from its place on the wall. The security guard for the building noted he

made rounds every thirty minutes, though despite the large size of the work, it was enough time

to execute the theft. Additionally, unlike some of the other pieces hung around the building, this

one was not secured to the wall. The investigating police officer notified and recruited the help

of a number of appraisers, antique dealers, and others with art expertise and network contacts in

the area.

123

A little over a month after the theft, an employee of the building from which the work

was stolen found it hidden behind the grease trap. He placed it in the Engineering Department

and one of the engineers recognized it from a recently run article in the local newspaper. It was

later discovered that one of the dishwashers at a nearby hotel found it in the dumpster and placed

it behind the grease trap. The explanation for the dishwasher’s action remains unclear from the

police report, but evidently the offender discarded the painting in a dumpster emptied everyday

with the intention of disposing of the work. Given that the dishwasher found the piece

approximately four weeks after the theft, it could indicate that the offender attempted to sell the

work, but realized the difficulty in doing so without getting caught and decided to dispose of the

incriminating evidence rather than hold onto it any longer and risk apprehension with stolen

goods.

Case 5. A college experienced a theft in the middle of an autumn night in one of their

science halls and the seismograph in the room narrowed the time to between 0235 and 0240. The

offender(s) stole 986 artifacts from the geological collection, taking them out through the loading

dock. One piece shattered when the offender(s) moved it and they left it. Other evidence

included a footprint and several broken windows, including some glass with a very small amount

of blood on it. In addition to the specimens taken, the flex cards describing each were also stolen,

later used by the suspects to create an inventory list of the artifacts, descriptions of the minerals,

and match these to the locations of the mines of origin.

Almost a year after the theft originally occurred, a mineral dealer notified the police that

he had been contacted by a person hoping to sell some specimens. An authority on the college’s

collection went undercover with the dealer to determine if the artifacts for sale matched those

stolen. The seller displayed some of the items stolen, which the dealer and college representative

124

bought. The seller then gave them the aforementioned inventory list at the end of the meeting.

Based upon this operation, the police executed a search warrant of the premises and recovered

the remainder of the artifacts. While this recovery operation required a much greater degree of

planning and police resources, the key information obtained regarding the location of the

specimens derived from public knowledge of the theft.

Case 6. Somewhere between early autumn and the middle of spring, a museum noticed

34 missing Native American artifacts. Despite initial confusion in local newspaper articles

reporting on the case, the museum knew they were the victims of a theft or series of thefts and

listed nine of the most valuable items with the Art Loss Register, which included the inventory in

their next issue. Nine years later, a local collector and dealer, who had studied some of the items

at the museum previously, noticed one of the works for sale on eBay. The seller lived in another

jurisdiction, but the police departments worked together and recovered the item. This illustrates

yet another case in which the public knowledge of the case helped aid in the return of at least one

of the stolen items.

Case 7. The last case examined also involves the theft of multiple Native American

artifacts. A private collector out West returned after a month-long sojourn at another residency to

discover 44 items missing in her collection, totaling approximately $868,025.51 worth of

artifacts. In her initial run-through of the house, a sliding glass door near the kitchen and a

window into the master bedroom were both open, suggesting entry and exit through one of those

two means. Otherwise, there was no evidence of forced entry or footprints around the house. It

appeared that the offender(s) tampered with the utility box, since the house phone received no

dial tone. A couple of latent fingerprints were obtained, but little evidence remained at the scene.

The officer conducted a neighborhood canvass, but found no relevant information. Both the

125

investigating officers and the victim notified a variety of dealers and requested information from

them on sellers contacting them regarding these types of artifacts.

Over the course of numerous interviews with a variety of neighbors, friends, ex-lovers,

and employees, the case clearly indicates that someone close to the victim executed the theft.

However, the offender(s) were never determined, though the investigation did continue after the

return of the art. This occurred a month and a half after the burglary, when a number of plastic

bags containing the art were left in front of the victim’s workplace. The person who returned the

items left a note saying, “I found these items and am returning them to you. In my apology I ask

for your forgiveness.” Some of the mystery surrounding this case remains, as the first sentence

indicates a third party returning the items and the second implies the offender. Given the lack of

resolution with regard to the offender(s), the motivations for the return of the items remain

unclear, as well. It could have been the continued pressure of the police investigation, personal

pleas made on the part of the victim, lack of ability to sell the items, or another reason. Thus, this

case provides less insight into directly correlated variables significant to the return of the art in

this case.

Correlations with Stolen Art Recovery. The bivariate correlations between stolen art

recovery and each of the other variables indicate only one variable with a significant correlation

to the return of the art: whether or not the public was made aware of the theft (see Table 12). The

more people who are aware of a theft and know what the stolen art looks like increases the size

of the network of people actively and passively searching for stolen art, also increasing the

chances of its ultimate return. At this time, many museums and other institutions prefer not to

advertise when a theft occurs because they believe it advertises a weakness in their security

measures and invites repeat victimization (Mackenzie, 2005). In examining these seven cases

126

more closely, the most predominant variable leading to stolen art recovery involves public

knowledge of the theft. This indicates that disseminating the information on stolen art as broadly

as possible appears to be a significant tool in stolen art recovery. Another point of note is that

these cases span from 1978-2004, prior to the advent of most social networking sites. Since this

time, police have successfully utilized social media to aid in the recovery of stolen art (Swaby,

2016). While these are still isolated cases, the pattern suggests that increased public knowledge

of art thefts correlates to increased stolen art recovery.

Table 12. Fisher’s Exact Test for Stolen Art Recovery and Other Variables

Variable Cases with Art

Recovered Cases with No Art Recovered

# of Valid Cases

Fisher’s Exact Test p Value

Type of Day - Reported 114 .710 Weekday 3 56 Weekend 4 51

Type of Day - Theft 55 .123 Weekday 0 24 Weekend 4 27

Time of Day 64 .659 Daytime 2 32 Overnight 3 27

Population Group 114 .705 < 50,000 5 65 > 50,000 2 42

Type of Institution 114 .700 Private Collector 2 44 Other Institutions 5 63

# Items Stolen 110 .698 One 3 58 More than One 4 45

Other Items Stolen 114 .658 Yes 2 24 No 5 83

Type of Art 114 .219 Painting or Sculpture 3 73 Other Types of Art 4 34

Ease of Access 111 .271 Secured Area 5 50 Open/Victim Facilitated 2 54

Current Value 109 1.000 < $50,000 5 70 > $50,000 2 32

127

Table 12 Continued

Variable Cases with Art

Recovered Cases with No Art Recovered

# of Valid Cases

Fisher’s Exact Test p Value

Auditory Security 114 .592 Yes 0 17 No 7 90

Person Present 114 .658 Yes 2 24 No 5 83

Witness Present 114 .582 Yes 1 12 No 6 95

Number of Offenders 36 .400 One 1 27 More than One 1 7

Means of Entry 107 .697 Forced Entry 3 35 No Forced Entry 4 65

Tools Required 113 1.000 Yes 2 35 No 5 71

Destruction to Art Housing 114 .551 Yes 1 11 No 6 96

Concealment of Evidence 110 1.000 Yes 0 9 No 7 94

Cleanliness of Scene 108 .663 Yes 3 67 No 3 35

Insurance 45 .665 Yes 4 19 No 2 20

Documentation 84 .587 Yes 7 66 No 0 11

Public Knowledge 114 .004 Yes 4 10 No 3 97

Use of Media 114 .230 Yes 2 13 No 5 94

Law Enforcement 114 .227 Local 6 104 Both 1 3

128

Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the three types of analysis used in this study: univariate analysis of

each of the individual variables, bivariate correlations, and qualitative descriptions of the cases

with stolen art recovery. The frequency distributions for each of the variables determined the

characteristics of the art thefts in this sample. Some of these followed expected patterns, given

other property crime studies with similar variables. These, and patterns more indicative of an

importance to stolen art specifically, need to be examined in more depth with a fuller dataset in

order to draw certain conclusions. Additionally, the data suggest that expanding certain

indicators and adding a few variables related to the ones measured could add the important

insight necessary to understanding these patterns. The bivariate correlations serve two purposes:

to expand the discussion from the univariate analysis and to help understand the key

relationships between stolen art recovery and the other variables. Using statistical significance,

as well as effect size, variables with either or both were scrutinized more carefully.

Unfortunately, a small sample size sometimes resulted in concluding a potentially (probable)

relationship where one does not exist. Lastly, the qualitative descriptions of the cases provide a

greater level of comprehension into the nuances of the cases in which law enforcement recovered

the stolen art or other items taken in the theft. In almost every single one of these cases, recovery

was facilitated by public knowledge of the case. This took a variety of forms, but it becomes

clear in reading through these cases that the dissemination of information on thefts only increases

the chances that these items are found.

129

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

Debates abound in anthropological and art historical circles regarding the situation of

art’s role in defining a civilization. However, a general acknowledgement of the importance of

art as a means of individual expression, as a type of social commentary, and as a cultural symbol

(in whatever form) cannot be denied. Regardless of whether an object is valued for more

mercurial or for more sentimental reasons, people will desire to obtain it. Some people are

willing to do so by less than licit means.

Law enforcement officials who work on art-related theft cases have developed ideas of

patterns and trends they believe they see in this type of crime (Wittman, 2010). However,

without empirical data, there is no way of knowing if these patterns actually reflect reality. By

only using a case-by-case approach of investigation to inform the body of knowledge of these

crimes, a great risk is run in missing key information to help solve these crimes, as well as

possibly prevent them from occurring in the first place.

Thus, this study sought to establish a greater level of understanding of art theft in the

United States through examining the characteristics of this sample. This study contributes to the

criminological literature and fills a current gap in knowledge. Art theft is certainly a niche crime,

not nearly as prevalent as many other types of crime and with characteristics that likely make it

an exception to several usual generalities regarding theft. However, quantitative evidence-based

knowledge has not been contributed to information on this crime in the United States in almost

two decades. The grounded theory method also allows for the development of ideas regarding

130

how art theft relates to criminological theory, in this case, specifically situational crime

prevention and routine activities theory. Obviously, this is a preliminary and exploratory study

and thus subject to certain limitations. After discussing the latter, this chapter elaborates on

several potential avenues for future work, based on both the foundation of the dataset and

preliminary analysis of the results.

Limitations

First and foremost, this sample is not representative. As previously noted, the original list

of potential cases for inclusion in the study derived from the FBI-ACT’s database. However,

they rely on individual police departments to submit their own reports and fill out the paperwork

for the missing art to be included in the NSAF. Thus, if a police officer is unaware of the FBI-

ACT and/or the NSAF, the theft would not have been eligible for inclusion in this study.

Similarly, an officer could be aware of either or both and choose not to report. Lastly, not all of

the policing agencies chose to participate in this study.

In addition to a non-representative sample, there were several instances of missing data,

although the rate of was relatively low for most of the variables in this study. It is not postulated

that the missing data affect the conclusions drawn in this study. However, for more in-depth

statistical analysis, missing data due to the lack of consistency in police reports needs to be taken

into account. There is no real solution, as police reports are not standardized and the same

information will not be found in every report.

While 114 is generally a decent sample size for a study, given the singularity of many of

the variables examined – such as arrest and art recovery – the ability to further test the meaning

131

of these findings remains limited. Similarly, “Small studies…do not normally yield reliable or

precise estimates. Therefore, it is important not to make strong conclusions about a risk factor or

trial intervention, whether the results are positive or not. Instead, data from such studies should

be used to design larger confirmatory studies” (Hackshaw, 2008, 1143). It must be emphasized

here that this study never sought to present conclusive theories on fine art theft in United States,

but rather seeks to determine the best avenues for the direction of future research.

Implication for Future Research

All studies seek to fill a current gap in the literature, but also aim to contribute to shaping

future research. This section holds even greater significance for exploratory studies, as the

limitations faced when collecting the data for such often precludes definitive conclusions, with

this study proving no exception. Thus, the implication for future research works at two levels:

expanding the current dataset to provide a more robust analysis, as well as testing specific

research questions based upon the findings of this study.

Expanding the Dataset. The primary objective for future research into art theft in the

United States needs to be expanding the current dataset. This involves both short-term and long-

term solutions. In the short-term, focusing on obtaining the rest of the cases in the FBI-ACT’s

database remains paramount. Some of the reasons for exclusion will not change, such as certain

states requiring a subpoena to release such records. In these cases, the likelihood of procuring the

police reports is negligible. However, the majority of the missing cases involve complex

bureaucracy and an investment of time and effort prohibited by the requirements of completing a

dissertation. For example, this study neglected to include cases from both New York City and

Los Angeles. Both of these cities represent significant hubs for the United States’ art market and

132

the FBI-ACT’s list of report numbers included approximately 100 cases from New York City

and roughly 221 cases from Los Angeles County. However, neither city refused to release

records based on legal motives. Rather, New York City never replied, despite numerous repeated

attempts to contact various individuals and departments by phone and post. Los Angeles County

refused based on the language that they are not required to comply with a records request with

certain exceptions for conditions not met by this dissertation (i.e. the requestor is the victim).

Additionally, the cost for obtaining these records is $24.00 per police report, totaling

approximately $5,304.00 (depending on the final total number of cases) for all Los Angeles

County data. There is no law preventing Los Angeles County from releasing these records, but

locating the individual willing to authorize it and execute the work, as well as obtain the grant to

pay for the records, is beyond the reasonable timeframe for this dissertation.

In addition to the local police department records, the FBI-ACT worked on a number of

cases. The initial FOIA request was rejected due to the formatting of the case report numbers.

However, given the previous cooperation of the administrative head of the FBI-ACT in obtaining

information for this study, a high probability exists to eventually obtain these records. However,

given that data collection took two and a half years for this dissertation, the number of records in

this request is expected to take a minimum of three to five years to compile in full.

The above discusses the easiest way to expand the dataset given the current available

known sample from the FBI-ACT’s database. However, several long-term solutions exist, as

well. First of all, to better understand art theft in the United States, we need to have a more

reliable means of compiling the overall data. As noted in the Limitations section, the data

compiled by the FBI-ACT relies entirely on local departments choosing to submit their records,

133

an impossibility if they are unaware of the FBI-ACT. An ideal solution involves a nationwide

campaign raising awareness among local police and sheriff departments regarding the existence

of the FBI-ACT and the appropriate cases to submit. This step should not add a prohibitive

amount of extra work for local departments, as they submit a copy of the police report with an

additional form describing the work of art for the NSAF.

When the initial theft dates, police department contact information, and case report

numbers arrived from the FBI-ACT for use to obtain data for this dissertation, the information

required a substantial amount of review. Several cases appeared as duplicates and much of the

police department contact information proved incorrect. While this did not affect this

dissertation, this indicates that the FBI-ACT database could use cleaning. Unfortunately, the

team at this point only has the Program Manager to aid with the administrative responsibilities

for the entire team and the NSAF. Given their jurisdiction and the system already in place, the

FBI-ACT is the logical agency to compile this data. While there is no one currently in a position

to take the time to update the current FBI-ACT database and ensure the format of the model

allows for accessibility and usability for analysis purposes, this project is essential to ultimately

creating a comprehensive database for art thefts in the United States.

This dissertation focuses on art thefts within the United States and quite a bit more

research needs to remain concentrated on this country. However, as the Background section

addressed, the art market operates internationally and a significant element of understanding art

theft is lost without comparing the data from the United States to that from other countries.

Comparative criminologists seek “to study crime patterns and evolving criminal justice practices

in other parts of the world using their own countries as benchmark comparisons” (Natarajan,

134

2011, xxiii). Once we establish a consistent system of collecting art theft records in the United

States, examining the data in relation to other individual countries could provide additional

insight into the patterns seen. Additionally, it would allow research questions exploring relations

to the trends of the art market locally and internationally.

Comparative criminology starts to examine the broader picture of art theft on a global

scale. However, the international art market operates in such a way as to suggest a significant

amount of transnational crime occurs in relation to art theft (Aarons, 2001; Durney & Proulx,

2011; Naylor, 2008). According to Natarjan (2011):

an offense is transnational in nature if: 1) It is committed in more than one State; 2) It is

committed in one State but a substantial part of its preparation, planning, direction, or

control takes place in another State; 3) It is committed in one State but involves an

organized criminal group that engages in criminal activities in more than one State; 4) It

is committed in one State but has substantial effects in another State. (p. xxv)

Much speculation exists on the role of organized crime groups in art theft, based on such cases as

Martin Cahill’s theft from Russborough House in Ireland and his subsequent dealing with a

Frenchman, using a Vermeer as collateral for money to start the heroin trade in Dublin (Hart,

2005). However, the extent of knowledge on trafficking in stolen art is limited to case studies

and archaeological looting.

Future Focus of Research. In addition to collecting more data on art theft, both

domestically and internationally, a number of research questions should be examined in greater

depth. The data for this dissertation includes a collection of variables that proved of limited

135

interest, due to a lack of any cases (or too few to be statistically significant) with those

characteristics. Most of these related to a complex level of planning of the theft. For example, in

none of these cases did an offender use a disguise or incapacitate the guards present. This speaks

to the statistical significance of fewer offenders planning heists requiring such actions. However,

case studies including these characteristics are known (Amore & Mashberg, 2011). Thus, future

research needs to examine the level of planning in more depth.

Similarly, only one of these cases ended with the arrest of the offender. This may or may

not be an anomaly, but learning more about cases cleared with an arrest remains an important

element of future analysis. This is in part because it directly relates to stolen art recovery, the last

variable without a significant number of cases to analyze in more depth through statistical

analysis, given the sample size in this study. A central research question applies to each of these

variables. Future research must involve learning which variables and combinations of variables

predict the level of planning for the theft, the arrest of offender, and the recovery of stolen art.

The city and state of each theft were recorded to determine the population of each area in

which the theft occurred. However, a couple of interesting patterns emerged of note. Certain

cities experienced multiple thefts within the same calendar year, possibly suggesting either that a

particular group of thieves operated for a time in that particular area or that department elected,

for whatever reason, to submit to the FBI-ACT for only a select period of time. For example, a

particular person in the department might be aware of the FBI-ACT and encourage submission

on relevant cases, but then transfer to another area or division. However, in at least some of these

clusters, the thefts appear related. For example, in Mission Viejo, California, the same church

suffered repeat victimization with three thefts in four years. Laguna Beach, California

136

experienced seven thefts in four years. Almost all of these cases involved a gallery open for

business, during which time one or two suspects entered the premises, took a piece from a wall

or pedestal, and walked out while employees were distracted. Three different private residences

in Miami, Florida found themselves victims of theft, all within a ten-day period. Given that all of

these cases remain unresolved by either arrest or art recovery, it is impossible to say for certain if

these groups of cases prove related to each other. The possibility should not be dismissed and

such clusters of data should be anticipated and examined in more depth in future research.

Expanding certain variables, such as the institution information and the description of art,

allows further insight into the thefts. While this dissertation used “institution” to refer to private

collectors, as well as museums and such, information on individuals is not significant to macro-

level analysis. However, knowing the names of museums, galleries, and churches can aid in

supplementing the dataset with variables found outside of the police reports. For example, the

American Alliance of Museums divides their institutional membership based on the number of

staff of the museum (American Alliance of Museums, n.d.). This is because various museums

operate differently based on size. The Small Museums Committee of the American Association

for State and Local History (2016) arrived at a working definition that involves guidelines

regarding the operating budget size, the number and use of staff, and roles of volunteers.

Categorizing museums based on size and typology could allow insight into security measures

taken to protect collections.

The description of the art includes a variety of information, including the dimensions of

the work, the material, and a description of the motif. The dimensions could aid in better

understanding the target suitability. Materials could provide insight into target vulnerabilities, as

137

well. Paintings on canvas provide an easier target than those on wood, as canvas can be cut from

the frame and rolled for easier transport. Researching art made with metals is also valuable to

examine. While bronze is a popular material for sculptures, copper yields high prices and is thus

more vulnerable to theft (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008). Tracking black and white

market prices of metals and trends in fine art thefts of metal works would allow more robust

information on potential motives for thieves.

In addition to expanding the dataset to include more cases for more accurate statistical

analysis and compiling more information on the existing variables, this dataset could provide a

methodological foundation for a larger dataset. By adding the types of information examined in

this study to information on offenders, questions regarding the art targeted in relation to

offenders, as well as motives of art theives could be answered. Along these lines, Fox and

Farrington (2012) used latent class analysis to identify burglary profiles based on offender and

offense characteristics, a method with potential application for fine art theft specifically.

All of the above research involves using and expanding the current dataset. However, the

results from this study suggest other methodological approaches to the research design might be

more appropriate in examining certain questions. Given the low number of cases in which stolen

art was recovered and some of the other patterns observed in this study, a qualitative study

focusing on a more in-depth analysis of these variables would allow for a greater understanding

of fine art theft in the United States. Qualitative research into more recent cases could utilize

police reports in conjunction with interviews with investigating officers and greater insight into

the efforts employed to both recover the stolen art and apprehend offenders. This approach could

also give more information on the mindset of officers investigating these cases and the

138

similarities and differences between cases involving fine art theft and other types of property. A

different angle to explore using a qualitative approach would be to interview known art thieves,

which could help establish initial research into examining motives of offenders, the significance

of target suitability, and the level of planning involved.

Another project that could provide specific insight into both domestic and international

stolen art recovery involves a non-representative sample of known, high-profile cases. Setting a

much higher threshold for the dollar amount of the art stolen and using only cases in which the

art was returned allows for analysis into different aspects of stolen art recovery and likely

different patterns will emerge. Continuing this research project, a matching dataset where the art

was not recovered or in which the dollar amount of the art stolen is markedly lower could also

prove interesting to determine more specific differences in patterns of stolen art recovery.

Overall, the possibilities for future research on fine art theft remain almost unlimited. A

number of potential avenues exist for research involving the variables collected in this study.

However, the limitations of this dataset make obtaining more data a priority before pursuing

additional research questions with this methodological approach. However, research using

qualitative data should also be explored.

Chapter Summary

This dissertation operated with a three-fold purpose. First, it aimed to create a

foundational dataset for future research into art theft. The variables derived from research on

routine activities theory and situational crime prevention, as well as drawing on criminological

research into art theft. The processes of both data collection and data entry illustrated some key

139

problems and considerations for moving forward. For example, more accurate timelines for

obtaining data, based on the efforts and access to acquire this dataset, will allow for better

planning and prioritizing certain elements of a long-term project. Similarly, the data suggest a

number of interesting avenues to explore in future research, but some variables require recoding

or additional indicators.

Second, the first research question asked about the characteristics of art thefts in the

United States. This study performed both univariate analysis and bivariate correlations in order

to answer and found some interesting patterns. Some of these followed expectations for the

results, based on the limited previous research into art theft, findings on more general property

theft, and theoretically based logic. Some of these suggest angles to pursue in further research,

especially with regard to nuances not captured in this dataset.

Third, discerning the variables significant to stolen art recovery formed the basis of the

second research question. The bivariate correlations provided some insight into this question,

though both Type I and Type II error were possible, given the small number of cases in which

the investigations successfully ended with the return of the art. The qualitative descriptions of the

offense profiles of the thefts and subsequent investigations into the cases allowed for a more

nuanced understanding of stolen art recovery.

Overall, this study serves as a potential cornerstone for future research. Until a basic

understanding of the characteristics of art theft in the United States were determined, hypothesis

testing remained out of reach. With the expansion of this dataset and the research questions it

raises, much more substantive future research can determine the true scope of art theft in the

United States and abroad, means of preventing it from happening, and key investigative

140

techniques in assuring its eventual recovery. Supplementing this data with qualitative research

would additionally allow for a more nuanced understanding of the actions of fine art theft

offenders and investigators.

141

REFERENCES

Aarons, L. (2001). Art theft: An exploratory study of the illegitimate art market in Australia. The

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 34(1), 17-37.

Alder, C., Chappell, D., & Polk, K. (2011). Frauds and fakes in the Australian aboriginal art

market. Crime, Law and Social Change, 56(2), 189-207.

American Association for State and Local History. (2016). What is a small museum? Retrieved

from http://community.aaslh.org/small-museum-what-is-a-small-museum/

American Alliance of Museums. (n.d.). Small museums. Retrieved from http://www.aam-

us.org/about-us/what-we-do/small-museums

Amore, A. M., & Mashberg, T. (2011). Stealing Rembrandts: The untold stories of notorious art

heists. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Anderson, R. L. (2000). American muse: Anthropological excursions into art and aesthetics.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Arinze, E. N. (1999, May 17). The role of the museum in society. Paper presented at the Post

Conference Workshop on Museums, Peace, Democracy and Governance in the 21st

Century, Guyana National Museum, Georgetown, Guyana. Retrieved from

http://www.maltwood.uvic.ca/cam/activities/past_conferences/1999conf/CAM%2799-

EmmanuelArinze.GuyanaFinal.pdf

Arnold, R., Keane, C., & Baron, S. (2005). Assessing risk of victimization through

epidemiological concepts: An alternative analytic strategy applied to routine activities

theory. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 42(3), 345-364.

Atwood, R. (2004.) Stealing history: Tomb raiders, smugglers, and the looting of the ancient

world. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

142

Atwood, R. (2007). A critical look at U.S. media coverage of antiquities issues. Unpublished

paper presented at The Future of the Global Past, New Haven, CT. Retrieved from

http://www.savingantiquities.org/feature_page.php?featureID=12

Barelli, J. J. (1986). On understanding the business of art and antique theft: An exploratory

study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

(8615718).

Baumol, W. J., & Bowen, W. G. (1966). Performing arts – The economic dilemma: A study of

problems common to theater, opera, music, and dance. New York, NY: Twentieth

Century Fund.

Bazley, T. (2010). Crimes of the art world. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Beckett, K. & Sasson, T. (2004). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bernick, L. L. (1998). Art and antiquities theft. Transnational Organized Crime, 4(2), 91-116.

Blake, W. F., & Bradley, W. F. (1999). Premises security: A guide for security professionals and

attorneys. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Blum, S. (Ed.) (1976). Designs by Erté: Fashion drawings and illustrations from “Harper’s

Bazar.” New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Bogdanos, M., & Patrick, W. (2006). Thieves of Baghdad: One marine’s passion for ancient

civilizations and the journey to recover the world’s greatest stolen treasures. New York,

NY: Bloomsbury.

Bordieu, P. (1971). Intellectual field and creative project. In M. F. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and

Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education (161-188). London, U.K.:

Collier-Macmillan.

143

Boser, U. (2009). The Gardner heist: The true story of the world’s largest unsolved art theft.

New York, NY: Harper.

Breetzke, G. D., & Cohn, E. G. (2013). Burglary in gated communities: An empirical analysis

using routine activities theory. International Criminal Justice Review, 23(1), 56-74.

Brodie, N. (2003a). Lessons from the trade in illicit antiquities. In S. Oldfield (Ed.), The trade in

wildlife (184–95). London, U.K.: Earthscan.

Brodie, N. (2003b). Spoils of war. Archaeology, 56(4), 16-19.

Brodie, N. (2011). The market in Iraqi antiquities 1980–2009 and academic involvement in the

marketing process. In S. Manacorda & D. Chappell (Eds.), Crime in the art and antiquities

world: Illegal trafficking in cultural property (117-133). New York, NY: Springer.

Brodie, N., & Doole, J. (2004). The Asian art affair: U.S. art museum collections of Asian art

and archaeology. In N. Brodie & C. Hills (Eds.), Material engagements: Studies in honour of

Colin Renfrew (83–108). Cambridge, U.K.: McDonald Institute.

Brodie, N., & Gill, D.W. (2003). Looting: An international view. In L. Zimmerman, J. Zimmer,

& K. Vitelli (Eds.), Ethical issues in archaeology (31–44). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Brughmans, T., Collar, A., & Coward, F. (Eds.). (2016). The connected past: Challenges to

network studies in archaeology and history. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Burmon, K. M. (2012). Neutralization theory and property crime: The application of

justification rhetoric to art crime. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the

American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.

Burnham, B. (1975). The art crisis: How art has become the victim of thieves, smugglers, and

respectable investors. London, England: Collins.

144

Burnham, B. (1978). Art theft: Its scope, its impact and its control. New York, NY: International

Foundation for Art Research.

Carley, W. M. (1997, September 29). Art thief displays true colors in bargaining for leniency.

The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB875481178132106000

Casey, R. (2015). Analyzing criminality in the market for ancient Near Eastern art. Journal of

Art Crime, 13, 39-49.

Chappell, D., & Hufnagel, S. (Eds.). (2014). Contemporary perspectives on the detection,

investigation, and prosecution of art crime: Australasian, European, and North American

perspectives. Surrey, U.K.: Ashgate.

Chappell, D., & Polk, K. (2009). Fakers and forgers, deception and dishonesty: An exploration

of the murky world of art fraud. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(3), 393-412.

Chappell, D., & Polk, K. (2011). Unraveling the ‘Cordata’: Just how organized is the

international traffic in cultural objects? In S. Manacorda & D. Chappell (Eds.), Crime in the

art and antiquities world: Illegal trafficking in cultural property (99-113). New York, NY:

Springer-Verlag.

Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory. In J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical

guide to research methods (2nd ed.) (81-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charney, N., Denton, P., & Kleberg, J. (March, 2012). Protecting cultural heritage from art theft:

International challenge, local opportunity. U.S. Department of Justice FBI Law

Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-

enforcement-bulletin/march-2012/protecting-cultural-heritage-from-art-theft

145

Clarke, R. V. (1980). “Situational” crime prevention: Theory and practice. The British Journal of

Criminology, 20(2): 136-147.

Clarke, R. V. (1983). Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope.

Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 4, 225-256.

Clarke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 19,

91-150.

Clarke, R.V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen

goods (Police Research Series, Paper 112). London, U.K.: Research, Development and

Statistics Directorate, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Home Office.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (2012, July 18). Forgeries? Perhaps faux masterpieces. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/arts/design/ken-perenyi-art-forger-now-sells-

his-work-as-copies.html

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity

approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

Coin News Media Group, LLC. (2016). U.S. inflation calculator. Retrieved from

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Conklin, J. E. 1994. Art crime. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Conley, S. S. (1994-1995). International art theft. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 13, 493-

512.

Connor, M. J., Jr., & Siler, J. (2009). The art of the heist: Confessions of a master thief. New

York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

146

Coupe, T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being

seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44(2): 431-464.

D’Ippolito, M. (2014). New methods of mapping: The application of social network analysis to

the illegal trade in antiquities. In Proceedings from W. Kennedy, N. Agarwal, & S. J.

Yang (Eds.) Social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction (253-260).

New York, NY: Springer.

Dahiru, T. (2008). P-value, a true test of statistical significance? A cautionary note. Annals of

Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 6(1), p. 21-26.

Davies, D. (2010, July 10). Missing 'Priceless' artwork? Call Robert Wittman [Interview].

Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=128452166&ft=nprml&f=12

8452166

DeGraw, M. E. (1987). Art theft in perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology, 31(1), 1-10.

Dietzler, J. (2013). On ‘organized crime’ in the illicit antiquities trade: Moving beyond the

definitional debate. Trends in Organized Crime, 16, 329-342.

Dobovšek, B., Charney, N., & Škrbec, J. (2010). Art crime security. Review of International

Affairs, 61(1137), 91-105.

Dolnick, E. (2005). The rescue artist: A true story of art, thieves, and the hunt for a missing

masterpiece. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishing.

Dolnick, E. (2009). The forger’s spell: A true story of Vermeer, Nazis, and the greatest art hoax

of the twentieth century. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

147

Doubletake Gallery. (2016). Image library: Erté. Retrieved from

https://www.doubletakeart.com/cgi-

bin/dtg/dtg.psearch?l=17894576499822911274&st=&ss=&sr=2d&lty=l&pg=0

Durney, M. (2011). How an art theft’s publicity and documentation can impact the stolen

object’s recovery rate. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27: 438-448.

Durney, M., & Proulx, B. (2011). Art crime: A brief introduction. Crime, Law and Social

Change, 56, 115-132.

Dutton, D. (1993). Art hoaxes. In Encyclopedia of Hoaxes. Retrieved from

http://denisdutton.com/art_hoaxes.htm

Ehrmann, T. (2016). H1 2016 art market report. Artprice. Retrieved from

http://imgpublic.artprice.com/pdf/semestriel_2016_en.pdf

Farchakh-Bajjaly, J. (2008). Who are the looters at archaeological sites in Iraq? In L. Rothfield

(Ed.), Antiquities under siege: Cultural heritage protection after the Iraq War (49-56).

Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2003). Allegations of Al Qaeda trafficking in conflict

diamonds. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Crime in the United States, 2012: Uniform crime

reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Art theft. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-

us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Table 23: Offense profile. Crime in the United States.

Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-

2015/tables/table-23

148

Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Intelligence Section. (2008, September 15). Copper

thefts threaten U.S. critical infrastructure [Press release]. Retrieved from

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/copper-thefts

Federal Bureau of Investigation National Press Office. (2016, September 26). FBI releases 2015

crime statistics [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-

releases/fbi-releases-2015-crime-statistics

Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime

prevention (Police Research Series, Paper 98). London, U.K.: Research, Development

and Statistics Directorate, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Home Office.

Flores, E. (2014, June 17). Social media helps recover payment for stolen painting. AZ Family.

Retrieved from http://www.azfamily.com/news/Social-media-helps-recover-payment-for-

stolen-painting-263571501.html

Folkinshteyn, B. (2007). National treasure: Implicit protections of cultural property in the United

States. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 37(2), 143-169.

Forbes, A. (2016, March 11). The ten most important takeaways from the 2016 TEFAF art

market report. Artsy. Retrieved from https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-the-10-

most-important-takeaways-from-the-2016-tefaf-art-market-report

Fox, B. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Creating burglary profiles using latent class analysis: A

new approach to offender profiling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1582-1611.

Fox, B. H., Farrington, D. P., Chitwood, M., & Janes, E. (2013, February). Developing a profile

for burglary. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from

http://www.codb.us/documentcenter/view/11837

149

Gamboni, D. (1997). The destruction of art: Iconoclasm and vandalism since the French

Revolution. London, UK: Reaktion Book Ltd.

Garofalo, J., & Clark, D. (1992). Guardianship and residential burglary. Justice Quarterly, 9(3):

443-463.

Gentleman, A. (2005, January 8). Court jails art thief, girlfriend, and mother. The Guardian.

Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/08/arttheft.france

Gerlis, M., & Pes, J. (2013, November 27). Recovery rate for stolen art as low as 1.5%. The Art

Newspaper. Retrieved from http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Recovery-rate-for-

stolen-art-as-low-as-/31145

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2012). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research (7th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Grampp, W. D. (1989). Pricing the priceless: Art, artists, and economics. New York, NY: Basic

Books, Inc.

Grincheva, N. (2010). U.S. arts and cultural diplomacy: Post-Cold War decline and the twenty-

first century debate. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 40, 169-183.

Hackshaw, A. (2008). Small studies: Strengths and limitations. European Respiratory Journal,

32, 1141-1143.

Hardy, D. M. (August 21, 2015). Letter from David M. Hardy to Kate Melody Burmon: Subject:

Art theft in the United States (Request No.: 1328945-000). Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Records Management Division, Record/Information Dissemination

Section, Washington, D.C.

Hart, M. (2005). The Irish game: A true story of crime and art. New York, NY: Plume.

150

Hartmann, M. (2015, March 6). How ISIS is destroying ancient art in Iraq and Syria. New York

Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/isis-destroys-

ancient-art.html

Hatch, M. J. (1998). The value of forgeries: A meaningful tool of art historical study (Master’s

thesis). Retrieved from National Library of Canada. (0-612-30677-1)

Heilbrun, J., & Gray, C. M. (2001). The economics of art and culture. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Ho, T. T. (1992). Art theft in New York City: An exploratory study in crime-specificity.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

Newark, NJ.

Ho, T. T. (1998). Prevention of art theft at commercial art galleries. Studies on Crime and Crime

Prevention, 7(2), 213-219.

Hollis, M. E., Felson, M., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). The capable guardian in routine activities

theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community

Safety, 15(1): 65-79.

Houpt, S. (2006). Museum of the missing: A history of art theft. New York, NY: Sterling

Publishing Co., Inc.

International Art and Antique Loss Register Limited. (2014). The Art Loss Register. Retrieved

from: http://www.artloss.com/en

Ioffee, K. (2014, May 10). Fremont: Police use social media to return stolen bikes. San Jose

Mercury News. Retrieved from http://www.mercurynews.com/my-

town/ci_25739133/fremont-police-use-social-media-return-stolen-bikes

151

Jasper, J. M., & Young, M. P. (2007). The rhetoric of sociological facts. Sociological Forum,

22(3), 270-299.

Kaye, L., & Spiegler, H. (2004). Asset valuation: Looted art carries its own set of problems. New

York Law Journal, 99, 1-3.

Kenyon, A.T., & Mackenzie, S. (2002). Recovering stolen art – Legal understandings in the

Australian art market. University of Tasmania Law Review, 21(2), 1-22.

Kerr, J. (2012). The role of the police in the co-production of art security in London. Policing,

6(4), 443-452.

Kersel, M. (2012a). The value of a looted object: Stakeholder perceptions in the antiquities trade.

In R. Skeates, C. McDavid, & J. Carman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public

archaeology (253-272). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Kersel, M. (2012b). The power of the press: The effects of press releases and popular magazines

on the antiquities trade. In E. Meyers & C. Meyers (Eds), Archaeology, bible, politics and

the media: Proceedings of the Duke University Conference, April 23-24, 2009 (73-83).

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Kila, J. D., & Balcells, M. (Eds). (2014). Cultural property crime: An overview and analysis on

contemporary perspectives and trends. Leiden, Holland: Brill.

Kipfer, B. A. (2000). Looting. In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology. New York, NY:

Springer Science & Business Media.

Kleemans, E. R., Soudijn, M. R. J., & Weenink, A. W. (2012). Organized crime, situational

crime prevention, and routine activity theory. Trends in Organized Crime, 15, 87-92.

Knelman, J. (2011). A brief history of art theft. Queen’s Quarterly, 118(2), 223-233.

152

Kuntz, K. (2005, November). Why art vandals strike. Fnews Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.fnewsmagazine.com/2005-

nov/features_2.html?PHPSESSID=f5fcbdf375fbc508729ff78512d7404c

Lavris Makovics, J. (2009). A perfect pothunting day – An examination of vandalism to the

cultural resources of Canyon de Chelly National Monument, its motivations, and potential

solutions (Master’s thesis). University of Leceister Reference Number 059019146 – Intake

February 2007. Retrieved from

http://traffickingculture.org/app/uploads/2015/11/A_Perfect_Pothunting_Day_-

_An_Examinatio.pdf

Lezak, M. D. (1973) Some psychological limitations on witness reliability. Wayne Law Review,

20, 117–133.

Lippert, R. (2002). Policing Property and Moral Risk Through Promotions, Anonymization and

Rewards: Crime Stoppers Revisited. Social & Legal Studies, 11(4), 475-502.

Littlejohn, D. (2016, August 3). Facebook credited with return of stolen $10,000 painting to San

Pedro art gallery. Daily Breeze. Retrieved from http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-

news/20160803/facebook-credited-with-return-of-stolen-10000-painting-to-san-pedro-

art-gallery

Lofland, J. (1993). Theory-bashing and answer-improving in the study of social movements. The

American Sociologist, 24(2), 37-58.

Mackenzie, S. (2002a). Illicit antiquities, criminological theory, and the deterrent power of

criminal sanctions for targeted populations. Art, Antiquity and Law, 7(2), 125-161.

Mackenzie, S. (2002b). Organised crime and common transit networks. Australian Institute of

Criminology Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 233, 1-6.

153

Mackenzie, S. (2005). Criminal and victim profiles in art theft: Motive, opportunity and repeat

victimisation. Art, Antiquity and Law, 10(4), 353-369.

Mackenzie, S. (2006). Psychosocial balance sheets: Illicit purchase decisions in the antiquities

market. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18(2), 221-240.

Mackenzie, S. (2007). Transnational crime, local denial. Social Justice, 34(2), 111-24.

Mackenzie, S. (2011a). Illicit deals in cultural objects as crimes of the powerful. Crime, Law and

Social Change, 56, 133-53.

Mackenzie, S. (2011b). The market as criminal and criminals in the market: Reducing

opportunities for organised crime in the international antiquities market. In S. Manacorda

& D. Chappell (Eds.) Crime in the Art and Antiquities World: Illegal Trafficking in

Cultural Property (69-86). New York, NY: Springer.

Mackenzie, S. (2015). Do we need a Kimberley Process for the illicit antiquities trade? Some

lessons to learn from a comparative review of transnational criminal markets and their

regulation. In F. Desmarais (Ed.) Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods: The

Global Challenge of Protecting the World’s Heritage (151-162). Paris, France:

International Council of Museums.

Mackenzie, S., & Green, P. (2008). Performative regulation: A case study in how powerful

people avoid criminal labels. British Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 138-53.

Mackenzie, S., & Green, P. (2009). Criminalising the market in illicit antiquities: An evaluation

of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 in England and Wales. In S.

Mackenzie & P. Green (Eds.), Criminology and archaeology: Studies in looted

antiquities (145-170). Oxford, U.K: Hart.

154

Mackenzie, S., & Yates, D. (2016). Collectors on illicit collecting: Higher loyalties and other

techniques of neutralization in the unlawful collecting of rare and precious orchids and

antiquities. Theoretical Criminology, 20(3): 340–357.

Mason, D. L. (1979). The fine art of security: Protecting public and private collections against

theft, fire and vandalism. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Massy, L. (2000). Le vol d'œuvres d'art : une criminalité méconnue. Bruxelles, Belgium: Ecole

des sciences criminologiques Léon Cornil.

Massy, L. (2008). The antiquity art market: Between legality and illegality. International Journal

of Social Economics, 35(10): 729-738.

McLeave, H. (1981). Rogues in the gallery: The modern plague of art thefts. Boston, MA: David

R. Godine, Publisher, Inc.

Merryman, J. H. (2007, October 29). The good faith acquisition of stolen art. Stanford Public

Law Working Paper No. 1025515; Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No.

364. Retrieved from

http://media.law.stanford.edu/publications/archive/pdf/Merryman%20Good%20Faith.pdf

Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Shearer, E. (2016, July 7). The modern news

consumer: News attitudes and practices in the digital era. Pew Research Center.

Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/

Montagu, A. A. (1993-1994). Recent cases on the recovery of stolen art – The tug of war

between owners and good faith purchasers continues. Columbia Journal of Law and the

Arts, 18, 75-101.

Mooney, K. (2002). The chiaroscuro market: Art theft and the art world. New York, NY: FKM

Books.

155

Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Clarke, A. E., & Charmaz, K. (2009).

Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast

Press.

Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A

routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36(4): 829-858.

Natarajan, M. (Ed.). (2011). International crime and justice. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Naylor, R. T. (2008). The underworld of art. Crime, Law and Social Change, 50, 263-291.

Office of Management and Budget. (2013, February 28). Revised delineations of metropolitan

statistical areas, micropolitan statistical areas, and combined statistical areas, and

guidance on uses of the delineations of these areas (OMB Bulletin No. 13-01).

Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Pacatte, R. (2014, February 6). ‘The Monuments Men’ wonders: Is art worth a life? National

Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/monuments-men-

wonders-art-worth-life

Palmer, N. E. (Ed.). (1998) The recovery of stolen art: A collection of essays. London, England:

Kluwer Law International.

Pasco, G. A. (2012). Criminal financial investigations: Forensic accounting techniques and

indirect methods of proof (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Plutarch. (1992). Plutarch: The lives of the noble Grecians and Romans. (J. Dryden & A. H.

Clough, Trans.). New York, NY: Modern Library. (Original work written in 2nd century

AD and first published in this translation in 1683)

156

Reynald, D. M. (2011). Factors associated with the guardianship of places: Assessing the relative

importance of the spatio-physical and sociodemographic contexts in generating

opportunities for capable guardianship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

48(1), 110-142.

Roberts, A. (2012). Motor vehicle recovery: A multilevel event history analysis of NIBRS data.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 444-467.

Roodt, C. (2013). Restitution of art and cultural objects and its limits. Comparative and

International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 46, 286-307.

Rotter, J. M. (2008). Law, economics, technology, and social construction of art. The Journal of

Arts Management, Law, and Society, 37(4), 281-300.

Scotti, R. A. (2009). Vanished smile: The mysterious theft of Mona Lisa. New York, NY: Alfred

A. Knopf.

Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine

activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27-55.

Spiegler, H. (2009, Spring). Surviving war and peace: The long road to recovering the Malevich

paintings. The Journal of Art Crime, 1(1), 3-8.

Spiel, R. E. (2000). Art theft and forgery investigation: The complete field manual. Springfield,

IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin

& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012, September). Using effect size–or why the p value is not

enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279-282.

157

Sutton, M. (2010). Product design: Concealable, removable, available, valuable, enjoyable, and

disposable (CRAVED), and value, inertia, visibility, and access (VIVA). In B. Fisher &

S. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (673-677). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Swaby, N. (2016, November 16). Police use social media to return stolen property [Television

broadcast]. Bellevue, WA: King 5 News. Retrieved from

http://www.king5.com/news/crime/police-use-social-media-to-return-stolen-

property/352699090

Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2003). College students’ lifestyles and self-protective

behaviors: Further considerations of the guardianship concept in routine activity theory.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3): 302-327.

Thomas, S. (2014). Vulnerable by design: Theft and Finnish architecture. The Historic

Environment, 5(3): 231–44.

Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2004). Burglary victimization in England

and Wales, the United States, and the Netherlands: A cross-national comparative test of

routine activities and lifestyle theories. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1): 61-91.

Tseng, S. (2002). Art smuggling and theft in Taiwan and China Dr. Museological Review, 8, 80-

98.

Tsirogiannis, C. (2016). Mapping the supply: Usual suspects and identified antiquities in

‘reputable’ auction houses in 2013. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología, 25, 107–

144.

Tuccille, J. (2008). Gallery of fools: The true story of a celebrated Manhattan art theft. Lincoln,

NE: ASJA Press.

158

Tucker, R. L. (2011, Summer). Stolen art, looted antiquities, and the insurable interest

requirement. Quinnipiac Law Review, 29(3), 611-663.

Tylor, E. B. (1920). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology,

philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom (6th ed.) (Vol. 1). London, UK; John

Murray, Albemarle Street, W.

Ulph, J. (2011). Markets and responsibilities: Forgeries and the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Journal

of Business Law, 3, 261-281.

United States Constitution, Preamble.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1954). Final act of the

intergovernmental conference on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed

conflict. The Hague.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1989). Draft medium term

plan 1990-1995. General Conference 25 C/4. Paris.

United States Department of Interior – Indian Affairs (2016, December 16). Indian affairs – what

we do. Retrieved from https://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm

United States Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010, September).

Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States 2009: Robbery. Retrieved from

https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html

United States Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011, September).

Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States 2010: Burglary. Retrieved from

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-

2010/property-crime/burglarymain.pdf

159

United States Department of Justice – Office of Justice Statistics. (2013, June). Household

burglary, 1994-2011. By J. H. Walters, A. Moore, M. Berzofsky, & L. Langton.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. (Special Report NCJ 241754).

Vandoorne, S., Smith-Spark, L., & Ciobanu, L. (2013, July 19). Stove ashes probed for traces of

stolen Picasso, Matisse, Monet works. CNN. Retrieved from

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/world/europe/romania-stolen-art-probe/

Velthuis, O. (2003). Symbolic meanings of prices: Constructing the value of contemporary art in

Amsterdam and New York galleries. Theory and Society, 32, 181-215.

Vickery, J. (2006). Organising art: Constructing aesthetic value. Centre for Cultural Policy

Studies, 12(1), 51-63.

Vučko, S., & Dobovšek, B. (2010, September). Art crime in Slovenia and pilot research of court

cases. Paper presented at the Eighth Biennial Conference on Policing in Central and

Eastern Europe: Social Control of Unconventional Deviance, Ljublajan, Slovenia.

Ward, D. (2003, April 28). Whitworth's stolen masterpieces endure a rainy night in the Loovre.

The Guardian. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/29/arts.education

Watson, P., & Todeschini, C. (2006). The Medici conspiracy: The illicit journey of looted

antiquities. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Weigel, S. (2014, February 12). Social media giving cops an edge: San Mateo and Redwood City

police use Pinterest, Twitter for leads, communication. The Daily Journal. Retrieved

from http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-02-12/social-media-giving-

cops-an-edge-san-mateo-and-redwood-city-police-use-pinterest-twitter-for-leads-

communication/1776425118044.html

160

Weinberg, S. (1996). The reporter’s handbook: An investigator’s guide to documents and

techniqutes (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Weisel, D. L. (2007). Bank robbery (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 48). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Tillyer, M. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: Implications for

burglary victimization, risk and prevention. Criminology, 45(4): 771-803.

Wittman, R. K., & Shiffman, J. (2010). Priceless: How I went undercover to rescue the world’s

stolen treasures. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Wolff, J. (1993). The social production of art. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Wylly, M. J. (2014). Motives of art theft: A social contextual perspective of value (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from Electronic Theses, Treatises, and Dissertations. (8920).

Yogev, T. (2009). The social construction of quality: Status dynamics in the market for

contemporary art. Socio-Economic Review, 8, 511-536.

Zelanski, P. & Fisher, M. P. (2002). The art of seeing (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall Inc.

Zuesse, E. (1998). An hypothesis regarding pricing of black-market goods. Journal of Economic

Behavior & Organization, 34, 499-503.

161

APPENDIX A

Letter to the Police Departments

Date [Recipient’s Name] [Title] [Address] [City], [State] [Postal Code] To Whom It May Concern:

I am a doctoral candidate in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University working under James Alan Fox, The Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy. My work focuses on art crime and, more specifically, my dissertation seeks to provide a better understanding of the patterns of art theft in the United States, as well as the investigative tools that most effectively lead to stolen art recovery. This project involves examining and analyzing information in police theft reports.

I understand that the (police department name) handled a case (multiple cases) of art theft that fit the criteria of my research and I would like to request access to the records indicated below. In the interest of protecting the victim(s), I do not need identifying information. However, it would help to know the classification of the victim as a museum, gallery, educational institution, private owner, business, religious institution, or other (please specify). Northeastern University’s Institutional Review Board has evaluated and approved this research (IRB#: 14-08-10).

It would be preferable if the (law enforcement agency name) could provide a copy. Alternatively, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Art Crime Team has indicated that they are willing to release their own copy of the records if consent is given by the appropriate authority at the (law enforcement agency name). Please see the enclosed release form for further details. REPORT NUMBER DATE OF THEFT Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kate Melody Burmon Doctoral Student

162

APPENDIX B

Letter of Release of Records Held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Date [Recipient’s Name] [Title] [Address] [City], [State] [Postal Code]

AUTHORIZATION FOR THE RELEASE OF POLICE REPORTS AND RECORDS This form hereby authorizes the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Art Crime Team to deliver, disclose, and release to Kate Melody Burmon all records pertaining to the below list of theft report numbers. As a note, this authorization is on the condition that all identifying victim information must be redacted prior to release. REPORT NUMBER DATE OF THEFT Signature: _____________________________________________________________________________ Name (print): __________________________________________________________________________ Title: _________________________________________________________________________________ Date Signed: ___________________________________________________________________________ Please return this completed form to Kate Melody Burmon. It may be scanned and emailed to katemelody@gmail.com or, if preferred, it may be mailed to: Kate Melody Burmon P.O. Box 4241 Evergreen, CO 80437

163

APPENDIX C

List of Variables and Measures

Variable Name Description Means of Measure Variable Type &

Scale of Measurement

General Information Name of Institution Name of the person or

institution from whom the art was stolen

Descriptive Categorical N/A

Description of Art Any art historical characteristics of the works stolen

Descriptive Categorical N/A

Suitability of the Target Type of Day -

Report Day of the week on which the theft was reported

Weekday (Mon-Thurs), Weekend (Fri-Sun)

Categorical Nominal

Season of Report Season in which the theft was reported

Winter (Dec-Feb), Spring (Mar-May), Summer (Jun-Aug), Fall (Sep-Nov)

Categorical Nominal

Day of Report Day of the month on which the theft was reported

DD Categorical Nominal

Year of Report Year during which the theft was reported

YYYY Continuous Interval

Type of Day - Theft

Day of the week on which the theft occurred

Weekday (Mon-Thurs), Weekend (Fri-Sun)

Categorical Nominal

Season of Theft Season in which the theft occurred

Winter (Dec-Feb), Spring (Mar-May), Summer (Jun-Aug), Fall (Sep-Nov)

Categorical Nominal

Day of Theft Day of the month on which the theft occurred

DD Categorical Nominal

Year of Theft Year during which the theft occurred

YYYY Continuous Interval

Time of Day Time of day that the theft occurred

Day (0600-1759), Night (1800-0559)

Categorical Nominal

City City/town in which the theft occurred

Descriptive - used to determine population

Not Applicable

164

Variable Name Description Means of Measure Variable Type

& Scale of Measurement

State State in which the theft occurred

Descriptive - used to determine population

Not Applicable

Population How many people live in the city/town in which the theft occurred

Numerical – used census data available for year closest to when theft occurred

Continuous Ratio

Type of Institution Categorization of person/institution from whom the art was stolen

Business, Gallery, Museum, Private Owner, Religious Institution, University/School

Categorical Nominal

Stolen From Categorization of the location from which the art was stolen

Business, Gallery, Museum, Private Owner, Religious Institution, University/School, In Transit, Outdoors, Storage

Categorical Nominal

Number of Items Stolen

Number of art objects stolen in the theft

Numerical Continuous Ratio

Type(s) of Art What category of art was stolen

Painting, Sculpture, Historical Artifact, Drawing, Other, Multiple Types

Categorical Nominal

Art Targeted Whether or not the art was the only type of property stolen

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Artist Name(s) of the artist whose work was stolen

Descriptive Categorical Nominal

Value Current estimated U.S. dollar amount of all art stolen in the theft

Numerical Continuous Ratio

Ease of Access to Art

How accessible the art is to the thieves

Secured Area, Space Open to the Public, Victim Facilitated

Categorical Nominal

Guardianship Visual Security Use of cameras Yes, No Categorical

Dichotomous Auditory Security Use of alarms Yes, No Categorical

Dichotomous Disabled Whether or not the

alarms were working at the time of the theft

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

165

Variable Name Description Means of Measure Variable Type

& Scale of Measurement

Responsible Party

If alarms not working, who was responsible

Owner, Offender Categorical Dichotomous

Security Guards Presence of security guards

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Person Present Indicates whether or not there was any human presence in the area of the theft

Civilian, Guard, No Categorical Nominal

Witnesses Whether or not a person saw the theft take place

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Offense Profile Number of Offenders

Number of people who participated in the commission of the theft

Numerical Continuous Ratio

Means of Entry Whether the thieves needed to force entry to a structure to gain access to art

Forced Entry, No Forced Entry

Categorical Dichotomous

Tools Required Whether or not the theft required tools to accomplish

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Destruction to Art Housing

Indicates whether or not the case, pedestal, or frame holding art was damaged in the theft

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Concealment of Evidence

Indicates whether or not the thieves attempted to cover the traces of their presence

Clear Concealment of Evidence, No Concealment of Evidence, No Evidence Found, Unknown

Categorical Nominal

Cleanliness of Scene

Whether or not there was evidence at the crime scene

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Level of Planning Extent to which the thieves demonstrated forethought in executing the theft

Low, Medium, High Categorical Ordinal

Recovery Tools Insurance Indicates whether or not

there was insurance coverage for the art stolen

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

166

Variable Name Description Means of Measure Variable Type

& Scale of Measurement

Documentation Whether or not the owners have evidence proving ownership

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Case Status Indicates whether or not this case is closed or not

Inactive, Closed Categorical Dichotomous

Items Recovered Indicates whether or not any of the art stolen was later recovered

None, Some, All Categorical Nominal

Reward Offered Indicates whether or not a reward was offered to help recover the art

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Arrest of Offender Indicates whether or not the offender was caught and arrested

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Public Knowledge Whether or not the public was alerted

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Use of Media Whether or not police alerted the media regarding the case to help in recovery efforts

Yes, No Categorical Dichotomous

Law Enforcement What type of law enforcement worked the case

Local, Both (Local and Federal)

Categorical Nominal

167

APPENDIX D

Examples of Erté’s Works of Art

Media: Graphic Edition, Lithograph/Serigraph Dimensions: 15 3/4 X 10 1/2 Inches

Year Produced: 1976 Edition Size: 350 Numbered, I-XC Roman Numerals

Current Retail: $8,050.00

(Retrieved from: http://www.erte.com/alpha/z.html)

Sculpture Media: Patina on Bronze

Dimensions: H: 23 1/2" High Year Produced: 1985

Edition Size: 350 Numbered 35 AP 9 HC

Retail Value: $28,000.00

(Retrieved from: https://www.doubletakeart.com/cgi-bin/dtg/dtg.sla?lp=17894602179822911274&ai=0017

3*3780&o=d&cc=dtg#.WGLuxLYrJE4)